admin
New York voters are finally waking up to what many of us warned about: Zohran Mamdani is not a mainstream Democrat but a democratic socialist whose sympathies line up with radical Palestinian activists more than with the safety and common sense New Yorkers want. Prominent conservative voices — including Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who has been sounding alarms on national conservative programs — have pointed out that Mamdani’s alliances and reticence to condemn extremist rhetoric reveal an ideology that belongs more to the streets of Gaza protests than to City Hall.
Make no mistake, Mamdani’s rise didn’t come from nowhere: he won his Democratic primary riding a wave of youthful energy and promises to make the city “affordable” through heavy-handed government programs. He bills himself as a democratic socialist who wants fare-free buses, expanded rent control, and massive new public housing schemes — expensive, centralized solutions that sound good in a rally but would wreck the city’s economy if fully implemented. Voters should consider both his radical economic playbook and his foreign-policy sympathies before handing him the keys to the largest city in America.
His posture on the Israel-Hamas war and on slogans like “globalize the intifada” should disqualify him from benign neglect — it demands scrutiny. Mamdani has declined to fully disavow that slogan and has repeatedly framed his comments as being about human rights, even as Jewish New Yorkers and business leaders worry about the real meaning and implications of that language. That equivocation is not a harmless intellectual debate; it’s a political choice that signals where his moral compass points when violence and terrorism are involved.
When pressed on national television about whether Hamas should lay down its weapons, Mamdani repeatedly pivoted back to his affordability agenda rather than giving the straightforward condemnation New Yorkers deserve. His refusal to clearly denounce terrorism led conservative commentators on major networks to rightly call him out and raise the alarm about what his soft-pedaling really means for public safety and Jewish communities in the city. This isn’t partisan hair-splitting — it’s about standing with victims and protecting citizens from the consequences of moral relativism.
The concern deepens when you look at family and network ties that connect Mamdani to organizations and figures who have openly supported BDS or who have a history of harsh anti-Israel activism. Questions about his father’s associations and past writings have been seized on by opponents who argue these links illuminate the worldview Mamdani himself has absorbed. New Yorkers have a right to scrutinize those connections and ask whether electing this candidate would bring stability or ideological conflict to our streets.
Conservative analysts aren’t exaggerating when they warn this candidacy is emblematic of a larger problem: a Democratic Party increasingly elevating hardcore ideologues who offer grand promises of redistribution while shrugging at extremist rhetoric abroad. Pundits across the spectrum have described Mamdani’s platform and silence on militant slogans as dangerous mixes of virtue-signaling and naïveté that could weaken the city’s security and economic recovery. Americans who love New York — its streets, its synagogues, its small businesses — should reject experiments in ideological governance that prioritize slogans over safety.
At the end of the day, this election is about more than clever lines and campus cred; it’s about who will keep New Yorkers safe, keep the subways running, and stop runaway taxes from driving jobs and families out of the city. Mamdani’s agenda — from fare-free transit to steep tax hikes on successful New Yorkers — paired with his troubling foreign-policy stances, is a recipe for division and decline. Hardworking citizens should demand leaders who put law and order, economic opportunity, and clear moral clarity first, not candidates whose sympathies lie with causes that would do our city harm.
