Can a Communist Become President?

Can a Communist Become President?

September 25, 2025

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: David New

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 9/25/25. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today, and it’s also our bimonthly focus on the Constitution and US history. Constitutional attorney David New. He’s also an author and historian and public speaker is with me again as he always is on this program. And we’re going to touch today on several currently unfolding events which touch directly, I’m going to say indirectly, but all of these really touch directly on the Constitution. And in addition, we’re going to look in depth at a looming challenge to the very essence in the integrity of our constitution and our constitutional republic. One being watched with a very great interest as it unfolds where in our nation’s largest city. You see the mayor’s race in New York City has captured the attention of the nation and indeed the world. For many reasons, the public’s watching this race or should be with avid interest as it be should because there is a man by the name of Zoran Mamdani.

A democratic socialist is also professing Muslim, identifying himself as a Twelver Shia Muslim, the largest branch of Shia Islam, now endorsed by New York, governor of New York, Kathy Hoel and former Vice President Kamala Harris. There are also discussions that are underway between ma’am Danny and Senator Chuck Schumer and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries for their endorsement as well. Now this man is on track to win the mayoral position. In simple terms, he’s already won the primary. In simple terms, we’ve now entered, I’m going to say unchartered territory with a Democratic socialist and an Islamist in the lead. Today’s primary conversation is going to center on the hurdles presented by the Constitution to a Democratic socialist if he would desire someday to become president of the United States, but in reality, it also impacts his ability to become mayor. So is there a difference? Why answer some of these questions? Is there a difference between a Democratic socialist and a communist? What does it mean if one of the two major political parties goes socialist? How will this affect the constitution? We’re going to discuss this today with our recurring guests. I said constitutional attorney, David New. The tide we’ve chosen to frame today’s conversation is simply this, can a communist become president? And with that, David, thanks for being back on the program today. It’s a very relevant question before us.

David New:

Well, blessings to everybody. It’s so nice to be with you again,

Sam Rohrer:

David. Again, we focus on this program here on constitutional issues. That’s your area and it’s so important because as long as we live in America, we’re living under the, at least the theoretical limitations and the benefits of our constitution. But I’m going to say, as we’ve talked about many times in reality there are seemingly routine undermining or circumvention or at least are challenging to our constitution. 10th Amendment for an example, reserves, powers not given expressly to the federal government, to the states, but yet there’s been a way around it. Federal government just gives money to the states and the states take the money and they give up their rates. So it’s exchanged. There’s a way around it nationally declared presidential emergencies like what we saw under COVID. In reality, suspend the constitution. The president today, not today, but the president right now has already declared a couple of additional national emergencies, some around the border and all that, and it gives greater power to the executive branch under the president than what otherwise would exist.

It’s a creative way to go around the constitution and there’s a lot more as well. Now that being the case, David, the last time you were with me, you commented on the Trump administration’s willingness and threats to send us troops into states to restore law and order. This past week the president took credit for pressuring the FCC Federal Communications Commission to threaten media licenses to media outlets where people on their stations criticized too much and some of that came out of the murder of Charlie Kirk. Jimmy Kimmel’s firing was one of them. Then there’s a whole lot more beyond that. But that’s the question here that brings up the matter of free speech. David, do you have any thoughts about what is happening in this area? Because a lot of people are having comments. What are your thoughts?

David New:

I don’t care to comment at all about Jimmy Kimmel. I don’t particularly care for this person, so it doesn’t upset me at all to see him off the air. But there was one thing that President Trump said that was very disturbing. It’s when he said that 97% of the press don’t like him or say bad things about him all the time, which is probably true. But then he went on to say about canceling their licenses with the FCC. That is a very, very bad idea. It’s about as it just doesn’t get much worse because it violates the First Amendment completely and totally this country has freedom of speech and so I’m hoping that the president will back off completely from this direction. Sometimes the president says a lot of things that he doesn’t mean, and it’s almost an art form to know when to take him serious and when not to take him serious. Maybe he really didn’t mean what he was saying, but it’s bad and we’re in the business of letting the public or the public having the right to criticize the government and he’s the head of the government.

Sam Rohrer:

Yeah, you’re right David, but I’m reading something here as well because coming out of this, it was somewhat tied into it. There was a press conference where Pam Bondi, the attorney general was a part of it and then there was comment about hate speech and controlling it and that’s when the president weighed in on that aspect as well. Now here’s exactly a quote from Pam Bondi on one podcast that she was on. She said, there’s free speech and then there’s hate speech and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society, we will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech. She later clarified that and she said, hate speech that crosses the line in the threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. And then the president came back and he commented on it and he said he was talking to ABC’s Jonathan Carl, and he said to him, we’ll probably go after people like you, Jonathan Carl, because you treat me so unfairly.

It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Alright Dave, we don’t have much time, but I think I’m going to want to ask you when you come back as we’re out of time, just to briefly comment on that aspect we call hate speech and does it raise an exception to our first amendment rate of free speech? I just want to ask you that since we brought this topic up and then we’ll go into the theme for today. Can a communist become precedent? Well, if you’re just joining us today, this is a constitution focused day and we’re going to be talking about the background of the individual who’s actually running for mayor in New York City and our theme is a can a communist become president? And we’ll explain that as we go through the program, but David, let me go back to you because this brought that up on the other side. You said you have concerns about anything, anybody from the federal government putting pressure on the FCC to pull licenses and to control or limit negative speech or whatever. And then I brought up that aspect of the attorney general and her comments and the president himself about hate speech and that that is not protected under the First Amendment. Don’t have time to go really into depth on that, but is there a definition for hate speech? Who determines that? And does that invalidate or should that invalidate the protections under our first amendment?

David New:

If you want to have a free society, people must be allowed to love whoever they want. Of course when I say that, I don’t mean Bobby and Chucky, that’s immoral, but people have a right to love who they want. They also have a right to hate whoever they want. Now your right to hate me ends at the tip of your nose hate speech and laws that punish people who act out of hate and give them extra punishment are a bad idea because what they are doing is they are attacking ideas and you don’t want the government to attack ideas even if it’s a very bad idea. So hate speech laws and laws that says if we find that you did this out of malice and hatred for this other person, we’re going to throw additional punishments towards you. What you are basically doing is you are politicizing the criminal justice system and that’s a mistake.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay David?

David New:

So I’m against the hate speech laws of any kind.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay? And really on both sides there are grave concerns over that because even now there are those putting out there that artificial intelligence can actually monitor the digital communications and emails and all of that of people and actually determine ahead of time whether or not they are going to be a danger. That’s called preemptive. Barack Obama was talking about that it was pushed down, Joe Biden talked about it. Now it’s kind of coming back up again now, but it goes to the heart of that aspect of being free to talk and to think, but not to act out. Anyways, we’re going to let that right there, ladies and gentlemen, for that purpose. But again, the constitution and constitutional protections are being challenged on every hand, even in this administration. It’s just, anyway, I’m going to leave it there. Alright David, let’s go back into this now because about can a communist become president?

We’ve set it up in the last segment, but I want to just read this and then ask you a question. According to religion news, Zoran ma Danny is also, in addition to being a Democrat socialist, is a professing and practicing what he calls a Twelver Shia Muslim. That’s a group of the biggest category of Islamic belief, but as you said, he’s also a member of the Democratic socialist of America. So David here, according to your research, let’s get into this, what is a democratic socialist? Are democratic socialists the same as communist? And if not, how do they differ?

David New:

Yes, let’s go through and define what a communist is. Let us define a socialist. And then finally we’ll define a democratic socialist, A communist, and I’m working from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary believes to number one, eliminate private property. Number two, goods are owned and common and available to all on the basis of need. Number three, it’s a single totalitarian party that controls the means of production. And number four, the final stage of communism is that the state withers away. Now I learned back in the eighties when I graduated from Humboldt State University in Arcata, California, something about communism in the library that I had read some articles and I found this fascinating. Look what this last stage, the final stage of communism is that the state withers away. This is a ridiculous thing to say. How could you have the state just disappearing? What are you left with? Let me interpret what that means for the state to wither away under communist ideology. That statement is the equivalent of Revelation chapters 21 and 22 in the New Testament, it’s the eternal state. Communism is Christianity. Let me repeat that. Communism is Christianity without God.

Sam Rohrer:

There you go.

David New:

The communist is trying to bring everything that a human being would get from Christianity, but without God any effect. Communism is secular Christianity. The Bible teaches that man is a spiritual person. He has a body soul of the spirit and his number one problem is sin Communist. The equivalent in communism in secular Christianity is that the problem of man is not sin. The problem of man is private property. And so when you hear brothers, Bernie preach against private, all these wealthy people who own so much of the wealth of the United States, he’s basically giving evangelical Christian merit a message that is secular. A lot of people don’t realize that Karl Marx was an occultist and he hated Christianity and he modeled his communist model based upon Christianity, but without God. So the role of sin and Christianity, the equivalent is private property in communism because man is a materialistic being. So this final stage of communism where the state with his away is heaven on earth without God, that’s what that means. That’s why communism has such power because it’s a spiritual appeal. But from the dark side,

Sam Rohrer:

Go ahead David. I have more to say. That’s really what you said there is really very, very good because what you’re describing is in fact there’s an element of that that is appealing. Having all in common sharing equally among all sounds wonderful. It really does. That’s part of it. But as you say, it’s without God. Alright, so let’s go to this. I mean, let me ask you another part of it because in this mix, so anyways, I don’t know if you answered it. So a democratic socialist, I said, are democratic socialists the same as communists? So what are you saying? Are they the same?

