Look, I think we are all pretty well aware of hypocrisy constantly demonstrated by the likes of Hitlery Clinton, and any number of other prominent, and very rich liberals, when it comes to having trouble properly articulating their faux concern for the poor and outrage over income inequality. Recently, there has been a rash of major liberal figures downplaying the fact that American capitalism has been very good for them, while at the same time attempting to hamstring things for the rest of us.
Of course, this debate began anew after Hitlery made her rather ridiculous comment that she and ‘Slick Willie’ were actually "dead broke" upon leaving the White House after eight long years. This despite the fact that the couple owned multiple homes. Then Hitlery chose to double down on the sentiment in an interview with The Guardian, saying she’s not "truly well off," even though her net worth is around $100 million. So, as I have asked before, just how much money must have to be considered "truly well off?"
But Hitlery and ‘The Slickmeister’ aren’t the only members of ‘The Clinton Clan’ who appear to be a bit tone-deaf when it comes to their wealth. It was daughter Chelsea who recently told The Telegraph she’s tried really hard to care about money, but she just can’t. She said, "I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t." So it would seem that the loon doesn’t fall far from the nest.
And then, of course, there’s old ‘Slow Joe’ Biden, whose salary has been paid for by we the taxpayers ever since this boob was first elected to the U.S. Senate at age 29. He recently declared he doesn’t own a savings account, even though he kind of does. And then back in 2012, inequality crusader, and wannabe squaw, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, from Massachusetts, who lives in a $5 million house and whose stock portfolio totals around $8 million, boasted about her wish that no member of Congress should own stock.
And finally, of course, we have one of those Hollywood types, the rather rotund, anti-capitalist, movie-maker Michael Moore. Moore was once asked why he produces movies trashing the same economic system that made him a very rich man. He has really never been able to coherently explain that conflict of interest. It seems the era of the "limousine liberal" has returned. Self-proclaimed crusaders for the poor who rake in millions while attempting to undermine the very system that allowed for their wealth.
These are but a few examples of those who, and for no other reason than because they are blessed to live in America, have been able to do very well for themselves. And what is it that so many of these folks tend to do with the wealth that they have been able to accumulate? More often than not it goes to idiotic causes that tend to make life much more difficult, and usually much more expensive, for those us not of their financial means. But that matters very little them, for they see themselves as being society’s elite.
No comments:
Post a Comment