WASHINGTON – Today’s uncovering of secret multi-agency program for shipping illegal Gibson guitars to Mexican drug cartels left red-faced officials of the U.S. Department of Justice scrambling for an explanation amid angry calls for a Congressional investigation.

“I have ordered all agency personnel to fully cooperate in any Congressional inquiries, including all reasonable document request, as soon as we can redact them with Sharpie pens and lighter fluid,” said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The secret program came to light early this morning in the border town of Nogales, Arizona, after what was described as a wild battle of the bands between members of the Sinaloa cartel and Los Zetas, two of Mexico’s most notorious violent drug gangs.

“Usually these guys are armed with Mexican Strats and Squires, Epiphones, small caliber stuff like that,” said Pedro Ochoa, 36, an eye witness to the sonic melee. “This time they were packing the heavy firepower.”

The steady barrage of power chords and piercing solo attacks attracted the attention of nearby U.S. Border Patrol agents, who arrived at the scene just as Los Zetas broke into Led Zeppelin’s ‘Immigrant Song.’ By the time the dust had cleared, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Oscar Jimenez was found in a catatonic state of headbanging. He was later flown to University of Arizona Hospitals, where his condition is listed as seriously rawked.

The spandex-clad suspects were able to flee back into Mexico, but not before abandoning their arsenal of axes – the quality of which shocked Border Patrol agents.

“I’ve been working the border for over 25 years and have never seen a weapons cachet like this,” said Patrol Supervisor Mike Foreman. “A ‘53 Goldtop, a ‘59 Black Beauty, Flying V’s, a whole armory of SGs. Enough for an entire guitarmy. It’s a wonder there weren’t any total shreddings.”

Suspicions that the U.S. Department of Justice was involved in the case first arose after agents noticed “Property of the U.S. Department of Justice” embossed on the back of each guitar. A trace of the serial numbers confirmed that they were confiscated only days earlier by DoJ agents from the Gibson Guitar Company in Memphis.

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, Justice Department officials admitted that the guitars were part of a complicated sting program know as “Operation Fast and Fretless,” ostensibly designed to stem traffic of illegal guitars and amplifiers between the U.S. and Mexico. The multi-agency program – involving Justice, ICE, TSA, EPA, IRS, FDA, Fish & Wildlife, USDA, and the Bureau of Whiskey, Groupies & Hotel Rooms – reportedly encourage border area pawn shops to sell the guitars to known drug kingpins.

Justice spokesman Gary Evans said the Nogales incident yesterday showed the program was a success. “By putting American guitars in the hands of Mexican gangs, I think we’ve proven what we’ve warned all along – that Mexican gangs have access to American guitars. Hopefully this will lead to sane and sensible guitar controls.”

Despite the defense of the program, Darrel Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Heavy Metal Affairs is expected to call hearings soon.

“We need to get to the bottom of this thing before it gets out of hand,” said Issa. “We have reports that Justice is also providing Colombian cocaine gangs with AutoTune.”

Did that sound at all sincere…? Because I was really trying.

NY Daily News:

Actor Alec Baldwin has joined a list of elite New Yorkers targeted by tax collectors who think they’re fibbing about where they really live to dodge New York City income taxes.

In recent years, auditors have confronted hundreds of super-wealthy New Yorkers over the residency rules – including star Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter.

Facing shrinking revenues, the state has ramped up its pursuit of suspected tax dodgers, hiring 189 new auditors and – for the first time – making filers swear under oath on tax forms as to how many days they “spend in New York City.”

If it’s more than 183 days and the filer has a residence in the city, the tax bill goes up.

Baldwin, star of NBC’s “30 Rock,” owns a three-bedroom co-op on Central Park West, a house in the Hamptons and a pad near his daughter in Los Angeles.

He spends lots of time in the city doing the show, but claims the Hamptons as home base. That made him one of hundreds of people slapped with an audit in 2009.

“The moment you start working regularly [in the city], the city finance people come after you,” Baldwin recently told an audience at City College.

Neither Baldwin nor tax officials would discuss his case with the Daily News.

Tax expert Barry Horowitz said the aggressive tactics are designed to boost the state’s coffers.

Full story here.

By raw statistics, that would indicate over a quarter of the entertainment business is Republican. Now it could just be that Republicans are more generous.  Democrats are notoriously cheaper than a Barney Frank ferry ride. Al Gore spent more money on harassable masseuses than he gives to charity. Bill Clinton’s idea of charity is giving away used underwear (though in fairness, some of the clothing he soiled is now considered museum quality). Joe Biden spends more on polishing his tooth marks out of his shoes than he routinely gives away.

Democrats are as hypocritical as Leonardo DiCaprio’s private jet. They talk all the time about the uncaring rich not helping the poor, but come tax time, the charitable giving recorded on their Schedule As is dwarfed by their mortgage interest on their luxurious abodes. Democrats think their public service and undying support of a powerful state is tantamount to charity.

Perhaps showbiz Republicans give more, since their money says the words they can’t speak at work. When you have to put in eight-plus hours alongside people who can’t hold back their opinions about the ignorant bigoted tea-bagging Republicans, you’re bound to come home and take revenge with your checkbook.

Or maybe we just have more to spend. Usually people don’t discover Republicanism until they’re in the upper tax bracket. It’s strange how money looks from the other side of the fence. I know a comedian who once had a line about nobody needing more than three million dollars a year, that any dime you make above three million should be confiscated, because if you CAN’T make it on three million dollars a year, you’re an idiot and don’t deserve it anyway.

The last time I saw him joking about a maximum wage I knew he had made good, because he was now claiming that nobody needed more than $150 million a year. I’m glad that he’s doing well for himself, and he’s learned that three million dollars is not as much as a starving artist might imagine. Especially in show biz, where 25% is taken straight off the top, before the IRS and the State of Wherever-You-Unpack-Your-Suitcase get their share.

But I truly suspect that the amount of Republicans in the industry is far underestimated. Democrats just tend to be louder so it appears like there are more of them.  Here at Big Hollywood, there are only a handful of showbiz types who have revealed themselves. I think more need to come out of the attic, at least for the inner peace they will find. It isn’t healthy for everyone to keep their opinions locked up inside.

I say come out of your hiding places everyone. I think there are more of us out here than anyone can imagine. It’s really liberating to no longer pretend that the economy is in great shape, and the President is competent. And the next time your co-worker claims that at least He’s not as bad as Bush, remind them that a four percent unemployment and a deficit under a trillion dollars would be a welcome relief right about now.

NEA homepage:

Closer look:

Select “Health Insurance” and you’re sent directly here:

Closer look:

The “Artists Unite” link takes you here, to yet another plea to…

…improve our quality of life by demanding affordable, comprehensive guaranteed-issue insurance.

AHIRC was created by The Actors Fund with a grant from the NEA. The Actors Fund is a 501(c)(3), which means, according to the IRS:

…it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Well, the front page of the AHIRC site calls for “demanding affordable guarantee-issue insurance.” and that you “contact your Congress representatives directly.”

I’m no lawyer, but that sounds an awful lot like “influencing legislation” to me.

Laughably, this AHIRC page reads:

Our website is completely unbiased. We do not accept advertising or commercial endorsements. The only thing we promote is the healthy artists with full access to health care.

Are we to believe that mobilizing artists to contact Congress and demand “affordable guarantee-issue insurance” is “unbiased” and not an attempt to “influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities”?

And why is the NEA funneling artists ONLY to this single “resource?” Where are the links to sites calling for tort reform? Why not a link to the cheapest private carriers of health insurance or information on affordable catastrophic plans that are perfect for young, healthy artists?

The NEA is essentially saying to those looking for help regarding health insurance: Lobby!

The lawyers can decide how ethical or legal that is, but it doesn’t take a law degree to understand that the NEA couldn’t be any less helpful if it tried.

Obama won in 2008 with 53% of the vote. The President felt he had a mandate to enact his legislative programs. But a lot of those independents and moderates who voted for him are having buyer’s remorse. It is clear that the President is far to the left of the average American. The Van Jones episode should make that obvious. It is not that Van Jones slipped through the vetting process and no one knew his true views. Van Jones represents the views of the administration. Van Jones is Obama. They just didn’t want the average American voter to find out about it.

The President also tried to hide his real agenda in health care-the government single payer system. But it didn’t work. According to Rasmussen, ObamaCare, is opposed by 53% of the people. Only 43% support it.  However with old fashioned arm twisting, an unpopular bill like ObamaCare can still pass a Democrat Congress. According to Rasmussen, 57% of the people would like to replace this Congress! But that doesn’t matter to ideologues on the Left. They want their agenda passed even if the public is against it. Once a bill is enacted, it is difficult to dismantle the structure. There must be a remedy for this. 

We elect a President every four years but we pay taxes every year. I propose that we create a Check-Off on our Federal Tax Form like the Presidential Campaign Fund. Every year all the bills signed by the President would be listed and we could check off if we want our tax money to go towards it. If our IRS Form listed ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, Stimulus, Auto Bailouts, TARP, how much money do you think these programs would be able to spend if we had a say in it?

It took Congressional legislation to create the Presidential Campaign Fund Check-Off. There is precedent. States use this type of check off on their tax returns to raise money for a many charitable and social causes. Some states have programs to fund the Olympics, veterans, disease research, prevention of child abuse and senior programs. California, of course, has a check off for sea otters. Many people don’t care about sea otters and don’t want their money spent on them. But those who care, can check it off. That’s fair!

States have many ways to differentiate between political and charitable check offs and how it affects the taxpayer’s liability or refund. But in the end it is all political since even charities have to lobby the legislature to be included on the tax form.

There will be constitutional issues involved. We are a republic not a democracy. Congress has the right to appropriate money. However it has already been adapted for the purpose of the Presidential Campaign Fund by legislation. Maybe it could be triggered by the gap between what a President won by and support for a bill. If there is a 10% gap in support for a bill like ObamaCare then we have the right to the Check Off on our next tax return. There must be a way of doing this.

This would give us a yearly “vote of confidence or no-confidence” in Presidential leadership.

Of course the Democratic Congress will never enact this. They don’t want to give all of those angry people power. But Republicans can make it an issue in the 2010 campaign. “Do you support the Check Off?” could be the question to everyone who is running for Congress. Considering the inversion of the poll numbers we could call it the 53% solution!