Pages

Showing posts with label mamdani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mamdani. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 05, 2025

Queens Coup D’État: How the 2025 Off-Year Election Accidentally Became the Midterms

 


Queens Coup D’État: How the 2025 Off-Year Election Accidentally Became the Midterms

It wasn’t the midterms last night, technically. But tell that to anyone who woke up this morning scrolling through their news feed, wondering if they’d accidentally slept through 2026. Because the political energy, the panic in cable news green rooms, and the smell of burnt polling models in the air could only mean one thing: something seismic just happened.

And it happened in Queens — the United Nations of boroughs, where you can buy samosas, empanadas, and pierogis on the same block, and argue in seven languages about rent control.


When Queens Sneezes, the World Catches a Cold

The big story: Zohran Mamdani won. Again. Not just won — obliterated, while speaking three languages and quoting both Marx and Mets statistics in the same sentence. For the capital city of immigrants, this was less a local election and more a referendum on America’s cultural immune system.

Trump’s camp, meanwhile, treated this as a minor procedural hiccup — like losing Florida. Twice. “Queens doesn’t count,” said one anonymous strategist, before adding, “Also, where exactly is Queens?”

But for anyone with a map and a clue, the symbolism was devastating. The world’s most diverse square miles just collectively declared: “You can’t build a wall around us.”


Tariffs, Courts, and the Great Decapitation

Meanwhile, in Washington, the tariff saga continues like a bad telenovela. Two courts have already told Trump, “You can’t just wake up and tax Canada because you had a dream about steel.” The Supreme Court now has the ball.

If they uphold those rulings — declaring the tariffs illegal — it won’t just be an economic event. It’ll be the political equivalent of yanking the plug on a karaoke machine right before Trump’s encore.

Sure, he can go to Congress and get the tariffs legalized. But that’s not the point. The real issue is the separation of powers — a concept Washington insiders recently Googled again just to make sure it still existed.

If SCOTUS sides with the Constitution, Trump’s momentum won’t just slow down; it’ll get decapitated. And that’s before the next election cycle even begins.


The Phantom Midterms

It’s as if the country just fast-forwarded twelve months. The energy, the anxiety, the champagne-to-tears ratio on CNN — all screamed “midterms.”

Republican strategists woke up this morning feeling like they’d been hit by a blue tsunami that arrived a year early. One unnamed MAGA influencer posted, “The deep state has time-traveled.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to play it cool — which, for Democrats, means infighting over who gets credit for the win.


Immigrants, Assemble!

Queens, in all its glory, is proof that immigration is not a problem to be solved but a superpower to be harnessed. In a few square miles, you can walk through a live-action version of the United Nations cafeteria — only with better food and worse parking.

Every language, every faith, every flavor — all voting on the same ballot. It’s democracy with subtitles. And it just sent a message to Washington: diversity doesn’t dilute America, it defines it.

As one old Bangladeshi man told a reporter outside the polling station, “Trump can keep his tariffs. We export ideas.”


The Rule of Law vs. The Rule of Vibes

Ultimately, this election — and the looming Supreme Court showdown — isn’t just about economics or politics. It’s about whether America still runs on rules or just on vibes.

If the Court says Trump’s tariffs were illegal, it’s a reminder that presidents are not kings. Not even orange ones.

If the Court says otherwise, well, let’s just say Alexander Hamilton will start spinning so fast in his grave he might generate renewable energy.


The Queens Doctrine

So what does it all mean? In the immortal words of a Queens voter interviewed last night:

“This city ain’t changing for nobody. Not presidents. Not tariffs. Not time itself.”

The midterms may not have happened yet — but the mood, the momentum, and the memes say otherwise. The rest of America may be waiting for 2026.

Queens already voted for the future. And it speaks 187 languages.



क्वीन्स का तख्तापलट: जब 2025 का ऑफ-ईयर चुनाव गलती से मिडटर्म बन गया

तकनीकी रूप से देखा जाए तो, कल रात मिडटर्म चुनाव नहीं थे।
लेकिन यह बात किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति से कहिए जिसने आज सुबह उठकर अपने न्यूज़ फीड को देखा और सोचा कि शायद वह गलती से 2026 तक सो गया।
क्योंकि जो राजनीतिक ऊर्जा थी, टीवी न्यूज़रूम में जो घबराहट थी, और हवा में जो झुलसे हुए “पोलिंग मॉडल्स” की महक थी — वह सब सिर्फ एक ही बात का संकेत थी: कुछ बड़ा हुआ है।

और वह बड़ा काम हुआ क्वीन्स में — दुनिया का असली संयुक्त राष्ट्र, जहाँ आप एक ही सड़क पर समोसे, एंपनाडास और पिरोगीज़ खरीद सकते हैं, और किराए के दाम पर सात भाषाओं में बहस कर सकते हैं।


जब क्वीन्स छींकता है, तो दुनिया को सर्दी लगती है

मुख्य कहानी: ज़ोहरान ममदानी जीत गए। फिर से।
सिर्फ जीते नहीं — चूर-चूर कर दिया, वह भी तीन भाषाओं में बोलते हुए और एक ही सांस में मार्क्स और मेट्स (Mets) के आँकड़े दोनों को उद्धृत करते हुए।

प्रवासियों की इस राजधानी के लिए यह सिर्फ एक स्थानीय चुनाव नहीं था, यह अमेरिका की सांस्कृतिक रोग-प्रतिरोधक शक्ति पर जनमत संग्रह था।

ट्रम्प के कैंप ने meanwhile इसे “छोटी तकनीकी समस्या” बताया — जैसे फ्लोरिडा हार जाना। दो बार।
एक अनाम रणनीतिकार ने कहा, “क्वीन्स गिना ही नहीं जाता,” फिर जोड़ा, “और ये क्वीन्स है कहाँ वैसे?”

