Below is an expanded version of my column in the New York Post on Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s press conference this week on his planned state-run grocery stores. The plan is a multimillion-dollar version of the $5 gold watch grift. The chumps are New York taxpayers who believe that Mamdani can sell them produce at a discount of 30 percent below the market rate and not lose money. Indeed, this could end up the most expensive produce in the Big Apple.
Here is the column:
Last week, Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s short stint as a faux president ended with an embarrassing acknowledgment that he could not, as promised during his campaign, arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
So, this week, Mamdani the Grocer made a reappearance, with details on the five city-run grocery stores that he will open.
But rather than deliver discount groceries, Mamdani is selling New Yorkers a bill of goods that will cost them millions.
What Mamdani described was a discount food bank dressed up as a grocery. Standing in front of blackboards saying “REDUCED 30%,” Mamdani sounded like a bodega hawker: “Once a month, our five city-run grocery stores will set prices for this core set of goods at 30% below typical retail prices. No exceptions, no gimmicks”
Here’s the most delicious part: the presser was a gimmick from beginning to end.
The mayor promised that “The savings will last for the entire month. That means no weekly fluctuations or sticker shock at the checkout line — not for our seniors living on fixed incomes, nor for the parents who rely on a regular supply of apple slices to keep toddler tantrums at bay.”
The Mamdani markets are new variations of an old New York grift: selling gold watches for $5. The dupes want to believe that somehow this street vendor, surreptitiously displaying watches inside his overcoat, actually found a way to sell “solid gold watches” for just a few bucks.
The math simply does not add up for Mamdani. Most groceries have an average profit margin between 1% and 3%, one of the smallest margins of any industry.
To promise a 30% discount below market rate that cannot be adjusted due to monthly market fluctuations is economically absurd.
It is not a description of a competitive grocery but a public charity. It is a quasi-food bank where taxpayers subsidize the cost.
As usual, Mamdani turns this into a class war, demonizing business owners. He suggests that real grocery stores are simply price gougers hoarding windfall profits from consumers. He ignores that they must pay rent, upkeep and fees — all things the city-run stores may simply write off.
He proclaimed, “May the most affordable grocery store win.”
Of course, the test is not which grocery is the most affordable, but which is the most sustainable. If you are willing to take a bath on sales, you can always offer the most affordable prices for as long as your excess cash holds out.
In Mamdani’s case, he has the credit of New York City to draw on to compete against Mom-and-Pop bodegas.
The subsidy, however, is only part of the costs. The average bodega owner must cover the fixed costs of renting a space, building the store, and complying with inspectors. Those are the fixed costs that must be internalized into the cost of produce to break even.
Real stores are competing in one of the tightest markets in the world and are grappling with a 33% nationwide increase in costs since 2019. Mamdani wants to use the stores to prove that socialism works as part of his effort to introduce New York to the “warmth of socialism.” We may never know the real costs of the Mamdani markets.
According to the New York Post, the city plans to open an East Harlem location as its first store, at a reported cost of $30 million.
However, that is not the full cost. The Post also reported that the city had already appropriated $25 million to improve the first site. The city will lose millions that could have been acquired through a sale of the land or through rents to private companies. Those costs are left on other ledgers and not likely counted in the true costs of the Mamdani markets.
The first store will not even open until 2027 despite the props behind Mamdani. The second Manhattan store will not open until 2029. That is three years and tens of millions of dollars for just the first two stores.
That is how Mamdani is promising New Yorkers savings of “$90 a month, or roughly $1,000 a year.” He is using the city to subsidize food under the guise of selling at low, but still profitable prices. Ironically, those who can take advantage of the subsidy at the first two stores in Manhattan will be anyone, including the privileged, wealthy New Yorkers whom Mamdani denounces for not paying their fair share. After all, everyone wants below-market-priced slices in the Big Apple.
The first city-run grocery, in East Harlem, will cost $30 million to build — and perhaps more. It will never need to pay this money back nor factor it into its prices. The “warmth of socialism” will cover it; that is, you.
In reality, Mamdani will be selling apples at a far greater cost than any competitor, but those true costs will be buried in the city budget and paid for by the taxpayers.
Indeed, the Mamdani markets are likely to prove the most expensive groceries in the city.
Mamdani, however, has never sweated the math or the means. He knows that the focus will be on the cash register price and not the true cost.
Of course, there is a big difference between the gold watch grift and the Mamdani grift: buying a knockoff watch only costs chumps a few bucks. The Mamdani con will cost New Yorkers millions, and most will thank him for it.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Because people from Jersey City will try to shop at the government owned grocery stores a picture ID will be required at the door.
Probably not, but there’s nothing in the law or the constitution that would prevent it. The fact that the government owns a business doesn’t make it subject to the dormant commerce clause or whatever you were thinking of.
Readers of the blog and commenters may be wondering about the trolls. It has been more than a year since I have posted any research studies on the Dark Triad that typifies internet trolls. Renowned academic and prolific author Dr. Arthur Brooks wrote an excellent piece on the topic. It was published in May by the Free Press, and might explain the psychotic / sociopathic, 24/7 activity of the troll who uses innumerable sock puppet (bogus) accounts.
Excerpt follows:
Inside the Mind of an Internet Troll
thefp.com/p/arthur-brooks-internet-troll-psychology (paywall)
What matters are a few psychological traits. Trolls of any race, age, or gender are disproportionately likely to belong to a pathological subpopulation I wrote about in last week’s column, known as Dark Triads. These are people who are above average in the three toxic personality features: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Even worse, they generally exhibit a fourth trait, sadism, which makes them a Dark Tetrad. This is relevant because although all of these pathologies enable online trolling behavior, taking pleasure from harming others is the most prevalent.
Neuroscience supports this analysis by showing that regions of the brain associated with problematic internet use—such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex—are also especially active among people with psychopathic and antisocial tendencies. Further, both Dark Triads and internet trolls tend to have a weak behavioral inhibition system, making them disregard the risks of conflict, threat, and potential punishment. This dynamic is also common among people in prison.
Social media platforms provide an encouraging environment for online harassment: Engagement-based algorithms prioritize emotionally charged content, typically through conflict, which naturally attracts a lot of spectators, and attention is the currency of the digital realm. By allowing and enabling trolling, the platforms convert human misery into profit.
Even publications not originally designed to be part of the outrage economy are infested with Dark Tetrads. Comment sections on news stories—and even (gasp) on essays about love and happiness—can quickly become a toxic dump of vitriol. As psychologists writing in Frontiers in Psychology showed in 2020, people who hate-post on news stories or opinion articles tend, like social-media trolls, to display traits of psychopathy. Look for this pathology especially among those using anonymous handles and fake usernames.
Arthur Brooks
click the above mirror link to read more
Don’t feed the trolls, unless if you are as sick as they are, then it makes sense for you to engage them
yawn
OT
Just wondering if Fauci could be prosecuted in other countries where the Autopen Pardon doesn’t reach?
Fauci is 85 years old. Image having had a successful career as a medical scientist, and in the twilight of your life, you are as popular as gonorrhea. The enormous amount of stress, anxiety, depression, mental anguish and sympathetic nervous system stimulation that Fauci is presently experiencing (and his wife) are textbook for a vert poor outcome. I would feel sorry for him if not for the damage that he did to medicine, medical research and the United States of America. You reap what you sow, and Fauci made his own bed. That the legacy media are eager to jump into bed with him is truly grotesque.
There’s a special place in hell for them. Fauci is living in it right now.
Only in the Cult of Trump is Dr. Fauci anything other than a distinguished scientist who saved lives despite being persecuted by an incompetent. authoritarian wannabe fat slob liar and his Republican enablers.
What, exactly, did Dr. Fauci do that was wrong and where is the proof? The profanity-laden diatribe by that loser from Ohio was over the issue of wearing masks—which was the recommendation of a consensus of scientists. BTW : many people still wear masks. The loser from Ohio demanded that Dr. Fauci “apologize for the harm he has caused”—WHAT Harm?
