Samuel Gabriel
SamuelGabrielSG@primal.net
npub1dw6j...eya5
Explorer of Cyberspace
Writing: samuelgabrielsg.substack.com
Art: samuelgabrielsg.redbubble.com
Podcast: open.spotify.com/show/2xiLBXYetJ8rOK5I10kRPb
The Future of Social Media: Where Attention, Commerce, and Identity Converge
As the internet continues to reshape how people communicate, work, and consume, social media is undergoing a transformation. No longer just a place for sharing updates or entertainment, emerging platforms are beginning to combine multiple economic functions—attention, products, and services—within a single digital space.
This shift is laying the groundwork for a new type of platform: the integrated digital economy, or what some call a super app. Unlike traditional social media, these platforms are evolving into multi-economy environments where users can engage, earn, and transact—all without leaving the app.
Attention as a Market
The foundation of this new environment is the attention economy. Users compete for visibility using content designed to capture time, emotion, or clicks. In this model, attention becomes a form of currency. Those who are able to consistently draw interest—whether through entertainment, commentary, or educational content—build followings and influence.
This attention often becomes the gateway to other forms of economic activity. Influencers, creators, journalists, and thought leaders convert views and likes into trust and recognition. From there, new opportunities emerge—such as monetizing content, building communities, or launching products and services.
Products and Services as Embedded Economies
Beyond engagement, users are increasingly expecting platforms to support commerce. This includes selling physical goods, digital products, and services ranging from consulting to education. As these expectations grow, platforms are beginning to integrate direct-to-consumer tools, such as:
Creator storefronts
Tipping and subscriptions
In-app shopping and affiliate links
Calendar-based service bookings
This development enables a fluid transition from content to commerce. A viewer might watch a livestream, tip the host, purchase merchandise, or schedule a session—all within one interface.
Platform Convergence and the Super App Model
The integration of multiple economic layers within a single platform mirrors the functionality of a "super app." Already common in parts of Asia, this model combines social features with payments, product marketplaces, and service access. While no Western platform has fully achieved this status, several are moving in that direction:
YouTube has integrated tipping, memberships, and product links.
Twitter/X supports long-form content, subscriptions, and crypto-based tips.
Instagram and TikTok offer product sales, creator funds, and live shopping.
Substack and Patreon bridge content with paid communities and service-based offerings.
Meta (WhatsApp/Threads) is testing payment systems and business tools in international markets.
The goal across these efforts appears to be the same: create a more complete, self-contained digital environment that fulfills multiple user needs.
Why This Model Is Gaining Traction
Several trends are driving this convergence:
User Demand for Flexibility
Audiences increasingly want to do more with fewer platforms—consuming content, paying creators, buying goods, and accessing services from a single point of entry.
Creator Economy Growth
The global creator economy is growing rapidly, with more people monetizing their work independently. Tools that support multiple income streams—ads, subscriptions, product sales—are in high demand.
Payment Infrastructure Advancements
Innovations in digital wallets, crypto (e.g., Bitcoin Lightning), and API-based payments are making it easier for platforms to integrate direct transactions.
Economic Incentive for Platforms
By embedding trade and services, platforms unlock new revenue sources and strengthen user retention through economic engagement.
What This Means for the Future
Social media platforms are evolving into something more than just communication tools—they are becoming full-fledged digital economies. By hosting attention, products, and services in one place, they begin to function like ecosystems, not just apps.
The result may be platforms that:
Host real-time discourse on politics, science, and culture
Allow creators to earn directly from their audiences
Facilitate peer-to-peer commerce
Support native identity and reputation systems
Operate as hubs for both free expression and economic opportunity
This trend is not yet complete, but the signs are clear. Whether it comes from a tech giant, a decentralized network, or an emerging platform, the convergence of these markets points toward a future where social interaction and economic activity are no longer separate digital spaces—but part of a unified experience.
If you want to support my work, I accept Bitcoin tips.
As the internet continues to reshape how people communicate, work, and consume, social media is undergoing a transformation. No longer just a place for sharing updates or entertainment, emerging platforms are beginning to combine multiple economic functions—attention, products, and services—within a single digital space.
This shift is laying the groundwork for a new type of platform: the integrated digital economy, or what some call a super app. Unlike traditional social media, these platforms are evolving into multi-economy environments where users can engage, earn, and transact—all without leaving the app.
Attention as a Market
The foundation of this new environment is the attention economy. Users compete for visibility using content designed to capture time, emotion, or clicks. In this model, attention becomes a form of currency. Those who are able to consistently draw interest—whether through entertainment, commentary, or educational content—build followings and influence.
This attention often becomes the gateway to other forms of economic activity. Influencers, creators, journalists, and thought leaders convert views and likes into trust and recognition. From there, new opportunities emerge—such as monetizing content, building communities, or launching products and services.
Products and Services as Embedded Economies
Beyond engagement, users are increasingly expecting platforms to support commerce. This includes selling physical goods, digital products, and services ranging from consulting to education. As these expectations grow, platforms are beginning to integrate direct-to-consumer tools, such as:
Creator storefronts
Tipping and subscriptions
In-app shopping and affiliate links
Calendar-based service bookings
This development enables a fluid transition from content to commerce. A viewer might watch a livestream, tip the host, purchase merchandise, or schedule a session—all within one interface.
Platform Convergence and the Super App Model
The integration of multiple economic layers within a single platform mirrors the functionality of a "super app." Already common in parts of Asia, this model combines social features with payments, product marketplaces, and service access. While no Western platform has fully achieved this status, several are moving in that direction:
YouTube has integrated tipping, memberships, and product links.
Twitter/X supports long-form content, subscriptions, and crypto-based tips.
Instagram and TikTok offer product sales, creator funds, and live shopping.
Substack and Patreon bridge content with paid communities and service-based offerings.
Meta (WhatsApp/Threads) is testing payment systems and business tools in international markets.
The goal across these efforts appears to be the same: create a more complete, self-contained digital environment that fulfills multiple user needs.
Why This Model Is Gaining Traction
Several trends are driving this convergence:
User Demand for Flexibility
Audiences increasingly want to do more with fewer platforms—consuming content, paying creators, buying goods, and accessing services from a single point of entry.
Creator Economy Growth
The global creator economy is growing rapidly, with more people monetizing their work independently. Tools that support multiple income streams—ads, subscriptions, product sales—are in high demand.
Payment Infrastructure Advancements
Innovations in digital wallets, crypto (e.g., Bitcoin Lightning), and API-based payments are making it easier for platforms to integrate direct transactions.
Economic Incentive for Platforms
By embedding trade and services, platforms unlock new revenue sources and strengthen user retention through economic engagement.
What This Means for the Future
Social media platforms are evolving into something more than just communication tools—they are becoming full-fledged digital economies. By hosting attention, products, and services in one place, they begin to function like ecosystems, not just apps.
The result may be platforms that:
Host real-time discourse on politics, science, and culture
Allow creators to earn directly from their audiences
Facilitate peer-to-peer commerce
Support native identity and reputation systems
Operate as hubs for both free expression and economic opportunity
This trend is not yet complete, but the signs are clear. Whether it comes from a tech giant, a decentralized network, or an emerging platform, the convergence of these markets points toward a future where social interaction and economic activity are no longer separate digital spaces—but part of a unified experience.
If you want to support my work, I accept Bitcoin tips.
Local Tax Tyranny: Why Cities Like NYC Can’t Be Allowed to Shake Down Out-of-State Businesses
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has proposed a radical policy: require all companies doing business in New York City to pay the city’s corporate tax rate—even if they’re not headquartered in the city.
To some, this sounds fair. After all, if companies profit from New Yorkers, shouldn’t they help pay for city services? But under the surface, this proposal is a constitutional and economic landmine—and if Congress doesn’t act, it could set a dangerous precedent for local corruption and national division.
The Constitutional Guardrail: The Commerce Clause
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not cities—the authority to regulate commerce between states. This power was designed to ensure the country remains a unified economic system, not a collection of rival tax kingdoms.
The courts have long interpreted this rule through something called the Dormant Commerce Clause, which blocks state and local governments from:
Discriminating against out-of-state businesses
Creating unfair or excessive burdens for them
Trying to control what happens in other states
Mamdani’s proposal steps directly into that danger zone.
How the Law Actually Works
To be legal under the Dormant Commerce Clause, local tax policies targeting out-of-state businesses must follow four key rules:
1. Substantial Nexus
There must be a real, meaningful business connection to the city.
✅ Example: A food delivery company operating in NYC daily
❌ Example: A candle shop in Ohio that ships three boxes a year to Manhattan
2. Fair Apportionment
Only the portion of income earned in the city can be taxed.
✅ NYC taxes the 5% of revenue a company earns from local sales
❌ NYC taxes a company’s total nationwide profits
3. No Discrimination
Out-of-state and in-state businesses must be treated equally.
✅ Everyone pays the same rate
❌ Out-of-state companies pay higher taxes
4. No Undue Burden
The tax rules must be simple and reasonable to follow.
✅ Companies file a standard online form
❌ A small business in Kansas needs NYC accountants to avoid fines
What Happens If Congress Lets This Slide?
If cities and states are allowed to tax beyond their borders without restraint, it would unleash a wave of corruption, retaliation, and economic instability. Here’s what that could look like:
1. Extortion Disguised as Revenue
San Francisco demands that online companies pay a 15% “infrastructure fee” unless they open a local office and hire 20 employees.
This isn’t tax policy—it’s economic blackmail.
2. Political Favors for Donors
A Chicago mayor exempts a grocery chain that donated to their campaign from a new out-of-state tax, while smaller competitors from Indiana get hit with the full rate.
This turns taxation into legalized bribery.
3. Weaponized Ideology
Los Angeles taxes out-of-state firearm companies. Texas retaliates by taxing LGBTQ+ clothing brands.
Now taxes are no longer about revenue—they’re about punishing political opponents.
4. Slush Funds and Fake Solutions
NYC uses the new tax revenue to fund a “public grocery store” that ends up overstaffed, overpriced, and run by the mayor’s cousin.
This is how you turn public programs into corrupt cash machines.
5. Economic Civil War
NYC taxes Florida businesses. Florida taxes NYC-based finance firms. California hits Midwest farmers. Texas targets California media.
Welcome to a nationwide trade war, where consumers lose and small businesses collapse under the weight of red tape.
6. Coercion and Censorship
A mayor threatens new taxes on companies that don’t adopt a “social justice code of conduct.”
Taxation becomes a tool of forced speech and ideological control.
The Bottom Line: Congress Must Act
The Founders knew what they were doing when they centralized power over interstate commerce in Congress. Letting cities like New York go rogue with tax policy risks unraveling the national economy into a collection of fiefdoms—each one extorting outsiders and rewarding insiders.
What Mamdani is proposing isn’t bold or progressive. It’s a blueprint for systemic abuse, and if it spreads, no business in America will be safe from political retribution disguised as tax reform.
If you want to support my work, I accept Bitcoin tips.
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has proposed a radical policy: require all companies doing business in New York City to pay the city’s corporate tax rate—even if they’re not headquartered in the city.
To some, this sounds fair. After all, if companies profit from New Yorkers, shouldn’t they help pay for city services? But under the surface, this proposal is a constitutional and economic landmine—and if Congress doesn’t act, it could set a dangerous precedent for local corruption and national division.
The Constitutional Guardrail: The Commerce Clause
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not cities—the authority to regulate commerce between states. This power was designed to ensure the country remains a unified economic system, not a collection of rival tax kingdoms.
The courts have long interpreted this rule through something called the Dormant Commerce Clause, which blocks state and local governments from:
Discriminating against out-of-state businesses
Creating unfair or excessive burdens for them
Trying to control what happens in other states
Mamdani’s proposal steps directly into that danger zone.
How the Law Actually Works
To be legal under the Dormant Commerce Clause, local tax policies targeting out-of-state businesses must follow four key rules:
1. Substantial Nexus
There must be a real, meaningful business connection to the city.
✅ Example: A food delivery company operating in NYC daily
❌ Example: A candle shop in Ohio that ships three boxes a year to Manhattan
2. Fair Apportionment
Only the portion of income earned in the city can be taxed.
✅ NYC taxes the 5% of revenue a company earns from local sales
❌ NYC taxes a company’s total nationwide profits
3. No Discrimination
Out-of-state and in-state businesses must be treated equally.
✅ Everyone pays the same rate
❌ Out-of-state companies pay higher taxes
4. No Undue Burden
The tax rules must be simple and reasonable to follow.
✅ Companies file a standard online form
❌ A small business in Kansas needs NYC accountants to avoid fines
What Happens If Congress Lets This Slide?
If cities and states are allowed to tax beyond their borders without restraint, it would unleash a wave of corruption, retaliation, and economic instability. Here’s what that could look like:
1. Extortion Disguised as Revenue
San Francisco demands that online companies pay a 15% “infrastructure fee” unless they open a local office and hire 20 employees.
This isn’t tax policy—it’s economic blackmail.
2. Political Favors for Donors
A Chicago mayor exempts a grocery chain that donated to their campaign from a new out-of-state tax, while smaller competitors from Indiana get hit with the full rate.
This turns taxation into legalized bribery.
3. Weaponized Ideology
Los Angeles taxes out-of-state firearm companies. Texas retaliates by taxing LGBTQ+ clothing brands.
Now taxes are no longer about revenue—they’re about punishing political opponents.
4. Slush Funds and Fake Solutions
NYC uses the new tax revenue to fund a “public grocery store” that ends up overstaffed, overpriced, and run by the mayor’s cousin.
This is how you turn public programs into corrupt cash machines.
5. Economic Civil War
NYC taxes Florida businesses. Florida taxes NYC-based finance firms. California hits Midwest farmers. Texas targets California media.
Welcome to a nationwide trade war, where consumers lose and small businesses collapse under the weight of red tape.
6. Coercion and Censorship
A mayor threatens new taxes on companies that don’t adopt a “social justice code of conduct.”
Taxation becomes a tool of forced speech and ideological control.
The Bottom Line: Congress Must Act
The Founders knew what they were doing when they centralized power over interstate commerce in Congress. Letting cities like New York go rogue with tax policy risks unraveling the national economy into a collection of fiefdoms—each one extorting outsiders and rewarding insiders.
What Mamdani is proposing isn’t bold or progressive. It’s a blueprint for systemic abuse, and if it spreads, no business in America will be safe from political retribution disguised as tax reform.
If you want to support my work, I accept Bitcoin tips.
Self-Verification Is Your Best Defense: How Listing Your Official Platforms Protects Against Impersonation
As impersonation scams explode across social media, messaging apps, and Web3 platforms, creators and public figures face a growing threat: fake accounts claiming to be them, reaching out with scams, or spreading false messages. Most people wait for platforms to hand them a blue check. That’s a mistake. In today’s fractured digital environment, the most reliable defense is one you control: self-verification.
What Is Self-Verification?
Self-verification is the act of publicly listing all your real platforms, contact methods, and public keys in one clear, accessible location. Think of it as your digital fingerprint — a master list that says, “This is where I actually exist online.”
Unlike third-party verification, which depends on algorithms and subjective reviews, self-verification is proactive, fast, and completely under your control. It lets your audience quickly verify if an account claiming to be you is legitimate. If it’s not on the list, it’s not you.
Why It Works
Impersonators thrive in ambiguity. They often create fake versions of people on platforms where that person isn’t visibly active. If your presence isn’t clearly mapped out, scammers fill in the blanks.
A self-verification hub cuts off this tactic. It eliminates guesswork. Your followers — and even platform moderators — can check your official list and instantly spot impostors. It’s one of the simplest yet most powerful identity tools available.
What to Include in a Self-Verification Hub
If you want this to work, your verification list should be:
Publicly visible — post it on your website, bio link, or pinned post.
Kept current — an outdated list creates new vulnerabilities.
Consistently branded — use the same username and profile picture wherever possible.
Clear about boundaries — add a disclaimer like:
“I never DM asking for money, crypto, or giveaways. If you'd like to support my work, the only official links are listed here.”
If you accept donations, include a line like:
“If you want to support my work, I accept Bitcoin donations.”
Just make sure the address or QR code matches what’s on your public list. Transparency is what separates legitimate support from scam tactics.
Reinforce It with Advanced Verification Tools
If you’re operating in crypto, alt-tech, or Web3 spaces, you can add additional layers of verification to your digital identity:
Platform-based verification:
X Premium
Meta Verified
Gab Verified
Minds Verification
Nostr Primal (via cryptographic identity tied to your Nostr public key)
Cryptographic tools:
Post your Bitcoin or Lightning address publicly.
Share your PGP public key for signed emails or documents.
Include your Nostr pubkey for identity verification across decentralized apps.
Proof-of-personhood services:
BrightID
World ID
Proof of Humanity
These tools help establish credibility, particularly in pseudonymous environments or when interacting with unfamiliar audiences.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Don’t rely solely on third-party verification badges.
Avoid inconsistency in usernames across different platforms.
Don’t forget to update your official list when accounts change.
Never post donation or payment info without clarifying it’s your only legitimate method.
You Are the Authority on You
Self-verification is not just a precaution — it’s a responsibility. Your audience shouldn't have to guess which accounts are real. They shouldn’t fall victim to impostors using your name because you left a gap unclaimed.
Listing your official platforms, contact methods, and donation addresses builds a wall of clarity that scammers can’t easily breach. It earns trust, deters fraud, and gives you control of your own digital narrative.
Don't wait for someone else to verify you. Verify yourself.
If you would like to support my work, I accept Bitcoin tips.
As impersonation scams explode across social media, messaging apps, and Web3 platforms, creators and public figures face a growing threat: fake accounts claiming to be them, reaching out with scams, or spreading false messages. Most people wait for platforms to hand them a blue check. That’s a mistake. In today’s fractured digital environment, the most reliable defense is one you control: self-verification.
What Is Self-Verification?
Self-verification is the act of publicly listing all your real platforms, contact methods, and public keys in one clear, accessible location. Think of it as your digital fingerprint — a master list that says, “This is where I actually exist online.”
Unlike third-party verification, which depends on algorithms and subjective reviews, self-verification is proactive, fast, and completely under your control. It lets your audience quickly verify if an account claiming to be you is legitimate. If it’s not on the list, it’s not you.
Why It Works
Impersonators thrive in ambiguity. They often create fake versions of people on platforms where that person isn’t visibly active. If your presence isn’t clearly mapped out, scammers fill in the blanks.
A self-verification hub cuts off this tactic. It eliminates guesswork. Your followers — and even platform moderators — can check your official list and instantly spot impostors. It’s one of the simplest yet most powerful identity tools available.
What to Include in a Self-Verification Hub
If you want this to work, your verification list should be:
Publicly visible — post it on your website, bio link, or pinned post.
Kept current — an outdated list creates new vulnerabilities.
Consistently branded — use the same username and profile picture wherever possible.
Clear about boundaries — add a disclaimer like:
“I never DM asking for money, crypto, or giveaways. If you'd like to support my work, the only official links are listed here.”
If you accept donations, include a line like:
“If you want to support my work, I accept Bitcoin donations.”
Just make sure the address or QR code matches what’s on your public list. Transparency is what separates legitimate support from scam tactics.
Reinforce It with Advanced Verification Tools
If you’re operating in crypto, alt-tech, or Web3 spaces, you can add additional layers of verification to your digital identity:
Platform-based verification:
X Premium
Meta Verified
Gab Verified
Minds Verification
Nostr Primal (via cryptographic identity tied to your Nostr public key)
Cryptographic tools:
Post your Bitcoin or Lightning address publicly.
Share your PGP public key for signed emails or documents.
Include your Nostr pubkey for identity verification across decentralized apps.
Proof-of-personhood services:
BrightID
World ID
Proof of Humanity
These tools help establish credibility, particularly in pseudonymous environments or when interacting with unfamiliar audiences.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Don’t rely solely on third-party verification badges.
Avoid inconsistency in usernames across different platforms.
Don’t forget to update your official list when accounts change.
Never post donation or payment info without clarifying it’s your only legitimate method.
You Are the Authority on You
Self-verification is not just a precaution — it’s a responsibility. Your audience shouldn't have to guess which accounts are real. They shouldn’t fall victim to impostors using your name because you left a gap unclaimed.
Listing your official platforms, contact methods, and donation addresses builds a wall of clarity that scammers can’t easily breach. It earns trust, deters fraud, and gives you control of your own digital narrative.
Don't wait for someone else to verify you. Verify yourself.
If you would like to support my work, I accept Bitcoin tips.
wow my articles aren't going through.
The Real Cost of Government-Run Grocery Stores: Why Mamdani’s Plan Could Backfire
Progressive Optics, Predictable Failure
Zohran Mamdani’s proposal to establish government-run grocery stores in New York City is being framed as a bold, progressive step toward solving food insecurity. By creating public alternatives to private grocers, Mamdani hopes to reduce food deserts and offer affordable options to low-income neighborhoods. But beneath the surface, there are serious concerns that such a plan could result in massive inefficiencies, waste, and even worsen the very problem it aims to fix.
A Taxpayer-Funded Fantasy
The proposal envisions taxpayer-funded grocery stores operating in underserved areas. Rather than rely on private businesses, the city would run its own network of food outlets. Supporters call it justice; critics see an economic delusion dressed up as compassion—an experiment with other people’s money and no accountability.
When No One Has to Care
Government-run retail ventures are notorious for inefficiency. Without competition or the need to turn a profit, these entities often lack incentives to control costs, improve service, or respond to consumer preferences. Bureaucracies don’t innovate—they expand. The result: ballooning costs, poor service, and the slow decay of whatever problem the program was supposed to fix.
Jobs for Friends, Contracts for Donors
This isn’t just about groceries—it’s about political power. These stores could easily become slush funds, offering jobs to insiders and contracts to loyalists. The public pays the bill, and the political class cashes in. It’s not reform—it’s a racket in plain sight.
Solving Food Deserts by Creating Bigger Ones
Ironically, Mamdani’s plan could drive out the very grocers already serving struggling areas. If government stores undercut private competitors and then collapse under mismanagement, entire communities could be left with even fewer food options. The private sector won’t come back to clean up the mess—because no one wants to compete with a subsidized failure.
We’ve Seen This Movie Before—It Ends Badly
Detroit’s failed public markets. Puerto Rico’s mismanaged utilities. Venezuela’s government-run food programs that turned into corruption pipelines. Every time the government tries to run a store, it ends in waste, debt, or collapse. There’s no reason to expect a different outcome in New York—except blind ideology.
A Trojan Horse for Cronyism
Mamdani’s plan wraps itself in moral language—but behind the curtain is an old story: control the money, reward your friends, and punish your enemies. The public won’t get more groceries—they’ll get more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and another broken promise funded by their own wallets.
Progressive Optics, Predictable Failure
Zohran Mamdani’s proposal to establish government-run grocery stores in New York City is being framed as a bold, progressive step toward solving food insecurity. By creating public alternatives to private grocers, Mamdani hopes to reduce food deserts and offer affordable options to low-income neighborhoods. But beneath the surface, there are serious concerns that such a plan could result in massive inefficiencies, waste, and even worsen the very problem it aims to fix.
A Taxpayer-Funded Fantasy
The proposal envisions taxpayer-funded grocery stores operating in underserved areas. Rather than rely on private businesses, the city would run its own network of food outlets. Supporters call it justice; critics see an economic delusion dressed up as compassion—an experiment with other people’s money and no accountability.