लेकिन जिन्हें नक्शा पढ़ना आता है, उनके लिए यह प्रतीकात्मक रूप से विनाशकारी था।
दुनिया के सबसे विविध वर्गों ने सामूहिक रूप से ऐलान कर दिया:
“हमारे चारों ओर दीवार नहीं बना सकते।”


टैरिफ, अदालतें और महान सिर कलम

वाशिंगटन में, टैरिफ का नाटक अब किसी ख़राब टेली-नोवेला जैसा लग रहा है।
दो अदालतें पहले ही कह चुकी हैं, “आप बस यूँ ही उठकर कनाडा पर टैक्स नहीं लगा सकते क्योंकि आपने स्टील पर सपना देखा था।”
अब गेंद सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पाले में है।

अगर सुप्रीम कोर्ट उन फ़ैसलों को बरकरार रखता है और टैरिफ को ग़ैर-क़ानूनी घोषित करता है — तो यह सिर्फ आर्थिक घटना नहीं होगी।
यह राजनीतिक रूप से ऐसा होगा जैसे कराओके मशीन का प्लग निकाल दिया जाए ठीक तब जब ट्रम्प अपनी “एनकोर” पर पहुँचें।

ज़रूर, वह कांग्रेस जा सकते हैं और टैरिफ को कानूनी करा सकते हैं।
लेकिन बात यह नहीं है।
असल मुद्दा है — सत्ता के विभाजन का सिद्धांत — जिसे वाशिंगटन के अंदरूनी लोग हाल ही में दोबारा गूगल करके देख रहे हैं कि वह अब भी मौजूद है या नहीं।

अगर सुप्रीम कोर्ट संविधान के पक्ष में खड़ा होता है, तो ट्रम्प की रफ़्तार सिर्फ धीमी नहीं होगी — उसका सिर ही उड़ जाएगा।
और यह सब अगले चुनाव चक्र से एक साल पहले।


भूतिया मिडटर्म

ऐसा लग रहा है जैसे देश ने टाइम मशीन में बैठकर बारह महीने आगे छलाँग लगा दी हो।
ऊर्जा, घबराहट, और CNN पर आँसुओं से भरे शैम्पेन ग्लास — सब चिल्ला रहे थे, “मिडटर्म!”

रिपब्लिकन रणनीतिकार आज सुबह ऐसे जागे जैसे उन पर नीली सुनामी आ गिरी हो — और वह भी एक साल पहले।
एक अज्ञात MAGA प्रभावशाली व्यक्ति ने पोस्ट किया,

“डीप स्टेट ने टाइम ट्रैवल कर लिया है।”

डेमोक्रेट meanwhile शांत दिखने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं — जो डेमोक्रेट्स के लिए हमेशा का मतलब है: “कौन श्रेय लेगा” पर अंदरूनी झगड़ा।


प्रवासी, एकजुट हो जाओ!

क्वीन्स अपने पूरे वैभव में यह साबित करता है कि प्रवासन कोई समस्या नहीं है जिसे हल किया जाए, बल्कि एक महाशक्ति है जिसे अपनाया जाए।
कुछ वर्ग किलोमीटर में आप यूएन की कैंटीन का लाइव एक्शन संस्करण देख सकते हैं — बस खाना बेहतर है और पार्किंग और भी बुरी।

हर भाषा, हर धर्म, हर स्वाद — सब एक ही मतपत्र पर वोट डालते हैं।
यह लोकतंत्र है, वह भी सबटाइटल्स के साथ।
और इसने वाशिंगटन को एक संदेश भेजा: विविधता अमेरिका को कमजोर नहीं करती, परिभाषित करती है।

एक बुज़ुर्ग बांग्लादेशी मतदाता ने पोलिंग स्टेशन के बाहर पत्रकार से कहा,

“ट्रम्प अपने टैरिफ रख ले। हम तो विचार एक्सपोर्ट करते हैं।”


क़ानून का राज बनाम वाइब्स का राज

आख़िरकार, यह चुनाव — और आने वाला सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फैसला — सिर्फ़ अर्थव्यवस्था या राजनीति की बात नहीं है।
यह सवाल है कि क्या अमेरिका अब भी क़ानून से चलता है या मूड से।

अगर कोर्ट कहता है कि ट्रम्प के टैरिफ ग़ैरक़ानूनी थे, तो यह याद दिलाएगा कि राष्ट्रपति राजा नहीं होते — भले ही वे नारंगी रंग के क्यों न हों।

और अगर कोर्ट ने उल्टा कहा, तो अलेक्ज़ेंडर हैमिल्टन अपनी कब्र में इतनी तेज़ी से घूमने लगेंगे कि शायद नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा पैदा हो जाए।


क्वीन्स सिद्धांत

तो इसका मतलब क्या है?
क्वीन्स के एक मतदाता ने कल रात बड़ी सटीक बात कही:

“यह शहर किसी के लिए नहीं बदलने वाला। न राष्ट्रपति के लिए। न टैरिफ के लिए। न समय के लिए।”

मिडटर्म चुनाव भले अभी नहीं हुए हों —
लेकिन माहौल, रफ़्तार और मीम्स कुछ और ही कह रहे हैं।

बाक़ी अमेरिका 2026 का इंतज़ार कर रहा है।
क्वीन्स ने पहले ही भविष्य के लिए वोट दे दिया है —
और वह 187 भाषाएँ बोलता है।



