In response of Elon Musk buying Twitter with a pledge to restore free speech values to the company, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass) joined many on the left in declaring that our very democracy is now in danger. However, last night Warren went further with MSNBC’s host Ari Melber to pledge to hit Musk and others with a wealth tax and “new rules” limiting what he can do with his new company.
The choice of interviewers was notable since Melber has been under fire for warning that Twitter could be used to “secretly ban” or “turn down the reach” of a political party or candidate. That is apparently worse than Twitter openly banning candidates and suspending accounts of conservatives for years. Melber emphasized “this thing matters a ton.” That is a ton more than it mattered for the last six years.
On MSNBC’s “The Beat,” Warren declared
“I see that we need to make two big changes. The first one is we need a wealth tax in America. Let’s talk about how Elon’s purchase here was subsidized by tens of millions of people who have paid their taxes every year. The second part is we need rules of the road for big tech. But ultimately, what all of this boils down to is power. Who’s going to have the power in our country? Are we going to make these decisions as a democracy, or is this going to be Elon Musk all by himself off in a room, a bazillionaire who just plays by his own set of rules, and that’s really what’s at stake here.”
“We need rules of the road, and look. There are going to be rules. Like I said, the only question is will Elon Musk decide all of the rules by himself in a darkroom, or is it going to be the case that we’re going to decide this as a country? We’re going to make rules in a democracy.”
The most ironic moment came with Warren’s explanation that “Rules of the road could help facilitate that kind of competition and frankly, break the stranglehold of someone like Elon Musk coming in and owning the whole thing.”
As with Melber, the lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. Until this purchase, social media has been a uniform front for censorship in line with the demands of politicians like Warren.
Senators like Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) warned social media companies that they would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation,” and demanded “robust content modification” to block disfavored views on subjects ranging from climate control to elections to the pandemic.
Sen. Warren (D-Mass.) has called for these companies to protect citizens from poor reading choices by tweaking algorithms to steer them away from disfavored views. It is the free-speech version of the rejected “Big Gulp” laws. Warren wants companies to amplify “true” books on issues like climate change and direct searches away from “misleading” books.
Once again, Warren continues to dismiss constitutional protections and values in the name of democracy.
I have previously written how a wealth tax would gut constitutional language limiting the tax authority of Congress. The Constitution originally imposed a narrow limit on Congress’ taxing authority. Article I, Sections 8 and 9, barred any direct tax unless it’s “apportioned among the several states” in proportion to population. In other words, it must be spread evenly among every person in every state.
In 1895, Congress sought to impose an income tax, but was stopped by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust (1895). The court barred any such tax “upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided.”
That case led to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress to levy “taxes on incomes” without apportionment. Yet it expressly states that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
President Joe Biden has moved in that same direction while denying that he was seeking a wealth tax. However, after the President rolled out the new tax, his economic adviser Jared Bernstein went on Fox News and had a moment of uncontrollable honesty. He blurted out to Bret Baier that “it is very much a tax on wealth.”
As for her threat of “new rules” for social media to blunt Musk’s efforts, it is a telling threat. Her threat would suggest direct control over content and would potentially cross the line for First Amendment protections.
However, the idea of losing control over what people say or read is proving too much for many. That was evident in the tearful remarks of Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s head of legal, policy and trust, to her staff this week. Gadde, like Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, is highly controversial in the free speech community for her record of censorship, including her role in banning Donald Trump as well as the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop.
As I wrote recently, Democrats are facing the prospect that the use of corporations as surrogates for censorship may be undermined by Musk’s free speech pledge. Now, figures like Hillary Clinton are turning to good old-fashioned censorship through European countries. Last week, Clinton called on the European Union to pass the Digital Services Act (DSA), a massive censorship measure that has received preliminary approval. Coming after Musk’s bid for Twitter, Clinton and others now want to use European countries to offer the same circumvention of the First Amendment.
It is important to remember that this panic among politicians and pundits is due to a threat that free speech may break out on a single social media platform. It is enough for politicians like Clinton to seek to enlist European regulators and for Warren to threaten direct regulations on content. The problem is that, despite an entire commercial campaign by Facebook to convince customers to embrace censorship, many in the public are not buying the pitch of Democrats that they must be protected from errant or upsetting or dangerous viewpoints.
When Warren says “we’re going to make rules in a democracy,” most of us are likely to cling to the old rules, including our faith in free speech.
Fake coward clown
Jonathan: As a conservative I understand your opposition to Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax. Technically Warren’s proposal has two components, a “Corporate Profits Minimum Tax” and a “Billionaire’s Income Tax”. But we won’t quibble over terminology. What is remarkable is your statement: “I have previously written how a wealth tax would gut constitutional language limiting the tax authority of Congress”. Sounds very much like the arguments used by the conservative majority in Pollock vs. Farmers Loan & Trust in striking down Congress’ imposition of an income tax in 1895. Pollock was ultimately made moribund by the 16th Amendment.
