Credit where credit is due, and let’s face it. We Americans, right, left or center, take a churlish pride in a good slam dunk epithet. Not the hardcore racial third rail stuff, mind you. Just the playful sort. You know. Moonbat. Libtard. Tinfoil hat. In fact, tinfoil hat kind of backfired on Righties. Originally used to denigrate Lefties who adhered to psychotic conspiracy theories like 9/11 Truth, the term was embraced in full by the far Left as demonstrated by Markos Moulitsas’ Tinfoil Hat KOS conventions, smashing successes which attracted major left-leaning LibDem politicians over the past few years.

So Lefties revel in their psychoses. What else is new? Yet I seriously doubt teabagger is an epithet conservative Republicans will embrace. Who would? But then it occurred to me. Who’s doing the real oral servicing here? We Tea Partiers, who object tooth and nail to every major scam and power grab liberal Democrats and the President are trying to shove down our throats? Or liberal left-wing mouthpieces who can’t open wide and fast enough for Obama’s Chocolate Munchkin Donut Drop?

Let’s face it. When the White House emails you on the air to correct you, there’s some serious dunking going on there. Funny. Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, who foisted that term in full measure on the public consciousness in mid-April, spent two and a half hours in secret with the President and some other major Obama microphones a few days ago. From what little we hear, the President spent some time railing against FOX News and Glenn Beck, but lips have been sealed very tight around the rest of what went on there. Could it be it was “time to take the dough nuts”?

Personally, I wouldn’t want that getting out either. But I think there was some hardcore slam-dunking going on there, and I’m not talking LeBron James. Whatever is was, I’m sure it would all give Chris Matthews a tickle up his nose. Ironic how the President injected himself orally into this debate, given the circumstances:

“You Democrats, y’all be dunkin’ for yourselves. Those Republicans, they just dunk what they’re told!” Oh really? Like Republicans are just opening wide for Dede Scozzafava? Arlen Specter? Lindsey Graham? John McCain? LOL! Ya, as if. Last I checked, there was a full-fledged rebellion going on in the GOP regarding who dunks who. Conversely, the new mouthpieces over at the NEA can’t seem to service the President fast enough:

“We have received a call from a house that is vanilla to dunk some donuts that are chocolate. Let’s get those lips and brushes moving, people!”

Speaking of servicing, from EIF we have a list of “organically” inspired shows. Need more be said? So the next time some lefty libtard moonbat tinfoil hat Obama mouthpiece like Janeane Garofalo, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Anderson Cooper or even George Stephanopoulos talks about teabaggers,  just keep in mind whose lips are sealed and whose are always wide open, very receptive and ready to form an airtight seal.

When they do, please remind them not to talk with their mouths full. It’s very rude.

Speaking of sealed lips (not to mention wallets), I myself re-registered this week as an Independent after 29 years as a Republican. Never voted Democrat in my life. But I did not leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me. I will not lean across the aisle in order to teabag Obama and the Left on the massive frauds of amnesty, climate change, the government takeover of health care, and all the other budget-busting and power-grabbing LibDem Lefty scams that will have us all teabagging the government in abject serfdom for the next thousand years.

I am a free man. I will not be a teabagging mouthpiece for anyone. Unlike some people

But what do you get when this strategy of over-delivering backfires? Pure comedy unmatched even by a “Golden Girls” marathon.

More specifically, you get pols who never read the health care bill faced with people who have. Witness the town hall meeting this morning with Senator Arlen Specter. The folks present didn’t just read the bill, they’re now quoting it – something even the Titan of Transparency never really wanted.

Even better, this level of discourse is coming from the non-Twitter crowd, the beyond Facebook folks more concerned with Lipitor side effects than Lady Gaga’s lady parts. They are not motivated by racism, as the left wants everyone to believe, but by real concerns – some raised at the dinner table, some reasoned in books. None from Twitter, I imagine.

I only bring up Twitter, because as I watched the PA town meeting, I also came across an online column by Meghan McCain, i.e. Ron Reagan with curves. In a catty struggle for relevance among perceived rivals, she points out that while Michelle Malkin has the number one book on the New York Times bestseller list, McCain has “nearly twice as many Twitter followers as she does. And trust me, Twitter is more of an indication of where young people are than books published by the hyper-conservative publisher Regnery.”

Maybe so, but did these “young people” read the health care proposal? Did they show up at town hall meetings? No – they’re too busy Twittering about “Twilight” (yes, a dated reference, but I like how it sounds). Twitter might have been there for Iran, but in the end, the young people weren’t.

And here is where McCain’s crowing about Twitter reveals a mistake many people make: confusing mass for meaning, accumulation for content. The fact is, the phone book has everything I need to know about the world around me, but I don’t take it to the beach to read. The phone book inspires no one, for it is (or was) a tool used by others to facilitate communication – much like Twitter. To confuse the messaging system with the message should tell Meghan her message needs work. Considering she just signed a hefty book deal, I’d get on that soon.