When No One Has to Care
Government-run retail ventures are notorious for inefficiency. Without competition or the need to turn a profit, these entities often lack incentives to control costs, improve service, or respond to consumer preferences. Bureaucracies don’t innovate—they expand. The result: ballooning costs, poor service, and the slow decay of whatever problem the program was supposed to fix.
Jobs for Friends, Contracts for Donors
This isn’t just about groceries—it’s about political power. These stores could easily become slush funds, offering jobs to insiders and contracts to loyalists. The public pays the bill, and the political class cashes in. It’s not reform—it’s a racket in plain sight.
Solving Food Deserts by Creating Bigger Ones
Ironically, Mamdani’s plan could drive out the very grocers already serving struggling areas. If government stores undercut private competitors and then collapse under mismanagement, entire communities could be left with even fewer food options. The private sector won’t come back to clean up the mess—because no one wants to compete with a subsidized failure.
We’ve Seen This Movie Before—It Ends Badly
Detroit’s failed public markets. Puerto Rico’s mismanaged utilities. Venezuela’s government-run food programs that turned into corruption pipelines. Every time the government tries to run a store, it ends in waste, debt, or collapse. There’s no reason to expect a different outcome in New York—except blind ideology.
A Trojan Horse for Cronyism
Mamdani’s plan wraps itself in moral language—but behind the curtain is an old story: control the money, reward your friends, and punish your enemies. The public won’t get more groceries—they’ll get more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and another broken promise funded by their own wallets.
The Real Cost of Government-Run Grocery Stores: Why Mamdani’s Plan Could Backfire
Progressive Optics, Predictable Failure
Zohran Mamdani’s proposal to establish government-run grocery stores in New York City is being framed as a bold, progressive step toward solving food insecurity. By creating public alternatives to private grocers, Mamdani hopes to reduce food deserts and offer affordable options to low-income neighborhoods. But beneath the surface, there are serious concerns that such a plan could result in massive inefficiencies, waste, and even worsen the very problem it aims to fix.
A Taxpayer-Funded Fantasy
The proposal envisions taxpayer-funded grocery stores operating in underserved areas. Rather than rely on private businesses, the city would run its own network of food outlets. Supporters call it justice; critics see an economic delusion dressed up as compassion—an experiment with other people’s money and no accountability.
When No One Has to Care
Government-run retail ventures are notorious for inefficiency. Without competition or the need to turn a profit, these entities often lack incentives to control costs, improve service, or respond to consumer preferences. Bureaucracies don’t innovate—they expand. The result: ballooning costs, poor service, and the slow decay of whatever problem the program was supposed to fix.
Jobs for Friends, Contracts for Donors
This isn’t just about groceries—it’s about political power. These stores could easily become slush funds, offering jobs to insiders and contracts to loyalists. The public pays the bill, and the political class cashes in. It’s not reform—it’s a racket in plain sight.
Solving Food Deserts by Creating Bigger Ones
Ironically, Mamdani’s plan could drive out the very grocers already serving struggling areas. If government stores undercut private competitors and then collapse under mismanagement, entire communities could be left with even fewer food options. The private sector won’t come back to clean up the mess—because no one wants to compete with a subsidized failure.
We’ve Seen This Movie Before—It Ends Badly
Detroit’s failed public markets. Puerto Rico’s mismanaged utilities. Venezuela’s government-run food programs that turned into corruption pipelines. Every time the government tries to run a store, it ends in waste, debt, or collapse. There’s no reason to expect a different outcome in New York—except blind ideology.
A Trojan Horse for Cronyism
Mamdani’s plan wraps itself in moral language—but behind the curtain is an old story: control the money, reward your friends, and punish your enemies. The public won’t get more groceries—they’ll get more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and another broken promise funded by their own wallets.
Progressive Optics, Predictable Failure
Zohran Mamdani’s proposal to establish government-run grocery stores in New York City is being framed as a bold, progressive step toward solving food insecurity. By creating public alternatives to private grocers, Mamdani hopes to reduce food deserts and offer affordable options to low-income neighborhoods. But beneath the surface, there are serious concerns that such a plan could result in massive inefficiencies, waste, and even worsen the very problem it aims to fix.
A Taxpayer-Funded Fantasy
The proposal envisions taxpayer-funded grocery stores operating in underserved areas. Rather than rely on private businesses, the city would run its own network of food outlets. Supporters call it justice; critics see an economic delusion dressed up as compassion—an experiment with other people’s money and no accountability.
When No One Has to Care
Government-run retail ventures are notorious for inefficiency. Without competition or the need to turn a profit, these entities often lack incentives to control costs, improve service, or respond to consumer preferences. Bureaucracies don’t innovate—they expand. The result: ballooning costs, poor service, and the slow decay of whatever problem the program was supposed to fix.
Jobs for Friends, Contracts for Donors
This isn’t just about groceries—it’s about political power. These stores could easily become slush funds, offering jobs to insiders and contracts to loyalists. The public pays the bill, and the political class cashes in. It’s not reform—it’s a racket in plain sight.
Solving Food Deserts by Creating Bigger Ones
Ironically, Mamdani’s plan could drive out the very grocers already serving struggling areas. If government stores undercut private competitors and then collapse under mismanagement, entire communities could be left with even fewer food options. The private sector won’t come back to clean up the mess—because no one wants to compete with a subsidized failure.
We’ve Seen This Movie Before—It Ends Badly
Detroit’s failed public markets. Puerto Rico’s mismanaged utilities. Venezuela’s government-run food programs that turned into corruption pipelines. Every time the government tries to run a store, it ends in waste, debt, or collapse. There’s no reason to expect a different outcome in New York—except blind ideology.
A Trojan Horse for Cronyism
Mamdani’s plan wraps itself in moral language—but behind the curtain is an old story: control the money, reward your friends, and punish your enemies. The public won’t get more groceries—they’ll get more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and another broken promise funded by their own wallets.
Stranded by Law: The Deportation of a Naturalized U.S. Soldier’s Son
When Jermaine Thomas was deported to Jamaica in 2025, it raised questions about how someone born on a U.S. Army base in West Germany and raised in Texas could lack U.S. citizenship. The case has drawn public attention due to the assumption that children born to U.S. soldiers abroad are automatically citizens. However, U.S. citizenship law imposes strict criteria, and Thomas was never legally a U.S. citizen.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), in effect at the time of Thomas's birth in 1986, a child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-citizen parent could only acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the United States for at least 10 years prior to the child’s birth, including at least 5 years after the age of 14. These years do not need to be consecutive, but they must be cumulative and lawfully present. Time spent serving abroad, including military service, does not count toward this requirement.
Thomas’s father was born in Jamaica and immigrated to the U.S. in 1977. He joined the U.S. Army in 1979 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in May 1984. Jermaine Thomas was born in August 1986. Because his father had only been physically present in the U.S. for about seven years prior to Jermaine’s birth, he did not meet the 10-year threshold required to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Had Thomas's father been born in the United States or immigrated earlier and lived in the U.S. for at least 10 cumulative years (with 5 after age 14), Jermaine would have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. The distinction between native-born and naturalized citizens in this context is significant under the law.
Several hypothetical scenarios clarify this rule:
A U.S.-born parent who lived in the U.S. from birth to age 20 would meet the requirement.
An immigrant who came to the U.S. at age 5 and lived there through age 25 would also qualify.
A naturalized citizen who immigrated at 18 and had a child abroad 8 years later, as in Thomas's case, would not meet the requirement.
Jermaine Thomas entered the U.S. legally in 1989 as a lawful permanent resident. Despite growing up in Texas, he never acquired U.S. citizenship. Following multiple felony convictions, he became deportable under U.S. immigration law. In 2025, courts confirmed he had no legal claim to citizenship, and he was removed to Jamaica, his father's country of origin.
This case highlights a strict interpretation of U.S. nationality law, which applies uniform standards regardless of military service or upbringing. While some may view the outcome as harsh, the legal framework is based on measurable criteria established by statute. Whether or not reforms should be considered to address similar cases remains a matter of policy debate.