But you and many conservatives have not given up. Repealing the 16th Amendment is something like the holy grail for conservatives. It has been part of the GOP platform for years. But most experts believe the federal government’s power to levy an income tax would survive repeal of 16th Amendment. But that doesn’t stop the right from trying to “reclaim” the original Constitution by pitching the 16th Amendment into the Boston Harbor! What’s next on your agenda. Repeal the 14th, 15th and 17th Amendments?
I doubt Warren’s proposals are opposed by the average American. Most of us pay tax on almost every penny we earn. Why should Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other billionaires get away with paying no federal income tax or little tax? “Fairness” seems the essence of Warren’s proposals. That appeals to me.
Who in their right mind thinks that the crop of law students who will graduate soon from Yale – who are clueless about free speech would ever be “experts” on the constitution ?
Their teachers – who have ruined them possibly for life are the same “most experts” you cite.
You say you are conservative ?
The constitution is clear – and that is not something that was just found in 1895, that taxes had to be levied the same for each individual.
You say striking the 16th amendment is some conservative dream ? Again what kind of conservative are you ?
A proper textualist understanding of the 16th amendment would be that it allows a FLAT income tax. The requirement to otherwise treat all taxpayers the same remains. Progressive income tax is unconstitutional even with the 16th amendment.
Finally – ignoring the constitution entirely – we have vast amounts of data to tell us the consequences of the Biden/Warren tax scheme.
Less or even no growth. less investment. less jobs, lower standard of living and probably less federal revenue.
the DATA – from people such as Obama’s cheif economist Christine Romer indicates that the revenue optimizing maximum tax rate is about 35% – higher than that and you get less revenue. I would note that is not the revenue optimizing FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATE.
That is the revenue optimizing TOTAL tax rate from all taxes.
The Standard of living optimizing tax rate has not been established with certainty – but it is below 20%. We know that for every 10% about 20% that government spends GDP declines 1% over the long run.
These arguments are NOT constitutional.
They are just how the world actually works.
Why should billionaires get away with paying less taxes ?
They don’t.
The top 1% pay 38+% of all taxes.
The top 5% pay 60% of all taxes
the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes
The top 25% pay 86% of all taxes
The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes
But even if this was not true – what does Elon Musk spend his income on ?
If you add up all his – or someone far more extravagant’s total personal expenses, food, shelter, travel cloths, entertainment – they are a tiny fraction of their actual income.
As Adam Smith discover 250 years ago – once the wealthy earn enough to exceed their ability to spend it – everything becomes investment, and that investment ultimately benefits others – not them.
Why do YOU earn money ? For most of us it is to accumulate things we value – more and better food, a nicer house, ….
Put simply Musk is far more rich than he is wealthy – he can not consume but a tiny fraction of what he creates – therefor the rest goes to creating more wealth for the rest of us.
Now who do you trust to invest 1B, 10B, 100B, 4T to make all of us better off ? Musk ? Bezos ? Or Warren ?
If you picked Warren – you are an idiot.
On average $1 in the economy produces $1.05 of value.
On everage $1 in govenrment hands produces $0.25-0.35 of value
This data if from #4 ranked IdeasRespec economist Robert Barro who has the most comprehensive records of the efficiency of government spending in existance.
I suspect if the norm in the private economy is $1.05 then the norm for Say Musk is likely $1.5
We should leave as much money as possible with those who will create the most WEALTH for all of us.
Musk paid $11B in taxes for 2021.
So when are the Koch brothers going to buy google?
David Koch is dead.
Charles Koch’s total wealth is berely sufficient to buy Twitter – if he sole absolutely everything.
Alphabet (Google) has a value of $1.6T – no one is buying it.
Most that support censorship are probably well-meaning people but there are very dangerous consequences to censorship.
For example: should some rap singers be censored or held responsible for what their listeners do? What about violent Clint Eastwood movies? Check out some of the lyrics to some James Bond movies? Violent video games? What about some parts of the Bible?
Don’t forget American history, in the 1920’s the womens’ rights movement was viewed as terrorists, anarchists and labeled communists to be censored. Lenny Bruce, a comedian, was arrested and jailed for telling raunchy jokes – not in public, not on TV – but arrested in a private members only club telling jokes.
Do we really want Congress censoring our speech? If Lenny Bruce went to jail for non-public joke telling in a closed door private club, what do you think will happen on a public social media site? It will harm Americans both Republican and Democrat.
So if you didn’t go to college, you get to pay someone else’s college bills. 65% of Americans didn’t go to college. I don’t think they’re going to be to fired up over paying someone else’s college bills.
