"Make sure it doesn't happen in your state next," warns Michelle Malkin, in "Rocky Mountain Heist," a documentary in which the columnist puts her trademark shoe-leather journalistic sleuthing to work in exposing the Democrat-rigged "democracy" of Colorado. There, a group of well-heeled liberals used its power—and "every scheme possible"—to transform Colorado into a playground for the rich (and their liberal ideology) and a nightmare for "common" Coloradans.
Malkin, who once resided in our state, might already know that the dice are loaded against decent people in Washington, too. Take I-594, a gun-control measure which, we are led to believe, expresses the legislative will—even though it is, as The Zelman Partisans
have noted, "the anti-gunners' dream. Under the pretense of being 'only' a universal background check bill (common sense, you know!), it will criminalize nearly all transfers of firearms, including the most essential, innocent and fleeting. Loan a gun to a friend in need? Felony. Instructor hands a gun to student and student hands it back? Two felonies."
The measure was "bankrolled by billionaires on the left," among them former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Microsoft billionaires Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer and, of course, Bill Gates. These busybodies—who reside in fortified castles and are cosseted by security details—raised millions and gave unstintingly to make it harder for ordinary folks to defend life and property.
It runs in the family. In 2011, we were menaced by another unfathomably wealthy "man," who got behind an effort to bilk Washington-State businessmen and women of more modest means. The Service Employees International Union (state and national locals), the National Education Association, and Washington teachers union locals all united to champion a new income tax. The poster boy for this regressive measure was William H. Gates Sr., father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
The late Steve Jobs was not the only man who had no time for that excuse of a man, Bill Gates. Less well-known for his contempt for the patronizing Gates was hedge-fund founder Robert W. Wilson. Having donated an estimated $600 million over his lifetime, Mr. Wilson was one of the most generous philanthropists in our country. Still, Wilson flatly refused to join what he derisively termed Bill Gates' "worthless Giving-Pledge" charity. And it was not only Gates' showy, sanctimonious, very
public giving that Mr. Wilson discounted.
But first—and against this background—let me add the following: The righteous give discreetly; the pious give publicly. Accustomed to the hedonism of Hollywood and the exhibitionism of cable news anchors, it may surprise some to learn that the manner in which most ordinary Americans give—anonymously—satisfies the exacting standards of righteousness specified by Maimonides. The 12th-century Jewish philosopher stipulated that the highest form of charity is practiced when "donor and recipient are unknown to each other."
From: Robert W. Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Bill Gates
Subject: Re: Giving Pledge discussion
Mr. Gates, I decided more than ten years ago to try to give away 70 percent of my net worth and have already given away one-half billion dollars. (I've never been a Forbes 400.) So I really don't have to take the pledge.Your "Giving Pledge" has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that's it. I'm going to stay far away from your effort. But thanks for thinking of me. Cordially.
When the vapid Gates continued to nag him, Mr. Wilson became sufficiently piqued to terminate the exchange, and decisively so: