Nick Di Paolo and I, after his show at The Comedy Spot, Scottsdale, AZ, August 8, 2010

President Obama came into office on promises of raising taxes, but only on those making more than $250,000 a year. Again and again he promised that there would be no tax increases on middle and working class families. Yet there are a myriad of new taxes set to hit Americans in early 2011: many of which will hit middle and working class families as hard as they’ll hit those above Obama’s $250,000 threshold.

While conservative talk radio personalities are calling Obama out on this egregious reversal of a central campaign promise, it’s refreshing to see less political, Hollywood personalities raising their voices over these taxes, and other the President has already put into effect, as well. Through such voices, it’s becoming readily apparent that Obama’s taxes are impacting Americans from all socio-economic classes as I type.

One such Hollywood personality is Snooki, of “Jersey Shore” fame, who has been very vocal about the 10% tax Obama conveniently tucked into the massive healthcare overhaul he signed into law earlier this year. During Jersey Shore’s season two premiere, Snooki said: “I don’t go tanning anymore because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning.” How refreshing to finally see someone who won’t mince words, and who just comes out and says Obama did it.

That’s right: Obama did it.

For the record, Snooki is the first to admit that she doesn’t “really know a lot about politics.” Therefore, her criticism of the tanning tax is not the outworking of Republican vs. Democrat tendencies, but rather is based on the simple fact that she believes it’s ridiculous that Obama hid a 10% tax on tanning bed visits in the healthcare legislation.

What makes all this even better is that Obama hates to be called out. (Which is why he’s always using cabinet members, Senators, members of Congress, or one of a gazillion “czars” to do his dirty work, so that there’s always someone he can’t point his finger toward if the public gets wise.) And this explains why he took time out in his recent appearance on “The View” to say he doesn’t even know who Snooki is. (The problem with this claim is that Obama mentioned Snooki by name during the White House Correspondents’ dinner on May 2, 2010.)

This is just how I remember the playground bully acting at the elementary school I attended as a kid. When my friend Brian finally called his bluff and word spread through the classrooms that the bully might not be as tough as he acted, the bully only laughed nervously and said: “I don’t even know who Brian is.” But we knew he was lying at that point, because the bully had been to Brian’s house for basketball.

Obama’s lying too. And as with the bully on that playground so many years ago, Obama’s hold on us is quickly vanishing.

*Appeared on Breitbart’s BigHollywood, August 1, 2010.

By now every political junkie is aware of the fact that Andrew Breitbart is being hunted down like a rabid dog in a crowded neighborhood. The accusations against him are that he took a video “out of context,” thereby exaggerating racial statements made by Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, and forcing her out of office. His most prominent accusers, Keach Hagey & Kenneth P. Vogel, write for the Politico where they posted an article titled: “The Tucker and Breitbart Show.”

While Hagey and Vogel’s article is ostensibly aimed at proving that Breitbart jumped the gun by posting a video of Sherrod that was “misleadingly edited,” this seems but a subterfuge by which they might not only lampoon Breitbart and Daily Caller publisher Tucker Carlson, but keep attention away from the fact that Breitbart’s goal in focusing on the Sherrod story was correct: inasmuch as it fits into his larger goal of highlighting the ongoing racial politicis of the Obama administration and the NAACP.

Of course, the reader will never be able to ascertain Breitbart’s goal from reading the Politico piece, which is nothing less than an old fashioned pile-on with Breitbart at the bottom of the pile.

For example, instead of delving into hard evidence that supported their accusations against Breitbart, Hagey and Vogel employed quotes from various bloggers, television personalities, and even House Minority Leader John Boehner in such a way as to taint the reader’s opinion of Breitbart, thereby preparing the reader to accept the idea that he had indeed “misleadingly edited” a video for shock value. But Breitbart didn’t edit the video. Rather, he aired the excerpts he received. And this seems like an important point for writers at the Politico to have overlooked.

Perhaps Big Government editor Mike Flynn put it best by pointing out how obvious it was that Hagey and Vogel had decided that the purpose of their article would be to take Breitbart down a notch “long before they sat down at their keyboards.” (Thus the multitude of quotes against both his body of work and his character, as well as the failure to bring out the fact that Breitbart hadn’t edited the video to begin with.)

In addition to going after Breitbart in a way apparently aimed at defusing his criticism of the NAACP, Hagey and Vogel’s piece also seems to be a not-so-veiled attempt to lessen the impact of deeper revelations Breitbart might uncover regarding “JournoList.” This is a recently exposed listserv archive of contacts and points of collaboration among liberal journalists, some of whom not only use the list to propagate talking points but even to discuss the joy they’d feel over watching Rush Limbaugh die.

In fact, Hagey and Vogel are so eager to discredit what might be uncovered regarding JournoList that they actually dedicate three or four paragraphs to people who claim to have been misquoted by Carlson’s website, then imply that these accusations could be applied to Breitbart because of the “inevitable comparisons” often made between the two men. (Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali were often compared as well. But I never heard anyone trying to argue that such comparisons justified blaming Ali for biting off Evander Holyfield’s ear.)

The bottom line is this: the Politico piece appears to be a work of obfuscation, in which Breitbart is used as a red herring to keep readers from connecting the dots that liberals would rather not see connected.

*This piece appeared on BigJournalism.com, July 26, 2010

But how can anyone be shocked at what this woman says? She has, after all, spent the better part of her forgettable career creating controversy instead of comedy because her jokes just aren’t that funny.

In other words, her show is not the called the “D-List” for nothing folks (although a “D” is a far better grade than she deserves).

What’s double trouble for Griffin is that the more she tries to be controversial by using a word like “prostitutes” to describe the innocent daughters of a sitting Senator, the more she runs the risk of having her controversial statements hit with same the applause-free “thud” that usually greets her jokes. And this is because she has overplayed her hand. She’s been trying so hard to be controversial for long that her insults are starting to come across with about the same effectiveness as the late Saddam Hussein’s threats to destroy the U.S. Military in the “mother of all battles.”

Just consider some of her more memorable attempts to get attention:

During the Bush/Cheney administration, she whined:

“[Bush] is a moron! …Cheney is evil. I’m sick of [them], impeach them, get them out! I hate them! I hate them. …They got to go!”

And at that same time, when FOX NEWS’ Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity were rising to prominence, she said:

“O’Reilly and Hannity can suck it. I hate those two idiots! Those liars.”

When she somehow received an Emmy Award for her television show in 2007, her acceptance speech was so offensive that the American public wasn’t even allowed to hear it. For those of you who are curious, suffice it to say that after making fun of people who give thanks to God upon receiving such an award, Griffin said: “Suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now!”

More recently, she accused Sarah Palin of doing sexual favors for Senator John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign and referred to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a “bigot” for opposing the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Let’s just say that Griffin may want to pull out a dictionary and familiarize herself with the meaning of certain words before she uses them. Like the word “bigot,” which is defined as “a person who is intolerant of any different creed, belief, or opinion.” In other words, a bigot is someone like Griffin. (Therefore, don’t be surprised when she eventually says something even more obnoxious than that which she said about Brown’s daughters.)

After all, what more can we expect from a bigoted comedian who never has been able to rely solely on her jokes to keep audiences tuned in?

*This piece posted on Breitbart’s BigHollywood on July 19, 2010

This motivation to fight, rather than lie down and die like sheep, was literally woven into the genes of Americans when this nation began to be colonized centuries ago. And in our more recent history, even before we faced a terrorist threat, an innate sense of a duty to defend freedom characterized generations of Americans who went before us.

We’ve seen this fighting spirit in the numerous “concealed carry” laws that swept through our nation over the last few decades: laws which are indicative of the fact that citizens are no longer just keeping arms, but are bearing them as well.

I thought about this last week, while driving through the night from West Texas to Houston. On the dark highway I occasionally slipped my hand down beside my seat where I could feel the handle of my Glock 29 (in 10mm). Just knowing the gun was there reminded me I was a free man who had the responsibility to remain free.

As I rode with my gun within reach, my mind drifted back to the words of James Madison, who said: “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Madison understood that because inalienable rights are God-given rights, they are also God-given duties. In other words, we don’t just have the right to keep and bear arms, but also the duty to do so.

Thus somehow, even now, although a political correctness that tends to emasculate men has overtaken our government, our public schools, and our universities, Americans have managed to keep this one great understanding intact – We have a duty to be free that is just as important as our right to be free.

Remember how Todd Beamer lived and died for this conviction aboard a hijacked airliner, United Airlines flight 93, on September 11, 2001? It was 9:57 a.m. when family members to whom he’d been speaking on his cell phone heard him say, “Let’s roll.” His family then listened as screams and shrieks accompanied the attempts by Beamer, and other passengers, to break into the cockpit and regain control of the plane.

The grassy field in Shanksville, PA, where the hijackers were forced to bury their plane instead of completing their mission, sends a message to all would-be terrorists intent on attacking our country and our citizens – We will not go quietly.

This message has been backed up with the fists and chokeholds everyday passengers have used on shoe-bombers, underwear bombers, and other would-be terrorists on our airplanes since 9/11. It is the message police Sgt. Kim Munley’s bullets re-sent via her response to the Ft. Hood shooter on November 5, 2009. And it’s the same one the majority of Americans are ready and willing to deliver any time and every place our liberty and/or civility are threatened.

We are not free by chance, but because generations before us understood that God intended great things for this country. From those who took part in the American Revolution to those who fought the War of 1812; from U.S. naval personnel in the Spainish/American War to the Doughboys who turned the tide in World War One; and from World War Two’s greatest generation to Vietnam Vets to the citizens who banded together aboard flight 93 on September 11, and beyond, Americans have not only treasured the right to freedom but also proudly taken unto themselves the duty of defending freedom as well.

Rights are important, but rights alone will not keep us free, for they are static. What we need are more Americans who understand they’ve a duty to defend (and protect) those rights. It is through the execution of this duty that 21st century Americans join ranks with our Founding Fathers in risking “[their] lives, [their] fortunes, and [their] sacred honor” for a cause greater than themselves.

This 4th of July, let us remember that the cause behind all worthy battles is freedom itself; a freedom that’s ultimately ours to uphold.

More recently, Crow purchased a home in Nashville, and has popped up at different events there, including last month’s Country Music Awards. To the curious onlooker, it appeared she was courting the Country Music audience, which is understandable because it’s a great group of people to have on your side.

But right in the middle of this apparent outreach to Country Music fans, Crow gave Katie Couric an interview for Glamour magazine, in which she lashed out at Tea Parties and other aspects of the Country Music crowd. As I read the interview, I could only imagine the Dixie Chicks’ former tour manager picking up a copy of Glamour and screaming – “Sheryl, didn’t you learn anything from Natalie Maines’ big mouth?!”

With one fell swoop, Crow insulted the kind of Americans who go hear Martina McBride sing at one of Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concerts on Tuesday, then attend a rally against high taxes and big government on Thursday.

For example: When Couric asked about the Tea Party movement, Crow referenced watching videos on YouTube and said: “These people…really don’t even know what the issues are, they’re just swept up in the fear of it and the anger of it.”

Hmm… By watching videos on YouTube Crow was able to ascertain that Tea Partiers are ignorant people who are controlled by base impulses (”fear” and “anger”). I’ve watched YouTube videos before and learned that Crow only wants us to use one square of toilet tissue after going to the restroom (in order to save the planet). Does she want me to form an opinion of her based on those videos and propagate it?

Her comments continued: “They’re not sure what they’re angry at; they don’t understand what’s happening on Wall Street. They haven’t educated themselves.”

Let me see if I’ve got this right: Tea Partiers are dumb (“they’re not sure what they’re angry at”), issues of finance are over their heads (“they don’t understand what’s happening on Wall Street”), and they live in a self-imposed ignorance (“they haven’t educated themselves”).

As I read further in the interview, I wondered if Crow has somehow missed the fact that “these people” she’s insulting are the heart and soul of Country Music?

She’s not really going to try to sell an album to ”these people” after this is she?

As I pondered these questions, Crow inadvertently answered them by describing her current “political activism” to Couric. This entailed going off on a tangent about the environment being “the mother ship,” and adding: “If you’re going to live in a wasteful manner, if you’re going to drive a giant car, and you’re going to live not considering that you share the planet with everybody else, then shame on you.”

When she said “giant car” and “shame on you” in the same sentence, I could only think of the insult it was to owners of 4 wheel drive pickups, SUVs with lift kits, and first generation Hummers: The kind of “giant [cars]” Country Music artists write songs about, and the kind of “giant [cars]” Country Music fans love to drive.

The one bright spot in this interview, if you’re the kind of person who looks for silver linings and such, is that somewhere, in an undisclosed location, Natalie Maines is overjoyed to see she’s finally going to have someone to eat lunch with.

*This originally ran on BigHollywood.Breitbart.com on July 1, 2010.