Which brings me back to those old coots railing at Arlen Specter this morning. That was an honest spectacle generated by a generation unencumbered by the desire for “followers.” Their concerns are bigger: increased government control, their family’s well-being, and of course, their own mortality. They realize that 5000 followers will not come to their funeral. And sadly for Megs, they probably don’t buy books either.

TONIGHT: Harris Faulkner, Tucker Carlson, Remi Spencer and Oderus Urangus from Gwar! Yahoo!

I meet them all the time: at auditions, on film sets, at parties. Generally speaking they are rather reserved. We engage in what I call the right-wing tango for a bit, dancing around each other giving vague answers to questions until one of us finally gives the secret password. Following the discovery of shared ideology there is usually a great deal of back slapping and genuine excitement at finding a brother in arms.

Part of this reserve is innate. By nature conservatives are generally not given to loud talking and frenetic displays. After all one of the hallmarks of conservatism is a desire to live ones life the best way one can without interference or hindrance from our neighbors or the state. Miki Grant may not have intended to, but in her 1972 Broadway musical “Don’t Bother Me I Can’t cope” she gave voice to the conservative mantra when she wrote, “all I need is less fat back, more greenback and YOU [government] off my back!”

There is, however, a part of this reserve that is learned behavior and has become necessary because the Hollywood left, so tolerant and loving of diversity that they have embraced cop killers, child molesters and Marxist dictators are not so tolerant of conservatives.

A brief conversation with any show business industry conservative is to be regaled with stories of lost friendships and business associations and being professionally ostracized — scripts that go unread and phone calls that go unreturned; Liberal berating for so much as hinting at conservative sympathies and leftist inattentiveness to courtesy and decorum. I can personally attest to having experienced all of the above at some time or another, which makes me about average among Hollywood conservatives.

To be certain there are those in this town that couldn’t care less what others think, have the courage of their convictions and let their thoughts be known on any number of issues. Some of these people are well-known in the industry, with money and power; others are, well, struggling to make ends meet. There are also many others with fame fortune and influence that are content to stay in the shadows doing the dance too fearful to utter a sound.

I understand that most folks have little interest in activism, but all of us desire (and ought to demand) the freedom to be comfortable in the expression of our quite reasonable attitudes about our country and our faith. That is true even among the glitter and glamour of Hollywood. The question then for Conservatives in this town is can we afford to remain silent in the face of repugnant liberalism? There is a conversation taking place about the direction this nation is going to take: are we going to abandon free market capitalism for European soft socialism? Are we going to sacrifice our freedoms in order to save the planet from carbon dioxide? Are we going to banish Christianity from our public square? Are we going to tear down all of our social institutions and rebuild them with post modernist cement? These questions and others are confronting our republic and we in Hollywood occupy a unique platform from which to influence the discussion.

It isn’t necessary for everyone to pick up a placard and take to the streets. It is however, essential that we speak up if only to defend our good names from accusations of bigotry and ignorance. The excuse for standing silently by while the left runs roughshod over our culture is wearing thin ESPECIALLY when that excuse comes from those fortunate enough to be enjoying the generous fruits borne of labor in the Hollywood vineyards. What is there to fear? Unemployment? Unpopularity? Most of us familiar with the daily grind of show business life are used to periods of unemployment; unemployment is part of the job as is the sound of crickets clapping.

It is worth remembering that the declaration of Independence -the keystone document of our republic-was a very public document. The signatories were mostly wealthy men that pledged their “lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.” John Hancock is rumored to have said that he was signing his name in large script so King George could read it without putting on his spectacles. Are the convictions of the Hollywood beau monde so easily purchased? Has sacred honor suddenly become cheap?

There is strength in numbers and there are many more of us in Hollywood than most imagine or the left ever feared.

And for whatever it’s worth consider my name writ large. Far be it from me to demand that anyone in this town be forced to put on spectacles.

Joseph C. Phillips is the author of “He Talk Like a White Boy” available wherever books are sold.

Jon Stewart makes Arlen Specter look principled.

Like Pee Wee Herman, Jon Stewart launched his intercontinental ballistic missile, and he could not put the missile back on the launching pad. In his case, the only thing that seeped out was stupidity.

Jon Stewart, for those who are not “trendy,” “hip,” or “cool” (brie-cheese-eating-elitist-snobs according to the Tygrrrr Express dictionary), has a nightly political television show where he presents the news with all the accuracy and fairness of the Jayson Blair Times.

Yet he is slightly different from the JBT. The JBT wants to be taken seriously, despite being leftist, boring, and usually wrong. Jon Stewart wants to be taken seriously when it suits him, and as a comedian when that benefits him. He straddles like Bill Clinton, only with his trousers on. On the one hand, Stewart claims to offer intelligent political insight. Yet when challenged a couple of years ago, Stewart took the defensive posture that his show was followed by “crank calls by puppets.”

This is not about “Crank Yankers.” This is about acting like a cranky wanker.

Jon Stewart had his CW moment when debating the absolutely brilliant Cliff May. I know Cliff personally. He is no partisan hack. He is a serious policy analyst with expertise in matters of national security. People who attend his lectures are better off for it.

