Jon Stewart from The Daily Show and his double standard on wealth.

Jon Stewart, the host of the liberal comedy show, "The Daily Show" is known for bashing conservatives including those who are wealthy.  For instance he went after Romney for his wealth.  It turns out Stewart is also very wealthy and uses tricks of the trade to avoid paying taxes.  For instance, he holds some of his luxurious homes in trust so he can avoid paying higher taxes.

Comedy Central host Jon Stewart regularly bashes American multimillionaires for their wealth while ignoring the awkward fact that he’s one of them.

Though Stewart distances himself from the “one-percenters” and bellows over their extravagance, his bank accounts bear all the marks of the “multi, multi, multi, multi millionaires” he mocks. The 49-year-old Stewart, born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz, makes more than 300 times the median American salary, owns three luxury homes and sometimes doesn’t pay his taxes.

In January Stewart exploded on-air over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s income level. “That’s almost — that’s almost $57,000 a day!” he gushed.

But Stewart’s own income level brings him and his wife Tracey approximately $41,000 a day. The celebrity income-handicapping website Celebrity Net Worth lists his annual salary as $15 million and estimates his net worth at $80 million.

And then there are the houses. When Arizona Sen. John McCain ran for president in 2008, he was criticized for not knowing how many houses he owned. (The answer: seven.) Stewart is well on his way to McCain country, with three opulent mansions whose combined value is $12.8 million.

\He doesn’t technically own those homes: Using a trick mastered by countless one-percenters, the properties were purchased by private trusts. Stewart’s trusts are named after his pets.

The super-wealthy often make big-ticket purchases through trusts in order to protect their other assets from lawsuits, diminish estate tax liability, and avoid public scrutiny.

The satirist started his real estate empire in 2005 when The Stanley Monkey Trust — named after his cat Stanley and one of his pit bull terriers, Monkey — purchased a two-story Manhattan penthouse for $5.8 million.

That deluxe apartment in the sky spans 6,000-square-feet and has 40 windows, a 600-foot terrace, and a 1,200-foot private roof, the New York Observer reported in 2005.

Another legal entity, The Shamsky Monkey Trust, purchased two more houses in 2009 and 2010. (Shamsky, named after 1969 “Miracle Mets” outfielder Art Shamsky, is Stewart’s other pit bull terrier.)

The lakefront mansions Stewart bought in 2009 and 2010 are in Red Bank, New Jersey. They cost him $3,800,000 and $3,200,000 and — for reasons TheDC was unable to determine — are next door to one another.

Online real estate search engines show that the Shamsky Monkey Trust also owns a $675,000 house in North Haven, New York. Public records indicate that Stewart’s older brother, Lawrence Leibowitz, lives there.

With serious wealth often come serious tax problems. In January the comedian blasted Romney for paying a 15-percent tax rate on his earnings, most of which come from capital gains on stocks and other securities.

 I guess when you avoid higher taxes it's OK but when you're a conservative and do it it's not OK.

Who really cares for the less fortunate. Big government liberals or generous small government conservatives?

There's a lot made over the release of Mitt Romney's tax returns. It shows not only his taxable income but also his charitable giving. It's interesting seeing what the various presidential candidates and incumbents have done with their money.

So what were the headlines? He raked in about $42 million in 2010 and 2011. His effective tax rate was just below 14 percent, lower than that for many American taxpayers. He paid $6.2 million to the taxman and donated a staggering $7 million to charity, including $4.1 million to the Mormon church.

OK, so Mormons are supposed to tithe 10 percent of their income. But it's to Romney's immense credit that he promised to do this in his youth and followed through with that - to the tune of scores of millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of dollars throughout his life.

In fact, in those two years, he paid 16 percent of his income to charity, compared to, er, 2.6 percent by Newt Gingrich.

And what about President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in the run-up to their 2008 campaign?

USA Today broke it down here. In 2007, the Obamas gave more than $240,000 to charity, about 5.7 percent of their income. The Bidens gave an average of $369 to charity a year for the decade before he moved to the Naval Observatory - about 0.3 percent of their income. Back in 1997, then veep Al Gore and his then wife Tipper gave $353.