Did Dr. Fauci advise people to drink bleach, push for quack cures that have proven to be ineffective, like Hydroxychloroquine or horse dewormer like Ivermectin? Did he lie and say “It’s just one person coming from China “, or say that “you’ll be back in church for Easter “? Did he say it would go away after the weather warmed up? Did he repeatedly claim it was under control? Did he make the stunning claim that the US had more cases because we do more testing, so we should do less testing which would lower the statistics? No. Trump told those lies. Did Dr. Fauci say that the COVID vaccine would alter your DNA? No—that was MAGA media.
EXACTLY WHAT DAMAGE did Dr. Fauci do? I demand proof. The US had more COVID deaths and infections per capita than comparable developed countries and that is because of Trump’s incompetence and lies.
You got it. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint, dill, and cumin. But you have disregarded the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.…
Estovir–
Very perceptive and I think correct. From being almost a god, “I am Science’ to devolving into a poisonous toad has to be a brutal blow to his oversized ego.
If memory serves, he did not do well with AIDS either.
Then there were the tortured beagles.
He seems a disgusting creature.
Prosecuted for what? He is not subject to their jurisdiction. Anything he did while in the USA is not their business.
Millhouse– “Anything he did in the USA is not their business.”
The lab leak was in China. By Fauci’s own prior statements he thought GOF was worth the risk. The risk was that millions would die and societies would be upended around the globe. Do you think that if your reckless experiment got loose and killed millions in another country that the other country won’t have a criminal beef with you?.
Zorro Madman’s government grocery stores were not prohibited by the Constitution because the Framers never contemplated such an unprecedented expansion of government into private commerce; the concept was so foreign and inconsistent with the founding principles of limited government and private enterprise that it was not considered a legitimate government function.
It’s probably true that they never thought a city would want to run a store, but if they had thought of it they would have had no objection. They certainly would not have prohibited it. They didn’t prohibit almost anything to the states. States were free to censor newspapers, ban religions, imprison people without due process, take people’s property, pretty much whatever they liked. So they would certainly have been allowed to run stores, if they liked.
Here’s a stumper for Mamdini: What will you do when professional shoplifters descend on your Grocery Store? –Harlem gangs already making plans.
Well then, there’s that!
Just saw coverage of another chapter in the Trump Revenge Series—Dr. Fauci being grilled about COVID. Rand Paul already announced that he won’t stop until Dr. Fauci is behind bars because Trump MUST BE vindicated. Trump can’t be wrong, so he has to blame someone other than himself for the economic collapse and unnecessary deaths and illnesses due to his mismanagement of COVID. And Dr. Fauci MUST be punished for refusing to let Trump dictate public health policy for a novel virus epidemic. Today’s show was all about Trump— not the American people. It was also another diversion away from the escalation of Trump’s war and the damage it did to the stock market.
Biden pardoned Dr. Fauci for anything up to the date he left office, so any testimony Dr. Fauci would give now could be used to try to prosecute him. Since Rand Paul has already stated that the purpose of the hearing is to find a way to prosecute Dr. Fauci, on the sound advice of counsel, he took the Fifth Amendment. He would be foolish to do otherwise. So MAGA spins this as some kind of proof that Dr. Fauci is guilty of—-? Who knows?
It was almost comical to see the rehearsed sound bites MAGA Republican Senators delivered to be replayed on MAGA media. One of them actually asked Dr. Fauci who the eff he thinks he is to withhold information “from the American people”.
More of the MAGA playbook—-pretending that getting revenge for Trump is something wanted by the American people. That isn’t true and they know it— the American people want Trump’s war over with, costs of living to come down, the Trump grifting to stop, the Trump vanity projects to stop and for ICE to stop killing innocent people and locking up peaceable migrants without a warrant or trial.
But the MAGA Senators were really performing for an audience of one. I guess they have to get in their licks before the midterms. After that, they probably won’t have the opportunity.
If they gave a crap about their constituents, they should spend their time and effort on getting Trump’s stupid war solved, bringing down the cost of energy and groceries, stopping ICE abuses and Trump’s grifting and vanity projects instead of trying to relitigate the failures of Trump’s first term.
TL;DNR
Another MAGA diversion–Mamdani is a rising star. He is attractive, popular and getting a lot of attention–so, he must be attacked. Most New Yorkers like him. If you don’t live in New York–why do you care?
Why doesn’t Turley use his platform to discuss something more relevant and in his wheelhouse–Blanche refusing to put in writing that the Trump $1.776 Billion slush fund and “get out of jail free with the IRS” deal is off? Why? I’ll tell you why–because it’s not off the table. Trump never gives up on something he wants–like the tariffs, even after the SCOTUS said they were unconstitutional, he’s trying to do it again. He will never stop lying about his loss in 2020. He’s going after James Comey, and now, Dr. Fauci. He went after the NYT after it posted a truthful story about the Qatari jet not being fit for service and his demand that it be used anyway—to show off at that NATO meeting.
Trump is determined to give $1 million of our taxpayer dollars to each of those losers he sent to trash the Capitol and try to kill Pence and stop Biden’s victory. There was a written settlement agreement containing these terms, plus a deal that Trump and his companies and worthless kids are immune from IRS audits and prosecution. A written contract cannot be unilaterally rescinded by just one party, even though Trump was both the Plaintiff and Defendant. Blanche failed to defend the case on behalf of us taxpayers–the case was filed after the running of the statute of limitations, and when the Judge raised the point that Trump was both the plaintiff and defendant, and therefore, there was no actual conflict, and ordered briefing as to why she should not dismiss the case, Blanche agreed to the written settlement agreement to avoid briefing–BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE JUDGE IS RIGHT. Blanche is supposed to be OUR lawyer–not Trump’s, and most Americans are appalled at Blanche’s conduct.
You really have to be dumb not to see what’s going on here–Trump is raiding the US Treasury to financially reward the insurrectionists (which would incentivize future such conduct) and getting himself, his companies and worthless kids immunity from IRS audits and prosecutions by filing a frivolous lawsuit defended by his former criminal attorney who does what he is told instead of advocating for us taxpayers. When questioned at a confirmation hearing about whether a written settlement agreement can be orally rescinded, Blanche refused to give a straight answer–the parol evidence rule says that the terms of a written agreement cannot be altered orally–only by another written agreement between both parties. Blanche’s oral statement that the deal is off is nothing–it is unenforceable and he knows that. He never said that the immunity part of the “settlement” was off, either. How it is even possible that an attorney who refused to defend the taxpayers by failing to raise the statute of limitations defense and who avoided responding to an order by a judge to brief a key issue settled a lawsuit that was invalid to begin with would even be eligible to be AG is beyond comprehension. Blanche has also been referred to a disciplinary committee over his unethical conduct. Why doesn’t Turley address these issues? Because he isn’t paid to do so–MAGA media is all about defending Trump and attacking Democrats.
But then, we are in MAGAverse–a 34-time convicted felon, adjudicated sex assaulter, misogynist, liar, racist xenophobe is occupying our White House and who made false promises to get elected–no new wars, full release of the Epstein files, immediate precipitous drop in energy and food prices. American oligarchs set up alternative “news media” to defend Trump and attack Democrats and mainstream media. We have a Republican majority Congress that does whatever the occupant of the White House demands–instead of behaving like the check and balance they are supposed to be by looking out for their constituents and protecting our interests–only Congress can declare war and only Congress decides how our money is used–well, that used to be the rule until Trump. So he starts a war without any justification and based on a lie that is costing us $1 billion a day, injuries to hundreds of our military and the deaths of at least 17 of them. He has no idea how to get out of the trouble he started that is spreading over the Middle East, and our EU and NATO allies won’t help–they don’t agree with this war, and anyway, Trump has insulted and alienated them. The NATO charter doesn’t apply because the US STARTED this war. Republicans ignore opinion polls–Americans are fed up with Trump and his war, his botched handling of the economy and his immigration practices. Since they are poised to lose in November, they are trying to change the ground rules–gerrymandering, added districts in red states, trying to ban mail voting, without any evidence that it is fraudulent, and trying to require proof of citizenship in order to vote, all without proof that any substantial number of non-citizens voted. It’s pathetic. Democracy dies when good people don’t speak up. Show up–protest–and vote this trash out of office!
