Questions: Society & Politics

Mamdani says he is reviewing whether New York City authorities could arrest Netanyahu if the Israeli prime minister travels to New York in September to attend the United Nations General Assembly, based on the International Criminal Court’s warrant. But the United States is not a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute, and a city mayor cannot independently conduct foreign policy or override federal law, diplomatic protections, and America’s obligations as host of the United Nations. An attempted arrest could trigger an immediate constitutional and diplomatic crisis, damage relations with Israel, disrupt the U. N. General Assembly, provoke litigation and federal intervention, and create dangerous uncertainty for visiting foreign leaders. Whatever one thinks of Netanyahu, a mayor should not attempt to turn New York City into an independent actor in international law. That is why I believe President Trump should intervene if Mamdani seriously tries to carry this out.

“New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announces that he is prepared to have Benjamin Netanyahu arrested and is reviewing all of the options available to him. The arrest could take place in September when world leaders arrive in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly. "I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu belongs in The Hague.” -

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announces that he is prepared to have Benjamin Netanyahu arrested and is reviewing all of the options available to him.

The arrest could take place in September when world leaders arrive in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly.… pic.twitter.com/1X0lJxVw6E

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) July 18, 2026

"He's a war criminal who has been charged by the International Criminal Court."

AOC urges Michigan crowd to ditch mainstream Democrats for socialists: “When more people than ever are living so close to the bone…is the answer to our problems to turn to the same playbook over and over again?” Crowd: Nooooo! -

AOC urges Michigan crowd to ditch mainstream Democrats for socialists: “When more people than ever are living so close to the bone…is the answer to our problems to turn to the same playbook over and over again?”

Crowd: Nooooo! pic.twitter.com/dOyeGs0Cwo

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 18, 2026

Mainstream Democrats may support a larger safety net and stronger regulation than Republicans, but democratic socialism represents a much broader ideological shift.

The DSA does not merely advocate programs such as Social Security or Medicare. It says key economic sectors should be collectively owned, supports public ownership of major transportation and energy infrastructure, and seeks major structural changes to the constitutional system, including abolishing the Senate. The organization also describes itself as standing against the capitalist class and working toward an alternative to the Democratic Party.

Democrats who abandon their mainstream wing for the DSA would not simply be choosing a more generous version of liberalism. They would be empowering a socialist movement that rejects important parts of the market economy and the constitutional framework in which the Democratic Party has traditionally operated.

People frustrated with Democratic leadership can demand reforms without embracing an organization whose agenda goes far beyond ordinary center-left policy. Replacing mainstream Democrats with democratic socialists would likely deepen political polarization, alienate moderate and independent voters, and make the party less competitive in battleground states such as Michigan. Recent reporting shows that this ideological conflict is already dividing Democrats nationally and in Michigan.

I think you’re super rich when you are worth 10million US dollars or more. When you hit that mark. That for me is the threshold

I believe the Founding Fathers shown here would overwhelmingly reject the DSA’s proposals to replace major parts of the constitutional system they created.

George Washington would likely view abolishing or replacing core institutions as a threat to the national unity and constitutional order he spent his later life building and defending.

Benjamin Franklin supported reform and adaptation, but he also urged compromise and accepted the Constitution as the best system the Convention could produce. I believe he would favor lawful amendments over dismantling the structure entirely.

John Adams feared concentrated power, factionalism, and unchecked majorities. He would likely strongly oppose eliminating constitutional checks such as an independent judiciary and a bicameral legislature.

Alexander Hamilton defended a strong federal government, an energetic executive, the Senate, and an independent judiciary. He would probably be among the DSA agenda’s fiercest opponents.

James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, designed checks and balances specifically because no faction or temporary majority should control the entire government. He would likely see the DSA’s proposals as destroying those safeguards.

Thomas Jefferson was more suspicious of centralized power and more open to periodic reform, but he championed natural rights and limited government. I do not believe he would accept replacing the Founders’ system with centralized socialist control.

Overall, they might support constitutional amendments and reforms through the process they created, but I believe they would resist an agenda aimed at abolishing major institutions and replacing their constitutional republic with an entirely different political order.

Radical DSA manifesto calls to abolish presidency, US Senate and Electoral College - https://nypost.com/2026/07/16/us-news/radical-dsa-manifesto-calls-to-abolish-presidency-us-senate-and-electoral-college/

Islamic activist Linda Sarsour, who is a member of the communist DSA, used Independence Day to bolster fellow fascists’ spirits. She wanted them to know they would win, and she planned to replace the Declaration of Independence with a document reflecting her values. - https://www.independentsentinel.com/radical-islamist-wants-to-replace-the-declaration-of-independence/

The Declaration of Independence is not merely an old document to be discarded whenever activists decide America needs new “values.” It states the foundational principles of the United States: that all people possess inherent rights, that those rights do not come from government, and that legitimate government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.

Calling for a new document to replace or supersede the Declaration is therefore an attack on the philosophical foundation of the country. It is an attempt to substitute the Founders’ principles of natural rights, limited government, and individual liberty with a new ideological vision defined by today’s political movement.

The Declaration acknowledged that America had often failed to live up to its principles. The proper response is to apply those principles more faithfully—not erase and replace them. A movement that wants to rewrite America’s founding creed is not simply proposing another economic reform. It is openly seeking to redefine what the United States is and what it stands for.