Oh, one more thing. Remember when granny Warren got paid $400,000.00 to teach one course at Harvard. On top of that, she spent a lot of that time out campaigning against Scott Brown. Which means that probably a grad student was running the class. And she wants the tax payers to pay this one also. This woman has no conscience and no shame.
Elizabeth Warren use to be against millionaires and billionaires. Now that she is estimated to be worth approximately 12 million dollars, millionaires aren’t so bad. If she becomes a billionaire I guess she moves on to harassing trillionairs.
I really don’t believe Granny Warren wants a wealth tax imposed on her. Why I’m a good wealthy person, you don’t want to take my money, do you?
The actual verbatim wording of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”
The Judicial Branch of government (led by the U.S. Supreme Court) has final “judicial review” authority on what’s constitutional – NOT Congress nor the Whitehouse nor any federal agency.
The Judicial Branch has firmly placed the legal burden on the “listener” not the speaker. That’s why the January 6 protesters that actually broke the law are going to prison – the “listener” can’t blame the speaker for law breaking.
This constitutional precedent still stands today for social media companies, the speaker is rarely legally responsible for what the listeners do. Congress can’t deputize or coerce a private company to bypass the First Amendment restraint on Congress’ authority.
Ashcroft’s Zersetung —- Your second paragraph is not to be found in Article 3 of the Constitution
Re: David B. Benson
For about 800 years or more in Europe, judicial review (court’s interpret rights) was part of Old English law. This was the role of courts and judges for centuries. Lawyers today still follow “constitutional” legal precedent to win most cases.
Shortly after the U.S. Constitution’s “articles” section were ratified in 1787, the Bill of Rights and remainder of the U.S. Constitution were ratified in 1791.
The landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases “Marbury v. Madison” in 1803 made it USA law that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn “unconstitutional” legislation by the other 2 branches (Congress, President and Executive Branch agencies). In 1810, the high court ruled in “Fletcher v. Peck” that the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings also govern state and local laws.
Conservatives also benefit from this centuries old system. In 2008, using this very same system, the high court expanded gun rights like “City of Washington DC v. Heller”. This same system also created equal marriage rights for LGBT Americans.
Fast forward to 2022: Congress does not have the authority to pass laws constitutionally “out-of-bounds” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of free speech or any other right.
“It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
You falsely provide autocratic, legislative power to the judicial branch, that is not provided by the Constitution.
Therein lies the problem: High criminal usurpation of power by “legislating from the bench.”
The power is the People’s, through elected representatives, most certainly not the judicial branch’s.
The sole charge of the judicial branch is to assure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law.
The Constitution has final “judicial review” authority “on what’s constitutional.”
The judicial branch has no authority to legislate, modify legislation or modify legislation through “interpretation.”
The judicial branch has committed criminal “overreach” and gross, egregious dereliction since 1860.
The judicial branch, for the most part, must be impeached, convicted and replaced, if not suffer capital punishment for treason.
Richard Lowe says:
April 28, 2022 at 12:17 PM
The first employee to be fired by Musk is Ms. Gadde. It’s already been shown by recent Polls that had Twitter allowed the NY Post ‘laptop’ revelations to remain available for viewing, the Biden victory very possibly would have been a defeat. One could say that Ms. Gadde perpetrated the ‘election fraud’ that is still on the minds of 10’s of millions of legal american voters. Maybe the Liz Warren staff will offer Ms. Gadde a job as censor-in-chief. At least Ms. Gadde is a real Indian.
________________________________________
KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY DEPRIVES, DEFRAUDS, OR ATTEMPTS TO DEPRIVE OR DEFRAUD THE RESIDENTS OF A STATE
Twitter et al. must be prosecuted with extreme prejudice and to the fullest extent of the law for egregious falsification, destruction, and critical omission of election data, vote tampering, election fraud, subversion, insurrection and treason.
____________________
52 U.S. Code § 20511 – Criminal penalties
U.S. Code
A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—
(1) knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for—
(A) registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;
(B) urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or
(C) exercising any right under this chapter; or
(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—
(A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,
shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Warren: “Free speech for me but not for thee.”
Thank you granny Warren.
“You can’t handle the truth!”
– Colonel Jessup
_____________
The Constitution and Bill of Rights severely limit and restrict government, NOT the people.
The tax code was never intended to be confiscatory, punitive, or to be employed as a tool to effect political/ideological initiatives or “central planning.”
Regulation is a private sector concern, understanding that Article III, Section 1, establishes courts for redress.
You just can’t believe it, can you?
You can’t handle the truth.
How simple. The following are the veridical, enumerated limitations and restrictions on the power of government to tax and regulate.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Definitions:
General Welfare – All Well Proceed (distinct from individual or specific public assistance, directed redistribution of wealth, or charity).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;…
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,…
To make Rules for the…Regulation of the land and naval Forces;…
Is the judicial branch, emphasis on the Supreme Court, illiterate, asleep or deliberately subversive and treasonous?