“Mamdani is a rising star”, anon says. He is because corrupt news media on the right and left decided to make him such as the cutesy did with the “squad” fame. It gives media something to say as good guy, bad guy.
He’s a nothing in and of himself. He’s a troublemaker without principles and conscience.
The Founders would not have admitted him to become a citizen per their Naturalization Act of 1802.
What if Americans actually obeyed the law?
Oops! There would be no welfare and affirmative action for women!
Women and minorities would have to make their own success.
Imagine that!
Fortunately the Naturalization Act of 1870 extended US citizenship eligibility to people with African descent. Zohran became a US citizen through naturalization in 2018.
The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the capability and acumen sufficient for the task.
What right thinking abductee does not want to go home as his prevailing desire?
Mamdani is not of African descent. Nor is he descended from slaves of any kind. His parents came here of their own accord, because they like it here.
Turley is correctly pointing out that Mamdani’s claims are impossible.
He is also pointing out the fundimental flaw of socialism – socialism has no means to actually arrive at the price of anything.
While Turley’s critique was accurate and expansive – there are so many more problems that Turley did not even touch on.
Regardless, I prefer not to waste alot of effort on something that will fail inevitably on its own.
JS, the state of NY is seizing “food” distribution because it’s failing to feed the poor. Government can do that if the “industry” fails at its task. I’d say they’ll succeed. It’s so screwy groceries are pricing cube steak at the same price as filet mignon neither is affordable by poor people. The poor are eating flour and water pancakes with a few beans.
“JS, the state of NY is seizing “food” distribution because it’s failing to feed the poor. Government can do that if the “industry” fails at its task.”
False and False.
Postive morality – charity is not the legitimate domain of govenrment. Government CAN NOT DO THAT.,
Regardless, no one is starving to death in the US. In fact incrediblyu few people starve to death anywhere int eh world and where that does happen today it is the result of govenrment
I am not interested in “Its so screwy”
The only legitimate price for anything is what a willing buyer and a willing sellor agree to.
You say that neither Cube steak nor filet mignon are affordable to the poor – false and irrelevant.
If you want filet Mignon nothing prevents you from having it. But you may have to give up something else.
Regardless, it is unlikely that George Washington ate Filet Mignon, Most of what even the wealthy of our founders ate was worse than poor eat today.
At Mt Vernon you could have strawberries – fpor a few weeks of the year when they were in season. The rest of the year ? Nope.
In the US today even if you are poor you can have strawberries with every meal if you wish – if necessary they will be flown in from Brazil or Israel and barely cost more than local strawberries in season.
There was no refrigeration – you ate what was growing now. Meat could not be kept long – was tough compared to today, and if it was not butchered today – it was heavily salted to preserve for a few days more.
No industry is not failing at its task.
In 1900 Food was 43% of the average family budget.
In 1950 it was 30%
in 2003 it was 13%
The Free market works.
Pick ANYTHING that government is not heavily involved in – like education or healthcare.
Toasters, Milk, Gas, eggs, TVs ….
Anything.
Price that item in the number of minimum wage hours you would need to work in 1960 to buy it, and then the same today.
There is NOTHING that you would have to work longer to buy today.
Everything is cheaper adjusted for inflation. Many things are cheaper without adjusting.
Not only is this true – but it MUST be true.
Standard of living has been rising, and that means we are consuming more. That means we can afford more.
“The poor are eating flour and water pancakes with a few beans.”
False and irrelevant.
You are not entitled to filet mignon, you are not entitled to beans.
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
Thje nonsense that you are owed something is why Socialism fails.
By the sweat of your brow you shall earn your daily bread.
Whether it is nothing, beans or filet mignon is up to you.
it is not a legitimate function of govenrment to give you bread or cake.
That is your job.
It is an important job – because in working to take care of yourself you MUST benefit others.
Government destroys that.
Turley can chose to discuss whatever he wishes.
While I personally enjoy Turleys excustions into economics, and Turley is demonstrating some competence at understanding basic economics,
At the same time this is a legal blog with a focus on free speech.
With respect to Blanche – he is a highly competent lawyer and hopefully will be configrmed as AG shortly.
No Blanche needs not committ to something you want him to.
It is likely the 1.776B fund for the victims of left wing nut lawfare is dead.
What you left wing nut idiots fail to grasp is that the IRS violated Trump’s rights and the law when it illegally leaked his tax return and Trump is entitled to substantial damages.
You want the Fund gone – Fine, the IRS owes Donald Trump $2B which he can do with as he pleases.
You want some kind of promise that the targets of left wing nuit lawfare will not see compensation – you have ZERO power to accomplish that.
They are free to sue the US Government and Trump/DOJ is free to settle with them. Those of you on the left pioneered this means of circumventing congress.
You could end up with Trump getting $2B from the IRS and J6ers getting another $2B in settlements.
With respect to what you call a get out of jail free – it isn’t. It is a standard term in a settlement with the government when they have violated your rights.
It is not a “get out of jail free” – thjat is not constitutionally possible. What it is, is precluding the IRS from acting without probable cause specifically because they have done so egregiously in the past.
Regardless the only thing unusual about it is that it involves Trump and has driven you bonkers.
Your carping is stupid.
SCOTUS did not say Tarriffs are unconstitutional or that the president does not have the power to impose Tariffs. SCOTUS said the specific law Trump used to impose Tariffs did not provide the broad grant of power he claimed it did – this was a question of statutory, not constitutional interpretation and SCOTUS was correct. But there are atleast 9 other laws that allow the president to impose Tariffs – but those laws have more strings attached. So long as Trump is meeting those requirements the tarriffs are legal and constitutional.
And SCOTUS also said that in their opinion.
Trump is continuing to use Tarriffs – and he can do so lawfully. If you beleive he is not following one of the 9 other laws granting him tariff powers – challenge those in court.
Regardless if you do not like Trump[‘s tariffs – talk to congress they passed the laws.
It is inarguable at this point that the 2020 election was rife with fraud, and conducted unlawfully.
I would also note that if 409% of the people allegedly collecting PPACA do not exist – why should we beleive voting is any better ?
We are seeing evidence of all kinds of fraud all over – while Trump is highlighting that on the left – there is some on the right too. Democrats are free to go after that and they should.
But they likely won’t because fraud undermines the rationale for their programs.
Regardless, Fraud is fraud. The same people who would defraud the federal and state govenrments one way – would do so in another – if they could get away with it,
and with respect to elections OBVIOUSLY the can and have.
Trump does not have to prove the 2020 election was stolen. All he has to do is provide the basis to doubt the dubious left wing nut claim that it was the most secure ever ROFL.
Comey perjured himself obviously multiple times – as did Fauxi. Faiuxi also lied repeatedly to everyone.
The Qatari story is far more complicated. The new 747 is far better equipped then the old one for Many things, but there are a few things it does not have yet.
Such as flares to evade missles, and a credible threat that the Iranians were seeking to bring Trump down with a ManPad missle resulted in switching planes.
The NYT story was a huge national Security mistake – it let the Iranians know that Trump had switched planes.
Those of you on the left are so desparate to catch Trump in the tiniest mistake that you are prepared to aide US enemies to do so.
“Trump is determined to give $1 million of our taxpayer dollars to each of those losers he sent to trash the Capitol and try to kill Pence and stop Biden’s victory.”
It is NOT tax payers money – it is Trump’s money – the IRS settled with Trump after violating his rights. Undoing the deal is not going to change the Fact that the IRS is going to have to pay billions for leaking Trump’s tax return. Separately Trump is the president – he can direct DOJ to settle any J6er claim against the federal govenrment – with or without the 1.776B fund.
It is the Left that started having Presidents settle lawsuits against the federal govenrment to advance personal political goals.
