Let me tell you about the very rich,” F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a century ago. “They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand.”
Last week’s SpaceX initial public offering made company founder and CEO Elon Musk the world’s first publicly known trillionaire — very different from all of us, at least on paper.
Bad enough he became too rich. Worse, Elon Musk became too independent.
On paper is doing plenty of heavy lifting. We’ll get back to that.
If billionaires “shouldn’t exist,” as our boring socialist friends never tire of saying, then a trillionaire must be not merely obscene but downright apocalyptic. If the existence of billionaires is a policy failure, the arrival of a trillionaire is a crime scene. Call Congress! Summon the United Nations! Eat the rich!
Let me tell you about the very left-wing. They are different from you and me. They enjoy little, and it does something to them. It makes them covetous where normal people are merely curious, bitter where normal people are merely skeptical, and stupid where the rest of us are trying very hard to be charitable.
Musk’s gargantuan wealth is a test no leftist can pass.
“If we liquidated Elon Musk as a financial entity we could each pocket $3,000,” one frivolous X user wrote. “Just putting that out there. 3K. Not bad.”
“Elon Musk is a trillionaire but it’s def the people on SNAP ruining your life,” a tedious Democratic strategist posted.
“Right? He could fund SNAP himself and still have a boatload left to spare,” a pseudonymous Marxist replied.
This is what happens when resentment collides with arithmetic.
“Elon Musk could easily fund” makes for a terrific party game, especially if everyone playing has skipped high school civics, freshman economics, and the day in third grade when Mrs. Campbell broke the news that Monopoly money was not legal tender.
RELATED: A child’s guide to why billionaires should, in fact, exist
RapidEye/iStock/Getty Images
With $1 trillion, Musk could buy every major carmaker in America, Europe, and Japan. With $1 trillion, Musk could fund global famine relief dozens of times over, provide clean water to the world, rebuild Gaza, or hand every person on earth a modest cash gift. With $1 trillion, Musk could cover the United Nations’ humanitarian appeals, the Australian budget, or — according to my friend Mac Owens — roughly 3.5 miles of Gavin Newsom’s high-speed rail system.
Cool. Put it all on the board. Have fun. Pour another drink. (Maybe pour me one, too.)
But Musk does not have $1 trillion in a checking account. He is not Scrooge McDuck swan-diving into a vault of gold coins (not that it would even work that way). He owns shares in companies that other people believe are valuable because those companies build things, launch things, connect things, sell things, and promise things investors think may be worth a lot more later.
His wealth is not a pile of cash. It is a claim on productive enterprise.
The socialist imagination never really gets past the pile. The left sees wealth and pictures a dragon atop a hoard. It sees equity and imagines stolen bread. It sees a balance sheet and imagines a pantry that can be raided without consequence.
But Musk’s wealth cannot be “liquidated” without destroying much of the value the envious wish to seize. Sell enough shares, and the price falls. Seize the company, and watch the engineers leave. Convert capital into consumption, and the thing that made the wealth possible begins to disappear.
Welcome to Economics 102. Economics 101 teaches scarcity. Economics 102 teaches that capital is not loot.
None of this makes Musk a saint. I don’t know if he is a good man. I don’t know if any man should have as much influence as he has, and neither do his fanboys. Musk is erratic, strange, reckless, sometimes brilliant, and often his own worst enemy. But he is not a political theory. He is not a catechism. He is not your dad.
I know do this much, though: If Musk had not bought Twitter in 2022 for the eye-watering sum of $44 billion, Americans would know less about their own country and less about the people who presume to manage it.
That purchase did not make him richer. It made him more dangerous.
Dangerous to whom? To the people who think “misinformation” means information they cannot control. To governments that prefer pressure campaigns to open censorship. To NGOs that discovered a business model in laundering political speech control through the language of “safety.” To journalists who miss the days when a few institutions could decide which scandals were real and which ones respectable people were expected not to notice.
RELATED: Democrats love free speech — until conservatives get some
mikkelwilliam/iStock/Getty Images
This is why the hatred aimed at Musk is never really about money. The money supplies the moral pretext. Control supplies the motive.
The left does not hate Musk because he could “fund SNAP.” The federal government already spends enormous sums on SNAP, and no serious person believes American nutrition policy should depend on one weird rich guy hawking rocket shares. The left hates Musk because he took a portion of his unrealized fortune and bought a speech platform that was supposed to belong forever to the consensus managers.
Bad enough he became too rich. Worse, he became too independent.
A billionaire who funds the approved foundations may be vulgar, but he can be managed. A billionaire who underwrites lawsuits, climate conferences, university centers, “democracy” initiatives, and grants for people who use the word “equity” as an incantation may still be welcomed at the proper tables. His money can be baptized.
Musk’s money did something else. It bought the key to a door the regime wanted to remain locked.
No wonder they want to eat him.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told European Union leaders Thursday that Ukraine is deserving of a fast-track path towards membership group "more than any other European country."
The post Zelensky Says Ukraine Deserves Fast E.U. Membership ‘More than Any Other Country’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Britain seems all but certain to be heading towards a palace coup after Manchester Mayor Burnham dramatically won his special election.
The post UK Palace Coup Underway: Blair-Era Relic Burnham Wins Special Election, Door Open to Challenge For Prime Minister appeared first on Breitbart.
Residents of Burlington are demanding answers from police after a gruesome discovery at a foreclosed home purchased at auction.
Connecticut state troopers said in a press release that they were called to the home on Stanwich Lane on Sunday at 4:46 p.m. for a report of human remains found in the home.
'I've never heard of anything like that happening anywhere.'
The homeowner had recently purchased the home "as is" in an auction, according to police.
The remains of three people were found and described to be in a "skeletal" condition. Police said there was no indication of criminal conduct and that an investigation was being conducted by the State Police Western District Major Crime unit.
"This appears to be an isolated incident, and there is no danger to the public at this time," they added.
Police said they would release updates after the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner determined the manner of death of the trio and their identities.
Neighbors in the area told WKYC-TV they were terrified by the discovery.
"It sounds very scary to see skeletons in a house," said Vicky Havey, who bikes nearby. "It's sad. Very sad."
"I've never heard of anything like that happening anywhere that I knew about personally," Mark Chowaniec said.
A profile of the home on Zillow indicated that the 2,800-square-foot home had been sold in 2019 for $535K and was currently estimated to be worth about $846K.
Video of the home in the WKYC report showed that the front lawn was neglected and overgrown with weeds.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
On June 16, independent journalist and BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo published a detailed exposé on California’s “gay certification program” in City Journal. The report blew the lid off the progressive state’s initiative to pressure utility companies into awarding $633 million in contracts to businesses officially certified as LGBT-owned — complete with a bizarre state-run process requiring proof of sexual orientation.
To qualify, business owners must submit documents such as same-sex marriage licenses, letters from LGBT organizations, or even affidavits from personal contacts attesting to their sexual orientation, with stiff penalties including up to a year in jail for false claims.
Glenn Beck was astounded by the news.
“It’s insane,” he says.
The California bureaucrats hired to vet the applicants use a “gay certification checklist,” says Glenn’s chief researcher and writer Jason Buttrill.
“One of the checklist items is three letters of reference from personal contacts ... who have known ... for over one year and can vouch to the status of the individual's gayness,” he laughs.
Glenn can’t help but laugh at what these types of conversations entail. “I mean what are the questions?” he chuckles.
Buttrill adds that another requirement is “one letter from a recognized LGBT organization attesting to the gay status and signed by the organization leader.”
“Now, you have to go not to a friend but to a sanctioned gay organization, so now they've given that gay organization power,” says Glenn. “Wow is that bad.”