When Jermaine Thomas was deported to Jamaica in 2025, it raised questions about how someone born on a U.S. Army base in West Germany and raised in Texas could lack U.S. citizenship. The case has drawn public attention due to the assumption that children born to U.S. soldiers abroad are automatically citizens. However, U.S. citizenship law imposes strict criteria, and Thomas was never legally a U.S. citizen.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), in effect at the time of Thomas's birth in 1986, a child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-citizen parent could only acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the United States for at least 10 years prior to the child’s birth, including at least 5 years after the age of 14. These years do not need to be consecutive, but they must be cumulative and lawfully present. Time spent serving abroad, including military service, does not count toward this requirement.
Thomas’s father was born in Jamaica and immigrated to the U.S. in 1977. He joined the U.S. Army in 1979 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in May 1984. Jermaine Thomas was born in August 1986. Because his father had only been physically present in the U.S. for about seven years prior to Jermaine’s birth, he did not meet the 10-year threshold required to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Had Thomas's father been born in the United States or immigrated earlier and lived in the U.S. for at least 10 cumulative years (with 5 after age 14), Jermaine would have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. The distinction between native-born and naturalized citizens in this context is significant under the law.
Several hypothetical scenarios clarify this rule:
A U.S.-born parent who lived in the U.S. from birth to age 20 would meet the requirement.
An immigrant who came to the U.S. at age 5 and lived there through age 25 would also qualify.
A naturalized citizen who immigrated at 18 and had a child abroad 8 years later, as in Thomas's case, would not meet the requirement.
Jermaine Thomas entered the U.S. legally in 1989 as a lawful permanent resident. Despite growing up in Texas, he never acquired U.S. citizenship. Following multiple felony convictions, he became deportable under U.S. immigration law. In 2025, courts confirmed he had no legal claim to citizenship, and he was removed to Jamaica, his father's country of origin.
This case highlights a strict interpretation of U.S. nationality law, which applies uniform standards regardless of military service or upbringing. While some may view the outcome as harsh, the legal framework is based on measurable criteria established by statute. Whether or not reforms should be considered to address similar cases remains a matter of policy debate.
Fraudulent Naturalization and the Risk of Denaturalization: The Case of Zohran Mamdani
U.S. citizenship obtained through naturalization is widely considered permanent. But under certain legal circumstances, it can be revoked. That rarely used process—denaturalization—has been thrust into the spotlight following allegations against New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.
Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and current state assemblyman, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018. In June 2025, Representative Andy Ogles publicly accused him of concealing ideological affiliations during the naturalization process—specifically, of expressing past support for the Holy Land Five, a group convicted in 2009 of funneling money to the terrorist organization Hamas. If proven, those omissions could place Mamdani’s citizenship in legal jeopardy.
The controversy raises a key legal question: Can a naturalized American lose their citizenship for lying about past political affiliations or ideological sympathies?
What Is Denaturalization?
Denaturalization is the legal process by which the U.S. government revokes someone’s citizenship. It is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) and applies in cases where naturalization was either illegally procured or fraudulently obtained. Though rare, denaturalization has been used in cases involving war crimes, terrorism, and immigration fraud.
There are two primary legal grounds: illegal procurement and willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. The former applies when someone was not legally eligible to become a citizen at the time they were naturalized—typically due to criminal history, affiliations with hostile groups, or lack of “good moral character.” The latter applies when the applicant knowingly lied or withheld information that would have likely led to denial of citizenship.
Allegations Against Mamdani
Representative Ogles’s accusation centers on the claim that Mamdani failed to disclose prior ideological support for individuals or groups linked to terrorism. In a post on the social media platform X, Ogles wrote, “Bye bye, little muhammad! If you lied on your N-400 naturalization forms, you’re going home.” The message was accompanied by an illustration featuring Mamdani holding a book emblazoned with a communist symbol and the caption “Deport Zohran.”
The post referenced Mamdani’s alleged ideological support for the Holy Land Five—a group whose members were convicted of providing financial support to Hamas under the guise of charitable donations. Such an affiliation, if proven and if omitted from naturalization paperwork, could undermine the “good moral character” requirement that is central to the citizenship process.
While the rhetoric is politically charged, the legal threshold for denaturalization remains high. The government would need to prove that Mamdani willfully misrepresented or concealed material facts during his application process.
What Would the Process Look Like?
If federal authorities pursue the matter, it would begin with an investigation by agencies such as the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If sufficient evidence is found, the government could file a civil denaturalization suit in federal court.
To succeed, the government must meet an unusually high standard of proof: “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence.” If a judge finds that the naturalization was obtained through fraud or illegality, the court can revoke citizenship and revert the individual to their previous immigration status—opening the door to potential deportation.
Legal Precedent
Historically, denaturalization has been applied in grave cases. Nazi collaborators who lied about their wartime activities were stripped of U.S. citizenship decades after the fact. More recently, individuals who concealed ties to ISIS or other terrorist organizations have faced the same fate.
The use of denaturalization remains rare and politically sensitive, but the legal precedent is well established: If citizenship was obtained through fraud, it can be undone.
What Happens Next?
As of now, the allegations against Mamdani are just that—allegations. No formal investigation or legal action has been announced. But the accusations, especially when amplified by federal lawmakers, could spur an inquiry.
Whether the government chooses to act will likely depend on whether credible evidence emerges that Mamdani knowingly omitted material affiliations or sympathies that would have disqualified him from citizenship.
Regardless of the outcome, the case reflects broader tensions in American politics around immigration, national security, and ideological litmus tests. As scrutiny of the naturalization process intensifies, so too does the debate over what it means to become—and remain—a U.S. citizen.
U.S. citizenship obtained through naturalization is widely considered permanent. But under certain legal circumstances, it can be revoked. That rarely used process—denaturalization—has been thrust into the spotlight following allegations against New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.
Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and current state assemblyman, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018. In June 2025, Representative Andy Ogles publicly accused him of concealing ideological affiliations during the naturalization process—specifically, of expressing past support for the Holy Land Five, a group convicted in 2009 of funneling money to the terrorist organization Hamas. If proven, those omissions could place Mamdani’s citizenship in legal jeopardy.
The controversy raises a key legal question: Can a naturalized American lose their citizenship for lying about past political affiliations or ideological sympathies?
What Is Denaturalization?
Denaturalization is the legal process by which the U.S. government revokes someone’s citizenship. It is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) and applies in cases where naturalization was either illegally procured or fraudulently obtained. Though rare, denaturalization has been used in cases involving war crimes, terrorism, and immigration fraud.
There are two primary legal grounds: illegal procurement and willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. The former applies when someone was not legally eligible to become a citizen at the time they were naturalized—typically due to criminal history, affiliations with hostile groups, or lack of “good moral character.” The latter applies when the applicant knowingly lied or withheld information that would have likely led to denial of citizenship.
Allegations Against Mamdani
Representative Ogles’s accusation centers on the claim that Mamdani failed to disclose prior ideological support for individuals or groups linked to terrorism. In a post on the social media platform X, Ogles wrote, “Bye bye, little muhammad! If you lied on your N-400 naturalization forms, you’re going home.” The message was accompanied by an illustration featuring Mamdani holding a book emblazoned with a communist symbol and the caption “Deport Zohran.”
The post referenced Mamdani’s alleged ideological support for the Holy Land Five—a group whose members were convicted of providing financial support to Hamas under the guise of charitable donations. Such an affiliation, if proven and if omitted from naturalization paperwork, could undermine the “good moral character” requirement that is central to the citizenship process.
While the rhetoric is politically charged, the legal threshold for denaturalization remains high. The government would need to prove that Mamdani willfully misrepresented or concealed material facts during his application process.
What Would the Process Look Like?
If federal authorities pursue the matter, it would begin with an investigation by agencies such as the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If sufficient evidence is found, the government could file a civil denaturalization suit in federal court.
To succeed, the government must meet an unusually high standard of proof: “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence.” If a judge finds that the naturalization was obtained through fraud or illegality, the court can revoke citizenship and revert the individual to their previous immigration status—opening the door to potential deportation.