Cliff May debated Jon Stewart on torture, and the only thing that was definitely tortured was Stewart trying to keep up. Cliff May did not use coercive interrogation methods on Jon Stewart, but he certainly put him in an uncomfortable stress position. Stewart was twisted into a pretzel by the time the debate was done.

Here is May’s recap of the events.

May asked Stewart if Harry Truman was a war criminal for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Stewart hemmed, hawed, and fumbled his words. For a man who lambasted President George W. Bush for malaprops and syntax fracturing, Stewart sure looked like the pot calling the kettle African-American. In fact, he looked like President Obama without a teleprompter.

He eventually blurted out that, yes, Harry Truman was a war criminal.

Then came the backlash from the millions of people that understand that America is about Jimmy Stewart, not Jon Stewart.

Jon Stewart then apologized on a later show. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to apologize after a backlash occurs. After all, free speech is not free. Just ask Dr. Laura. Jon Stewart may have come to understand that some of his sponsors do business with Middle America.

Yet, this is about something deeper. Why does Jon Stewart give latitude to Harry Truman while skewering George W. Bush?

Because ideological bigotry requires that liberals and Democrats be exalted while Republicans and conservatives are skewered. Actual issues are irrelevant.

(For those that are part of the Jon Stewart love orgy, Ideological Bigotry is my groundbreaking new book that exposes leftist hatred. Middle America gets it. You should as well.)

Jon Stewart realized that he criticized a Democrat. It is better to be a hypocrite and anger people that you already detest than to be consistent and anger people you love. It is not possible to unite everybody on your side, but it is possible to unite people against you.

So let me offer some common sense that will be self-explanatory to Middle America.

Harry Truman did the right thing. He made an impossible choice that none of us will ever have to make. His job was not, as some liberals insist, to save the world. His job was to save America. We were under attack. By killing many innocent Japanese civilians, he prevented millions of Americans from being killed. He did the one thing a president must do. He kept us safe. As an extra benefit, millions of people worldwide were saved.

George W. Bush also did the right thing. He also made the impossible choice. He also responded to an attack on our soil by going everywhere terrorists were harbored and protected.

We were attacked by Japan, but Harry Truman took the fight to Germany. Germany never attacked us. So what? They were part of the problem.

We were attacked by Al Queda, but George W. Bush took the fight to Iraq. Iraq never attacked us. So what? They were part of the problem, as are Iran and Syria.

More people died at the hands of Harry Truman than George W. Bush. The numbers are not even close. Harry Truman took measures more brutal than anything George W. Bush ever did. Harry Truman ordered the most unimaginable response.

So if Harry Truman was right, then George W. Bush cannot be a war criminal.

Jon Stewart knows this. To deny this is to be intellectually dishonest, or as I say in my Tygrrrr Express dictionary, “a liberal.”

Jon Stewart once remarked that when George W. Bush was right about something, “My head may explode.”

Well, feel free to spontaneously combust, Mr. Stewart. George W. Bush got the biggest thing right that he was asked to do.

Jon Stewart has his right to free speech because George W. Bush protected and defended that right.

Yet Jon Stewart allowed fear of being called a hypocrite to overrule common sense.

He then realized that nobody has a right to earn tons of money from “free” speech.

Jon Stewart was not protecting free speech. He was protecting very expensive, highly paid speech.

It is at that moment that he decided to “apologize” and defend his bottom (left) flank.

He had the courage of his “convictions,” which was to defend his rumpus from financial harm.

Real courage would be Jon Stewart offering an apology to George W. Bush while he is still alive to hear it.

To which, I can only add as a side note to the Democratic Party: “Enjoy, he`s all yours.”

Which leads me to my next point: As a fan of Kemp, I`m always on the lookout for someone like him. On tv, I keep seeing Joe the Plumber, a pretty average guy who seems decent – except, you know, he doesn’t want the gays near his kids. Speaking of kids, there`s that Jonathan Krohn tyke on talk shows – reciting the conservative party line better than most dithering white haired weenies crawling the halls of the Capitol. He’s smart, but he weirds me out. Maybe because at 13 he’s already taller than me – or maybe because he just comes off as a novelty act, like a hairless cat reciting the alphabet (which is kinda cool).

Which is why I bring up these guys up – not because I hate them, but because I despise novelty. The left was always the three ring circus of novelty – its microcosm, the Huffington Post, reflected this with children writing blogs, next to the incompetent bomber, the conspiracy freak, and the bearded lady poet. Sometimes it was all the same person.

Now I’m not saying that the plumber or the paperboy don’t belong in the conservative movement. They just shouldn’t be IN FRONT of it. We’ll find our leaders, or hopefully, soon they’ll find us. But it’s not going to be a guy whose middle name is an article, or a boy still sleeping in a twin bed. We don’t, in fact, need anyone who “plays a role.” What’s needed is someone, like Kemp, who was both real, and smart – and not a cartoon.

Unless, of course, it`s a unicorn. Then I take back everything I just said.