5: Zohran Mamdani

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

5: Mamdani's Night

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

Which Party Is in Trouble, Again? Thoughts after a very blue night ........... this was a blowout, pure and simple. ......... These elections were, as expected, largely a referendum on Donald Trump, and polling says that Trump is very, very unpopular. ............. The second No Kings Day was the largest one-day demonstration since Earth Day in 1970. Democrats have been outperforming by something like 15 points in special elections. And polling averages favored Democrats in key races. ............ There had been a steady drumbeat of warnings that Mikie Sherrill, in particular, might be in trouble. Instead she won in a 13-point landslide. ............. Of course, Trump didn’t have a plan, or even a concept of a plan, about how to accomplish this. Instead he imposed tariffs and began deporting immigrant workers, both of which raised prices. .......... Pretty clearly, many Americans now believe that they were lied to. My guess (we’ll know more in a few days) is that this is especially true for Hispanic voters, who swung to Trump believing that he would deliver prosperity and are swinging hard back to Democrats now that he hasn’t. .............. If Wall Street couldn’t buy New York, can they really buy America? .................... But Mamdani’s win doesn’t tell us much about national politics: New York City is just very different from the rest of the country. .......... If you look at recent Republican campaigns and positioning, it’s striking how much energy they’re putting into issues that just don’t matter much to ordinary Americans. Republicans may be obsessed with trans athletes, but most people aren’t. Polls and yesterday’s elections suggest that rants about the menace of illegal aliens have a lot less traction with the public than G.O.P. apparatchiks imagine — and that Americans don’t like the spectacle of masked ICE agents grabbing people off the street. ............... And if we’re talking about extremists within the party, well, Democrats have people like Mamdani, a mild-mannered guy who says he’s a socialist but really isn’t. The Republican Party, by contrast, has been largely taken over by outright fascists, and is facing a major outbreak of old-fashioned antisemitism. ................ Last night’s blue wave won’t stop MAGA’s attempt to consolidate authoritarian rule in America. If anything, they’ll redouble efforts to rig the 2026 midterms, although California, by approving a major redistricting, has largely neutralized their gerrymandering plot. .......... After yesterday, it’s clear that Trump really is despised. Can he still end our democracy?

Zohran Mamdani for Mayor of New York The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post's editorial pages reveal why

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

The Banyan Revolt (novel)
Gen Z Kranti (novel)
Madhya York: The Merchant and the Mystic (novel)
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Poetry Thursdays (novel)

Monday, August 11, 2025

Tariffs, Poll Numbers, and the 50-Year Pendulum Swing

 

 



Tariffs, Poll Numbers, and the 50-Year Pendulum Swing

Tariffs will lead to price increases. Like clockwork. Price increases will lead to lower poll numbers for Donald Trump. Like clockwork. How low? We’ll just have to wait and see, but numbers in the low 30s would be politically devastating. At that point, many members of Trump’s own party in Congress may decide it’s better to abandon ship than go down with it.

History isn’t subtle here: the party in the White House almost always loses midterm elections without even trying. But this administration? It’s trying hard. Trying to argue tariffs won’t raise prices is like arguing against gravity. Economists, who usually qualify everything with “on the one hand” and “on the other hand,” are almost unanimous: tariffs hurt consumers. That rare consensus should tell you something.

If the president’s approval rating sinks into the low 30s, the House is gone for the Republicans. As for the Senate, it’s trickier. There’s a structural, almost “operating system level” advantage that keeps the chamber locked in a white, conservative grip. But with numbers that low, even the Senate could be in play. Never say never.

That’s where the Democrats’ internal dynamics matter. You don’t beat something with nothing. Right now, the centrist wing of the party seems missing in action. My bet is that the AOC–Mamdani–Bernie–Warren crowd will be the ones to raise the flag. And what they’re bringing to the table isn’t just policy—it’s a vision. Think FDR. Think Reagan. Now think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This isn’t just electoral maneuvering; it’s a tectonic shift.

Picture Vienna-style social housing in America—a system proven to be more cost-effective than the billions the U.S. already spends on tax breaks for the wealthy. Once the arithmetic is made clear, the public will buy into similar models across major sectors: healthcare, education, infrastructure. The math points to a top tax rate of around 70% for the wealthiest Americans—far from unprecedented. During the Cold War, the U.S. thrived as a capitalist democracy with a 90% top rate. If 70% is “socialism,” then perhaps it’s time to revisit what’s actually wrong with that.

Now imagine a scenario where the AOC wing takes over the Democratic Party, wins the House in 2026, and almost wins the Senate. For two years, the House would pass bill after bill—housing, healthcare, climate—only to be stonewalled in the Senate. That frustration wouldn’t dissipate; it would fuel momentum for AOC in 2028 and perhaps a blue Senate to match.

This would mark the beginning of a new 50-year pendulum swing in American politics. A swing where the richest country in the world finally confronts the absurd reality of homelessness, poverty, malnutrition, and crushing student debt. A swing where economic fairness isn’t just rhetoric—it’s law.

Tariffs might be the trigger, but the transformation would go far beyond trade. We could be witnessing the start of America’s next political era.






शुल्क, जनमत सर्वेक्षण और 50 साल का पेंडुलम स्विंग

शुल्क से कीमतें बढ़ेंगी। जैसे घड़ी की सुइयों का चलना तय है, वैसे ही यह तय है। कीमतें बढ़ने से डोनाल्ड ट्रंप की लोकप्रियता घटेगी। यह भी तय है। यह कितनी नीचे जाएगी? देखना तो पड़ेगा, लेकिन अगर यह 30% के निचले स्तर पर पहुंची तो राजनीतिक रूप से यह विनाशकारी होगा। उस समय ट्रंप की पार्टी के कई सांसदों को लगेगा कि अब जहाज़ छोड़ देने में ही भलाई है।