Legal Precedent
Historically, denaturalization has been applied in grave cases. Nazi collaborators who lied about their wartime activities were stripped of U.S. citizenship decades after the fact. More recently, individuals who concealed ties to ISIS or other terrorist organizations have faced the same fate.
The use of denaturalization remains rare and politically sensitive, but the legal precedent is well established: If citizenship was obtained through fraud, it can be undone.
What Happens Next?
As of now, the allegations against Mamdani are just that—allegations. No formal investigation or legal action has been announced. But the accusations, especially when amplified by federal lawmakers, could spur an inquiry.
Whether the government chooses to act will likely depend on whether credible evidence emerges that Mamdani knowingly omitted material affiliations or sympathies that would have disqualified him from citizenship.
Regardless of the outcome, the case reflects broader tensions in American politics around immigration, national security, and ideological litmus tests. As scrutiny of the naturalization process intensifies, so too does the debate over what it means to become—and remain—a U.S. citizen.
The Fed Did This — Not Trump: Powell Lit the Inflation Fuse Under Biden
Despite a change in leadership, the elevated inflation Americans are still dealing with today is the result of monetary policies enacted long before President Trump returned to office. Prices remain high, but the cause isn’t Trump’s trade agenda—it’s the fallout from years of reckless money creation and delayed action by the Federal Reserve under Jerome Powell.
Now, instead of taking responsibility, Powell and others are pointing to tariffs as a convenient scapegoat. But the facts tell a different story.
The Fed’s Monetary Flood Under Biden
During the Biden years, Jerome Powell ran the most aggressive money-printing operation in modern U.S. history. The Fed slashed interest rates to near-zero and launched massive asset purchases. Trillions of new dollars were pushed into the financial system. Stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, and bailout programs were all enabled by the same loose money strategy.
The Fed’s balance sheet exploded. Risk was rewarded, and spending was encouraged—while inflationary pressure quietly built underneath. Powell assured the public that inflation would be “transitory,” even as prices began climbing across nearly every sector.
By the time the Fed finally responded, the damage had already been done. Powell’s delay in tightening policy allowed inflation to spread and embed itself deep in the economy. None of this had anything to do with Donald Trump, who was out of office the entire time it unfolded.
Now Powell Wants to Shift the Blame
Today, Powell and others are beginning to suggest that Trump’s trade policies—particularly tariffs—could reignite inflation. This is a clever but dishonest pivot. Tariffs may raise prices on specific goods, but they are not responsible for the broad-based inflation Americans are experiencing today.
The root of this crisis was the reckless expansion of the money supply under Powell’s leadership during Biden’s presidency. It’s disingenuous to now try to pin this on a president who has only been in office for 180 days.
This looks like political cover—an attempt to protect Powell’s own legacy and deflect attention from the disastrous consequences of his policies.
Powell’s New Mistake: Loosening Credit Standards
What’s more alarming is what Powell is proposing now. Instead of focusing on restoring financial discipline, the Fed is considering easing credit standards for banks—encouraging them to lend more with fewer reserves.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the 2008 financial crash. Back then, banks extended credit too easily and didn’t have enough capital on hand. The result was a housing collapse and a global recession.
Now, as the economy still reels from inflation, Powell is entertaining the same dangerous ideas—pushing for more lending and weaker risk safeguards. It’s reckless, and it puts the financial system at risk all over again.
Conclusion: Accountability Starts at the Fed
Let’s be clear: Donald Trump did not create this inflation crisis. The American people are living through the consequences of years of failed monetary policy, executed under the Biden administration and directed by Jerome Powell.
The attempt to shift blame onto tariffs and trade policy is political theater. It ignores the real cause—and worse, it distracts from the dangerous new policies now being floated by the very institution that caused the problem.
Powell lit the fuse. He flooded the system with cheap money, denied the risks, and now wants to loosen standards again. If we want to stop repeating economic disasters, accountability must begin where the damage truly began: at the Federal Reserve.
If you want to support my work, I accept Bitcon tips.
Despite a change in leadership, the elevated inflation Americans are still dealing with today is the result of monetary policies enacted long before President Trump returned to office. Prices remain high, but the cause isn’t Trump’s trade agenda—it’s the fallout from years of reckless money creation and delayed action by the Federal Reserve under Jerome Powell.
Now, instead of taking responsibility, Powell and others are pointing to tariffs as a convenient scapegoat. But the facts tell a different story.
The Fed’s Monetary Flood Under Biden
During the Biden years, Jerome Powell ran the most aggressive money-printing operation in modern U.S. history. The Fed slashed interest rates to near-zero and launched massive asset purchases. Trillions of new dollars were pushed into the financial system. Stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, and bailout programs were all enabled by the same loose money strategy.
The Fed’s balance sheet exploded. Risk was rewarded, and spending was encouraged—while inflationary pressure quietly built underneath. Powell assured the public that inflation would be “transitory,” even as prices began climbing across nearly every sector.
By the time the Fed finally responded, the damage had already been done. Powell’s delay in tightening policy allowed inflation to spread and embed itself deep in the economy. None of this had anything to do with Donald Trump, who was out of office the entire time it unfolded.
Now Powell Wants to Shift the Blame
Today, Powell and others are beginning to suggest that Trump’s trade policies—particularly tariffs—could reignite inflation. This is a clever but dishonest pivot. Tariffs may raise prices on specific goods, but they are not responsible for the broad-based inflation Americans are experiencing today.
The root of this crisis was the reckless expansion of the money supply under Powell’s leadership during Biden’s presidency. It’s disingenuous to now try to pin this on a president who has only been in office for 180 days.
This looks like political cover—an attempt to protect Powell’s own legacy and deflect attention from the disastrous consequences of his policies.
Powell’s New Mistake: Loosening Credit Standards
What’s more alarming is what Powell is proposing now. Instead of focusing on restoring financial discipline, the Fed is considering easing credit standards for banks—encouraging them to lend more with fewer reserves.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the 2008 financial crash. Back then, banks extended credit too easily and didn’t have enough capital on hand. The result was a housing collapse and a global recession.
Now, as the economy still reels from inflation, Powell is entertaining the same dangerous ideas—pushing for more lending and weaker risk safeguards. It’s reckless, and it puts the financial system at risk all over again.
Conclusion: Accountability Starts at the Fed
Let’s be clear: Donald Trump did not create this inflation crisis. The American people are living through the consequences of years of failed monetary policy, executed under the Biden administration and directed by Jerome Powell.
The attempt to shift blame onto tariffs and trade policy is political theater. It ignores the real cause—and worse, it distracts from the dangerous new policies now being floated by the very institution that caused the problem.
Powell lit the fuse. He flooded the system with cheap money, denied the risks, and now wants to loosen standards again. If we want to stop repeating economic disasters, accountability must begin where the damage truly began: at the Federal Reserve.
If you want to support my work, I accept Bitcon tips.
The Fed Did This — Not Trump: Powell Lit the Inflation Fuse Under Biden
Despite a change in leadership, the elevated inflation Americans are still dealing with today is the result of monetary policies enacted long before President Trump returned to office. Prices remain high, but the cause isn’t Trump’s trade agenda—it’s the fallout from years of reckless money creation and delayed action by the Federal Reserve under Jerome Powell.
Now, instead of taking responsibility, Powell and others are pointing to tariffs as a convenient scapegoat. But the facts tell a different story.
The Fed’s Monetary Flood Under Biden
During the Biden years, Jerome Powell ran the most aggressive money-printing operation in modern U.S. history. The Fed slashed interest rates to near-zero and launched massive asset purchases. Trillions of new dollars were pushed into the financial system. Stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, and bailout programs were all enabled by the same loose money strategy.
The Fed’s balance sheet exploded. Risk was rewarded, and spending was encouraged—while inflationary pressure quietly built underneath. Powell assured the public that inflation would be “transitory,” even as prices began climbing across nearly every sector.
