Zohran Mamdani receives car bomb threat in vile voicemail — prompting NYPD hate crime probe
A vile bigot left state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's office an expletive-filled, anti-Muslim voicemail Wednesday threatening to bomb his car — one of several recent death threats the mayoral contender has received, his campaign and police said.
The NYPD's hate crimes unit is investigating the threats against Mamdani, a Muslim US citizen who was born in Uganda, cops said.
The same unidentified man left two voicemails — both of which were obtained by The Post — that mix racist bile with chilling threats of violence, sources said.
Advertisement
The NYPD said a vile bigot left state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's office an expletive-filled, anti-Muslim voicemail Wednesday threatening to bomb his car.
Christopher Sadowski
'You're a terrorist piece of s–t, and you're not welcome in New York or in America, neither is your f–king family so they should get the f–k out,' the sicko said in the message Wednesday.
'Go start your car and see what happens. I'd keep an eye on your house and family. Watch your f–king back every f–king second until you get the f–k out of America. Nobody wants your terrorist ways here. And check your beeper, too, you terrorist f–k,' he caller said, apparently referring to Israel's pager attacks against Hezbollah. 'Beep beep.'
Advertisement
Mamdani's Queens office has received four voicemails going back to March that make anti-Muslim threats, police said.
A staffer reported the threats after receiving the disturbing Wednesday voicemail, which appears to be made by the same caller who left a similarly alarming message on June 11, sources said.
'While Zohran does not own a car, the violent and specific language of what appears to be a repeat caller is alarming, and we are taking every precaution,' said a spokesman for Mamdani's campaign.
Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here!
Advertisement
'While this is a sad reality, it is not surprising after millions of dollars have been spent on dehumanizing, Islamophobic rhetoric designed to stoke division and hate. Violence and racism should have no place in our politics.'
The hate crime investigation comes as Mamdani, who is running neck-and-neck with former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary, faced an uproar over his refusal to denounce the 'globalize the intifada' rallying cry — which many consider an incitement to violence against Jews.
Mamdani has repeatedly said he rejects violence and antisemitism. He emotionally spoke Wednesday with tears in his eyes about the Islamophobic death threats he and his family have received, but didn't specify details.
The unidentified individual left two voicemails — both of which were obtained by The Post that contained violent and racial threats to Mamdani.
Derek French/SOPA Images/Shutterstock
Advertisement
The hateful caller, in the June 11 message, told Mamdani to go back to Uganda before someone shoots him in the head and 'gets rid' of his family.
'You are not compatible with our Western values,' the racist caller said. 'So stop spewing your antisemitic rhetoric and get the fuck out of America.'
The calls were made from an untraceable number, sources said.
'There are no arrests and the investigation remains ongoing by the Hate Crime Task Force,' police said.
Additional reporting by Joe Marino
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump can retain control of California National Guard for now, appeals court rules
Trump can retain control of California National Guard for now, appeals court rules Show Caption Hide Caption LA mayor says Trump is 'usurping' Gavin Newsom's authority Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is asking the Trump admin to stop immigration raids in order to curb responses from protesters. A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump retain control over California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles. A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 19 extended a pause it placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully. Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Breyer ruled that Trump violated the U.S. law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge's move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization. At a court hearing earlier this week on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in the second most-populous U.S. city. The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a "rebellion." The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. (Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York and Kanishka Singh in Washington, Editing by Will Dunham and Alexia Garamfalvi)
Boston Globe
40 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
In its decision, the court concluded that 'it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority' in federalizing control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Advertisement The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Advertisement Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.' He's not alone. The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language? Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people? Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that. And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely. Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender. Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker. Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979? Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse? It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.' Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own? If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime. The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon. Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless. The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business. Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing. They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills. 'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.' 'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.' Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right. The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later. It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s. Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome. For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic. Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well. None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world. People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria. Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq. Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime. Many would not. The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses. There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity. If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West. It may go south. It may not. I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you. Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