इतिहास साफ है: व्हाइट हाउस में बैठी पार्टी मिडटर्म चुनाव बिना कुछ किए भी हार जाती है। लेकिन यह प्रशासन? यह तो पूरी कोशिश कर रहा है। यह तर्क देना कि शुल्क से कीमतें नहीं बढ़ेंगी, गुरुत्वाकर्षण को न मानने जैसा है। अर्थशास्त्री—जो आम तौर पर "एक तरफ" और "दूसरी तरफ" जैसे वाक्य कहते हैं—इस मुद्दे पर लगभग एकमत हैं: शुल्क उपभोक्ताओं को नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं। यह दुर्लभ सहमति बहुत कुछ कहती है।

अगर राष्ट्रपति की स्वीकृति रेटिंग 30% के निचले स्तर तक गिरती है, तो रिपब्लिकनों के लिए प्रतिनिधि सभा (हाउस) हाथ से निकल जाएगी। जहां तक सीनेट की बात है, वह थोड़ा कठिन है। वहां एक संरचनात्मक, लगभग “ऑपरेटिंग सिस्टम स्तर” का लाभ है जो इस सदन को श्वेत, रूढ़िवादी पकड़ में रखता है। लेकिन इतने कम आंकड़ों के साथ, सीनेट भी खतरे में आ सकती है। कभी “कभी नहीं” मत कहिए।

यहीं पर डेमोक्रेटिक पार्टी की आंतरिक राजनीति मायने रखती है। आप किसी चीज़ को ‘कुछ नहीं’ से नहीं हरा सकते। फिलहाल, पार्टी का मध्यमार्गी धड़ा नदारद लगता है। मेरा अनुमान है कि AOC–ममदानी–बर्नी–वॉरेन का गुट ही झंडा उठाएगा। और वे सिर्फ नीतियां नहीं ला रहे, वे एक दृष्टि ला रहे हैं। सोचिए FDR, सोचिए रीगन, और अब सोचिए एलेक्जेंड्रिया ओकासियो-कोर्टेज़। यह सिर्फ चुनावी चाल नहीं, यह एक भूकंपीय बदलाव है।

कल्पना कीजिए, अमेरिका में वियना-शैली का सार्वजनिक आवास—एक ऐसा सिस्टम जो अमीरों के लिए कर छूट पर अमेरिका जो अरबों खर्च करता है, उससे भी अधिक किफायती साबित हो चुका है। जब आंकड़े साफ तौर पर रखे जाएंगे, तो जनता इसी तरह के मॉडल को स्वास्थ्य, शिक्षा, ढांचे (इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर) समेत सभी बड़े क्षेत्रों में अपनाने को तैयार होगी। गणित बताता है कि सबसे अमीर अमेरिकियों के लिए शीर्ष कर दर लगभग 70% होनी चाहिए—यह कोई अनोखी बात नहीं है। शीत युद्ध के दौरान, अमेरिका 90% की शीर्ष दर के साथ एक संपन्न पूंजीवादी लोकतंत्र था। अगर 70% “समाजवाद” है, तो इसमें गलत क्या है, इस पर फिर से सोचना चाहिए।

अब कल्पना कीजिए, AOC गुट डेमोक्रेटिक पार्टी पर काबिज हो, 2026 में प्रतिनिधि सभा जीत ले और सीनेट में लगभग जीत हासिल करे। दो साल तक, प्रतिनिधि सभा आवास, स्वास्थ्य, जलवायु जैसे मुद्दों पर एक के बाद एक बिल पास करे, लेकिन सीनेट उन्हें रोक दे। यह निराशा खत्म नहीं होगी; यह 2028 में AOC और शायद एक नीली (डेमोक्रेटिक) सीनेट के लिए गति बनाएगी।

यह अमेरिकी राजनीति में नए 50 साल के पेंडुलम स्विंग की शुरुआत होगी—एक ऐसा झूला, जिसमें दुनिया का सबसे अमीर देश आखिरकार बेघरपन, गरीबी, कुपोषण और भारी छात्र ऋण की असंगत वास्तविकता से निपटेगा। एक ऐसा स्विंग, जहां आर्थिक न्याय सिर्फ नारा नहीं, बल्कि क़ानून बनेगा।

शुल्क शायद शुरुआत का कारण बनें, लेकिन यह बदलाव व्यापार से कहीं आगे जाएगा। हम शायद अमेरिका के अगले राजनीतिक युग की शुरुआत देख रहे हैं।



 



 

Monday, July 21, 2025

Taxing the Rich Isn’t Marxism: A Lesson from Cold War America



Taxing the Rich Isn’t Marxism: A Lesson from Cold War America

In today’s political discourse, it has become alarmingly easy to throw around ideological labels like “socialist,” “Marxist,” or even “communist.” Suggest that billionaires should pay a slightly higher tax rate, and suddenly you’re accused of wanting to install a gulag in your neighborhood. The rhetorical inflation is exhausting — and deeply misleading.

Let’s take a moment to unpack the absurdity of it all.


AOC, Mamdani, and the New Progressive Push

Leaders like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani represent a rising generation of American progressives who advocate for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy to fund essential public services like universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and a Green New Deal. Their proposals are bold — they aim to restructure an economy that, by many measures, is increasingly tilted in favor of the ultra-rich.

Their critics respond with a knee-jerk reaction: “That’s socialism!” or worse, “That’s Marxism!”

But let’s be honest — a proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate from, say, 37% to 70% isn’t exactly storming the Winter Palace.


The Historical Irony: Cold War Capitalism Had Higher Taxes

Here’s the kicker. At the height of the Cold War, during the 1950s and 1960s, the top marginal income tax rate in the United States routinely hovered between 91% and 94%. These were Republican and Democratic administrations alike — Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson — not exactly Maoists.

Was America communist then?

Did anyone accuse Eisenhower of being a Marxist for presiding over a tax system in which the wealthiest Americans paid nearly all their income above a certain level back to the state?

