On helping Kil Joon Yu Callahan...

Moralizing and Bribery -- Teresa Style (UPDATED)

Here is the latest from the Kerry Campaign about how generous Teresa is with her taxes:

Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid $798,820 in state and federal income taxes in 2003, approximately 35 percent of her gross taxable income, according to figures and federal tax forms she released today.

Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid $627,150 in federal income taxes on gross taxable income of $2,291,137, primarily from dividends and interest she receives from Heinz family trusts. In addition, she paid an additional $171,670 in state income taxes and had $2,781,791 of tax exempt interest income from state, municipal and public entity bonds. These taxes are separate from and in addition to the income taxes paid directly by the Heinz family trusts and by other beneficiaries who receive income from those trusts.

Slice 1: We don't include state taxes in the debates about federal tax rates -- they vary from state to state obviously. So forget the $798,820 and make it $627,150. Tax rate goes from 35% down to 27%.

Slice 2: Forget the horsepucky about counting the $2,781,791 separately from the income used to calculate the tax rate. Your EFFECTIVE tax rate is YOUR TOTAL FEDERAL TAX PAID DIVIDED BY YOUR TOTAL INCOME. Period. So $2,291,137 + $2,781,791 = $5,072,928.

BOTTOM LINE: $627,150 divided by $5,072,928 yields an effective tax rate for Teresa of 12.4%. Sorry Teresa, I pay a way higher effective tax rate than you do -- and trust me when I say that I don't have multiple mansions spread around the planet. But just do go on moralizing about how I need to pay more taxes to support the poor so the feds can bribe them with subsidies to vote for Democrats...

UPDATE: Ah, you say. Covering up by not mentioning W's return? Let's take a look at the official press release:

President and Mrs. Bush Release 2003 Tax Return
April 13, 2004

PRESIDENT AND MRS. BUSH RELEASE 2003 TAX RETURN

President and Mrs. George W. Bush reported taxable income of $727,083 for the tax year 2003. This resulted in a total of $227,490 in federal income taxes paid by President and Mrs. Bush.

The President's 2003 income included salary earned as President and investment income from the trusts in which their assets are held.

President and Mrs. Bush contributed $68,360 to churches and charitable organizations, including Evergreen Chapel at Camp David, Tarrytown United Methodist Church, St. John's Church, the M.D. Anderson Clinic, and the Federal Government's Combined Federal Campaign.

That would seem to indicate a tax rate of 31.3%. But what are they covering up in "non-taxable" income? Let's dig deeper by looking at the actual return. Turns out that instead of non-taxable income, W has mostly made charitable contributions as listed in the release that raise his total income to $822,126. So his real effective tax rate is $227,490 divided by $822,126 yielding an effective rate of 27.7%. Over twice Teresa's effective tax rate on less than 1/6th of her income.

Let's face it folks, a flat tax in the 17-23% range would be a cut for some. And interestingly, W would be one of them. But it would be a tax hike on the truly rich like Teresa who play the (legal) tax shelter game for all it's worth. And poor dumb slobs like me would be mostly unaffected...

ANOTHER UPDATE: The NY Post via PowerLine agrees and then some:

Experts on lifestyles of the rich and famous say that $5 million in income wouldn't come close to covering the Kerrys' golden lifestyle with five estates, multiple cars, a $3.5 million Gulfstream V jet complete with plasma TV, gold fixtures and two bathrooms, a yacht worth $750,000 to $1 million and servants in every location.

The Kerrys own a $12 million waterfront Nantucket estate, a $6 million mansion in Washington's tony Georgetown, a $12.8 million mansion in Boston's Beacon Hill, a $14 million estate on 90 acres outside Pittsburgh and an $8 million ski chalet near Sun Valley, Idaho.

The Los Angeles Times, after a detailed study, last June concluded that Mrs. Kerry is almost certainly a billionaire, worth between $900 million and a staggering $3.2 billion. Forbes magazine has estimated her fortune at $700 million.

Oh, yeah -- and they point out that she doesn't pay FICA taxes either. I guess if I was her I wouldn't hire her either.

Kleptomaniacism Redux: Opportunistic Oppositionism

I just lifted this whole thing from Frum (bolding is mine) -- it's just gorgeous in every way:

I am embarrassed to say that it has taken me until now to read the Boston Globe's excellent and careful campaign biography of Sen. Kerry. It is a book that should be of special interest to anyone who might be tempted to believe Sen. Kerry's self-description as a man who "never wavers."

