George Washington was a "One-Percenter"

With a win in Illinois, Mitt Romney continues to build on his delegate lead, and thus, on his air of inevitability, in the race for the GOP nomination for president. Also, as the weather gets warmer and the political season gets hotter, the Occupy Wall Street (or Main Street, or McDonalds, or your favorite park) crowd will again break out their tents and sleeping bags and get back to camping, chanting, defecating, fornicating, robbing, and raping—along with providing talking points—like “one-percenter”—to the democrats.

Of course, for months now liberals have painted Romney as a super wealthy Wall Street elitist—a “one-percenter” in the words of the Occupiers. Withan estimated net worth of between $150 and $200 million, Romney is certainly in the top one percent of the wealthiest Americans. As Thomas Sowell recentlynoted, “Can a man who has been defensive about his own wealth fight off the standard class warfare of Barack Obama, who can push all the demagogic buttons against Mitt Romney as one of the one-percenters?” The answer is a resounding “yes!”

First of all, Romney should point out that he is in pretty good company. According to 24/7 Wall Street, many U.S. Presidents were among the wealthiest (using 2011 dollars) Americans of their
time. In fact, according to 24/7’s figures, Romney would be far from the richest president in U.S.
history.

That honor would go to our first President, George Washington. With his vast amount of land (approximately 60,000 acres), his wife’s inheritance, and given that his presidential salary was two percent of the total U.S. federal budget in 1789, 24/7 Wall Street estimates that Washington was an elite “one-percenter” with a net-worth of about $525 million.

Thomas Jefferson was also a “one-percenter.” With his architecturally extravagant home, Monticello, containing 11,000 square feet of living space and perched on a 5,000 acre estate, Jefferson had an estimated worth of $212 million.

James Madison and Andrew Jackson were both worth north of $100 million, while John Adams, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams were all worth over $20 million.

Teddy Roosevelt was born into significant wealth and was the beneficiary of a large trust fund, which, of course would make him one of the most reviled of the “one-percenters.” His net worth was estimated to be $125 million. This means that if Abraham Lincoln hadn’t been such a slacker (worth less than $1 million), Mount Rushmore could have been named “One Percent Peak.”

Teddy’s fifth cousin and later U.S. President, Franklin Roosevelt, was also born into privilege that qualified him as a “one-percenter.” As a youth, he made frequent trips to Europe, attended an elite boarding school, and later went to Harvard. The architect of the New Deal was also the beneficiary of a large inheritance. He had an estimated wealth of $60 million.

However, each of these pales in comparison to the Kennedy family fortune. Preceding his father Joe Kennedy in death, John F. Kennedy was unable to inherit his father’s vast wealth. And vast it was. Through stock, industrial, commodity, and real estate investing, along with what some have
deemed to be illicit means, Joe Kennedy accumulated a truly enormous amount of wealth. In 1957, when Forbes magazine published its first list of the richest Americans, Kennedy’s fortune was estimated to be between $200 and $400 million ($1.6 to $3.5 billion in today’s dollars). This placed him in Forbes’ top 20.

If alive today, perhaps President Kennedy, when addressing the Occupiers (if he were allowed to speak) would utter something like, “Ask not what your country can do for you, just ask a ‘one-percenter’ like me!”

The fact is that, whether or not they were “one-percenters,” all U.S. presidents, including liberal favorites like FDR and JFK, were very accomplished men. (Though Obama is BY FAR the least accomplished.) It would be nearly impossible to become President of the U.S. and not be a significantly gifted individual. Generally, leaders—whether political, business, spiritual, military, athletic, and so on—are by definition very gifted. In our capitalistic culture (what’s left of it), this generally leads to some, if not significant, financial success.

Despite the rantings of the Occupiers, financial success in and of itself is nothing to be condemned. In fact, the greatest social activist of all time, Jesus Christ, never condemned wealth or the wealthy. His message on wealth was not to let it get in the way of following Him. Also, when it comes to money, Christ taught us to be personally generous with however much we have.

In light of this, when examining a candidate’s personal finances, instead of focusing on his bottom line, a better indicator of whether he is fit to lead would be his personal generosity. If a candidate claims to care for the poor and less fortunate, did he put his own money where his mouth is, or as is too often the case, is he more focused on giving away other people’s money?

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Obama: The Occupier in Chief

A few weeks ago I detailed some of the differences between the “Occupiers” and the TEA party patriots. Alas, with the deaths, diseases, drug use, rapes, thefts, vandalism and all, the Occupiers have done even more to distinguish themselves, not only from the TEA party, but from decent Americans everywhere.

Even the left-wing media, which have endeavored to persevere when it comes to placing the Occupiers in a positive light, have begun to doubt the movement. As Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard reports, liberal journalists who traveled to Zuccotti Park “spewed forth torrents of ink on the value of protest, the creativity and spontaneity of the occupiers, the urgency of redistribution, and the gospel of social justice…Yet, as many a liberal journalist left the park, they lamented the fact that Occupy Wall Street wasn’t more tightly organized. They worried that the demonstration would dissipate without a proper list of demands or a specific policy agenda.”

In other words, despite months of occupation, the Occupiers are still mostly incoherent. Interestingly, some on the left are beginning to realize the same with the current administration. “What are we trying to do in this administration?” laments Mr. “the thrill is gone” Chris Matthews. He adds, “What’s he going to do with his second term? More of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets?”