By the time the Fed finally responded, the damage had already been done. Powell’s delay in tightening policy allowed inflation to spread and embed itself deep in the economy. None of this had anything to do with Donald Trump, who was out of office the entire time it unfolded.
Now Powell Wants to Shift the Blame
Today, Powell and others are beginning to suggest that Trump’s trade policies—particularly tariffs—could reignite inflation. This is a clever but dishonest pivot. Tariffs may raise prices on specific goods, but they are not responsible for the broad-based inflation Americans are experiencing today.
The root of this crisis was the reckless expansion of the money supply under Powell’s leadership during Biden’s presidency. It’s disingenuous to now try to pin this on a president who has only been in office for 180 days.
This looks like political cover—an attempt to protect Powell’s own legacy and deflect attention from the disastrous consequences of his policies.
Powell’s New Mistake: Loosening Credit Standards
What’s more alarming is what Powell is proposing now. Instead of focusing on restoring financial discipline, the Fed is considering easing credit standards for banks—encouraging them to lend more with fewer reserves.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the 2008 financial crash. Back then, banks extended credit too easily and didn’t have enough capital on hand. The result was a housing collapse and a global recession.
Now, as the economy still reels from inflation, Powell is entertaining the same dangerous ideas—pushing for more lending and weaker risk safeguards. It’s reckless, and it puts the financial system at risk all over again.
Conclusion: Accountability Starts at the Fed
Let’s be clear: Donald Trump did not create this inflation crisis. The American people are living through the consequences of years of failed monetary policy, executed under the Biden administration and directed by Jerome Powell.
The attempt to shift blame onto tariffs and trade policy is political theater. It ignores the real cause—and worse, it distracts from the dangerous new policies now being floated by the very institution that caused the problem.
Powell lit the fuse. He flooded the system with cheap money, denied the risks, and now wants to loosen standards again. If we want to stop repeating economic disasters, accountability must begin where the damage truly began: at the Federal Reserve.
Despite a change in leadership, the elevated inflation Americans are still dealing with today is the result of monetary policies enacted long before President Trump returned to office. Prices remain high, but the cause isn’t Trump’s trade agenda—it’s the fallout from years of reckless money creation and delayed action by the Federal Reserve under Jerome Powell.
Now, instead of taking responsibility, Powell and others are pointing to tariffs as a convenient scapegoat. But the facts tell a different story.
The Fed’s Monetary Flood Under Biden
During the Biden years, Jerome Powell ran the most aggressive money-printing operation in modern U.S. history. The Fed slashed interest rates to near-zero and launched massive asset purchases. Trillions of new dollars were pushed into the financial system. Stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, and bailout programs were all enabled by the same loose money strategy.
The Fed’s balance sheet exploded. Risk was rewarded, and spending was encouraged—while inflationary pressure quietly built underneath. Powell assured the public that inflation would be “transitory,” even as prices began climbing across nearly every sector.
By the time the Fed finally responded, the damage had already been done. Powell’s delay in tightening policy allowed inflation to spread and embed itself deep in the economy. None of this had anything to do with Donald Trump, who was out of office the entire time it unfolded.
Now Powell Wants to Shift the Blame
Today, Powell and others are beginning to suggest that Trump’s trade policies—particularly tariffs—could reignite inflation. This is a clever but dishonest pivot. Tariffs may raise prices on specific goods, but they are not responsible for the broad-based inflation Americans are experiencing today.
The root of this crisis was the reckless expansion of the money supply under Powell’s leadership during Biden’s presidency. It’s disingenuous to now try to pin this on a president who has only been in office for 180 days.
This looks like political cover—an attempt to protect Powell’s own legacy and deflect attention from the disastrous consequences of his policies.
Powell’s New Mistake: Loosening Credit Standards
What’s more alarming is what Powell is proposing now. Instead of focusing on restoring financial discipline, the Fed is considering easing credit standards for banks—encouraging them to lend more with fewer reserves.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the 2008 financial crash. Back then, banks extended credit too easily and didn’t have enough capital on hand. The result was a housing collapse and a global recession.
Now, as the economy still reels from inflation, Powell is entertaining the same dangerous ideas—pushing for more lending and weaker risk safeguards. It’s reckless, and it puts the financial system at risk all over again.
Conclusion: Accountability Starts at the Fed
Let’s be clear: Donald Trump did not create this inflation crisis. The American people are living through the consequences of years of failed monetary policy, executed under the Biden administration and directed by Jerome Powell.
The attempt to shift blame onto tariffs and trade policy is political theater. It ignores the real cause—and worse, it distracts from the dangerous new policies now being floated by the very institution that caused the problem.
Powell lit the fuse. He flooded the system with cheap money, denied the risks, and now wants to loosen standards again. If we want to stop repeating economic disasters, accountability must begin where the damage truly began: at the Federal Reserve.
Death Wish: How Zohran Mamdani’s Economic Plan Could Cripple New York
New York is finished. That’s the growing sentiment as Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani rolls out a slate of radical economic proposals that seem engineered to punish productivity, drive out business, and collapse the city’s tax base. Framed as a way to "Trump-proof" New York, Mamdani's plan reads more like a blueprint for economic self-destruction.
Corporate Tax Grab: Punishing Companies for Existing
Mamdani wants to raise New York’s corporate tax rate from 7.25% to 11.5%, aligning it with New Jersey’s. But here’s the catch: his proposal doesn’t just target companies headquartered in New York. It applies to any business that operates within the state’s borders. Whether you’re based in Florida, Texas, or Wyoming—if you do business in New York, you pay New York's new rate.
The consequences are obvious. Companies don’t need to be physically in New York anymore, and this proposal gives them a reason not to be. Investment will slow. Hiring will pause. Office towers will empty. New firms won’t even consider entering the market. And that $10 billion revenue goal? Good luck hitting it when you’ve scared off your entire revenue base. Legal battles over interstate commerce are also a near certainty.
Wealth Surtax: Kicking Out the Golden Goose
Next, Mamdani proposes a 2% flat tax on anyone earning $1 million or more annually. While that might sound fair in isolation, in reality it targets the very group that funds the majority of the city’s operations. New York is already bleeding millionaires to Florida, Texas, and other low-tax states. This policy would accelerate the exodus.
When the top 1% pays roughly 40% of income taxes, losing even a small percentage of them creates a massive fiscal hole. And once they’re gone, they rarely come back.
Government-Run Grocery Stores: Corruption on Aisle 9
As if punitive taxation weren’t enough, Mamdani is also pushing for publicly funded grocery stores. Branded as a solution to food deserts, these stores would be fully owned and operated by the government.
History shows what happens next: inefficiency, political patronage, bloated budgets, and unions embedded in operations. These stores risk becoming slush funds for politically connected interests, not lifelines for struggling communities. Meanwhile, private grocers—already operating on razor-thin margins—may be pushed out entirely.
The Spiral: Tax, Collapse, Repeat
Mamdani’s plan sets off a dangerous chain reaction:
Tax the businesses → businesses leave
Tax the wealthy → the wealthy leave
Services degrade → crime rises
Remaining taxpayers flee → revenue collapses
This is not speculation—it’s the same cycle that brought New York to the brink in the 1970s and again in the early 1990s. Once the spiral begins, it’s hard to stop.
Crime and Chaos: The Inevitable Outcome
With fewer police officers, slower emergency response, and a strained legal system, crime will surge. Public safety deteriorates. Economic stagnation sets in. Businesses lock their doors, and middle-class families look for exits.
Conclusion: The Cost of Ideology Over Reality
Mamdani’s proposals are not economic strategy; they’re political performance. They ignore incentives, constitutional limits, and economic fundamentals.
New York doesn’t need to be "Trump-proofed." It needs to be protected from policy experiments that treat taxpayers like enemies and capital like a villain.
If enacted, this agenda won’t build a stronger city. It will hollow it out.
New York is finished. That’s the growing sentiment as Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani rolls out a slate of radical economic proposals that seem engineered to punish productivity, drive out business, and collapse the city’s tax base. Framed as a way to "Trump-proof" New York, Mamdani's plan reads more like a blueprint for economic self-destruction.
Corporate Tax Grab: Punishing Companies for Existing
Mamdani wants to raise New York’s corporate tax rate from 7.25% to 11.5%, aligning it with New Jersey’s. But here’s the catch: his proposal doesn’t just target companies headquartered in New York. It applies to any business that operates within the state’s borders. Whether you’re based in Florida, Texas, or Wyoming—if you do business in New York, you pay New York's new rate.
The consequences are obvious. Companies don’t need to be physically in New York anymore, and this proposal gives them a reason not to be. Investment will slow. Hiring will pause. Office towers will empty. New firms won’t even consider entering the market. And that $10 billion revenue goal? Good luck hitting it when you’ve scared off your entire revenue base. Legal battles over interstate commerce are also a near certainty.
Wealth Surtax: Kicking Out the Golden Goose
Next, Mamdani proposes a 2% flat tax on anyone earning $1 million or more annually. While that might sound fair in isolation, in reality it targets the very group that funds the majority of the city’s operations. New York is already bleeding millionaires to Florida, Texas, and other low-tax states. This policy would accelerate the exodus.
When the top 1% pays roughly 40% of income taxes, losing even a small percentage of them creates a massive fiscal hole. And once they’re gone, they rarely come back.
Government-Run Grocery Stores: Corruption on Aisle 9
As if punitive taxation weren’t enough, Mamdani is also pushing for publicly funded grocery stores. Branded as a solution to food deserts, these stores would be fully owned and operated by the government.
History shows what happens next: inefficiency, political patronage, bloated budgets, and unions embedded in operations. These stores risk becoming slush funds for politically connected interests, not lifelines for struggling communities. Meanwhile, private grocers—already operating on razor-thin margins—may be pushed out entirely.
The Spiral: Tax, Collapse, Repeat
Mamdani’s plan sets off a dangerous chain reaction:
Tax the businesses → businesses leave
Tax the wealthy → the wealthy leave
Services degrade → crime rises
Remaining taxpayers flee → revenue collapses
This is not speculation—it’s the same cycle that brought New York to the brink in the 1970s and again in the early 1990s. Once the spiral begins, it’s hard to stop.
Crime and Chaos: The Inevitable Outcome
With fewer police officers, slower emergency response, and a strained legal system, crime will surge. Public safety deteriorates. Economic stagnation sets in. Businesses lock their doors, and middle-class families look for exits.
Conclusion: The Cost of Ideology Over Reality
Mamdani’s proposals are not economic strategy; they’re political performance. They ignore incentives, constitutional limits, and economic fundamentals.
New York doesn’t need to be "Trump-proofed." It needs to be protected from policy experiments that treat taxpayers like enemies and capital like a villain.
If enacted, this agenda won’t build a stronger city. It will hollow it out.
https://x.com/i/spaces/1BRJjmQLDReGw
Trump’s Global War Room: Iran Nuclear Strike, Abraham Accords 2.0 Gaza 
Let It Burn? New York’s Marxist Moment and the Hard Lessons Ahead
A lot of people have asked whether I’m going to get involved in the NYC mayoral race to support someone who can beat Zohran Mamdani. Honestly? I’m undecided. On one hand, I believe in standing up for what’s right. On the other, I’m looking at the city and wondering if it’s even worth trying anymore.
Like every other major city run by progressives, New York has become a broken kleptocracy. The taxes are astronomical. The services are pathetic to nonexistent. Public safety? Forget it. The next logical steps in this storyline are anarchy and socialism. And frankly, that’s what voters here have been demanding for years—now they’re about to get it.
Fighting against this tide feels like throwing good money after bad. It may sound cynical, but maybe things need to get worse before they can get better. Maybe the younger generations—Zoomers and Millennials—need a hard, unavoidable refresher course in what Marxism and socialism actually look like when they’re put into practice.
Because they don’t remember the chaos of New York in the late '80s and early '90s. They never lived through the crack epidemic, the graffiti-covered subway cars, the lawless streets. They never met a squeegee man on their windshield or got mugged on their way to school. Back then, walking alone during the day—never mind at night—was a risk. Getting robbed wasn’t just a possibility, it was practically a rite of passage.
The financiers, the hedge fund guys, the Wall Streeters—they were too busy chasing status and perfecting their fishponds to notice that the system enabling their success was slowly being hollowed out. Their kids were being sent to elite private schools and universities where ideological insanity was taught as gospel. But rather than push back, they kept their mouths shut so they could keep getting invited to the right dinner parties.
Now those kids are grown. And they’re fully indoctrinated NPCs—always ready to protest, always defending “the current thing.” They parrot platitudes about the virtues of socialism while sipping overpriced rosé in the West Village. They denounce capitalism on iPhones their parents paid for, in apartments their parents subsidize, without a single trace of irony.
They were raised in institutions overrun by ideology and enabled by parents who shrugged it all off. “Kids will be kids,” they said. Except those kids are now adults. They can vote. And they’re making decisions that affect all of us—while lacking the tools to think critically, independently, or historically.
It's not entirely their fault. Their upbringing taught them to value conformity over truth. Fitting in mattered more than standing up for anything. The results speak for themselves: magical thinking, preference falsification, and zero appreciation for the foundations of Western civilization.
Maybe the only way this gets fixed is the hard way. Maybe they need to learn through collapse. Maybe they need to lose everything before they realize what they had. If that’s the case, Marxism and socialism might just be exactly what the doctor ordered.
Because sometimes pain is the only teacher left.
A lot of people have asked whether I’m going to get involved in the NYC mayoral race to support someone who can beat Zohran Mamdani. Honestly? I’m undecided. On one hand, I believe in standing up for what’s right. On the other, I’m looking at the city and wondering if it’s even worth trying anymore.
Like every other major city run by progressives, New York has become a broken kleptocracy. The taxes are astronomical. The services are pathetic to nonexistent. Public safety? Forget it. The next logical steps in this storyline are anarchy and socialism. And frankly, that’s what voters here have been demanding for years—now they’re about to get it.
Fighting against this tide feels like throwing good money after bad. It may sound cynical, but maybe things need to get worse before they can get better. Maybe the younger generations—Zoomers and Millennials—need a hard, unavoidable refresher course in what Marxism and socialism actually look like when they’re put into practice.
Because they don’t remember the chaos of New York in the late '80s and early '90s. They never lived through the crack epidemic, the graffiti-covered subway cars, the lawless streets. They never met a squeegee man on their windshield or got mugged on their way to school. Back then, walking alone during the day—never mind at night—was a risk. Getting robbed wasn’t just a possibility, it was practically a rite of passage.
The financiers, the hedge fund guys, the Wall Streeters—they were too busy chasing status and perfecting their fishponds to notice that the system enabling their success was slowly being hollowed out. Their kids were being sent to elite private schools and universities where ideological insanity was taught as gospel. But rather than push back, they kept their mouths shut so they could keep getting invited to the right dinner parties.
Now those kids are grown. And they’re fully indoctrinated NPCs—always ready to protest, always defending “the current thing.” They parrot platitudes about the virtues of socialism while sipping overpriced rosé in the West Village. They denounce capitalism on iPhones their parents paid for, in apartments their parents subsidize, without a single trace of irony.
They were raised in institutions overrun by ideology and enabled by parents who shrugged it all off. “Kids will be kids,” they said. Except those kids are now adults. They can vote. And they’re making decisions that affect all of us—while lacking the tools to think critically, independently, or historically.
It's not entirely their fault. Their upbringing taught them to value conformity over truth. Fitting in mattered more than standing up for anything. The results speak for themselves: magical thinking, preference falsification, and zero appreciation for the foundations of Western civilization.
Maybe the only way this gets fixed is the hard way. Maybe they need to learn through collapse. Maybe they need to lose everything before they realize what they had. If that’s the case, Marxism and socialism might just be exactly what the doctor ordered.
Because sometimes pain is the only teacher left.