
Hardline MAGA loyalist launches extraordinary effort to DEPORT Muslim NYC Mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani
A far-right MAGA lawmaker has called for NYC 's rising star mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to be stripped of his citizenship after claiming he is linked to Islamic terrorism.
Representative Andy Ogles, of Tennessee 's fifth district, joined the droves of politicians raging against the 33 year-old Muslim, who pulled off a major upset this week to win the Democrat primary ahead of November's New York mayoral election.
'Zohran "little muhammad" Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York,' Ogles wrote on X. 'He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceedings.'
In his letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Ogles claimed Mamdani might have 'willfully' misrepresented or 'concealed' his 'support for terrorism' while obtaining his US citizenship.
Mamdani, who is Muslim, was naturalized in 2018 at the age of 26 after moving to NYC from Uganda aged seven. The state lawmaker's parents are Indian and he has said that becoming a citizen was one of his proudest moments.
His charisma and slick election campaign have seen him become a darling among progressive Democrats - and a target for some conservative Republicans.
However, Ogles claimed that moment shouldn't have happened as Mamdani, who used to rap under the name Mr. Cardamom, had sung about the Holy Land Five.
'My love to the Holy Land Five, you better look 'em up,' he reportedly sang in a 2017 song.
The Holy Land Five's foundation was shut down in 2009 after a federal judge in Dallas sentenced the five founders for funding Hamas.
The five sent the terrorist group $12million in funding between 1995 and 2004, the Justice Department said.
'Publicly praising the Foundation's convicted leadership as "my guys" raises serious concern about whether Mr. Mamdani held affiliations or sympathies he failed to disclosed during the naturalization process,' Ogles wrote in his letter.
'If an individual publicly glorifies a group convicted of financing terrorism, it is entirely appropriate for federal authorities to inquire whether that individual engaged in non-public forms of support - such as organizational affiliation, fundraising, or advocacy.'
Those forms of support would need to be disclosed on Form N-400 on during the citizenship process.
He also said that Mamdani has had plenty of opportunity to make his political support clear to Americans and especially New Yorkers while on the campaign trail.
Mamdani was constantly asked about Israel and his previous Pro-Palestine support while campaigning for the Democrat nominee slot.
The Democratic socialist has previously said he would arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he stepped foot in the Big Apple and has stated he believed Israel had a 'right to exist as a state with equal rights.'
Particularly controversial was his use and defense of the phrase 'globalize the intifada.' Intifada is a Palestinian word for struggle, but some Jews and Israel supporters claim it is used to encourage anti-Semitic violence
He has faced backlash for his refusal to say Israel should remain a Jewish State and that his first international trip as NYC mayor would not be to Israel. Mamdani stated during a debate that he would stay in New York and focus on city residents.
Mamdani has made it clear he supports Jewish New Yorkers and campaigned in synagogues across the city ahead of the Democrat primary earlier this week.
'While political speech in isolation is not dispositive, in light of earlier expressions of admiration for individuals convicted of supporting terrorism, a troubling pattern emerges that warrants formal scrutiny,' Ogles continued in his call for Mamdani to be thrown out of the country.
'The federal government must uphold public trust by ensuring that citizenship is not granted under false pretenses.'
Mamdani appeared thrilled with recent criticism from President Trump himself and is now seen as a rising star of the Democrat party.
If Mamdani wins in the general election in November, he will be the first Muslim and Indian mayor of NYC.
Daily Mail has reached out to Mamdani and Ogles for comment.
Mamdani ran on a platform that promises affordability to the second most expensive city in the world. He plans to provide free public buses, city-owned grocery stores that will offer cheaper prices, and free universal childcare, among others.
He won the primary on Tuesday, beating out former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who conceded on election night after only picking up 36.4 percent of the votes.
Mamdani garnered 43.5 percent of the first-round votes.
New York City uses ranked-choice voting, allowing voters to list up to five candidates on their ballots. Final results for rounds two to five are expected to come in on Tuesday.
Although Mamdani did not officially won the primary - as he would have needed over 50 percent of the votes to do so - it is expected that he will still win after the other rounds are tallied.