Your hoist by your own petard.
No one was trying to kill Pence. No one came to the Capital with weapons. The
gallows”
had a sign on it that said “this is art” and was not strong enough to hold a teddy bear much less a large man. It was also not on the capital grounds but way over on the other side of the reflecting pool.
And if you are upset by Trump pi$$ing over the election – then you should not have conducted a corrupt lawless election.
You seem to beleive that Trust – trusting you, trusting government, trusting elections – is something you are entitled to.
Trust is not a right or an entitlment – it is something you must earn.
When you engage in lawless and untrustworthy conduct – people do not trust you.
You did this to yourself.
You want to fix it – work to Fix elections integrity. As even James Carville noted – this is a loser issue for the left. Pass the SAVE act and get beyond it.
Fighting it is hurting democrats. But that is YOUR CHOICE.
It is also something you do all the time.
While Trump has proven to be the best president in the 21st century – that is not saying much. Bush, Obama, were bad. Biden was the worst president in US history eclipsing Buchannon.
But Trump never would have been elected, but for people needing a big change from Obama’s Change – that resulted in 8 years of economic stagnation.
Not would Trump have been elected if Democrats had not run the most corrupt politician in US history. Biden is a rank amateur compared to Hillary.
Hillary was far smarter and laundered her corruption through a charity. Regardless, combine a promise of 8 more years of Obama nonsense with the most corrupt politician in US history and you end up with a Trump victory. I would note that YOU went to the capital and rioted in Jan. 2017 – long before there was a J6.
“There was a written settlement agreement”
Correct – Lawsuits are often settled.
No the Trump’s are not immune for audits and prosecution. They merely can not be investigated for past tax years without probable case.
It is an anti-retaliation provision – and it is pretty normal.
“A written contract cannot be unilaterally rescinded by just one party”
Usually true – but that is not what happened. Trump is the Plantif, the United states is the defendant. Yes therfe is a conflict of interests because Trump is also president.
But they George Washington sold land to the Federal Government while president. Regardless Trump the private individual is entitled to damages and punatives from the IRS for committing a crime that violated his rights. Settling for 1.776B was letting the government off cheap.
” Blanche failed to defend the case on behalf of us taxpayers”
Both not true, the settlement was with other govenrment lawyers, but also not relevant – the Government can “not defend” lawsuits, or settle them and it does all the time,
and the left started that.
“the case was filed after the running of the statute of limitations”
Nope
“when the Judge raised the point that Trump was both the plaintiff and defendant, and therefore, there was no actual conflict, and ordered briefing as to why she should not dismiss the case”
The judge has no jurisdiction over a settlement, and can not dismiss a case that has merit. Those of you on the left CONSTANTLY giver judges far more power than they have.
As above – Trump is not both the plantif and the defendant -0 that is actually a stupid claim, if that were true , he could just give himself as much as he wanted.
Judges properly dismiss lawsuits that are ACTUALLY people suing themselves – because there is no conflict. But as YOU pointed out – Tax payer funds – the Money of the US government was at risk.
That is a conflict, and it is PROOF that the defendant and the plaintiff are distinct.
“Blanche agreed to the written settlement agreement to avoid briefing–BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE JUDGE IS RIGHT.”
As noted abouive – the judge is OBVIOUSLY wrong – by YOUR own claims.
If you want to argue that there is some conflict of interests – fine. But you have to establish that and you STILL have a problem – you can not dismiss the lawsuit merely because of the conflict.
The judge can require the conflict must be resolved – Which it is when Trump is not involved in the case on the govenrment side. Regardless, Judges do not get to decide who represents each party,
that is outside their jurisdiction. They MAY in some cases get to decide who can NOT represent the government – but not who can. And even then conflicts can be waived by the parties and judges have no control over that.
AGAIN you amplify the power of judges beyond what the constitution and the law allow.
There are no legitimate grounds to dismiss the case. Trump was injured by a crime committed by the IRS – he is entitled to redress by RIGHT. The US Government through DOJ is free to settle cases against it
YOU created that.
“Blanche is supposed to be OUR lawyer–not Trump’s”
Correct, he was Trump’s now he is ours. JFK appointed his brother as AG – your just suffering from Massive TDS.
” most Americans are appalled at Blanche’s conduct.”
No they are not – for the most part Blanche was not involved in this.
Regardless, Trump was going to win this lawsuit – the IRS criminally violated his rights. This was a dead bang loser case.
And if the IRS is going to leak someone’s tax return – it is REALLY stupid to leak a Billionaire who is a contender for President. You could not pick anyone who would be entitled to larger damages.
You are lost in the weeds offended because maybe some J6ers will get justice.
But at the core – you have a HUGE loser of a case that the govenrment is going to have to shell out big.
And If the payment is to Trump he can do with that money as he pleases – including give it to J6ers.
You should be cheering that Trump instead agreed to a victims of govenrment fund. That atleast keeps what is done in the public eye.
Pay Trump $2B and he can do whatever he wants and not share that with anyone.
“You really have to be dumb not to see what’s going on here–Trump is raiding the US Treasury”
You still are evading the FACTS – the IRS criminally leaked the tax return of a billionaire, president and candidate for president.
You really think that was not generating a HUGE award ?
“to financially reward the insurrectionists”
No insurection – making claims like that just makes you look like a moron.
“which would incentivize future such conduct”
Absolutely – people should be free to petition congress to look into fraudulent lawless and corrupt elections.
They should be free to do so even if they FALSELY beleive an election to be fraudulent, lawless, and corrupt.
But we have all seen more than enough fraud lawlessness and corruption to know that was not the case.
“getting himself, his companies and worthless kids immunity from IRS audits and prosecutions”
False, they are merely protected for a short time from retailiartory conduct by the IRS – and that is pretty standard when govenrment criminally violates peoples rights.
” by filing a frivolous lawsuit”
Not the tiniest bit frivolous. The IRS criminally leaked Trump[‘s tax return. There is only one question which is how HUGE tghe award will be.
“When questioned at a confirmation hearing about whether a written settlement agreement can be orally rescinded”
Not a trivially easily answered question. A settlement is a contract, A contract is complete when there is an offer, acceptance and an exchange of value towards fulfilling the contract.
Once ALL of those are met the contract is binding. But either party can rescind the contract at anytime – Subject to damages. If very little has been done to impliment the contract – the damages are small.
“Blanche refused to give a straight answer”
Because their is no simple answer.
The Parol evidence rule is ONLY relevant when one party is challenging the contract.
You seem to be under the delusion that courts retain jurisdiction over a conflict when Both parties have settled and are happy.
“The parol evidence rule says that the terms of a written agreement cannot be altered orally”
No that is NOT what the parol evidence rule say.
It says that PRIOR oral agreements can not be used to challenge a SUBSEQUENT written contract.
Regardless, the Parol evidence rule ONLY applies when there is a disagreement between the parties.
Oral agreeements are binding – if sometimes hard to prove, but a SUBSEQUENT written contract is presumed to REPLACE a prior oral agreement.
But a SUBSEQUENT oral agreement can REPLACE or Modify a written contract.
And in ALL cases the courts have no jurisdiction over a settlement unless the parties still remain in clonflict.
“only by another written agreement between both parties.”
False.
“Blanche’s oral statement that the deal is off is nothing”
False
“it is unenforceable and he knows that.”
False
You are dancing around something that is correct.
No agreement – oral or writing is permanently binding if BOTH parties later agree to something different.
You can not have an angreement that is totally irrevocabled. Only one that can not be unilaterally revoked.
Your Parol evidence rule is not relevant – both as a matter of law and a misunderstanding of the law,
and just a matter of reality.
Contracts are made, voided, remade, modified ALL THEY TIME. Sometimes that involves conflicts that go to court, other times it is by the agreement of the parties.
As YOU have correctly noted – if there is no conflcit – there is no case. The courts have no jurisdiction when both sides are in agreement.
“He never said that the immunity part of the “settlement” was off, either.”
Again it literally does not matter what he said.