Since becoming veep, Biden hasn't become much more generous. In 2010, he gave $5,350, about 1.4 percent of income. That same year, Romney gave some $3 million. The national average is about three percent.

What's interesting is how much they give to charity. Romney's gifts to charity in 2010 and 2011 were 13.73% and 14.11% respectively.

President Obama made $1.2 million from 2000 to 2004. He gave $10,772 to charity during that time period. Less than 1%. In 2005 and 2006, he earned $2.6 million over the two years. His charitable gifts were $137,622 or less than 5%.

Gingrich gave 2.6% over 2010 and 2011.

Biden gave 1.4% in 2010.

I realize the liberal litmus test for caring for others is how much one is willing to spend other people's money on the less fortunate and poor. But wouldn't a better indicator be what one does with one's own money?

Who will McCain choose as his running mate? I think Romney.

There's a lot of conjecture and speculation on who the presidential candidates will choose as their running mates. On the Republican side, I think it will probably be Mitt Romney. While McCain had a hard fought primary battle in which McCain felt some of Romney's attacks were unfair, the general election is always another thing. In politics, a fierce rival can quickly become your political ally in short order. Witness Ronald Reagan and George Bush in 1980.

Why Romney? Initially, I didn't think it would be Romney. I thought it might be Governor Pawlenty, but now I've changed my mind. There are a few things Romney brings to the ticket that other people don't. He's tested, widely known commodity, mega fundraiser, could help win a critical state like Michigan and would be acceptable to most conservatives. On the first four Pawlenty doesn't have that advantage.

If McCain selects Romney and wins, I think Pawlenty would probably be offered a cabinet position. Personally, I hope Pawlenty remains in Minnesota rather than serve as VP or a cabinet member.

Liberal former Star Tribune columnist Steve Berg calls evangelicals intolerant. But who's really intolerant?

Mitt Romney's speech on religion, faith and politics and in particular questions about his Mormon faith has been generally well received on the right and center right side of the political spectrum and even by some on the left. Chris Matthews said it was the best political speech of the year. Of course, many on the left didn't like it because Romney talked about the important role religion plays in our nation's public life and criticised secular efforts to marginalize religion. It's not surprising then that folks like Steve Berg, former liberal writer for the Star Tribune and now columnist of the www.MinnPost.com a liberal blog news page for former Star Tribune writers and others took a less favorable view of the speech. In fact, Berg saw it as an opportunity to take a swipe at evangelicals.

Berg's column was titled, "Mitt Romney's call for tolerance praised, but will it appeal to a traditionally intolerant group?" He then goes on to say, "He gave a speech in which he appealed to Christian evangelicals for tolerance of his Mormon beliefs when, in fact, a good portion of evangelicals define themselves by their intolerance of other religious views..." This is another example of the tired, worn out liberal usage of the word intolerance. Just because a person doesn't agree with the views of another person, whether religious or political, doesn't necessarily mean one's intolerant. I can tolerate the person and his views, but I just don't agree with them. What's wrong with that? Of course, secularists are intolerant of what they view as the intolerance of evangelicals. Of course this doesn't constitute intolerance on their part because they're right and evangelicals are wrong. This intolerance by secularists is accompanied by an air of being "open minded".

Then there's Berg's effort to recast a different understanding of our national religious heritage. Berg said, "The notion that God is responsible for granting America's political freedom is foreign to many Catholics, liberal Protestants and other believers, and is obviously troubling to secular Americans." Thus the belief that our rights come from God is somehow a foreign and thus "troubling" concept. Well, where does this "troubling" concept come from? None other than Thomas Jefferson. Yes all one has to do is look not to a cabal of evangelicals but to the founders of our nation and in particular Thomas Jefferson who penned our Declaration of Independence. It states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, ad the Pursuit of Happiness."

Secularists have attempted to recast our national understanding of itself for many years, suggesting that we really are a secular polity and religiously motivated sentiments should remain private. The founders would have viewed this idea as a foreign concept. As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And Adams also said, "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. Religion and virtue are the only foundations...of republicanism and of all free governments."