Cuomo may still run in November's election as an independent, although sources claim he knows he's beaten and plans to take a dignified step back.
Mamdani will face incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.
Cuomo could reappear on the November general election ballot as an independent, but it largely expected that he will not, leaving Mamdani to face incumbent Eric Adams and a few others.
Since his win, President Donald Trump has branded Mamdani as a '100 percent Communist lunatic' and criticized his fellow Democratic socialist endorsers, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The US supreme court has dramatically expanded the powers of the president
Those of us who cover the US supreme court are faced, every June, with a peculiar challenge: whether to describe what the supreme court is doing, or what is claims that it is doing. What the supreme court says it was doing in Friday's 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa, Inc, the birthright citizenship case, is narrowing the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, in deference to presidential authority. The case effectively ends the ability of federal judges on lower courts to issue nationwide stays of executive actions that violate the constitution, federal law, and the rights of citizens. And so what the court has actually done is dramatically expand the rights of the president – this president – to nullify constitutional provisions at will. The ruling curtails nationwide injunctions against Trump's order ending birthright citizenship – meaning that while lawsuits against the order proceed, the court has unleashed a chaotic patchwork of rights enforceability. The Trump administration's ban on birthright citizenship will not be able to go into effect in jurisdictions where there is no ongoing lawsuit, or where judges have not issued regional stays. And so the supreme court creates, for the foreseeable future, a jurisprudence of citizenship in which babies born in some parts of the country will be presumptive citizens, while those born elsewhere will not. More broadly the decision means that going forward, the enforceable rights and entitlements of Americans will now be dependent on the state they reside in and the status of ongoing litigation in that district at any given time. Donald Trump, personally, will now have the presumptive power to persecute you, and nullify your rights in defiance of the constitution, at his discretion. You can't stop him unless and until you can get a lawyer, a hearing, and a narrow order from a sympathetic judge. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' writes Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, adds that the decision is 'profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate'. She also calls the ruling an 'existential threat to the rule of law'. The case concerns an executive order by the Trump administration, issued the day that Trump returned to office, purporting to end birthright citizenship – in defiance of the 14th amendment. When immigrant rights groups, representing American newborns and their migrant parents, sued the Trump administration to enforce their clients' constitutional rights, a nationwide injunction was issued which paused the Trump administration's plainly illegal order from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeded. These injunctions are a standard tool in the arsenal of federal judges, and an essential check on executive power: when the president does something wildly illegal, as Trump did, the courts can use injunctions to prevent those illegal actions from causing harm to Americans while litigation is ongoing. Nationwide injunctions have become more common in the Trump era, if only because Trump himself routinely does plainly illegal things that have the potential to hurt people and strip them of their rights nationwide. But they are not used exclusively against Republican presidents, or in order to obstruct rightwing policy efforts. Throughout the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican appointed judges routinely stymied their policy agendas with national injunctions; the Roberts court blessed these efforts. But once Donald Trump returned to power, the court adopted a newer, narrower vision of judges' prerogatives – or at least, of the prerogatives of judges who are not them. They have, with this ruling, given Donald Trump the sweeping and unprecedented authority to claim presumptive legality of even the most fundamental of American rights: the right of American-born persons to call themselves American at all. Part of why the supreme court's behavior creates dilemmas for pundits is that the court is acting in with a shameless and exceptional degree of bad faith, such that describing their own accounts of their actions would mean participating in a condescending deception of the reader. In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett says that the court is merely deferring to the rights of the executive, and ensuring that the president has the freedom to do what the voters elected him to do. Putting aside the ouroboros-like nature of the majority's conception of electoral legitimacy –that having received a majority of Americans' votes would somehow entitle Donald Trump to strip them of the rights that made those votes free, meaningful, and informed in the first place – the assertion is also one of bad faith. Because the truth is that this court's understanding of the scope of executive power is not principled; it is not even grounded in the bad history that Barrett trots out to illustrate her point about the sweeping power of other executives in the historical tradition – like the king of England. Rather, the court expands and contracts its vision of what the president is allowed to do based on the political affiliation of the president that is currently in office. When a Democrat is the president, their vision of executive power contracts. When a Republican is in office, it dramatically expands. That is because these people's loyalty is not to the constitution, or to a principled reading of the law. It is to their political priors. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Another danger of reporting the court's own account of itself to readers is this: that it can distract from the real stakes of the case. In this decision, the court did not, technically, reach the merits of Trump's absurd and insulting claim that the constitution somehow does not create a birthright entitlement to citizenship. But in the meantime, many children – the American-born infants of immigrant parents – will be denied the right that the 14th amendment plainly guarantees them. The rightwing legal movement, and the Trumpist judges who have advanced it, have long believed that really, this is a white man's country – and that the 14th amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection and its vision of a pluralist nation of equals, living together in dignity across difference – was an error. Those babies, fully American despite their differences and their parents' histories, are squirming, cooing testaments to that better, more just future. They, and the hope that they represent, are more American than Trump and his crony judges will ever be. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Diamondbacks star Ketel Marte reveals fan's vile taunt about his dead mother that reduced him to tears
Ketel Marte has revealed the vile insult about his late mother that was shouted from the stands and reduced the Arizona Diamondbacks star to tears. Earlier this week, Marte, 31, was seen weeping on the mound at Rate Field in Chicago after he was taunted during a game against the White Sox. His mother, Elpidia Valdez, died in a car crash in the Dominican Republic in 2017. A 22-year-old man was handed an indefinite ban by the team and Major League Baseball over the insult. After the game Diamondbacks manager Torey Luvollo refused to reveal what the fan had said. But Marte has now explained that they shouted: 'I sent your mom a text last night'. 'What happened was in the seventh inning, I came to bat. I'm ready at the plate and I hear this fan shouting. He was on top of the dugout,' Marte told @DannyBeisbol. 'He yelled at me, saying stuff about my mom. He was like, "I sent your mom a text last night." When everything happened with my mom, I was here in Chicago. I was in this city.' Later, Marte added: 'I think something needs to be done about the fans. It's getting out of hand. People always yell stuff at me, but never about my mom. People know that my mom passed away in an accident. But anyways, we're praying for him and his family, too. May God protect them and help him heal his heart. 'They're always yelling things at me, but I don't mind. But when it comes to my mom that's where the line gets crossed.' Luvollo was seen consoling Marte during a pitching change in Arizona's 4-1 loss. He pointed at the fan and appeared to shout: 'His mom died, you dumb f***. Dumb f***' 'It was a terrible moment,' Luvollo said afterwards. 'Fans are nasty, and fans go too far. I love my players, and I'm going to protect them.' Luvollo continued: 'I looked right at [Marte] when I heard...I looked right at him and he looked at the person, as well. 'He put his head down and I could tell it had an immediate impact on him, for sure... I just reacted as a dad would when I went out to change pitchers. I could see he was sobbing. It hurt.' The fan was later ejected. As reported by ESPN they expressed remorse and admitted to the inappropriate comments and will now be denied entry into all MLB stadiums until further notice. '[I told him], "I love you and I'm with you and we're all together and you're not alone. No matter what happens, no matter what was said or what you heard, that guy is an idiot. It shouldn't have an impact on you,"' said Lovullo, who has managed Marte since their first year together in Arizona in 2017. It was later that year that Marte's mother died in a car accident in their native Dominican Republic. 'I've known Ketel for nine years, and he's had some unbelievably great moments and some hardships, as well,' the Arizona manager continued. 'Some really, really tough moments in his life, and I know those. At the end of the day, we're human beings and we have emotions. I saw him hurting, and I wanted to protect him.' A versatile player and fan favorite in the Phoenix area, Marte comes from a baseball family and is actually married to Toronto Blue Jays slugger Vladimir Guerrero Jr.'s cousin.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
How I fell for a Tinder swindler after starting online dating in my 60s - by FIONA LAMBERT, the high-powered woman behind some of Britain's best-loved fashion brands
In the past, I would hear stories of women sadly conned out of money by romance fraudsters and wonder how they could possibly be so gullible. That was until my ego, my trust in human nature and my confidence in online dating took a huge knock thanks to one man.