You have a huge problem – you have a crime committed by the US govenrment that is also a Tort.
The victim of that crime is Entitled to be made whole and entitled to damages.
You can pi$$ over the process. But you can not get arround the core fact that Trump has a perfectly legitimate case against the IRS. That eh is entitled to win it, and entitled to large damages.
Next the federal govenrment settles all the time. It CONSTANTLY settles to advance policy objectives of the president.
The left has CONSTANTLY sued the federal govenrment to circumvent limits on the presidents power – because presidents can do things to settle lawsuits that they can not do unilaterally otherwise.
“How it is even possible that an attorney who refused to defend the taxpayers”
Happens all the time – the left perfected this.
Your hoist by your own petard.
If you wish to pass laws that preclude the govenrment from ever settling case – go ahead.
” who avoided responding to an order by a judge to brief a key issue”
There is no “key issue” –
“settled a lawsuit that was invalid to begin with”
That is your claim – regardless left wing nut presidents frequently settle lawsuits that are “invalid to begin with” to accomplish political goals.
“would even be eligible to be AG is beyond comprehension.”
The eleigability for any cabinet position is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
“Blanche has also been referred to a disciplinary committee over his unethical conduct.”
Kind of vauge and there is no committe that would have jurisdiction regardless.
” Why doesn’t Turley address these issues?”
Because there are no actually interesting legal or free speech issues and because this is no threat to the republic.
“But then, we are in MAGAverse”
Elections have consequences
“a 34-time convicted felon, adjudicated sex assaulter, misogynist, liar, racist xenophobe”
Acquitted by the largest jury to ever exist the 2024 voters.
Something far more important that you should care about.
As Hawley correctly pointed out – Fauxi received a blanket pardon from Biden.
He can not be porosecuted for anything prior to that pardon.
He has no 5th amendment right to protection from self incrimination.
This is ancient well established black letter law
Government grocery stores are unconstitutional due to the fact that they deny the right to “liberty” and “private property.”
The Constitution protects individual liberty, private property, and the right to pursue lawful occupations. The Fifth Amendment prohibits deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Fourteenth Amendment applies those protections against state and local governments.
Private grocery stores embody these principles through private ownership, voluntary exchange, investment, risk-taking, and consumer choice. Government operation of grocery stores uses the power of taxation and public resources to compete with private citizens, potentially undermining entrepreneurship, investment, and economic liberty.
A free society requires government to protect property rights and fair competition—not use governmental power to replace private enterprise. Therefore, liberty, private property, and limited government provide the strongest foundation for preserving private grocery stores.
Government grocery stores are unconstitutional
No, they are not. Your “analysis” is pure garbage. Government stores do not deprive anyone of their life, their liberty, or their property. People are free to continue owning and running their businesses; they’re just not going to make any money, and will eventually close down, because the government can make it uneconomical to run them anymore. That’s completely legal and constitutional.
This is really a democrat backslide! 30% off instead of free? where’s mah free stuff dems???
No one ever promised free. Certainly Mamdani never promised it.
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MILLHOUSE
The world according to the TRUTH, which you clearly don’t give a tinker’s dam about, because you’re a filthy freaking disgusting LIAR. Go to Hell, where you belong.
Zorro Madman—he certainly promised “free stuff” sufficient to obtain the votes of these idiotic parasites, who should never have been allowed to vote.
No, he did not promise “free stuff”. Certainly not free groceries.
He did say he’d advocate for free buses, but of course that’s not up to him, it’s up to the MTA. All he can do is advocate, and he’s done that.
Property taxes in NYC are so exorbitant that relief rom that alone should cut grocery prices in half.
Envision these grocery stores being mobbed and emptied just like grocery stores in Texas before a hurricane. Won’t be able to restock the shelves fast enough for the 30% discount demand.
How shall we enjoy our “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness” if the government is running all the businesses that bring us said happiness?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
– Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence is not a law. It has no force in court. It’s rhetorical only.
Let’s have a round of applause for Einstein here!
Ask any Patriot if the Declaration of Independence has any meaning.
Be sure your guard is up.
The Declaration of Independence is more fundamental than American fundamental law.
And that and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
Violate the Declaration of independence and you get a justified revolution.
“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government”
Then bring it on. But you’re more likely to get a worse outcome than a better one. We’ve got a pretty good deal with the USA as it stands, with all its flaws. I wouldn’t want to reroll the dice, because we could end up like Canada, the UK, or even Russia.
I’m all for amending the constitution, e.g. by adding an amendment protecting the freedom of contract. That would solve at least 80% of our problems. But I can’t see that happening.
No, the preface or what came before sets the spirit of the thing, background.
There is no “spirit of the law”. There is only the law.
You’re talking about what in the card game world we call “flavor text”. It’s interesting to read but has no effect whatsoever on the game.
“There is no “spirit of the law”. There is only the law.”
False, the entirety of western law derives from the understanding that man has free will.
People kill other living things – other animals kill other living things. People enslave other living things – there is no immorality in that – because what is being killed has no free will. You can not enslave a horse. You can enslave a man.
All law rests on the foundation that man has free will, that using force to violate the free will of another is rarely justified.
The purpose of our laws is to determine when an individual can use force to infringe on the free will of another,
and when government can do so.
The rule of law requires enforcing the law as written. But it also means changing the law as we discover it is flawed or immoral.
Slavery was once the law of the land. Your argument means it could be once again .
Slavery has always been a violation of free will, it has always been immoral. It is now also illegal.
The purpose of govenrment is to protect our rights. Government that fails to do so is tyranny and FORCE may be used to abolish it.
That is fundamental law. It is also part of “the rule of law”
The “purpose of the law” doesn’t matter. All that matters is the law as it is. You can’t go into court and argue that a law is not fit for its purpose, or that it’s morally wrong, or that it violates the “Spirit of Aloha” (except in Hawaii).
The plain fact is that there is no law preventing NYC from establishing these stores and driving all their competitors out of business. It’s a bad policy, but that’s of no concern to the law. The judicial branch has no power to stop it.
Correct, it is the basis by which we measure the law, government.
It is the failure of the british to secure the americans rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is why we excercised our right to abolish the existing government and replace it with something that did.
Our constitution and laws exist only because of the principles in the declaration.
It is not law – or more accurately it is NATURAL LAW.
It is the LEGAL moreal and ethical justification for the use of VIOLENCE to abolish government that abused our rights and replace it with govenrment that secured them.
They only do it because you let them.
The leftist mindset amazes me sometimes. Common sense tells us that government cannot legislate/regulate that a private business lose money, at least for any sustained period. Something’s gotta give. Those same people condemning “greedy business” would scream bloody murder if anyone even hinted that they should do with less. (Unions come to mind.)
If the average grocery store has a profit margin between 1% and 3%, one has to wonder how they continue to exist, when the capital it takes to run a risky enterprise like a grocery store could be invested in a negligible risk money market fund and earn a higher return. But that’s comparing apples to oranges. A money market has an annual return on invested funds, where the 1%-3% profit margin is the average return on each sale. A grocery store can (and must, to survive) constantly reinvest in new inventory to overcome that tiny profit margin, to pay their fixed costs (wages, rent, utilities, taxes, etc) as well as variable costs (spoilage, sale prices, theft, etc). I suppose grocery stores don’t help matters, in terms of public perception, by having BOGO sales and other loss-leader approaches.
Anyway, pointing out that a typical grocery store has a profit margin between 1%-3% is counter-productive, I think. To the economics-literate, it emphasizes the risks; a grocery store must have high turnover of inventory and strict control of variable costs. To the economics-illiterate, it just reinforces distrust in the numbers, since they can see that a large grocery chain reports much higher annual numbers than 1%-3%, not to mention the BOGO sales.
It sounds mean to say, but I am not unhappy about what Mamdani is doing in New York. This is primarily because I don’t live in New York. Unfortunately, humans need to learn some lessons by painful mistake, but sometimes those lessons can be learned from observing the mistakes from a distance. The unsustainability of Socialism is clearly one of those lessons that has to be learned over and over again, so this latest round might as well happen to the good folks of New York, who voted themselves into this growing steaming pile. As Obama said, elections have consequences.