Perhaps the strangest item on the checklist is “proof of media coverage, including publications, newspapers, or articles explicitly stating the LGBT status of the owners of the business.”
“You have to be kind of an activist. I mean, because if you're just a quiet gay couple and you own a restaurant, you know, I guess that's not good enough. You have to be out in the media, literally out in the media, declaring your gayness,” scoffs Glenn.
Another prerequisite is “a copy of valid municipal or state license, certificate of marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership,” adds Buttrill.
“You don't need a license or any kind of identification to vote, but if you want to work as a gay person with the state, we have to have all kinds of ID — but gay ID,” laughs Glenn, calling it “ridiculous.”
“I would think the California gay community would be outraged over this. I wouldn't think that they would want some kind of official list with some kind of certification program with their names,” says Buttrill.
Glenn agrees, highlighting how potentially dangerous such a list could be.
“I mean if things, God forbid, ever went horribly wrong — the Islamists or some crazy religious whatever or just somebody who ... just doesn't like gay people [gets in power], you want a list of people that are gay?” he asks.
“People are so blind and so stupid. ... Well, good luck with that, California.”
To hear more, watch the video above.
Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The U.S. drive to launch high-stakes peace talks with Iran hit a snag Friday after Tehran reportedly delayed sending its delegation to Switzerland for the negotiations citing Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Lebanon for its absence.
The post Tardy Iran No-Show Abruptly Nixes Peace Deal Signing in Switzerland appeared first on Breitbart.
British actress Emaa Hussen was charged in Sydney after allegedly trying to smuggle roughly $208 million worth of methamphetamine into Australia through concealed "charcoal" shipments coming from Ghana, outlets reported.
The post U.K. Actress Emaa Hussen Charged with Importing $208m Worth of Meth into Australia appeared first on Breitbart.
Thomas Jefferson warned that factions could subvert the public good once they captured the public councils. “Bribery corrupts them,” he wrote, and, “Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents.”
That warning fits the data center fight now spreading across America. On this issue, the establishments of both parties have largely sided with Big Tech against communities that do not want their land, power, water, and quality of life sacrificed for the artificial intelligence gold rush.
Politicians who continue following the flow of corporate election cash may serve their puppet masters a little while longer. But the grassroots rebellion beneath them is growing.
The politicians appear to be betting that the campaign cash will outweigh voter anger. Are they right?
When I began covering the data center issue, opposition mostly came from scattered homeowners in rural communities. They fought these surveillance centers at county council meetings with rudimentary petition websites, homemade lawn signs, and four-figure local budgets.
Two years later, data center proposals have spread into nearly every corner of the country. So has the opposition. It is passionate, surprisingly bipartisan, and increasingly organized. A national election is also approaching.
Politico analyzed several dozen of the most competitive House races that will determine control of the chamber and found more than 200 data centers planned in those districts alone. In total, 1,500 data centers are planned or under construction in 232 congressional districts, although in my estimation, more of the mega-hyperscale facilities are in Republican districts.
That scale shows how ubiquitous the land grab has become. It also shows how potent this issue could be in the most consequential federal races.
Most competitive seats are held by Republicans, but many GOP incumbents have been cagey, even oleaginous, when asked about data centers. They avoid the issue as long as possible. When pressed at a town hall or by the media, they offer boilerplate about the need to “beat China” in innovation, then toss out an empty and impossible promise to protect consumers from higher electricity rates.
U.S. Rep. Brad Finstad (R-Minn.) gave Politico the cookie-cutter, split-the-baby response.
“AI data centers, like those proposed in southern Minnesota, can play an important role in both our economic future and our national security,” Finstad said. “At the same time, it’s important that communities have a full understanding of what these projects mean locally — including their energy demands, environmental impacts, job creation, and potential tax benefits. As we look toward the future of data-center development, we also need an honest conversation about whether our current energy infrastructure and power grid are prepared to support the growing demands of AI technology.”