No. That America was proudly capitalist — industrial, suburban, car-driving, Cold War-fighting capitalist. The difference was: it believed in collective prosperity and understood that high top-end taxes were essential to funding infrastructure, education, defense, and upward mobility.


Why Today’s “Socialist” Proposals Are Actually Moderate

When AOC or Mamdani talk about a 60–70% top marginal tax rate, they're not calling for the nationalization of industry, abolition of private property, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. They are making an empirical case: that the United States can’t sustain itself when wealth is hoarded by a tiny elite while schools crumble, hospitals close, and millions remain uninsured.

Let’s remember, the top marginal rate doesn’t mean every dollar is taxed at that rate. It only applies to income above a very high threshold. That’s how marginal taxation works — and it’s how it worked during the most prosperous decades of American history.

In fact, Nobel laureates like Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, and even mainstream economists like Thomas Piketty, have shown that high marginal tax rates are not only historically normal — they are necessary to maintain democratic capitalism.


If Cold War America Could Do It, Why Can’t We?

If the United States could sustain 90% tax rates while simultaneously building highways, going to the moon, and defeating the Soviet Union, why do we now flinch at 70%?

The answer is psychological and political, not economic.

Today’s super-rich have enormous power — not just in wealth, but in shaping the narrative. They fund think tanks, media outlets, and politicians who equate any redistribution with tyranny. That’s not a coincidence; it’s a strategy. Because the minute people understand how fair taxation worked in the past, they start to demand it again.


The False Binary: Capitalism vs. Communism

Labeling every redistributive policy “socialist” ignores the vast middle ground that has always existed between unregulated capitalism and full communism. In fact, regulated capitalism with strong public services and high taxes on the wealthy is the system that built the American middle class and kept extreme ideologies at bay during the 20th century.

It’s not socialism. It’s sanity.


Conclusion: Raise the Debate, Not Just the Rate

We don’t need a new ideology — we need a return to historical memory.

A 70% top marginal tax rate is not a radical fantasy. It is a moderate proposal grounded in American precedent, aimed at correcting runaway inequality that threatens the very foundation of democracy.

So the next time someone cries “Marxism!” when you mention taxing the rich, just remind them: America already did it — and won the Cold War doing so.


#TaxJustice #AOC #ColdWarHistory #EconomicFairness #RedistributionNotRevolution



अमीरों पर टैक्स लगाना मार्क्सवाद नहीं है: शीत युद्धकालीन अमेरिका से एक सबक

आज की अमेरिकी राजनीति में, "समाजवाद," "मार्क्सवाद," और "कम्युनिज़्म" जैसे शब्द कुछ ज़्यादा ही आसानी से इस्तेमाल किए जाते हैं। अगर आप कहें कि अमीरों पर टैक्स 2% बढ़ा देना चाहिए, तो तुरंत आप पर यह आरोप लग सकता है कि आप मार्क्सवादी हैं।

लेकिन अगर ज़ो़हरान ममदानी और एओसी (अलेक्ज़ेंड्रिया ओकासियो-कोर्तेज़) जैसे नेता अपने एजेंडे को गंभीरता से लागू करना चाहते हैं, तो शायद उन्हें 70% तक की शीर्ष आयकर दर लागू करनी पड़ेगी। और यह न तो मार्क्सवादी होगा, न कम्युनिस्ट, न ही समाजवादी।

क्यों?

क्योंकि अमेरिका ने खुद शीत युद्ध के चरम पर, जब उसका सीधा टकराव एक वास्तविक कम्युनिस्ट देश (सोवियत संघ) से था, 90% तक की शीर्ष कर दरें लागू की थीं। अगर उस समय का अमेरिका कम्युनिस्ट था, तो क्या शीत युद्ध दो कम्युनिस्ट देशों के बीच की लड़ाई थी?


नए प्रगतिशील नेता: ममदानी और एओसी

एओसी और ज़ो़हरान ममदानी जैसे नेता आज के प्रगतिशील आंदोलन का चेहरा हैं। ये नेता अमीरों पर अधिक कर लगाकर सभी के लिए स्वास्थ्य सेवा, मुफ़्त उच्च शिक्षा, और ग्रीन न्यू डील जैसी योजनाओं के लिए धन जुटाना चाहते हैं। ये प्रस्ताव साहसिक हैं, लेकिन ज़रूरी भी — क्योंकि अमेरिका की अर्थव्यवस्था दिनोंदिन कुछ गिने-चुने लोगों के लिए ही काम कर रही है।

लेकिन इन विचारों पर प्रतिक्रियाएं अक्सर घबराई हुई और अतिशयोक्तिपूर्ण होती हैं: “ये तो समाजवाद है!” या “ये तो मार्क्सवाद है!”

लेकिन अगर आप सिर्फ 70% की उच्च आयकर दर की बात कर रहे हैं, तो यह किसी क्रांति का बिगुल नहीं है।


शीत युद्ध के दौरान टैक्स दरें आज से ज़्यादा थीं

1950 और 1960 के दशक में, अमेरिका में उच्चतम आय पर टैक्स दर 91% से 94% के बीच थी। यह उस समय था जब अमेरिका दुनिया का सबसे अमीर और शक्तिशाली देश था। यह केवल डेमोक्रेट ही नहीं, रिपब्लिकन राष्ट्रपति आइज़नहावर के दौर में भी लागू था।

क्या उस समय किसी ने आइज़नहावर को कम्युनिस्ट कहा?

बिल्कुल नहीं।

उस समय का अमेरिका पूरी तरह से पूंजीवादी था — कार संस्कृति वाला, चंद्रमा पर जाने वाला, सोवियत संघ को टक्कर देने वाला पूंजीवाद। लेकिन उस समय यह समझ थी कि उच्च कर दरों से सामूहिक समृद्धि को बढ़ावा मिलता है, और यह टैक्स स्कूलों, अस्पतालों, सड़कों और रक्षा के लिए ज़रूरी होते हैं।


आज के प्रगतिशील प्रस्ताव वाकई में कितने 'चरमपंथी' हैं?