The Globe reporters catch Kerry in vacillation after vacillation. They remind us for example of the damning story of Kerry's sudden decision to give a speech denouncing affirmative action in 1992 just in time to position himself as a "new Democrat" worthy of the vice presidential spot on a Clinton ticket - and then of his hasty and abject retreat when criticism erupted.

Probably no story in the whole book is more telling, though, than Kerry's flip-floping on the first Gulf War.

If ever a war passed "the global test," it was the first Gulf War. Yet Kerry denounced it at great length on the Senate floor. "There is a rush to war here. [Because we think our military force can overwhelm Iraq], we are willing to act ... with more bravado than patience."

Then, as soon as the war was won, Kerry turned around and denounced President Bush for not driving all the way to Baghdad. Kerry condemned the decision not to shoot down Saddam Hussein's helicopters as they attacked Shi'ite rebels in southern Iraq as "a backhanded intervention in support of Saddam Hussein." And the Globe describe with some humor how Kerry went on to try to organize a Democratic campaign against Bush for his non-interventionist policy inside Iraq: "Bush has had a standstill, misguided policy, not unlike the lack of leadership seen prior to the war."

(All these quotes from pp. 260-266.)

Today of course Sen. Kerry denounces the younger Bush for doing what he denounced the father for failing to do back in 1991.

The overwhelming message of the Globe book is that Sen. Kerry's foreign policy ideas can best be summed up as "opportunistic oppositionism." It's a tactic well suited for a man trying to make his way by mobilizing angry out-of-power constituencies. But the conclusion I take away is that if Sen. Kerry should ever find himself in a position where he has to make the decisions - rather than react to decisions made by others - he would have absolutely no idea of what to do ... and would very likely do nothing at all while blaming others for everything that went wrong as a result of his own inaction.

As I said, it's "An 'F' No Matter How You Grade It".

If it wasn't for the MSM mass brainwashing, Kerry would be headed toward the biggest electoral landslide loss since McGovern. But no -- he still could win. Amazing spelled with an F.

Multilateral Kleptomaniacism

How could I not add this shameless steal from Taranto:

Liberal Democrat Backs Bush
"The No. 2 official in Japan's ruling party sharply criticized U.S. Democratic challenger John Kerry's North Korea policy Friday, adding that he hoped President Bush would be re-elected," Reuters reports from Tokyo:

"I think there would be trouble if it's not President Bush," Liberal Democratic Party Secretary General Tsutomu Takebe told a radio program, Kyodo news agency reported.

"For instance, Mr Kerry wants to handle the North Korean issue bilaterally, which is out of the question. We're now in the era of multilateralism," Takebe was quoted as saying.

When it so eloquently underscores my #4 from "Top Ten Reasons You Might Have Liberal Debating Points":

4) You believe that Bush's multilateral negotiating policy with North Korea makes him a cowboy -- and that it's just a coincidence that the North Koreans support your bid for the presidency

Sigh.

What? Oh yes, Kerry wants unilateral actions within the existing multilateral framework! I'm not nanonuanced enough. And of course that's nothing at all like what Bush did in OIF that Kerry would have done everything different about...

Gay baiting ... uh ... bleating ... K?

Bodyguards and (French) Corruption

In the "Bodyguard of Lies" I pointed out that Winston Churchill's famous quote that “In war time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies” probably explains more than we know about what's really going on in the WoIF (War on IslamoFascism).

Today, Best Of The Web points out a very interesting article from the American Spectator that elaborates on this theme in the context of the debates:

Similarly, when Senator Kerry insists that the United States is ignoring the threat of Iran, or that the United States is "distracted" in Iraq when the "real threat" is in Iran, could the President say this?

"What makes you think we're not doing anything about Iran? We already have special forces teams deployed all over Iran working with the democratic opposition to the mullahs. And we're already at war with Iran. It's a proxy war, going on right now in Iraq."

Nope. Can't say that.

Neither can President Bush make the obvious response to Senator Kerry's repeated accusation that the United States has "turned its back on its traditional alliances" and "failed to bring aboard our traditional allies" in the war on terror.

"What countries are you talking about there, Senator? France, maybe? Did you know that France was bribed by Saddam Hussein through the Oil for Food program, to the tune of X billion dollars? And that France sold weapons to Saddam right through our war in 2003?"

Not when the United States still depends on French cooperation for fighting terrorism in North Africa.