David New:

Let’s go to socialism and define that socialism is a collective or a government ownership of the means of production. There is also no private property. Now here’s the key between socialism and communism. Socialism is a stage of society in transition between capitalism and communism. Let me say it again, socialism. When somebody says they’re a socialist, what they’re saying is they believe that society should progress from capitalism into communism. It’s a transition phase. It’s not the final outcome. So socialists really are in that sense, communists as well, except that they are in the transition. They can’t go to it immediately. It’s going from one to the other, capitalism to communism. Alright? Now the definition of Democrat socialists, a Democrat socialist like our gentleman here from New York City and brother Bernie from the People’s Republic of Vermont. A democratic socialism is a person who advocates a socialist economy within a democratic political system.

Unlike authoritarianism or communist models, a democratic socialists are committed to the democratic processes and reject one party states. In other words, a democratic socialist wants the same thing as a socialist. He wants the same thing as a communist. The key difference is he will not and does not support violence to get there Any fact, democratic socialists are going to vote in socialism and vote in the eternal state where the state withers away. That’s the difference between them. They basically are the same, but there is a key difference. Democrat socialists do not want to use violence to achieve that end.

Sam Rohrer:

And David, that I think what you’re saying is probably in theory and definition, but I wonder if it’s really possible to find someone out there and say, well, are you really a democratic socialist or are you actually a communist? You were saying you don’t want to use armed efforts in order to accomplish your will, but you actually would. Anyways, you get my pointer, David. So anyways, ladies and gentlemen, all of these we’re talking about democratic socialists, a socialist, a communist, and we didn’t even throw into there that this idea, this guy’s a Shari’a Muslim who is committed to the destruction of all who do not bow down and worship Muhammad. You’ve got a really powerful, potentially dangerous combination. Now we come back, we’re going to talk about what this candidate’s goals are for welcome back here to the program. And David, let’s move on from this because when you began in the last segment to give the definition of democratic socialist and socialist, there was the definition of what they theoretically believe, what they stated believe.

And then you though went right directly to some of the policies that they subscribed to and you went right immediately to private property, which I want you to build that out a little bit. But as we say ladies and gentlemen, routinely on this program, what one believes determines what one does. Now tomorrow in this program, the Lord be willing, Dr. George Barna is going to be with Dr. Isaac Crockett and myself on our latest research and it goes to the heart of what Americans think about sin. I think you’re going to find that very, very applicable as it intertwines even somewhere we’re talking about today. But that point of one, what one believes determines what one does is very important because when considering political actions, for instance, what one believes determines the law and the regulations they would support and the policies that they will pursue.

Now our founders clearly understood this reality as well, which is why they said that if God were to raise up a representative republic here in America, which obviously we know God did, they said that in order for that to happen and to be sustained, the people as citizens and the people if elected to office would have to voluntarily limit their actions according to what the 10 Commandments of God, God’s moral law. That would have to be the common limiters of what they believed and then their actions of what they did. Now, if either one of those citizens or those in office refused to do that, they said the republic would be lost and it would come under the rule of tyrants. And I wonder if that’s not what we’re witnessing today. Alright, now David, keeping our focus on the stated policies now of Zoran. Ma’am Danny, this candidate for mayor of New York City and who is likely at this juncture going to win. He’s getting the endorsement of the governor of the state and the others. Can you identify some of the things he has already stated that he will do that impacts and the impacts that they would have in New York City?

David New:

Yes, I went to his webpage and took down what he says he wants to do as mayor of New York City. Number one, government owned grocery stores. Here’s what his campaign page says. Quoting as Mayor Zoran will create a network of city owned grocery stores focused on keeping prices low, not making a profit without having to pay rent or property taxes. They will reduce overhead and pass on savings to shoppers. That’s from his webpage. So he wants to have free grocery stores or not free grocery stores, but subsidized grocery stores for the citizens of New York. Here’s this next one, free bus fares, reading from his webpage, his campaign webpage. As mayor, he’ll permanently eliminate the fair on every city bus and make them faster by rapidly building priority lanes. So he wants to make a ride on the bus, totally free for everybody and he wants to construct some type of a city so that they can get from point A to point B very quickly.