Is this Off Topic or cogently On Topic?
If you allow lunatics to vote, you end up with a lunatic society.
In 508 B.C., voter qualifications in Athens—the birthplace of Greek democracy established by the reformer Cleisthenes—were restricted exclusively to free, adult male citizens. This system of demokratia granted direct legislative voting power, but only to a small fraction (roughly 10% to 15%) of the total population.Core Requirements for Eligible VotersTo participate and vote in the Assembly (Ecclesia), an individual had to meet all of the following criteria:Gender: Strictly male.Age: Must be an adult, typically at least 18 to 20 years old.Status: Must be a free man, not enslaved.Heritage: Must be native-born with Athenian parentage.Civic Registration: Following Cleisthenes’ reforms in 508 B.C., citizens had to be registered in a deme (a local neighborhood or village unit), which replaced traditional aristocratic clan ties and organized voters into ten newly created civic tribes.
In 1789 A.D., voter qualifications in the United States were male, European, and age 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.
WHAT THE —- HAPPENED TO AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND RESOLVE?
You have a point. But I don’t think you have to go this far, restricting who can vote. People will self-restrict if you just leave them alone. Universal mail-in voting encourages people to vote who couldn’t be bothered to show up at the local polling place. Some people can’t even be bothered putting forth the effort to fill out a mail in ballot and walk out to the mailbox, so they sign their ballot and give/sell it to someone else to vote. Surveys indicate that at least 20% of returned ballots under universal mail-in voting are filled out by someone other than the person it was sent to; no matter how you look at this, universal mail-in voting completely breaks “one-person-one-vote”.
Show some respect for that which was created—the original, the idea, the concept, democracy, in 508 B.C.
Show some respect for the American Founders who deliberately limited turnout to 11.6% in the first election.
Democracy was and must be of the restricted-vote variety.
The “dictatorship of the majority” is self-destructive.
Those idiots don’t know what to do; they know only that they want the money—other people’s money.
Voting must be done at the polling place by voters with ID and must be completed entirely on the DAY of the election, one 24-hour period. The mail takes more than the DAY, one 24-hour period, of the election, as indicated and, therefore, required, by the Constitution.
We should be celebrating the expansion of voting rights and opportunities that have been achieved through constitutional amendments 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 26 and not wishing to go back to the restrictive voting of 1789.
So says a proponent of the “dictatorship of the majority,” or the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” or the “dictatorship of the hired help.”
The chaos of anarchy and the profound belief in “free stuff” and “free status.”
Great ideas, Karl.
Immigrant-led business group votes to sue NYC over Mamdani’s taxpayer-funded grocery stores, alleging unfair competition
Seems a number of these members of this group are . . . dark skinned.
https://nypost.com/2026/07/28/business/immigrant-led-business-group-votes-to-sue-nyc-over-mamdanis-taxpayer-funded-grocery-stores/
White trailer trash on a rage. Here ya go folks, the racists are at it again.
Ah, seems your reading comprehension skills are failing you, once again. Must be the public education system that just passed you along and that DEI higher indoctrination camp you attended and still failed reading, math, history, economics for your under water basket weaving degree.
I was merely pointing out how a number of people who are against Mamdani are dark skinned. You were making claims anyone critical of Mamdani’s scheme were racists and or bigots.
I was just proving you wrong.
Again.
And as I have mentioned before more than a few times, I am not white. With the attention span of a gnat, I guess that is something you would not remember.
I can hardly wait until the chauffeured limos pull up, the drivers patiently wait outside while the passengers enter the store and buy everything in sight. Hell, why not? They paid for it. But, truly, this will never get done, which is why the date to open is estimated at two t6o three years in the future.
LOL
I believe USF is seld described as mixed race person of colors mi Annoying amigo.
Eight Ball,
HA! You are correct!
Although I would bet a dollar the annony is nothing more than a lily white Gen Z soy boy still dependent on his parents for nearly everything. In his rage, he wishes anyone over the age of 40 to die. But that would include his own parents. How would he survive? He has to take his parents with him to job interviews. He knows nothing about economics. Heck he cannot figure out a simple word problem. Unless it is a Hot Pocket, he cannot cook. The washing machine confounds him. What is he going to do? Buy all new underware once a month?
“White”? What are you some kind of racist? got a problem with white people? disgusting racist!
I disagree that this thing can’t be “sustainable”, if you define that simply as never booking a loss for the year. The city has so many advantages over private groceries that it can afford to run a heavily discounted grocery at a “profit”, or to “break even”, forever.
The city doesn’t have to pay rent, taxes, or regulatory fees, and it can borrow money at a much lower interest rate than any grocery can. That alone should let it undercut all its competitors and drive them out of business. It can even afford to overpay its workers while doing so.
Yes, the true cost to the taxpayers would be very high, but that would all be off the books. It wouldn’t need any actual ongoing cash subsidies, so on paper it would seem to be costing the taxpayers nothing past the initial $30M “investment” which will never have to be repaid. So socialists can trumpet it as a “success”, and the collapse of all competitors would look like it was proving them right.
Plus that collapse would mean that this project could never be shut down by a subsequent administration, because it would now be the only bulwark against starvation. So in that sense it would be self-sustaining, and thus “sustainable”. The fact that it would be a giant scam would be irrelevant.
Perhaps, however every private grocery company should ask for subsidy in the form of property tax and regulatory relief due to unfair market conditions imposed upon them by City government. I would venture to say, a constitutional matter perhaps regarding the commerce clause maybe.
They can ask for a subsidy, which will only turn them into subsidiaries of the government and thus achieve precisely the socialist goal that Mamdani purposes.
But they can’t demand a subsidy. There’s no legal claim they could make for one. There’s certainly no constitutional matter. If the city wants to run you out of business, what possible constitutional claim could you have? Where in the constitution (federal OR state) does it say that it can’t do that?
And what on earth does the “commerce clause” have to do with it? Do you have any idea at all what that is? Or is it just a magic phrase that you think can be waved around?
The commerce clause says “The congress shall have power […] to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”. That is all. Now explain how it could possibly be in any way relevant to this story!
Millhouse, is there any conflict with government being in competition with private industry? Is there a gray area? Might private business claim the same policy being given to government sponsored business?
Millhouse, is there any conflict with government being in competition with private industry?
Conflict with what? No, there’s no “gray area”. There’s no law that the city can’t own businesses and drive its competitors out. That’s what it did with the private subways. It built the IRT and drove them into bankruptcy, whereupon it took them over. All perfectly legally.
Milhouse, doesn’t the commerce clause restrict what government can do? A really good attorney could shut this train to nowhere down. Reminds me of Newsom’s train to nowhere. The public doesn’t care if a bananas price is 100 dollars if the price to them is 10 cents. Penny wise pound foolish?
Milhouse, doesn’t the commerce clause restrict what government can do?
No, not at all. Where did you get the idea that it does? It’s a grant of power to the federal congress. Because unlike the states, Congress has only the powers the constitution grants it. Whereas states have plenary power, and can do anything that the constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit. Cities are creations of the states, and have whatever powers their state chooses to give them.
(Maybe you’re thinking of the “dormant commerce clause”, a doctrine that says that states can’t discriminate against commerce from other states. That’s not relevant here.
Most modern sources misrepresent the “dormant commerce clause”
The states are precluded from discriminating against other stgates because the commerce clause expliciitly gives power over interstate commerce to the federal government. The contracts clause is even broader – restricting States and the federal government from having any say in free exchange.
The dormant commerce clause theory is that the commerce clause gave the power to regulate interstate commerce exclusively to the federal govenrment in the expectation that power would remain dormant – that congress would not use it.
It is OBVIOUS from plain language that the term “dormant commerce clause” does not mean what Wikipedia and other modern left word gaming sources claim.
Dormant means UNUSED.
Our founders did NOT explicitly limit the federal govenrments power to regulate interstate Trade.