If nothing else, Romney's speech has triggered a healthy discussion over the role of religion in America's public and political life.

Excerpts from Mitt Romney's speech on religion

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders — in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the selfsame as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed."

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

To whom shall he pray?

Not long ago political pundits insisted on writing off religious voters. Today, or at least in the Iowa primary, its all about the religious vote; the outcome of which may affect the national dialogue.

It's no longer whether faith should be a factor - but which faith.

Polls show Iowan's favor Romney and Huckabee, both men who take their faith seriously and take their faith with them whether in church on Sunday or on the stump during the week.

And there is the rub.

It seems that Iowa conservatives want a President who will get on his knees and pray to the maker of the universe before releasing a nuclear warhead. (Hideous that there are those who would cry foul at such a humble act.) Now some are asking themselves "to whom shall he pray?"

Tomorrow, Mr. Romney may answer that question, but with two candidates who take their faith seriously it is certain that Iowan's will be on their knees before the final votes are cast as well.

Evangelicals for Romney?

I recently came across an interesting endorsement of Mitt Romney for president by Wayne Grudem. Grudem, a respected, conservative, evangelical professor of theology, has written many theological books, including a massive treatise called Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I've never seen him weigh in on past presidential candidates though that's not to say he hasn't.

With different evangelical leaders lining up behind other Republican candidates and giving various reasons for doing so, I think Grudem has written a thoughtful piece laying out his rationale for supporting a particular candidate, in this case Romney. He also tackles head on the Mormon issue, where there are extremely significant theological differences with evangelicals.

How it will all shake out is anybody's guess. If nothing else Grudem has supplied a well written defense of Romney and why he as an evangelical supports Romney for the presidency. I'm sure Romney will use Grudem's article in his efforts to persuade other evangelicals to support his candidacy.

Romney victorious in straw poll of 'value voters'

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has narrowly won the Values Voter Summit straw poll in Washington, DC.
From One News Now
By Jim Brown
October 20, 2007
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/10/romney_victorious_in_straw_pol.php

Romney, who garnered 1,595 votes, edged out former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who tallied 1,565.

Texas congressman Ron Paul came in a surprise third with 865 votes, while former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes. A total of 5,776 votes were cast at the event sponsored by the Family Research Council.The top 4 issues that "value voters" said they cared about the most were life (abortion), marriage, tax cuts, and permanent tax relief for families. Today's straw poll was the second largest straw poll conducted in this election cycle.

-------------------------------------------------

Summit straw poll: Huckabee a landslide with onsite audience; Romney wins overall via online voters
Posted on Oct 21, 2007 by Erica Simons

WASHINGTON (BP)--Results of the Values Voter Summit straw poll still are being assessed about what it means regarding social conservatives’ support for Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Hucakbee topped Romney by 488 to 99 among those in the onsite audience, but Romney won the overall vote by 30 votes, 1595 to 1565, with the help of strong online support.

The vote was a part of a briefing sponsored by the Family Research Counsel (FRC), Focus on the Family, and other social conservative activist groups. Held this weekend in Washington D.C., the gathering gave republican presidential candidates an opportunity to vie for the support of America’s “values voters”.

Romney presented a strong pro-life message and family-focused platform, brushing aside skepticism by some evangelical Christians about his Mormon faith and his relatively recent pro-life conversion.

“I am pleased that so many people of faith have come to support my candidacy and my message,” Romney told the crowd Friday evening.

Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor and long-time pro-life advocate, felt at home among the conservatives. “I am a person of faith, and I came from the very roots of the faith movement,” he told press at a conference shortly after addressing the summit.

Among the crowd in the ballroom, Fred Thompson finished third with 77 votes and Guiliani took fifth, garnering 60 votes -- Tom Tancredo edged him out for fourth with 65 votes.Rounding out the overall vote, Ron Paul placed third (865), Fred Thompson fourth (564) and “Undecided” was the fifth most frequent response. Rudy Giuliani, despite an attempt to isolate his pro-choice stance and support for same-sex marriage, managed just ninth place with 107 votes, less than two percent of the vote.

Erica Simons is an intern with the Washington bureau of Baptist Press.