जब एओसी या ममदानी जैसे नेता 60% या 70% की कर दर की बात करते हैं, तो वे न तो निजी संपत्ति को खत्म करना चाहते हैं, न ही उद्योगों का राष्ट्रीयकरण। वे सिर्फ यह कह रहे हैं कि यदि अमेरिका को टिकाऊ और न्यायसंगत बनाना है, तो धन का पुनर्वितरण ज़रूरी है।

और यह भी समझना ज़रूरी है कि शीर्ष कर दरें केवल बहुत अधिक आय वाले हिस्से पर लागू होती हैं, न कि पूरे वेतन पर। यही “मार्जिनल टैक्स रेट” की व्यवस्था होती है — और यही व्यवस्था अमेरिका के सबसे समृद्ध काल में भी लागू थी।


अगर तब हो सकता था, तो अब क्यों नहीं?

अगर अमेरिका 90% टैक्स दरों के साथ इंटरस्टेट हाईवे बना सकता है, चंद्रमा पर पहुंच सकता है, और शीत युद्ध जीत सकता है, तो आज 70% टैक्स दर पर इतना शोर क्यों?

इसका जवाब आर्थिक नहीं, बल्कि राजनीतिक और मनोवैज्ञानिक है।

आज के अरबपति केवल धन के मामले में ही नहीं, बल्कि विचारधारा के निर्माण में भी ताक़तवर हैं। वे थिंक टैंक, मीडिया, और नेताओं को फंड करते हैं जो हर पुनर्वितरण नीति को तानाशाही करार देते हैं। यह संयोग नहीं, रणनीति है। ताकि आम नागरिक कभी यह न पूछे: "हमारे दादाजी के समय ऐसा टैक्स क्यों था, और अब क्यों नहीं?"


पूंजीवाद बनाम कम्युनिज़्म का झूठा द्वंद्व

हर पुनर्वितरण नीति को “समाजवादी” कह देना, उस विचारधारात्मक स्पेक्ट्रम को मिटा देता है जो वास्तविकता में मौजूद है। दरअसल, संतुलित पूंजीवाद, जिसमें अमीरों पर ऊंचे टैक्स, और जनता के लिए मजबूत सेवाएं शामिल हों — यही अमेरिका की असली ताकत रही है।

यह समाजवाद नहीं है।

यह व्यवहारिकता और समझदारी है।


निष्कर्ष: केवल दर नहीं, बहस भी बढ़ाएं

हमें किसी नई विचारधारा की ज़रूरत नहीं है। हमें केवल यह याद रखने की ज़रूरत है कि इतिहास में क्या काम कर चुका है

70% की शीर्ष कर दर कोई क्रांतिकारी कल्पना नहीं है। यह एक ऐतिहासिक रूप से स्थापित और व्यावहारिक नीति है, जो उस असमानता को दूर करने का प्रयास करती है जो आज अमेरिका की लोकतांत्रिक नींव को ही हिला रही है।

तो अगली बार जब कोई कहे, "ये मार्क्सवाद है," तो उन्हें बस इतना याद दिलाइए:

अमेरिका पहले भी ऐसा कर चुका है — और उसने उसी समय सोवियत संघ को हराया था।


#कर_न्याय #प्रगतिशील_नीतियाँ #आर्थिक_संतुलन #ColdWarTaxRates #RedistributionNotRevolution




Wednesday, July 02, 2025

The Traditional Indian Way of Preparing for a Meal: Cleanliness, Ritual, and Health

Donald Trump's approval rating plunges to second term low in poll
How to humiliate a bully like Trump | Opinion According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), adults with ASPD or sociopathy display a consistent and persistent set of characteristics. Those include a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others; chronic violation of social norms, rules, and laws; deceitfulness, impulsivity, and aggression; and a near-complete lack of remorse or empathy............ The leaders of Europe’s NATO countries appear to have figured this out (as did Putin, Musk, and the Saudis, Emiratis, and Qataris before them); when Trump showed up in The Netherlands this week, they lavished him with praise and positive attention, instead of shunning and implicitly or subtly ridiculing him like they did five years ago........ His response was exactly what they wanted; reconsidering aid to Ukraine and suddenly changing his position to embrace the US’s commitment to the mutual defense provisions embodied in Article 5 of the organization’s charter...... He will always and obsessively be preoccupied with getting his own childish needs met, and at the top of that list is avoiding discomfort and complexity........ Like the bully he is, when he’s seriously confronted — at least so far — he’ll back down (TACO) if the confrontation threatens to consume lots of his time, trouble, or money. This is why consistent and ferocious opposition to his most puerile actions is absolutely necessary.
Trump's Attack on Iran May Have Made the Nuclear Crisis Worse


The Traditional Indian Way of Preparing for a Meal: Cleanliness, Ritual, and Health

In traditional Indian culture, the act of eating is not a casual routine—it is a sacred ritual. Deeply rooted in Ayurveda, Vedic traditions, and daily household customs, the process of getting clean before sitting down to eat reflects a profound respect for food, the body, and the divine life force that sustains both. Let’s explore the traditional Indian way of preparing for a meal—from hand and feet washing to wearing fresh clothes—and understand why even the posture of sitting on the ground brings deep health benefits.


1. Cleanliness Is Half the Meal: A Ritual of Purification

In India, cleanliness before eating is not merely hygienic—it is spiritual.

Hand Washing

Before touching food, hands are thoroughly washed, often with natural soaps or herbal powders like shikakai or neem. This is especially important in Indian culture where eating with hands is the norm—considered a sensory and mindful experience, connecting the eater to the texture and temperature of the food.

