"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Limousine Liberals: Hypocrisy Made Manifest

Will Malven
5/31/2005

For years now, my Liberal friends have told me that I am not rich enough to be a Republican. I take umbrage at such statements because I reject the premise of the statement. Somehow the myth has arisen that all Republicans are autocratic, rich, self-absorbed, greedy, cold, and uncaring, misers, whereas all Democrats are egalitarian, lower middle-class, compassionate, generous, altruistic, philanthropists. What utter balderdash.

The generalities:


The primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats believe in, to quote Judge Janice Rogers Brown, "human perfectibility...asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased."

This results in a constant effort to "redistribute wealth" and even worse, talent, among the people; basically a socialist philosophy. It is a philosophy which eventually leads to bringing all people down to the "lowest common denominator." To paraphrase Karl Marx: to each as their needs dictate, from each as their ability allows.

This is a philosophy that groups people together as special interests, placing stereotypical limits on their abilities and makes stereotypical assumptions about their wants and needs. It is a philosophy that believes there is a limit to wealth, and if one person has a lot, someone else must suffer lack. It seeks to use that lack to engender a feeling of guilt in those who are successful, and therefore is able to "extort" money from them in the form of taxes, promising to redistribute that money to those in "need." It is a philosophy that is, at its core, antithetical to the concepts of freedom, responsibility, and generosity.

The Democrat philosophy is antithetical to freedom because in order to prevent wealth from accumulating in one person's hands, there has to be an autocratic bureaucracy to supervise the distribution of money, making sure that no one suffers lack. It is antithetical to responsibility because it assumes that if you don't have, you are incapable of getting, through no fault of your own, and so must be provided for. It is antithetical to generosity because if "excess" is taxed, and the state provides for those in need, there is no need for generosity. The eventual product of such a philosophy, the inescapable result, is an uncaring and unmotivated populous totally dependent upon the state.

Republicans believe that all people are different, and are responsible for taking advantage of the opportunities that society provides for them. It is a philosophy that allows each individual to rise as high as his abilities and drive allow. It makes no assumptions and applies no restrictions. In their eyes, you can become as rich as you want to be. The harder you work, the further you progress.

It is a philosophy that believes in the nobility of man; that, given the opportunity, he will aspire to be more. People will seek the opportunity to better themselves, and in so doing, improve the general welfare of the society. It believes that there is no limit on the generation of wealth, the more it is pursued, the more it is generated.

It encourages freedom, because only through freedom is one able to pursue his dreams. It encourages responsibility, because no one is automatically provided for unless they are truly unable to care for themselves. It encourages generosity, because the "haves" know that those who lack, are truly those who are unable to provide for themselves, and so, deserving of charity. It also encourages generosity, because giving, voluntarily, is an unselfish act that engenders a general sense of well being.

The eventual product of such a society is an empowered and enthusiastic populous, which supports their state out of a sense of pride.

The specifics:

Why is it that so many high profile Liberals are so wealthy? It would seem to me that if they truly believed in what they preached, they would eschew the trappings of wealth and live in modest means. Why do people like Barbara (“Put Out a Clothesline”) Streisand, Rob Reiner, Al Franken, George (Bank Buster) Soros ($ Billions), Teddy (Orca) Kennedy ($10 million—plus trusts), John (Lurch) Kerry ($620 million), John (Lassie) Edwards ($12 million), etc. need so much money?

If they truly believe that nobility derives from "modest means," and that rich people (read rich Republicans) are evil, why do they persist in retaining all of their money? Just think of all the people they could help if they lived on say...$100 thousand a year. That, by no means, is poor, in fact, by Democrat's definition, that is "upper class." Why do they need 25 room mansions in exclusive neighborhoods? Why do they need "vacation homes" at Martha's Vineyard, or in Miami Beach?