Perhaps the Supreme Court is only a few days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” as another direct and mortal enemy of America once declared with independence, and pontificated.
Warren and her ilk are the quintessential Orwellians. “Censorship is free speech. Government by fiat is democracy. Essentially slavery is freedom”. What makes these people so diabolical and so evil is that live in a parallel world unconstrained by the rules they impose on everyone else. Of course they believe they deserve such an elevated status because they are more virtuous than the rest of us. A perfect example is John Kerry justifying his private jetting because he is saving the world. In a most a just world these totalitarians would be put into a gulag of their own making.
America gifted on a silver platter: 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Dumbmendments – Failure of legislatures to pass strict criteria to vote.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Turnout in 1788 was 11.6% by design.
______________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_______________________________________
“…amendments…of such a nature as will not injure the constitution,…”
” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
PRE-gressives coined the term “The Big Lie” to reference Trump’s false claim that Biden stole the election. Instead, Biden’s private industry cohorts (social media, MSM, journalists, academia) stole the election by censoring all bad news Re. Biden. (Trump obviously helped himself to lose, being the possibly all-time most obnoxious POTUS. (The fact that Trump did not pardon Assange who helped Trump win proved Trump is another deep-state silme ball; he also should of course have pardoned Snowden and Manning.)
It’s amazing how the MSM’s first position Re. Biden was that he’s an eternal loser unfit for office. Then the MIC and Banking industry got the stench of Bernie Sanders, the first clear leader of the DNC primaries. Overnight about 97% of media “came to Jesus,” launching their ABB (anyone but Bernie) campaign, catapulting Biden to the front, the most untruthful and easy to manipulate, self-centered, greediest, dumbest bag of rocks this side of a real rock.
Bernie is such a disgusting turd. His own Party treats him like a cancer and he still just keeps coming back for more.
She never said those things, it’s a plot from the right-wing fake news…….. I guess the Trumpers were right, just act like it never happened, and deny when it does happen, then deny it again. Hey that is easy……….Yeah, yeah she never said it. Man, I never knew the denial of facts could be so much fun……..
Warren attacks billionaires for not paying their fair share but she never asks for universities to be taxed?? Her very own Harvard sits on a 39 BILLION dollar endowment and it remains untaxed and Liz the liar says nothing about it.
The Democrats want to loan kids, mostly middle to upper middle class kids, money for them to give to schools, then have the government “wipe out” the loans by having the taxpayers, a great many of which either paid off their loans, never had loans by paying as they went or saving prior to school, or never went to college or went to a trade school (mostly middle or lower middle class kids. This is a scam to payoff the schools and the teachers at these schools.
The DIMS forgiving student debt is just one more multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded gift to Academia, which the DIMS own lock stock and barrel.
The real problem we have is that today’s educators at almost all levels are teaching our youth in the progressive/socialist ways ala Senator Warren. If we do not correct the course, people on this blog will become a small minority.
Reply to Elizabeth Warren: Please take your time and go frack yourself!!!
However, last night Warren went further with MSNBC’s host Ari Melber to pledge to hit Musk and others with a wealth tax and “new rules” limiting what he can do with his new company.
Yet Democrats call Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vengeful and a dictator re: Disney and Reedy Creek.
This from Senator Lie-a-watha with a net worth of $12M.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/08/20/how-elizabeth-warren-built-a-12-million-fortune/
“Between 2008 and 2018, Warren and Mann earned over $10 million, according to their tax returns”
Estovir: “Yet Democrats call Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vengeful and a dictator re: Disney and Reedy Creek.”
Oh, how correct you are. All these preemptive measures (especially through media/academia) to discredit and destroy anyone who may challenge them, e.g. DeSantis, Musk, (Trump).
Lizzie Warren took a tomahawk and gave her reputation forty wacks. Even after everything MSNBC still invites her to the powwow. Businesses don’t go out of business when you raise their taxes they just raise the price of a Big Mac and or lower the amount of employees by having your order taken by a machine. Her approach still sells to a certain percentage of the nation but an understanding of socialism today is not the same understanding socialism in 1920. With all of our understanding of the failure of socialism Lizzie still chants the same war path song.
So Lizzie of the Cherokee Nation wants to shut down the right of free speech of everyone from the Choctaw Nation. Can anyone remember the big uproar over cultural appropriation? Do we remember that after Lizzie’s cultural appropriation the uproar diminished to a mere whisper. One must then wonder why MSNBC hasn’t looked into the special treatment received by princess Lizzie. Such privileged treatment must have a monetary value that she received because of her prevarication. Her tribe has never been introduced to a moral compass. Consequently she never knows which way she is going unless she’s headed to the bank.