Feet Washing

Feet are washed too, particularly in rural and traditional households. Why? Because in Indian homes, people sit cross-legged on the ground, often on mats or clean floors. Clean feet ensure no impurity is brought to the eating space, reinforcing a sacred boundary between the outer world and the space of nourishment.

Face and Mouth Rinse

Some traditions include rinsing the mouth and even lightly cleansing the face before meals. This is not just to refresh, but to symbolically ‘reset’ and prepare the body to receive food mindfully.


2. Wearing a Clean Set of Clothes

In many Indian households, especially in the South, it’s common to change into a fresh, clean set of clothes before meals. This is particularly observed during lunch (the main meal of the day) and even more so during religious festivals, family gatherings, or temple prasadam offerings.

Wearing clean clothes while eating is an acknowledgment that food is sacred (annam parabrahma swaroopam—food is God), and one should present oneself in the purest way to receive this divine gift. It’s also practical—clean clothes reduce the chance of external dust or microbes entering the food environment.


3. Sitting Down on the Floor: A Forgotten Superpower

The ancient practice of sitting on the floor while eating—cross-legged in Sukhasana or Padmasana—is often overlooked in modern households. Yet, this posture offers surprising health benefits:

Activates the Parasympathetic Nervous System

The act of sitting cross-legged triggers the parasympathetic nervous system, commonly called the "rest and digest" state. It signals the body to relax, calm down, and prepare for digestion.

Improves Posture and Flexibility

Sitting on the floor encourages a naturally straight spine, engages core muscles, and keeps the hips and lower back flexible. Over time, it improves posture and mobility.

Enhances Digestion

Bending forward slightly while eating and then sitting back is a subtle form of yogic movement. It gently massages the abdominal organs, stimulates digestive juices, and promotes healthy bowel movement.

Mindful Eating

Eating on the ground slows you down. It’s grounding—literally—and encourages mindfulness. You focus more on the act of eating, chew better, and are less likely to overeat.


4. The Sacred Space of Eating

Traditional Indian homes treated the dining space as almost sacred. Food was often served on banana leaves or thalis in a fixed order, and family members sat together in silence or light conversation. Elders offered thanks (Annapurna Devi ki Jai!), and in some homes, a portion was first offered to cows, crows, or the fire—symbolizing nature, ancestors, and the divine.

This reverence created an atmosphere where eating wasn’t just about satiety but spiritual nourishment.


5. A Return to Wisdom

In the modern rush, we’ve largely forgotten these simple yet profound rituals. We eat at desks, in cars, in front of screens. We rush. We multitask. But in doing so, we lose the rasa—the essence—of eating.

Reclaiming the Indian tradition of cleaning up, dressing fresh, washing hands and feet, and sitting cross-legged on the floor is not about nostalgia. It’s about health. It’s about harmony. It’s about honoring the sacred act of nourishment.

So next time you eat, try a little ritual:

  • Wash your hands and feet.

  • Change into something fresh.

  • Sit down, on the ground if you can.

  • Breathe.

  • Offer thanks.

  • And eat with the mindfulness of generations who saw God in every grain.


Conclusion: Eat Like It’s Sacred—Because It Is

The traditional Indian way of preparing for meals is a lost art of ritual hygiene, mindful posture, and spiritual respect. Whether you follow it fully or adapt it partially, the wisdom embedded in these practices offers a powerful message: when you honor food, you honor life itself.



Could President Trump Arrest Zohran Mamdani If Elected Mayor Of NYC?
The Mamdani Grocery Stores: Social Innovation Meets Market Efficiency
Hinduism Is Not A False Religion
Solving NYC's Rent Crisis: Rethinking Supply, Transit, and Density
29: Mamdani
Billionaire Politics, Elon Musk Style
If Mamdani Can't Run Grocery Stores, He Should Not Be Running The City
Mamdani Is Not Mao
Mamdani's Grocery Stores Are A Great Idea
Mamdani: Indian Origin?
Aladdin and the Rise of High-Tech Authoritarianism: How an Algorithm Became the Puppet Master of Capital
28: Mamdani
27: Mamdani
Mamdani's Prose
Mamdani’s Platform
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism
A Radical Blueprint to Transform New York City into the World’s Greatest Metropolis

Grounded Greatness: The Case For Smart Surface Transit In Future Cities
The Garden Of Last Debates (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
A 2T Cut
Are We Frozen in Time?: Tech Progress, Social Stagnation
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

View on Threads
View on Threads

Trump’s reciprocal tariffs for Japan had been set at 24% before the pause—far above the roughly 1.5% average tariffs that had been in place ....... Privately, some Japanese officials worry that agreeing to a deal that doesn’t reduce or eliminate both the reciprocal tariffs and industry-specific duties might be received so poorly in Tokyo that it could topple the Ishiba government, which is facing a high-stakes election to the Japanese parliament’s upper house on July 20. Any deal that reduces Japanese protections for its prized domestic rice industry could also spell electoral trouble for the Ishiba government. ....... A senior lawmaker in Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party said that some of Ishiba’s associates are arguing that he should hold firm to his demand for tariff relief in the hope that Trump backs down, perhaps if financial markets grow unsettled as the end of the 90-day tariff pause nears. ...... Elsewhere in Asia, the U.S. is demanding that nations take a hard line against China. The administration is struggling to finalize pacts with Vietnam and Cambodia, despite offers from those nations to reduce tariffs and trade barriers, according to people with knowledge of the talks. ....... Many of those nations are balking at being forced to choose between the U.S. and China, making any deals on those issues unlikely in the short term. One Asian economic official said the U.S. demands would be difficult to meet, given that the export-led economies in the region are so entwined with both the U.S. and China. .......... Even some Republicans are growing frustrated with the White House’s negotiating strategy. During a recent Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.) asked, “Are you or are you not pursuing reciprocity?” when Lutnick said he wouldn’t agree to a hypothetical deal with Vietnam that would cancel out all tariffs and trade barriers in both countries........ Kennedy later said: “I was confused more after the hearing than before about their negotiating strategy here.”

