Sen. Gillibrand rips NYC mayor hopeful Zohran Mamdani's controversial intifada comments, insists he should ‘denounce it'
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has ripped mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani's controversial comments on intifada — insisting the Democratic socialist should emphatically 'denounce it' if he wants to rep the Big Apple.
Gillibrand, a pro-Israel Democrat, laid into Mamdani for refusing to condemn the 'globalize the intifada' rallying cry used by others as she demanded a sit-down with him so he can explain himself.
'As a leader of a city as diverse as New York City with 8 million people, as the largest Jewish population in the country, he should denounce it. And that's it. Period,' Gillibrand said during an appearance on WNYC on Thursday.
4 Zohran Mamdani won the NYC mayoral election primary.
REUTERS
4 Senator Kirsten Gillibrand sparred with radio hosts on Mamdani's victory.
LP Media
The senator stressed that it was not enough for the 33-year-old Queens assemblyman to dubiously claim that intifada is not a call for violence but a broader term referring to resistance and uprisings.
'It doesn't matter what meaning you have in your brain, it is not how the word is received. And when you use a word like Intifada, to many Jewish Americans and Jewish New Yorkers, that means you are permissive for violence against Jews,' Gillibrand said.
'It is a serious word. It is a word that has deep meaning. It has been used for wars across time and violence and destruction and slaughter and murder against the Jews,' she continued.
4 Zohran Mamdani is an assemblyman now running to be NYC's. next mayor.
Stephen Yang
'It is a harmful, hurtful, inappropriate word for anyone who wants to represent a city as diverse as New York City with 8 million people.'
Gillibrand said she spoke to Mamdani on the phone after his Democratic primary upset over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo earlier this week, but now wants a meeting to hash it out.
'I've never sat down with Mr Mamdani. So I've asked to have that meeting. I'm going to have that meeting,' she said.
4 New York, New York, United States: U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) alongside U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mariama James (R).
ZUMAPRESS.com
Gillibrand said she had already expressed her concerns directly to Mamdani about his statements regarding Israel and pubic safety — and that he'd vowed to work with her if he's elected.
'This is something I care deeply about, and so I will be an advocate on these issues. These are things that I think are important to New Yorkers,' she said.
'And I will work with him when he gets elected, if he gets elected, to make sure everyone is protected.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
6 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
San Francisco Chronicle
7 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn had ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. ___
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court upholds federal internet subsidy program
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision upheld a multibillion-dollar subsidy program that funds phone and internet services in rural areas and schools on Friday, rejecting a conservative group's claims that Congress delegated away too much power in setting it up. Established in 1996, the Universal Service Fund (USF) is intended to help the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) accomplish its decades-long aim of affordable 'universal service' nationwide by providing subsidies to rural and low-income consumers as well as schools, libraries and health care facilities. It spends roughly $8 billion annually. Conservative nonprofit Consumers' Research challenged how Congress delegated determining how much telecommunications companies must contribute to the fund to the FCC, which it, in turn, sets based on a private company's financial projections. The group claimed the two layers combined violates the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch without an intelligible principle. 'Nothing in those arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority, which comprised the court's three Democratic-appointed justices and three of the six Republican-appointed justices. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented. 'When it comes to other aspects of the separation of powers, we have found manageable ways to honor the Constitution's design. This one requires no less of us,' Gorsuch wrote. Anti-regulatory interests had hoped the Supreme Court would use the case to revitalize the nondelegation doctrine, which the high court has not used to strike down a statute in 90 years. But the justices instead sided with the federal government, keeping the USF intact. Both the Biden and Trump-era Justice Departments defended the program. Among others, Consumers' Research challenge was backed by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a libertarian advocacy group affiliated with the Koch brothers; the conservative Christian legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom; Former Vice President Pence's advocacy group, Advancing American Freedom; the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation; and the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian think tank. Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of 22 state attorneys general, consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, broadband groups and the American Library Association and others filed briefs in support of USF.