They did not do so because they were not unanimous in their opposition to government regulating trade.
Myriads of semi ambiguities in the constitution exist because our founders were not of one mind.
They were heavily influenced by Adam Smith and the enlightenment, They were the children of the Scottish enlightenment.
But they were also the children of the preceding mercantilism system. Further like modern left wing nuts many saw the government as a power for good, – though universally they would be repelled by the modern results.
We had splits between north and south, between federalists and anti-federalists, between farmers and merchants.
There are lots of things our founders agreed on, but often missing from our understanding of them and what they did was
THEY WERE FIRST. They were breaking new ground, There had been no consequential self government since the romans and the greeks. Greek Self Government was a FAILURE – That is the moral of the story of Socrates – which our founders were familiar with.
Roman self govenrment was far more successful – and our founders patterned the US more on the Roman Republic than greek democracy. But even the roman republic was far from what they were attempting. The roman republic was still a government by the elite – not ordinary people.
Regardless my point is they were entering a brave new would, boldly going where no man had gone before.
While trade and markets in some form are as old as man, the concept of Free markets as a PRINCIPLE was completely new.
Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” was published in 1776. While most of our founders would have become familiar with it – this was not the internet era, It took decades for ideas to spread – not moments. Even our constitution and declaration of independence are the heirs of the Magna Carte 5 hundred years earlier. Most southerners were heavily influenced by Physiocracy – the economic theory posits that all value comes from land and agriculture. Smith rejected – disproved this, but people like Jefferson and Washington while influenced by Smith’s new economic theory STILL were inculcated from birth with the conception that value flows from land and agriculture.
My point is that is the context in which the constitution was written.
True. The loss is in taxes to the city. The same strategy of cutting property taxes to landlords for repairs can be used. The small business groceries will be hurt.
Please take a lesson from Covid and Fauxi.
No matgter what the alleged intentions of those in government.
POWER CORRUPTS
Whatever government attempts to do purportedly for good will be corrupted into evil.
The message of all the fraud being uncovered in Minesota and other Blue states is NOT that democrats are corrupt, or that Somalis are corrupt – though both are true it is that POWER CORRUPTS a lesson as old as man that we seem to be completely unable to learn.
There is fraud in red state entitlements that is not receiving the same attention as that of democrats, and it may be smaller, but it is still real.
If this nation was entirely caucausion and entirely republican we would still have corruption – though probably less.
Govenrment can not subsidize – even for allegedly good purposes – it will lead to corruption AND it will distort the market leaving us with less of what we want most and more of what we want less.
Constitutional Argument for Liberty, Private Enterprise, Private Property, and Private Grocery Stores
The United States Constitution secures a system of ordered liberty in which individuals are generally free to acquire, own, use, and dispose of private property and to pursue lawful occupations. Although the Constitution does not expressly use the terms “free enterprise” or “private business,” those principles are reflected in its protections for liberty and property.
Article I, Section 10 prohibits states from impairing the obligation of contracts, recognizing the importance of voluntary private economic relationships. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment extends due process protections against state and local governments, providing that no state shall deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Private grocery stores exemplify these constitutional principles. They are created through private investment, voluntary exchange, entrepreneurial initiative, and consumer choice. Owners assume financial risk, create employment, pay taxes, and compete by offering better prices, quality, and service. Their success depends upon satisfying customers rather than exercising governmental power.
When a city enters the grocery business, it occupies a fundamentally different position than a private competitor. It possesses the sovereign powers to tax, regulate, subsidize, and incur losses using public funds. If a municipality uses those powers to compete directly against private grocers, it risks replacing market competition with government competition financed by compulsory taxation. Such competition may discourage private investment, reduce entrepreneurship, and diminish the practical enjoyment of the liberty to pursue a lawful occupation.
Accordingly, the constitutional protections of liberty, private property, and voluntary contracts provide a strong foundation for the principle that government should ordinarily protect the conditions under which private enterprise flourishes rather than become a participant in ordinary commercial markets. While the Constitution does not expressly prohibit municipalities from operating retail businesses, its guarantees of liberty and property strongly support a governmental system in which citizens—not the state—are ordinarily the owners and operators of private enterprises, including grocery stores.
Anon of 1:48 PM, as a matter of constitutional law this is all utter garbage and nonsense. Nothing in your long and boring screed made any sense as a matter of law. Yes, socialism is inherently evil; we all know that, even the trolls who pretend otherwise. But nothing in the constitution says they can’t do this. People will suffer, but they have no legal recourse. They shouldn’t have voted for this evil person.
The assertion that the argument is “utter garbage and nonsense” is itself unsupported. The argument is not that the Constitution expressly says “private grocery stores must exist” or that government is absolutely forbidden from commercial activity. The argument is that the Constitution establishes protections for liberty, property, contracts, and due process that form the foundation of a free society.
The Fifth Amendment expressly protects persons from deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Fourteenth Amendment applies those protections against state action. Private enterprise and private property are not mere policy preferences; they are practical expressions of individuals’ liberty to own property, pursue occupations, enter contracts, and engage in voluntary economic activity.
A government that uses compulsory taxation and governmental powers to directly compete against citizens raises a legitimate constitutional and philosophical question: whether government is acting as a neutral protector of rights or using its sovereign power to displace private citizens in activities they are otherwise free to pursue.
Whether courts would ultimately uphold a particular government grocery program is a separate question from whether the constitutional principles of liberty and property support a strong presumption in favor of private enterprise. Dismissing the argument as “garbage” avoids addressing the actual constitutional principles at issue.
A government that uses compulsory taxation and governmental powers to directly compete against citizens raises a legitimate constitutional and philosophical question: whether government is acting as a neutral protector of rights or using its sovereign power to displace private citizens in activities they are otherwise free to pursue.
No, it does not. You are spewing utter garbage. Insane garbage. There is nothing in the constitution that requires even the federal government, let alone a state or city government, to “act as a neutral protector of rights”, or that prohibits it from deliberately destroying people’s businesses and putting them in the poorhouse.
The fifth amendment merely means that the government can’t directly take away your life, your liberty, or your property, as a criminal penalty, without due process of law. It can’t kill you, imprison you, or confiscate your property, without first charging you with a crime and giving you a fair trial. But it can drive you out business. That’s not confiscating anything. It’s just making your property worthless. And you have no recourse.
The constitution does not prevent all evil. It was never intended to do that. Nothing can do that.
Milhouse for 150 years the multiple provisions of the constitution were properly understood to mean the government can not make your property worthless. While that was significantly weakened by the abandonment of the contracts clause even today it is making a small but very real resurgance. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that Government can not use its power to zone or otherwise regulate to impose new conditions on your existing natural rights to use your property or rights to use of your property from law.
Those on the left like to rant about purported red lining – based on a piss poor paper by the Boston fed. It is so bad that people should actually read it – it is obvious nonsense. Regardless it has become dogma on the left that Banks discriminated against minorities in lending in the late 20th century for reasons not having to do with poor or no credit. If anything the opposite is true – particularly in the 90’s and early 2000’s and it is one significant factor in the financial crisis.
Regardless ACTUAL redlining – like Jim Crow was a series of laws – primarily in northern cities – not the south that restricted either directly or indirectly where people could live based on Race. These were the precursors to Zoning laws. And like minimum wages laws they are founded on racism. Regardless, these laws were struck down by SCOTUS using the contracts clause. That was actual red lining.
Racist minimum wage laws and racist and classist zoning laws did not return until FDR’s effort to pack the court led to justices flipping their positions or retiring. Ultimately FDR did pack the court – just not by adding new justices, but by coercing those that opposed him into supporting him or quitting.
Regardless while we are unfortunately NOT returning to the lochner era, and the significant use of the contracts clause (not the 5th amendmnet) to bar corrupt action by government, we are slowly returning to No govenrment can not indirectly destroy the value of what is yours without compensation.
