The Rise of Zohran Mamdani

Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year old New York State Assemblyman from the 36^th District of Queens, is all the rage these days.  The Propaganda Media Complex are collectively gushing over his prospects to become the next Mayor of New York City just like they did when Barack Obama hit the national stage.  In case you missed it, he won the nomination of the Democrat Party primary in June 2025, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo and nine other candidates. [1]

He ran on the platform of city-owned grocery stores, rent control, “free” public transportation, a $30 minimum wage, and tax increases on corporations and anyone earning over $1,000,000, all extremely radical socialist ideals.  Technically, he’s a member of the Democratic Party and represents the Democratic Socialists of America, which caught the eye of Bernie Sanders, AOC and other far left cheerleaders, but in reality, he’s a full-blown communist.  Democratic Socialists believe in collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, advocating the redistribution of wealth to achieve economic equality, and workers’ self-management.  Can you imagine the employees in any industry “managing themselves”?  Can you spell “U-N-P-R-O-D-U-C-T-I-V-E” ?  Their delusional utopia assumes that dutiful workers will keep their collective noses to the grindstone because the state will make sure they have a guaranteed minimum wage, and that all those generous millionaires will be more than happy to “pay their fair share” for the support of the masses who essentially contribute nothing.  I’m not sure I can fathom anything more absurd. 

Contrast that with communism, which is a short jump from socialism, whereby the means of production, as defined by Marx himself, is controlled by the state, like “city-owned grocery stores” and free public transportation under a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls the economy, right down to the elimination of private property. Mamdani estimated that the free buses would cost the city $650 million per year, but “no problem”, the millionaires can pick up that tab.  And he has publicly stated that he is in favor of taking over New York’s real estate for conversion to public housing.  That’s Communism 101. 

An excerpt from my blog post of 17 December 2021

The Socialist Agenda of Alinsky and Obama: Part 2

Dr. Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, says that the definition of totalitarianism is to “seek to fundamentally transform – specifically, to fundamentally transform human nature via some form of political-ideological-cultural upheaval.”

SIDEBAR: As you may recall, Obama said, “We are five days away from the fundamental transformation of the United States” at a campaign rally in Columbia, Missouri on October 30^th 2008.   

From Obama’s beginnings as a community organizer in Chicago, picking up where Alinsky left off, his modus operandi has been to divide and conquer along racial and ethnic lines, by socio-economic status, relentlessly pushing for the redistribution of wealth from the “Haves” to the “Have Nots”, by vilifying, ridiculing, and condemnation of all political opposition, by attacking traditional institutions, such as law and order, criminal justice, social values, the military,  and the Constitution itself.

More than 3-1/2 years later and we are still seeing all the signs of Obama’s MO, from the race baiting, to the cries for taxing the rich, to the verbal thrashing of all Republicans and Trump supporters (with no logical reason, btw), to actual physical assaults on ICE agents, and most recently, to open defiance of federal law in “sanctuary” jurisdictions.  It’s “almost” like Obama himself was encouraging them to ignore the law under the advice that they needn’t worry about it.

The Democrats, in complete solidarity, all march to the beat of anarchical rebellion disguised as legitimate political debate.  They use their propaganda arm, the mainstream media, to regurgitate their insane policy positions and stand in front of cameras acting as if they hold the moral high ground.  The useful idiots, or low-information voters, gobble up every scrap of disinformation spewed by the Propaganda Media Complex like cheese crumbs left around a sprung mouse trap, hungry for more garbage.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism

Many are confused as to the differences between socialism and communism and how they relate to capitalism.

Capitalism is the economic system that has offered opportunity to more people than any other system and made America the most prosperous nation in history.  It essentially is based on “free market” competition of goods and services produced under private ownership by companies and proprietors operating for profit.  Private ownership creates an incentive for any business to succeed and grow.  There is no pure “laissez-faire”, or totally “free market” capitalism in existence today among civilized nations.  Most systems operate with various degrees of state intervention and regulation, but the basic system has made many enterprises and their owners wealthy.

In the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, as the platform of the Communist League, they describe Socialism as “a middle-class movement, Communism a working-class movement.  Socialism was, on the continent at least, ‘respectable’; Communism was the very opposite,  And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself’”. [2]         

At that time, socialism in Europe took the form of social and economic reforms brought about by the Industrial Revolution.  Advocates claimed socialism would eliminate the inequalities experienced by the working class, but fell short of the Marxist worldview that capitalism needed to be eradicated by revolution of the working class.

From the Oxford Dictionary, socialism is defined as “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”  Pure socialists believe that every member of the society “should be able to jointly use, share, and receive the benefits from both the natural resources and the goods and services that are collectively produced.” [3]  Back in the old hippie days of the 60s and early 70s, the commune was a somewhat popular idea where people could live in a small community that was, at least partially, self-sufficient through growing their own food and exchanging services on a barter system.  It was a kind of virtue signal that the elders, or leaders, had passed “Sosh 101” and considered themselves intellectuals because they heard about Marx and Che Guevara and could organize their little socialist utopia. 