When Senator Kerry slams the Bush administration for a "too few troops on the ground" and "failing to win the peace," the President cannot say something like this:

"Senator Kerry, the Fourth Infantry Division was missing from our forces at the time the war started -- and ended. Those are the forces that would have settled conflicts in Northern Iraq, where most of the trouble is now. Why was that division missing, Senator? Because those allies you keep talking about held up Turkey's membership in the EU unless the Turks denied us passage through Turkey for that division. Those are your 'global test' buddies, Senator."

Can't say it, that is, without alienating Turkey and inflaming already difficult relationships with "old Europe."

Now, either John Kerry knows that he's saying things President Bush can't respond to, or he doesn't. In the first case, he's a corrupt liar; he's lying to the American people about what he can do and President Bush can't. He's had intelligence briefings. He knows where things stand. In the second case, he's plain stupid.

I don't think he's stupid.

Oil for Food scandal? Ten billion dollars skimmed? It doesn't exist according to the MSM. Got to elect the new JNK at any cost. And I do mean any cost...

Colorado Corruption Watch

Worthy of utter contempt.

The Inconvenient Interview

Liberal Dems would actually sooner you burn in hell than read this interview with Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan. And no, I not exaggerating by much at all:

CH: Another thing that's very important to me about this war is that it is in effect a war for secularism. President Bush may believe that God saved him from booze and so on. He's quite entitled to that belief as far as I can see, but he must know, and certainly the people in this administration do understand, that our only real allies are secular--that, in Afghanistan, we must hope for even more secularism. It's interesting to me to argue with my leftist comrades. They neither know nor care, really, that the Iraqi left and the Afghan left are thoroughly enthusiastic about the regime change. They know it saved their lives, apart from anything else. They're on our side. This is an irony that's sort of at everybody's expense. I know, exactly, that I'm on the right side about this. I'm for secularism and separation of church and state. Everywhere. I want more of it here, not less, and much more of it there. And it's a perfectly consistent thing. Even if John Ashcroft doesn't realize it, it's objectively--as we used to say in Marxist discussion--true. It's objectively true.

AS: Chris is a militant atheist. I'm actual a Roman Catholic. But I couldn't agree with him more. I really don't believe that people of faith should be leery of secularism. I think the separation between church and state is the best thing for religion ever. And I feel no qualms at all, as a believing person, in supporting secularism.

RTWT! Pronto!

W File

WHOOPS.
WOW.
WACKY.
WRY.
WHERE WE WERE.

What Both Bush And Kerry Want To Bury

Here's a nice little piece to clip out and recite next time you're under demagogic attack:

To state the obvious: not all Hispanics are immigrants, and not all immigrants are Hispanic. Still, there's no mystery here. If more poor and unskilled people enter the country—and have children—there will be more poverty. (The Census figures cover both legal and illegal immigrants; estimates of illegals range upward from 7 million.) About 33 percent of all immigrants (not just Hispanics) lack a high-school education. The rate among native-born Americans is about 13 percent. Now, this poverty may or may not be temporary. Some immigrants succeed quickly; others do not. But if the poverty persists—and is compounded by more immigration—then it will create mounting political and social problems. One possibility: a growing competition for government benefits between the poor and baby-boom retirees.

You haven't heard much in this campaign about these problems—and you won't. To raise them is to seem racist; that's a heavy burden for politicians or journalists. Politicians also risk alienating Hispanic voters. Worse, there's the hard question: what to do? President George W. Bush and various Democrats have offered immigration plans that propose different ways of legalizing today's illegal immigrants. That's fine as long as the future inflow of illegal and poorer immigrants can be controlled. That would require stiffer measures than either party has endorsed. These are tough problems; our leaders give them the silent treatment. This is understandable, but it won't make them go away.

RTWT!!! I'm betting we won't hear about ANY of this during the last debate even though it should be one of the main foci. I hope I'm proven wrong but Bush's answers to O'Reilly didn't give me much hope.

BOTTOM LINE: Dems want illegal immigration for votes (it isn't easy to fight the Republican tide resulting from the "Roe effect") and Reps want them for cheap labor. It's an unholy alliance.

(Hat tip Michelle)

The Septenthian candidate. Or is that the Manchurian candidate? Such subtle distinctions...

A strategery update.

What Did FDR Say When They Bombed Pearl Harbor?

Damn that's a nuisance! Call the police! Too bad we'll never be able to stop the Japanese! But we'll sure put those Kamikazes in jail! Or my name isn't -- uh -- Neville Chamberlain!

Projection 101: Bad Faith Stickers Out

Before this post gets rolling, you need a refresher on my “Sinful Soapbox: The Local Root Cause”. Here’s the first paragraph to get you enough context to go on (but please read the whole post – it’s one of my favorites):

As I was slowing for the stoplight, I noticed that the car in front of me had a “Defend Freedom, Defeat Bush” bumper sticker from MoveOn.org sloppily taped to the inside of the back window. Ah yes, it’s almost election time and the swing voters might remember leftists in a negative light this November if “Bush = Hitler” bumper stickers keep proliferating. Time to fake center.

Well, this one is going to make your sides hurt so much you may never forgive me! Here we go…

As I was pulling out of church this morning with the boys on our way to get Grandma for a lunch date, I was quickly trapped behind a Jeep at the stoplight with a bumper sticker that read “Bush Is A Moron – And You Know It”. Déjà vu all over again I immediately began to think. Even more amazing, it was in nearly exactly the same place at the same light where I saw the “Defend Freedom, Defeat Bush” bumper sticker a few weeks back.

Then, since we were still right next to the church I noticed that the Jeep’s occupants seemed to be craning their necks and looking at the people and activity that the break between services was generating. The light turned green. Were they making snide comments and laughing at us church-going dim bulbs? No way to tell for sure.

They kept looking. The cars in front of them were gone. And looking. Not moving, that is. Did I mention the light was green?

So I honked for Jesus at the morons.

OK – I’ll wait until you scrape yourself off the floor. And don’t say I didn’t warn you about that pain in your sides.

Of course, the real reason – as was illustrated by my prudential decisions about avoiding dangerous inattention at speed in “The Local Root Cause” -- was keeping the boys safe by avoiding being rear-ended.

But I do know Jesus loves me when I honk for him. And I’ll be voting for W as will anyone who remembers more history than last week. I’m not sure if Jesus is smiling right now at this sinner. I suspect W’s sides would be hurting right now though if he had read this!

And how can I possibly be qualified to identify morons with my tiny little brain? I only have a Mensan IQ and a Master’s degree. In future, I’ll leave it to the experts that drive Jeeps.

But I’ve studied enough psychology over the course of many years to understand what psychological projection is. And large swaths of the left are textbook practitioners of it.

They project a brutal stream of bad manners and personal attacks – while incredibly accusing those of us who practice the golden rule (and also work hard to train our children to do so) of being simultaneously rude, stupid and Machiavellian.

And they project bad faith – possibly because they have no faith themselves.

Unless you’re counting faith in the “Church of the Left” that is.

POSTLUDE: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
- Matthew 7:3 (You did follow that link defining projection didn't you?)

Shocked? NYeT!

Go be SHOCKED and read the update I just added. Tres bien.

An "F" No Matter How You Grade It

First check out the latest pecans from Neville and how they're being roasted. Then check out Hugh's list! Stunning.

And Hugh doesn't even cover what is probably the biggest one of all (see the update at the bottom of "Top Ten Reasons You Might Have Liberal Debating Points"): Alright Mr. Kerry. I couldn't possibly disagree more with your idea of a "global test". But let me be extraordinarily generous and concede that your idea is correct. Then how, pray tell me, could you have possibly voted again Gulf War I as you did? Backed by a U.N. resolution, supported by Saudi Arabia with even Arab troops fighting at our side -- you still voted against.

The Allied coalition in Gulf War I "consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States."

So that can only mean one thing: for Kerry, even the approval of France is not enough! He only uses that as a smokescreen for something even worse. I'll leave it to you to speculate just what. (Hmmm. The NYeT points out that there are names of U.S. citizens that have been redacted from Duelfer's latest list of Saddam's "Oil For Food" bribees. Hmmm. Just kidding I think. Here's a story by NYeT company IHT that seems to surface the names and JNK isn't on it. So far anyway. But I wonder what Theresa's stock interests are in Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil? Or if she's friendly with Oscar Wyatt Jr.? :)

Here's the best reason I can find:

The question of international military command ha[d] been set aside from the start. According to Chapter VII of the UN Charter the use of force by the UN should be controlled by a Military Staff Committee made up from the five permanent members of the Security Council. But a US diplomat asks indignantly: ‘Can you imagine our guys being told how to fight by a Chinese general?'

I'm quite sure JNK couldn't stomach not having the Viet Cong Chinese in command. Well, in addition to mindlessly heeding Dhimmi party unity of course. What? JNK? Why John Neville Kerry of course!

UPDATE: Check out Cartago Delenda Est for a take similar to my own on Bush's seeming willingness to be a punching bag. And Fast Glass has a comment there right in line with this post.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Allah agrees!