Apparently New York City has horrible service with their buses. They take a long time to do anything from going from point A to point B, and that’s why he wants to make a priority lane just for them. Number three, no cost childcare from the webpage. Zoran will implement free childcare for every New Yorker age, six weeks to five years, ensuring high quality programming for all families. End of quote. So you’re going to get free childcare. Young people and young parents complained about how it’s expensive, it’s almost not worth it to go to work. Some of these childcare charges are so high. Now here’s how Zoran plans to pay for all this from the webpage. Zoran’s revenue plan will raise the corporate tax rate to match New Jersey’s 11.5%, bringing in $5 billion, and he will tax the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers, those earning above $1 million annually, a flat 2% tax. So he’s going to raise the taxes on the rich. This is part of the evangelical view that the problem of the human race is not sin. It is wealth inequality, it is capitalism, it is private property. Private property is the sin. Get rid of private property, you get rid of sin and you bring in a future state of heaven on earth because everybody will have everything they need.

Sam Rohrer:

And you know David, you just read right off his website. Yes, you and I and our listeners know that, wow, that sounds wonderful. We also have enough sense to know that, but really free. Nothing’s really free and all of those things that we would question and say, wait a minute. But the problem of it is there are an awful lot of people out there who don’t have that worldview that we have that would question that. And to them this sounds like as you just put it that way, heaven on earth, why not this state of bliss? We can have it, but that is what communism, I’m going to go there. The devil. That’s the thing that he has put before people from the beginning of time. And this, we’re just now seeing it again here. But the problem is there’s a lot of people, probably enough since they voted, this guy voted. I mean not voted men but voted for him in the primary. The problem of it is there may be enough people who would actually believe this whole thing you just laid out sounds good, doesn’t it?

David New:

There are several problems that many people have who support this individual. They forgot there’s something called, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Number two, our friends who support him and people like him have not paid attention to the lessons of history. Wherever this stuff where I’m going to give you everything that you could possibly need, wherever that ideology has gone, it has always ended up an authoritarian. Totalitarian states, the Soviet Union, red China. Red China is the largest jail in the world. Everybody’s in prison in that country. They got plenty of money, but it’s a state that owns all that capitalism. So young people today, the economy so far, I’m sad to say is not working for them. And one of the reasons it doesn’t work for them is that Americans are taxed too much. In some areas when you count state, federal, and local taxes, in some states people are paying more than 50% of their income in taxes, in effect, they are government employees, whether you know it or not. Here’s the thing, if you could take away that 50%, take away maybe 25% and give it back to the owner, the worker, then you could afford health insurance, then you could afford to buy a home, then you could afford to put your kids through college and so forth and so forth. Americans are taxed so much they can’t move forward.

Sam Rohrer:

But David, the fact that we are taxed so much and the fact that the predicament as you’re laying out is in fact there, well frankly was also predictable and we don’t have time ready to get into it. But so many of the things that is causing the taxes to be layered down on people from the federal to the local, have they not been? In fact, because government has done things the constitution really did not permit them to do. And here now we have a burden which was never envisioned by our founders.

David New:

You hit it right on the head. Government is not the solution as certain president said, government is not the solution, government is the problem. And President Reagan had it hit right on the head. There is a master plan that Democrat socialists are following and we’re going to talk about that right now. I don’t know how much time we’ve got.

Sam Rohrer:

Well, we’re right at the break. We’re just going to hold it right there ladies, because it’s perfect timing. So ladies and gentlemen, alright, so that brings it back. Are we where we are accidentally or are we at a point because in fact there was a plan, an intentional plan that’s been in effect that is being executed through majority votes in Congress or from certain judges on the bench or wherever that have brought us to a point, but predictably brought us to a point. Alright, we’ll talk about that when we come back here in just a moment. Well, as we go into our final segment, I hope that you’ve enjoyed the discussion we’ve had today. Again, this theme has been can a communist become President? We’re talking about specifically the mayoral candidate having now won the primary in New York City is on track to actually win the fall election and become mayor, a democratic socialist and a professing Islamic Shia worshiper, a very devoted Muslim.

And when you have a devoted Muslim committed to Shia, they are all about terror. There’s a whole lot of things wrapped up in that. So we decided to take this approach today and just talk about this and we’re going to answer that question before we’re done here in just a few moments with literally can a communist become president. But David, I want to go and ask you this other part that we were just talking about in the last segment and that is this, is there reason to believe, do you believe that democratic socialists or slash communists, as you’ve laid them out, have an intentional plan or have had an intentional plan to bring socialism and ultimately communism into the framework here in America? Yes or no? And if so, what was that plan? If you can identify it?

David New:

I do believe they do have a plan because if this gentleman wins New York, we’re going to see more of these Democrat socialists popping up in Chicago. They’re going to pop up in San Francisco and La, Philadelphia, Denver, they’re going to pop up all over the place and then at some point they’re going to start running for governor. I believe their plan is to slowly with their program, government programs and increased taxes, their plan is to slowly crowd out the private economy effectively, what they want to do slowly is to get rid of private property by taxing the American to death, while at the same time providing everything you might need to live, including a subsidized grocery store. So what they’re going to do is they’re going to do it slowly. Because remember, the difference between a Democrat socialist and a communist is they do not believe in violence to bring it about.

So we’re going to vote this in. Our taxes are going to keep getting higher, they’re going to give, and we’re going to say we need more government subsidies for different things, maybe even free rent. And as we ask for more from these people, from these democratic socialists, they’re going to turn around and tax us more. So it becomes a vicious cycle. Now question, can a Democrat socialists become president of the United States? There are two key words in the US Constitution, two key concepts that says, no he cannot. The words are private property. Those are the reasons why they cannot truly become president because they are taking an oath to the Constitution with this guy. If he wins, he will not only take an oath to the city of New York, but he will take an oath to the state of New York and he will take an oath to the US Constitution.

And there’s one thing that’s definitely true about the US Constitution, it is with the concept of private property. Write in Article one, section eight, taxes on private property. The taxing power is the power to tax private property. Article one, section 10 of the Constitution, imports and exports. Congress has the control to control those aspects of private property. Again, article one, section 10 talks about where the states cannot impair contracts. When you think of contracts, think of private property. When I make a contract for you to pay my house, paint my house red, we are engaging in an exchange of private property. Your paint, your labor for my property of my house, look at the Third Amendment to the Bill of Rights. You own your home. And before the government can put soldiers in your home, they have to do it with your consent. Even the word private property, literal private property is in the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. So this guy has to take an oath and that oath says, I will support and defend the Constitution. How can he, when his whole political philosophy is dedicated to ending private property, to ending freedom of ownership of your car, your house, all your furniture, everything, you have your own job, maybe you work for yourself, that’s your property as well. So I don’t think it works well. They have to basically lie to do it.

Sam Rohrer:

And David, there is ladies and gentlemen the answer, the Constitution, if it were to prevail in what it says, and those who take the oath tell the truth and an are a person of integrity, they will not be able to take the oath without supporting and opposing all of that, which opposes that which is in the Constitution. But if you don’t care about God and God’s moral law, then why not lie? Who cares? So can a communist become present? The answer is yeah, there’ll be plenty of people who will vote for him. He can and that sense, he actually can liars, they’re abound, they’re all over the place. So yes they can. But if the Constitution were to prevail, if the Bible were to be respected and the 10 Commandments, as I mentioned the founder said earlier, were to be actually voluntarily imposed. So that one’s choices and actions and votes and therefore policies and therefore all of that would be involved.

If that would be restrained by God’s moral law, then you wouldn’t have to worry about somebody lying to take an oath and you wouldn’t have to be worrying about the things that are taking place now because a person would do what God says in the Bible of which private property is a made part and all of these things we talked about. So therefore, yes, no, the Constitution does not permit, nor does it allow, but will it prevail? It only prevails if you have people of integrity. So that brings us back to where we often start with. It depends on one’s view of God. What you believe determines what you will do. If enough people believe in what God says, and if Constitution says they would never elect such a soul, and if that person who was thinking about running for office would actually be concerned about what God says and being a person of integrity, he would never run for office with the beliefs that this guy does have.

There we go. So that’s how we’re going to leave it. David, so much thanks for being here on what an issue to proceed upon and we could go much further, but we’re about the end of the program now. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being a part of us. It is a blessing to have you a apart. Thank you for all who write. Thank you for those who pray, thank you to those who give financially. It is very critical for all of those things we do need to hear from you. We need even more than that, your prayers most importantly. But we also need your financial support. Another thing that you can do is share this program with someone else. Tell them about how they can find the program on our app. Stand in the Gap app or on Stand in the gap radio.com. Let people know if you’re being blessed by this, that will be a very great thing and very easy for you to be able to do. Alright, well thanks for being with us today. We’re at the conclusion of this program. Join us again tomorrow as Dr. George Barna will join us. And we’re going to talk on that research I talked about that goes to the heart of what Americans think about sin and it is shocking. We’ll be back tomorrow.