Marx and Engels decided they could only title the book “Communist” based on the fundamental proposition that “in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land and common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes, that the history of these class struggles form a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class – the proletariat – cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class – the bourgeoisie – without at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions, and class struggles.” [4] 

Communism was the system best suited to achieve equality among the masses, reassuring them that they would all be treated equally.  Pay no attention to the opulence of their rulers who made sure the system was not threatened.  The exact dynamics at work in today’s Democrat Party brought to you by none other than Barack Obama.  Obama always operated with a “divide and conquer” strategy.  Create “class struggles” and conquer the social consciousness using the Propaganda Media Complex as his personal militia.  The class warfare was from Marx.  The conquering phase came from Muhammad and his Islamic imperialistic ambitions to rule the world.  The most useful tool in his arsenal of coercive social engineering was class warfare, gleaned directly from Marx and under the advice of the Father of Community Organizing, Saul Alinsky.  Cultivate the perception of a “ruling class”, the bourgeoisie, the “millionaires and billionaires” who exploit the “working class”, the proletariat, the oppressed.  As Alinsky said, it’s the “Haves” and the “Have Nots”.  Communists, and Socialists, are out to level the playing field through income redistribution.  Never mind the inconvenient truth that those “millionaires and billionaires” tend to be the driving force behind a prosperous economy, employing millions of workers, many of whom earn a comfortable living.  Contrary to the vision you are supposed to believe, it is not a simple distinction between industry titans and slaves toiling under horrible conditions for subsistence.   I’ll leave the theory of “trickle down” economics for another time, and simply say that leftist liberals claim it doesn’t work, even mock it, but how could it not work?  The notion that rich people keep all their money and the rest of society exists in abject poverty, never seeing a rich man’s dollar, is absurd.  In every society, Marx argues the bourgeoisie must be attacked, the conditions that fortify the continuance of oppression and exploitation, must be dismantled, and the minority populations must be encouraged to support the social revolution their anarchist leaders have fomented.  Damn if that doesn’t sound familiar!  Look at today’s “blue” cities, governed by Democrats for decades.  Every election cycle, they hop onto soap boxes across the country and pontificate about how they are fighting for the “working class” and the disadvantaged.  All the useful idiot, low-information voters re-elect them and 50 years later, they’re still poor and disadvantaged.  The “Have Nots” are still “Have Nots” while their elected “representatives” enrich themselves through graft and corruption.

We’ve Seen This Movie Before, and It’s a Horror Show

Mamdani will be old enough when the 2028 general election rolls around, and at least partially qualified to run for President of the United States.  The Constitution limits qualification to the minimum age of 35 years, a natural born citizen [5], and 14 years a resident within the United States (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5)   Mamdani was born in Uganda to parents of Indian descent.  His mother is a Punjabi Hindu and his father is a Gujarati Muslim who grew up primarily in Uganda.  Mamdani identified as Asian and African American on his college application, naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2018 and is now a dual citizen of the United States and Uganda. [6]   So, technically, he is not, nor ever will be, a natural born citizen, and therefore automatically disqualified from becoming President of the United States.  Of course that was the requirement Obama failed to meet in 2008, and nobody stopped him.  Obama is a natural born citizen of Kenya because his father owed his allegiance to Kenya, much like Mamdani owes his allegiance to Uganda.  We can now clearly see that Obama does not honor any allegiance to the United States.  He’s been trying to destroy America for the past 17 years and the damage could take 50 years, or more, to restore.  We the People don’t need to endure another huge mistake like that again. 

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Wikipedia ; Zohran Mamdani

Zohran Mamdani – Wikipedia

[2]  Marx, K. & Engels F. ; The Communist Manifesto ;English Translation,International Publishers Co., Inc. , New York ;© 1948 ; p. 6

[3]  Chen, E. & Dorsey, J. ; Understanding . . . Socialism in the U.S. ; February 15, 2022

Studio ATAO | Understanding Socialism in the U.S.

[4]  Marx, K. & Engels F. ; The Communist Manifesto ;English Translation,International Publishers Co., Inc. , New York ;© 1948 ; p. 6

[5]  Natelson, Rob ; What Does the Constitution Mean by Natural Born Citizen? ; Independence Institute.org ; December 4, 2023

What Does the Constitution Mean by “Natural Born Citizen?” – Independence Institute

This guy does a pretty good job of sorting through the “smoke and mirrors” and describing the meaning of the term as the Founders intended, BUT, he has failed to mention a very specific concept that more thoroughly defines the term, about which the Founders were certainly convinced should eliminate the possibility of dual loyalty.  When drafting the Constitution, the Framers were well versed in English Common Law and the concepts put forth by the likes of the famed British Parliamentarian, William Blackstone (1723-1780), but I’m referring specifically to the works of the Swiss Philosopher and legal writer, Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), who published The Law of Nations in 1758, and wrote that:

“[§212] The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist, and perpetuate itself, but by the children of citizens; those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . . The country of the fathers is then that of the children; and these become true citizens, merely by their tacit consent. . . . I say, that in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.“

Sourced from:  Ramsey, Michael D. ; The Original Meaning of “Natural Born” ;

Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository ; Vattel and the Civil Law Tradition ; pp. 224-225

The Original Meaning of “Natural Born”

Natelson claims that Obama was a natural born citizen because his Kenyan father was in the U.S. legally and therefore in “temporary allegiance”, whatever nonsense that means.  The fact is, his father was a Kenyan subject citizen of the U.K. who owed his allegiance to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, permanently.  Therefore, Obama was, and will always be a natural born citizen of the U.K. because that is who his father owed his allegiance to.  It doesn’t matter who his mother is or where he was born.

[6]  Ryan, B., Fandos, N. & Rubinstein, D. ; New York Times ; July 3, 2025