If they truly believed in the garbage they are spewing, they would take a vow of poverty and donate the vast sums of money they have accumulated to help the "downtrodden" they are so quick to point to as they encourage the rest of us submit to higher taxes and fight against "Bush's tax cut for the rich." Hypocrites!!

Wealthy Republicans? Sure there are plenty of them, so what? There's nothing wrong with that, they are merely practicing what they preach. Republicans believe in the generation and accumulation of wealth. They say no one who desires to be wealthy and is ready to work hard for it should be denied the right and opportunity to pursue it. They encourage capitalism, risk taking, and entrepreneurism. They offer us opportunity rather than dependence.

So who are these rich hypocrites? Aside from those mentioned above, according to public records, in 2000, 27 of 50 Democrat senators were millionaires. Of the super millionaires, worth over $10 million, were nine Democrats and five Republicans and of the top ten, nine were Democrats. Kerry was number one, the rest: 2- Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin ($300 million) 3- Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia ($200 million)4- Jon Corzine, New Jersey ($71 million) 5- Dianne Feinstein, California ($26 million) 7- Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey ($17 million) 9- John Edwards, North Carolina 10- Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts. Even more interesting than that, is that these are not just Democrats; these are some of the most Liberal Democrats.

Other wealthy Democrats; Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and world's second-richest man, was John Kerry’s economic adviser. Billionaire George Soros gave over 15 million to MoveOn.org (now MoveOnPac.org). Soros stated prior to the election that he would spend whatever it took to get rid of George Bush. Apple Computer co-founder Steve Jobs is a Democrat also advising Kerry on economic issues and appointed Al Gore to the Board of Directors of Apple. Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the fashion company Esprit, is a Democrat Party donor and activist. Bernard L. Schwartz was a principal character in Chinagate (selling advanced aerospace technology to China during the Clinton administration). He is CEO of Loral Space & Communications and a major Democrat donor. Former chairman of Comcast Corporation and Chinagate participant, C. Michael Armstrong, is major financial supporter of the DNC.

In California, Steve Kirsch (founder of Infoseek), Haim Saban (of Power Rangers fame), and Steve Bing (grandson of Leo Bing a New York real estate tycoon) together gave $20.2 million to Democrat Party committees in 2002. Then, of course, we have the Trial Lawyers Association. Trial lawyer Harry Jacobs, reportedly worth $42 million, earned in representing patients in malpractice suits against doctors and nursing homes, spent millions of his own money in a failed attempt to be a Florida Democrat Congressman. Another Florida trial lawyer, Wayne Hogan, earned $54 million by representing Florida against tobacco companies and spent at least $4 million in his failed bid to a Congressman.

In Redmond, Washington, since 1998, Bill Gates (Microsoft founder and chairman), the richest man in America, has contributed three times more money to Democrats than to Republicans and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, America's 3rd richest man, has given over $150,000 to Democrats and no reported gifts to the GOP over the last three election cycles.

So next time you hear some Democrat blowhard spouting off about those rich Republicans and how evil they are, just gently remind them that there is more than enough money to go around, and that Republicans are just being true to their beliefs. Remind them of all those rich "Limousine Liberals" who live in the lap of luxury and want to help the indigent using your money and show them that the Democrats are hypocrites. Also tell them why. Oh, you don't know why? Well, let me enlighten you.

It's how they seek to gain and retain power over the rest of us. They envision a society in which they, who are wise and benevolent, can dispense material goods to those of us who "just don't get it," in accordance to our needs. They seek to assure that none of us will acquire sufficient wealth and power to challenge them. They envision an American version of Brezhnev's Soviet Union, in which the deserving (because of their wisdom and benevolence) rich and powerful can enjoy a life of wealth and luxury (because only they are sophisticated enough to appreciate it), while the rest of us are "granted" a life of pedestrian equality (for our own good).

Yes, Liberal hypocrisy is apparent all around us; it only requires open eyes and an open mind to see it.



Long Live Our American Republic!!!


No comments:

Post a Comment