Matthews continues, “He has not said one thing about what he would do in his second term. He never tells us what he’s going to do with reforming our health care systems: Medicare and Medicaid; how he’s going to reform Social Security. Is he going to deal with long-term debt? How? Is he going to reform the tax system? How?...Why are we in this fight with him?...Give us our orders and tell us where we are going.” (The thrill up Matthews’ leg might be gone, but the bias isn’t.)

Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that since Obama cannot run on his record, to save the Democratic Party he should abandon his candidacy for reelection. Simply put, Caddell and Schoen note that, “the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.”

So three years into his term, many on the left are now realizing what most of us on the right suspected all along: Obama was not ready to be President of the United States. As many warned in 2008 (including myself), coming into his presidency, Obama had the weakest résumé of any former president in U.S. history. Not only was he lacking in political experience, but he was sorely lacking in leadership experience. He never ran a business, never served in the military, never did much of anything other than prepare for a career in politics.

Remember, Obama was a professional “community organizer,” so it is little surprise that he identifies with the Occupy mobs. (Obama, himself. declared that he is “on their side.”) Thus, it is also little surprise that the disorganization, incoherence, and general immaturity that mars the Occupy movement also aptly describes the Obama administration.

As Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently pointed out, Obama “owns the Occupy Wall Street movement.” In fact, some of Obama’s most prominent advisors and mentors have themselves knee-deep in the Occupy movement. Jim Wallis, a recent member of President Obama’s White House faith council, and reported spiritual advisor, has called on churches nationwide to provide sanctuary to the Occupy protesters. Obama friend, mentor, and former terrorist Bill Ayers has been teaching the Occupiers in Chicago.

Not to be left out, many prominent democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and Maxine Waters have also lent their support to the Occupy movement. Pelosi has gone so far as recently to author a fundraising e-mail for the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee that attempts to channel the Occupy movement’s energy. Therefore, as Obama and the democrats seek reelection in 2012, to best capture the mood of liberals across the country and to paint the clearest picture for the rest of us who will be going to the ballot box, let us label the President with the most apt descriptor: “Occupier in Chief.”

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

TEA Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

There are several ways that a person can tell with which of the current popular political movements—the TEA Party or Occupy Wall Street—one most identifies. As a public service, I’ve compiled a set of identifying characteristics to aid you in your discernment.

If you cannot afford to camp out for days or even weeks on end at a rally because: a.) you have a job that requires your presence; b.) you are busy looking for a job; or c.) you are a student who actually attends your classes, you probably support the TEA Party. If you like to defecate on police cars, or paint your nude body in 1960s style psychedelic colors and designs, you probably support the Occupy Wall Street movement.

If you know why you are attending a rally and can reasonably articulate the reason(s), you are probably at a TEA Party rally. If you are (if you are) at a rally (at a rally) where they mindlessly repeat (where they mindlessly repeat) everything spoken (everything spoken) like a moron (like a moron) at a cult gathering (at a cult gathering), you are at the Occupy Atlanta rally. Yes we can! (Yes we can!)

If someone approaches you and hands you a pocket-sized U.S. Constitution or an American flag, you are at a TEA Party event. If someone approaches you offering free condoms or a joint (probably not free), you are at an Occupy event.

If you have bathed in a real bathroom within the last week and if, after your rally, you clean up after yourself, you’re probably a TEA Party supporter. If your protest site “smells like a sewer” (as Britain’s Daily Mail reported), you’re at the Occupy New York protest.

If your protest includes singing the national anthem, reciting the pledge of allegiance and/or the Lord’s Prayer, or Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” being loudly broadcast, you are attending a TEA Party event. If your gathering includes several Hollywood leftists, bussed-in union members, and recruited homeless in order to “swell the ranks” (as reported by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank), you are at an Occupy rally.

If you and your fellow protestors recognize and celebrate the heroic acts of American soldiers, you are at a TEA Party event. If your camp is infiltrated by party goers celebrating acts of sex and drug abuse (as the Daily Mail reported), you are at an Occupy event.

It is rather refreshing, if not also a bit shocking, to see such liberal values so prominently displayed. It paints a rather clear picture for any American who is in doubt about which movement is more in line with his or her values. What a dilemma for the democrats! On the one hand, they must pay homage and attempt to sympathize with the Occupy loons, who are a significant part of their base, but on the other hand, democrats know (surely they know) that a significant majority of U.S. voters rejects the “values” (forget the ideas, because there really aren’t any) that are flaunted at the Occupy protests.

What’s more, many of the Occupy protestors are hardly what one could consider oppressed or down-trodden. Several were photographed wearing designer clothes and sporting the latest electronic gadgets. Also, as one paper reported, “youngsters…have joined the movement, many of whom study at colleges which cost their parents up to $200,000.”

Another bit of irony that seems to be lost on most of the Occupiers is that Barack Obama received about twice as much in campaign contributions from Wall Street in the 2008 presidential campaign as did John McCain.

However, the most ironic, and moronic, thing about the Occupy movement is that the vast majority of those involved seek to place more power in the hands of those who were most instrumental in our economic collapse: the federal government. As Herman Cain pointed out, “You can demonstrate all you want on Wall Street. The problem is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!”

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com