The city is, in your own words is creating a monopoly due to its unfair ability to avoid paying taxes and regulations that private companies are subject to. That sounds like price fixing and monopolizing a market and wouldn’t the City thereby be subject to antitrust laws?
The city could establish a “state-regulated grocery utility,” but people NEVER eat the same food the way they use the same electricity, gas, water, sewers, etc.
The state can make them eat the same food.
Look, what’s the difference between the government running groceries and schools? Why is it okay for it to have a near-monopoly on education (by providing it for free when no one else can afford to do so), but not on groceries? And if you want to know what government-run groceries would be like, you can look at the USSR, but you can also look at the public schools.
How well has public education worked ?
Pretty much EVERYTHING except those few things govenrment is heavily entwined in cost less and are of greater value than in the past – using almost any item and any time period of at least a decade.
The only exceptions are things that heavily involve govenrment such as education and healthcare.
If you want to take something and destroy its quality and increase its cost – call it a right when it is not, and involve govenrment.
No, the city is generally not subject to antitrust laws. Besides, the city wouldn’t be colluding with anyone. It would simply be exploiting its natural advantages, however unfair that may be. Nothing in the law prevents that.
The actual real world data on antitrust laws is disasterous.
Myriads of studies have found that they have NEVER done any good, and always caused harm.
The breakup of standard oil increased the wealth of the rockefellors and increased the cost of oil.
Massive amounts of data have established that so called predatory pricing – efforts to sell at a loss to corner a market are extremely rare and always backfire.
We have the perfect example with Fracking. In the early 2000’s as US fracking became a real threat to OPEC and the Saudis they deliberately drove prices down. It costs the Saudis about $6/bbl to get oil out of the ground – at the time it cost frackers about $60.
The Saudis had to pay to ship the oil – but ships are nearly the cheapest way to transport anything.
At the time Frackers were transporting oil by Train which is even more expensive than shipping.
OPEC dropped the price of oil to $60/bbl to put frackers out of business. Some failed, some found a way to profit at $60/bbl.
Then $40, eventually the oil wars stopped at $19/bbl – this resulted in nearly all US fracking stopping and some going out of buisiness completely. But the moment OPEC raised the price of oil – the Frackers went back to business.
This is just one of many examples. Work done by nobel economist Acemoglu found that even if a business can corner a market by lowering prices. They must continue to keep prices low just to prevent competitors that do not even exist from entering the market.
That lowerling prices below costs to gain marketshare results in losses that are never recovered. Worse still, ultimately the predator must increase prices or go out of business – and sometimes BOTH.
The entirety of AntiTrust laws are based on idiotic false premises and complete misunderstandings of fundimental economics.
The contracts clause says they can not do this. That was a potent force in constitutional understanding for most of US history through to the great depression. The supreme court for almost 150 years stopped states and cities from meddling in the economy
I see our resident annoying annony is hard at work, trying to insult and smear anyone who points out the obvious: Mamdani’s city ran grocery stores are likely to fail without continuous massive taxpayer bailout. As OLLY points out the lack of safeguards, transparency, Mamdani can claim success all the while his grocery stores are failures.
How do we know this?
Basic economics.
History.
This is nothing more than leftist wishful thinking and,
“But this time it will be different when WE DO IT!”
Lib anons just prove you can’t fix stupid every time they post.
Name all the government grocery stores that have been a success?
@Anonymous
Pretty sure the anon you are referring to, here, at the least, is one very troubled/desperate/bored/paid person. That they haunt this blog literally about 100 times a day, every day, without repercussion tells you the commitment to free speech on this site is very much on point.
As a site owner myself (as I’m sure a few others are here), this tells me the mods at least know that it is a real poster and not just a bot, they can quite easily see all of that on the back end, and they allow it. Fathom that: there is a real human being behind Moronymous’ idiocy.
@Upstate
Moronymous is either very, very bored, used to be in an institution or should be, or very paid. The increase in their agitation level lately (i.e. the recent need to literally respond to every single comment) tells me they are desperate in one or a combination of those ways. Perhaps algorithms have made even paid trolls irrelevant. Not that they weren’t already, especially that one. Funny that they argue for what is literally erasing them, but then again we talk about that here every day.
James,
That is a brilliant observation.
I have also noted the increased agitation level seems to correlate to the level the topic as pointed out by the good professor cannot be disputed.
We all know through basic economics and history what Mamdani is attempting will fail without a continuous stream of massive taxpayer money. As OLLY pointed out, without safeguards and transparency, Mamdani can claim a success without any kind of audit, proof.
Thus far, Mamdani has not been the success story himself of governance of the city. Nor has the state of Washington or the city of Seattle either as their quasi-socialist policies have also driven the wealthy and businesses out of the city and the state. CA, IL, MA, NY and other similar Blue ran states are also hemorrhaging not only the wealthy and businesses but the middle class.
My thoughts. Instead of trying to create a new widget, work off the ideas of the already decent widget: the WIC program. A coupon booklet of staples with a set $ amount, i.e. flour, milk, chicken, dairy, frozen basics to be able to create a meal, snacks, dessert. Let the customer buy the brand they wish and if it is above the set $ amount, they pay the difference. They can search out the best price at a store or where it may be on sale. Some cooks and bakers are “brand” people. Frozen vegetables and frozen fruits are good. Taxpayers will still be footing some of the bill but not the overhead of building, utilities, employment (stockers, cashiers). The consumer can go to any market–I’m sure they will go to the market where they get the best value for their coupon. We certainly do not need more government bureaucracy. Let’s work with what we have and make it more efficient and less expensive. JEG
How about a program where residents work, earn money, shop where they want and pay with their own money? Sounds like it’s never been tried in NY city.
Congress may tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity.
General welfare includes only security and basic infrastructure required by ALL, not some, one, or a few.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;….
What the actual H377 has Congress got to do with this? New York City is not Congress, and is not limited to enumerated powers.
SNAP and WIC are federal government-funded food help programs in the United States: SNAP is for general low-income households, and WIC is for pregnant people, babies, and young children.
Yes it is, Milhouse. States cannot have unconstitutional laws.
Hey, moron, do you even know what enumerated powers means?
Congress has NO powers except those the constitution explicitly gives it.
The states have ALL powers except those the constitution explicitly takes away.
Do you have enough brain cells to see the difference?
SNAP and WIC have nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing a proposed supermarket run by the City of New York, which is not limited in ANY WAY by Article 1 section 8 of the US constitution. Nothing written in that section is in any way relevant to what the city can or can’t do.
JEG, that’s good thinking. Two additional notes: 1) junk food should not qualify for public assistance, particularly when libs are forever bemoaning “health disparities” and 2) the stores are a ham-fisted socialist/populist ploy by Mandami, but at least he’s trying *something.*
Taxpayer Millions Couldn’t Stop Seven Save A Lot Grocery Stores From Going Dark In Crime-Ridden Chicago
Save A Lot shuttered seven locations across Chicago’s crime-ridden South and West sides over the weekend, once again exposing the dysfunction of a metro area run by unhinged progressives. City officials poured millions of dollars into the grocery outlets in hopes of improving food access, only to watch the stores remain unprofitable amid persistent theft.
By: Tyler Durden ~ Jul 27, 2026
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/taxpayer-millions-couldnt-stop-seven-save-lot-grocery-stores-going-dark-crime-ridden
Isn’t theft just supplemental income? It’s untamed, also.
Mamdani “math” is exactly why the Marxists want an ignorant and uneducated public. They NEED people too stupid to figure out what the actual cost is. They won’t realize what is really going until they are standing in bread lines with armed soldiers watching over them.
American “marxists” could learn a thing or 2 from the dreaded CCP. First off, don’t tolerate social disorder, chaos and crime. In China, they don’t. Secondly, allow free market commerce to set the prices, suppply and demand of simple consumer goods like food. PROBLEM SOLVED. Right now the “communist” side of China relates to its state sponsored investments in heavy industry and so forth. I could go on but most dogmatic Republicans won’t get it, the dreaded see see pee and all, and most idiotic pink haired leftists here won’t either.
Sal Sar