OK, Brad. Seven projects are proposed in your district alone. Tell voters where you stand. Yes or no: Are you fine with Big Tech owning and repurposing this much farmland?
RELATED: The AI boom is turning public meetings into crime scenes
Moor Studio/Getty Images
Republicans face major headwinds this November. But if any issue could help them power through that adversity, it would be standing with their constituents against the Big Tech land grab.
The reason they do not is obvious. The campaign cash has to come from somewhere.
“They’re between a rock and a hard place,” Texas-based GOP consultant Brendan Steinhauser, whose clients have included Sen. John Cornyn (R) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R), told Politico. “Politically, it’s not a very smart move to come out and be seen as too close to Big Tech or doing the bidding of Big Tech, but a lot of the money is flying to them through that.”
Meanwhile, in one of the few districts where an incumbent Democrat is vulnerable this cycle, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) has actually listened to her communities.
“There’s more political signs against AI in our region than for candidates in the upcoming races,” Kaptur said during a hearing this spring. “The public opposition that is arising, it’s spontaneous combustion coming up from the grassroots.”
But no one should mistake that for Democratic seriousness. Nothing is as righteous as a Democrat in the minority.
Virginia is the first state this cycle where Democrats have already flipped the levers of government and taken power. Abigail Spanberger ran on reining in the shocking colonization of Virginia by data centers. Now that she is governor, her urgency has faded.
Some backbenchers in both parties have pushed bills to limit tax breaks, but Spanberger and her allies in House leadership are blocking real reforms. So far, she has created a blue-ribbon commission to study the issue — a panel stacked with industry hired hands.
In Ohio, lawmakers recently learned that Big Tech tax breaks cost the state $2 billion in just one year, exponentially more than originally projected. Despite the GOP promise to repeal those tax breaks, the relevant committee adjourned for the last time until November without taking action. Even the proposal on the table would only have reduced the abatement prospectively, yet the industry still lobbied against it.
That “rock and hard place” keeps doing its work.
RELATED: OpenAI wants to make its losses public property
Brendan SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images
At the top of the political food chain, leaders of both parties are selling out to data centers. At the grassroots, voters on the right and left are fighting back.
In blue Maine and New York, legislative majorities passed versions of data center moratoriums. But Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) vetoed the bill, and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has so far declined to sign hers. The squeeze from corporate money gets tighter the higher a politician climbs and the more money it takes to win.
Conversely, small counties and cities have begun enacting local bans. Coffee County, Tennessee, and the city of McMinnville in adjacent Warren County recently passed 18-month data center moratoriums. Warren County, Knox County, and Nashville are debating similar measures.
Again, the opposition is bipartisan. Nashville is deep blue, but Trump won Coffee County by 55 points and Warren County by 56 points.
Left-wing environmentalists tend to oppose growth and therefore naturally oppose this sort of resource stripping. But grassroots conservatives also understand that farmland, rural heritage, local sovereignty, and digital privacy are worth defending. Sometimes those interests converge.
Politicians who continue following the flow of corporate election cash may serve their puppet masters a little while longer. But the grassroots rebellion beneath them is growing. It is bipartisan, local, organized, and increasingly impossible to contain.
On Thursday’s broadcast of CNN’s “The Source,” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) stated that Iran shouldn’t have ballistic missiles and “They have not shown that they can be a civil society.” Moreno said that the U.S. “destroyed” Iran’s ballistic missile capability,
The post Moreno: Iran Shouldn’t Have Ballistic Missiles, Haven’t Shown ‘They Can Be a Civil Society’ appeared first on Breitbart.
On Thursday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “Kudlow,” former Trump National Security Adviser and former Trump Envoy Keith Kellogg said that while he is generally supportive of the memorandum of understanding with Iran, the country has “killed Americans in the
The post Kellogg: Iran Will ‘Probably Kill Americans in the Future’ appeared first on Breitbart.