Tuesday, July 01, 2025

Could President Trump Arrest Zohran Mamdani If Elected Mayor Of NYC?

The Mamdani Grocery Stores: Social Innovation Meets Market Efficiency
'Impossible to cover up': Trump press conference seen as 'clear sign of cognitive decline' When asked how long detainees are expected to remain at the detention center, the president replied, "I'm gonna spend a lot. This is my home state. I love it. I'll spend a lot of time here," sidestepping the actual question.
Makeup In U.S. Politics—Tracing From Nixon’s TV Debacle To Trump’s Signature Orange Visage




Could President Trump Arrest Zohran Mamdani if Elected Mayor of NYC? A Legal and Political Analysis

Whether President Donald Trump could order the arrest of Zohran Mamdani—if elected mayor of New York City—for refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a complex legal and constitutional question. It involves the balance of federal and local authority, the limits of executive power, and the legal protections afforded to elected officials. Below is a clear analysis based on existing laws and precedent.


1. Federal vs. Local Authority on Immigration

  • Federal Role: Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). ICE has the authority to detain and deport undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court has affirmed federal supremacy in immigration matters (Arizona v. United States, 2012).

  • Sanctuary City Protections: New York City has long operated as a "sanctuary city," limiting cooperation with ICE, especially for civil immigration violations. Under laws like Local Law 58 of 2014, city agencies are prohibited from honoring most ICE detainer requests unless they involve serious criminal convictions.

  • Legal Right to Non-Cooperation: Cities can decline to assist federal immigration enforcement under the Tenth Amendment. While they cannot actively obstruct federal agents, they are not required to use local resources to support federal actions. Passive non-cooperation—such as refusing detainer requests—has been repeatedly upheld in court.


2. Can Trump Order Mamdani’s Arrest?

  • Lack of Legal Basis: For the president to legally order Mamdani’s arrest, there must be clear evidence of a federal crime. Simply refusing to assist ICE under city law does not constitute a violation. Courts have ruled that local jurisdictions are not obligated to help enforce immigration law (City of Chicago v. Sessions, 2018).

  • Executive Power Limitations: While the president can instruct federal agencies like ICE or the DOJ to investigate possible crimes, arresting an elected mayor for adhering to local policy would be legally dubious and politically explosive. Such a move would almost certainly face immediate legal challenges and be seen as federal overreach.

  • Rhetoric vs. Action: Trump’s statements about arresting Mamdani appear to be political in nature, aimed at criticizing sanctuary policies rather than initiating legal action. Without proof of specific criminal conduct, such threats are likely unenforceable.


3. Mamdani’s Policy Positions and Legal Exposure

  • Mamdani has promised to "Trump-proof" New York City by cutting ties with ICE, protecting immigrant data, and expanding legal protections for undocumented residents. His pledge to “kick ICE out of the five boroughs” refers to enforcing sanctuary laws, not to physically blocking federal agents.

  • Unless Mamdani engages in direct interference with ICE—such as obstructing arrests or instructing city employees to break federal laws—his actions remain legal and protected. If, however, he were to engage in active obstruction (e.g., under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or 18 U.S.C. § 111), that could potentially trigger legal consequences.


4. Deportation and Citizenship Rumors

  • Trump and some allies have questioned Mamdani’s citizenship, with suggestions he is "here illegally" or should be denaturalized. Mamdani, born in Uganda, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018.

  • Denaturalization is extremely rare and governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1451, which requires clear evidence of fraud or misrepresentation during the naturalization process. Accusations of supporting "terrorism" or being a "communist," as floated by Rep. Andy Ogles, are politically charged but unsupported by legal evidence. Without a conviction or clear proof, such claims have no legal standing.


5. Precedent and Federal Funding Threats

  • No Precedent for Arresting Mayors: There is no modern precedent for a U.S. president arresting a mayor for policy disagreements, including over immigration. While some local officials have been arrested (e.g., during protests), these involved civil disobedience—not policy enforcement.

  • Federal Funding Leverage: Trump has also threatened to withhold federal funds from New York City. While the federal government can place conditions on grants, courts have ruled against using funding as punishment for sanctuary policies (City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 2018). Such threats would likely be challenged in court again.


6. Mamdani’s Response and Political Landscape

Mamdani has described Trump’s threats as "an attack on democracy" and an effort to intimidate voters. He maintains that his immigration stance protects working-class and immigrant communities. His upset primary victory over Andrew Cuomo—backed by endorsements from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and other progressives—demonstrates strong grassroots support.

If Trump were to pursue legal or political action against Mamdani, it would likely be viewed as partisan and authoritarian, sparking public outcry and court battles. Such efforts could backfire politically.


Conclusion

President Trump does not have the legal authority to arrest Zohran Mamdani solely for enforcing New York City’s sanctuary policies. Upholding local laws that limit cooperation with ICE does not violate federal law and is constitutionally protected under the Tenth Amendment. Any arrest would require proof of direct criminal obstruction, which is not evident in Mamdani’s current proposals.

Trump’s threats of arrest and deportation appear more political than legal. If Mamdani were to exceed legal boundaries and engage in unlawful obstruction, he could face legal action—but that remains hypothetical. In the meantime, Mamdani’s stance places him at the center of a broader national debate about immigration, federalism, and democratic governance.


Sources:




Grounded Greatness: The Case For Smart Surface Transit In Future Cities
The Garden Of Last Debates (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)
The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
A 2T Cut
Are We Frozen in Time?: Tech Progress, Social Stagnation
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism