Rather than trying to spoof, mock or even gently tease President Barack Obama–the man who actually holds the highest office in the land–the paper is targeting the administration’s out-of-power critics.

The Onion’s latest Obama humor article taunts those who note how a leader who rails against the rich routinely enjoys the perks that come with his wealth, power and status:

Obama Criticized For Living In Lavish Mansion While Most Americans Struggle To Make Ends Meet

WASHINGTON—Over the past three years, as the sluggish economy has forced many Americans to tighten their belts, President Obama has reportedly enjoyed a lavish personal lifestyle, residing with his family in a 132-room house staffed by a 24-hour security detail, five full-time chefs, and a live-in maid service.

In recent weeks, many of the president’s critics have seized upon the issue, arguing that anyone who sleeps in a sprawling six-level neoclassical mansion covering 18 acres of Washington, D.C.’s most valuable real estate is clearly out of touch with the lives of ordinary citizens.

You see, those silly Obama critics will attack poor Barack on just about any charge. So we should simply ignore them, right?

It’s a classic case of misdirection, a comedic attempt to distract voters from Obama’s lifestyle, including lavish Halloween parties thrown by Hollywood elite and taking money-sucking vacations on our dime.

A comedy institution unafraid of attacking those who share its ideology would have a field day with Obama’s actions. Instead, the folks at The Onion can only see fit to mock the administration’s critics for daring to point out the awkward gap between the president’s rhetoric and his selfish reality.

But Redford and his annual gala seems out of step with the Occupy marching orders. Consider the following the next time you hear Redford cozy up to the so-called 99 percent. From corporate sponsorship to ritzy giveaways to encouraging consumerism, it turns out his iconic festival has very little in common with Joe and Jane Sixpack:

• Shop Sundance! Need a Wild West satchel and have $300 burning a hole in your pocket? Check out Sundance’s goodies store, where you can scoop up a $298 Morrison bag or slip on a pair of Sandy Clogs by Lucchese for a mere $235. And don’t forget to sign up for “private sales and exclusive online products” at the Sundance Catalog’s main site.
• Swagapalooza: Redford may recoil at the avalanche of swag being handed out during his festival, but that isn’t stopping companies from carpet bombing the attendees with gaudy goodies. A choice selection of everything from Samsung Galaxy Tab handheld computers to skiing lessons from the likes of Olympic gold medalist Shaun White can be had if you drop by the right parties. Heck, they even made a film about it.
• Pretty Suite: Sundance sponsors HP, Acura, Chase Sapphire and the Sundance Channel are hosting suites along Main Street in Park City.
• Hotel Sticker Shock: Want to spend the night at the Marriott in Park City Utah Friday night? It’ll cost you $469.95 for the evening. The same hotel’s rate two weeks from Friday, after the Sundance bunch have came and went? $239.95.
• Eco-Hypocrite: Filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer exposed Redford’s environmental schism with a video showing how the actor opposed an eco-village near his property in the Napa Valley while selling $2 million lots in the Sundance Preserve for luxury vacation homes. Surely the Occupy movement would frown on such capitalistic, Mother-Earth-be-damned behavior.

Guess what tycoon is Occupy Wall Street’s most vocal supporter and fervently in attendance at its events, eagerly addressing the crowds and speaking to the media on its behalf? Yes, Russell Simmons, a.k.a. Uncle Rush, the hip-hop mogul with uber-cool credentials and author of SuperRich: The Guide to Having it All (yes, you read that title correctly, and no, it is not by The Donald). Thanks in large part to his founding the wildly successful Def Jam record label and Phat Farm clothing line, Simmons’ net worth exceeds a whopping $300 million. A true American success story!

Hang on, though.

The Occupy movement is, first and foremost, about income inequality and the so-called “need” for wealth redistribution, as evidenced by its “we are the 99%” slogan and its angrily protesting outside notable 1%ers’ homes. So, what is a rollin’-in-cash 1%er doing at an Occupy rally? Need I even type out the phrase “inherent contradiction”?  Reading about Russell and his “support” for Occupy, I had one of my Mugatu breakdown moments (i.e., “Doesn’t anyone notice this?! I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!!!”).

So just how does Uncle Rush reconcile his 1% membership with his support for Occupy? By re-framing what the movement is about, of course! Whether speaking to CNN reporters at Zuccotti park or on Keith Olbermann’s show (remember Olbermann?), Simmons takes the liberty of reinventing Occupy’s main goal:  “It’s very simple – they’re at Wall Street ’cause Wall Street runs our government and they’d like to.”  Hmm, not exactly, Russell.  They’re at Wall Street because they’re targeting the 1%, and what better concentration of the 1% is there than in the nation’s financial hub? The “movement” is, again, about income inequality – the inequality of which Simmons is a perfect poster boy. Yet Simmons recouches the aims to suit his own participation. I can almost see the Occupy protester in his beanie hat, standing behind Russell while he’s talking to CNN, going: “Pssst, dude – hm, thanks for being here ’n all but we’re actually, like, more about the 1%’s greed,” only to have Russell smile and dismiss him as yet another avid fan trying to get an autograph. Indeed, throughout Simmons’s October interview with Olbermann, Simmons never once cites Occupy’s “we are the 99%” slogan! Why? Because Simmons is in that very 1 %… but why should such inconvenient truths interfere with the chance for some good P.R.?

When the French Revolution took place (and I’m fairly certain some Occupiers would love to see us go that route), no aristocrat had the chutzpah to come out of his manor and say: “Pay no attention to my luxurious abode! I’m totally with you guys!” They put down the flaming torches and pitchforks only to tear his limbs apart before he could even get a word out. The fact that Simmons gets a free pass by Occupy and its supporters says a great deal about our tolerance for Hollyweird and other celebrity liberals’ hypocrisy, who fly on private jets whilst proclaiming themselves environmentalists, who rake in millions yet claim to be “down with the little people,” etc. At least back in ole France, the 1%ers knew one cannot have one’s cake and eat it, too (though tell that to Michelle-Antoinette who refused to cancel her Hawaii vacay and save us taxpayers $4 million). While I realize it’s uber fashionable, Russell, you simply cannot kick it in Zuccotti Park with the Occupiers when you’re worth 9 figures, sorry.

Worse yet, for all his attacks on Wall Street, Russell is no foe of the banking world. Rivaling the “are you kidding me?” shock-value of king-of-the-libs Alec Baldwin’s Capital One Card commercials, Simmons hustles his very own pre-paid debit card, “Rush Card.” But it’s not something Russell discusses publicly much nowadays – indeed, his Wikipedia bio, curiously enough, omits any mention of Rush Card. As reported in July, the Florida Attorney General’s Office is investigating Rush Card for charging hidden fees. Uh oh. Let’s examine this:  liberals love to shriek that the 2008 economic collapse was caused by “predatory lending” (in reality, it was caused by liberal social engineering – sideye to Barney Frank! — pressuring banks to make subprime loans to under-qualified minorities so they could realize the “home ownership dream”… but let’s go with the liberal view of the “evil banks” and “predatory lending” for argument’s sake). Yet here we have Russell Simmons speaking at an Occupy rally while profiting off a questionable pre-paid card targeted at African-Americans? Crazy pills moment indeed!

On Christmas Eve, the New York Post’s gossip column, Page Six, reported on the inherent hypocrisy with a quick piece entitled:  “Occupy Saint Barths,” noting Simmons’ ritzy vacation and implying it seems at odds with his support for Occupy. Only hours later, Uncle Rush’s sweet vacation was interrupted by at least one Tweet that got under his skin. @DefendWallStreet tweeted: “Where is champion of 99% @UncleRush? Vacationing on a tropical island for two weeks for the holidays”, to which Simmons replied:  “So what ii can vacation U guys eat a d*ck u control too much of our government Happy holidayz .” With such foul language, he forgot to hashtag his tweet with “#keepingitclassy”. Perhaps one Page Six commenter said it best, wryly remarking that Simmons was doing his activist work in a place… where he would not be bothered by the other 99%.

Now, perhaps Uncle Rush means well. Let’s put it to the test, shall we? If Simmons truly believes in the need for income redistribution, why not take action himself? Why wait? So Russell, I propose you do the following:  Go ahead and advocate for increased tax rates to affect others like you across the board, sure, but in the meantime, why don’t you write a check to the U.S. government (they’ll accept it!); take no deductions and use no loopholes on this year’s tax return, especially considering you bemoaned during the Olbermann interview that you don’t pay taxes because of said loopholes (I’m sure your accountant will oblige your request!); and give away a significant portion of your wealth to the 99%’ers! What’s that, Russell? I hear crickets.

Until the “tax me more! honestly, I mean it!” Russell Simmons and Matt Damons of the world quit the lip service, quit the hypocrisy, and actually pony up some cash and put their money where their mouths are, or, better yet, admit they have a right to their own fair-and-square-earned wealth and that it does more good in the private sector than in the government’s hands… we have many more Mugatu “crazy pills” moments ahead of us.

For your enjoyment, check out this clip of Russell rightly being heckled for his hypocrisy by the only two Occupy attendees with a triple-digit IQ. Fast forward to the 2:00 minute mark for “YOU are part of the problem, Rus-sell!” Her smirk adds a level of sass appreciated by yours truly.

What do you all think?  Is Russell Simmons a limousine liberal hypocrite extraordinaire or does his stance make sense?

King raised $242,370. Not too shabby. Clearly, this is a commendable and gracious effort on the part of King. It says a lot about his character. But when you bring it into context with past King quotes and his overall liberalism, it brings up an interesting hypocrisy in what famous liberals and 1 percent types do and say.

In the past, King has stated that he thinks people who make as much as he does should be taxed as much as 50 percent. Why? Has King fully thought about a world where 50 percent of his money is taken by Big Government and then they decide where it goes? Just because it goes to the government with the “best intentions” does not mean it will help heat fellow Mainers’ homes. Yet liberal entertainers like King continue to beg Obama to tax them more when they are fully capable as individuals who have found financial success to use their disposable income anyway they see fit, including helping those they see as needy.

How Stephen King has not connected his actions with his beliefs is really quite amazing.

Has he imagined a world where the government taxed him less? Imagine how much more good he could do with that disposable income!? Or not. It’s really his choice. When giving becomes forced giving, then the whole act has lost merit. Why is it liberals cannot imagine a world where people with money make the right decisions? Why is it they oppose choice so often, yet turn around and exemplify choice with their own income?

King not only raised almost a quarter of a million dollars in the name of charity, but he also owns the very radio station through which the contest was held. Think about that. King, as a 1 percenter, is able to provide jobs not just through his writing but through his radio station. In the dystopian future where liberals want to take us, there is no such thing as men earning a living, becoming successful, starting businesses, providing jobs and giving back to those in need. In their world, there is a defined upper class that pays for the lower classes as they deem appropriate. The whole capitalist system becomes handicapped and people become trapped. King, himself a liberal, gives into this philosophy of taking in order to give when he is a perfect example, in some respects, of opposition to that liberal philosophy. He became successful at what he loves, then started a business that provides jobs and regularly gives back to those in need.

King is the most successful author in the world, and he shows no signs of slowing down. His new novel, “11/22/63,” has become a New York Times Bestseller, and he has a new miniseries, “Stephen King’s Bag of Bones,” on A&E. But this article is not meant to criticize the man’s art. His art is almost beyond criticism because of its wild success and popularity. This article is simply meant to point out the common sense of situations that so many liberals seem to miss. They applaud men like King when they talk about needing to be taxed more and then they applaud him again when he creates jobs and helps others with his disposable income. Yet they cannot put together the obvious points.

Men like King exemplify the best of capitalism. He found what makes him happy and then became financially successful doing it. Would he be able to do such philanthropic things if he made half what he makes now? How much more could be do with all the money he earns? With his money he provided a better life for himself, his family and others by creating jobs and donating. He did this all in a system of choice and American capitalism.

Why is this so hard for King and other liberals to see?

The absurdity of his proposal was the point: “For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public as a part of the Martel-Harper Challenge.”

In Swift’s time, the average person in Ireland was poor and destitute, children were unwanted and a lot of pregnancies ended in barbaric abortions. Petty crime and thievery and moral decay was rampant due to the existing circumstances that forced children and adolescents to fend for themselves. The wealthy nobility languished over the sorry state of affairs, but only offered criticism and scorn for the savages instead of reform to help aid their condition.

[I]t is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for [the mothers] in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, [the children] shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands. … I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

If you take the Hollywood theme to heart, Swift’s time and our own have converged. How many tear-jerking interviews over the years have we read or watched from liberal celebrities? They often like to repeat many profound statements such as, “The American dream is turning out to be and American nightmare.” They discuss with much candor the ills, greed, and selfish nature of American society. Meanwhile, many of the top celebrities are worth more than a $100 million. They live in gated communities; reside on vast compounds or islands far, far away from the society they speak so passionately about.

“And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It’s probably a good thing. Uhm, we’re the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered. And we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, uh, you know, we bring up subjects…we are the ones…this Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy. I’m proud to be part of this community. I’m proud to be out of touch. And I thank you so much for this” (George Clooney’s Smug Speech).

So why not eat Hollywood, then? Not literally of course. Besides, I don’t think they would make a tasty or even a healthy meal. All of those toxins, fake hair, and silicone implants would inevitably lead to a major recall. The FDA would go crazy. Instead, why don’t we hold their face up to the mirror just as Swift did to the British?

Glenn Reynolds offers a very modest proposal that would do just that. “Why the GOP should give Obama the higher taxes he wants”

Were I a Republican senator or representative, I would be agitating to repeal the “Eisenhower tax cut” on the movie industry and restore the excise tax. I think I would also look at imposing similar taxes on sales of DVDs, pay-per-view movies, CDs, downloadable music, and related products.

I’d also look at the tax and accounting treatment of these industries to see if they were taking advantage of any special “loopholes” that could be closed as a means of reducing “tax expenditures.” (Answer: Yes, they are.)

America, after all, is facing the largest national debt in relation to GDP that it has faced since the end of World War II, so a return to the measures deemed necessary then is surely justifiable now.

The president’s own rhetoric about revenues certainly suggests so. Perhaps the bill could be named the “Greatest Generation Tax Fairness Act” in recognition of its history.

Should legislation of this sort be passed — or even credibly threatened — I think we can expect to see Hollywood rediscover the dangers posed by “job killing tax increases,” just as pro-tax-increase Warren Buffet changed his tune once his own corporate-jet business was threatened.

And, given the entertainment industries’ role as the Democrats’ campaign finance ATM, it seems likely that the president might soon reconsider his rhetoric as well.

Matt Damon drones on incoherently for almost a full five minutes here, but hits a real low when he seriously claims no one started a small business with the Bush tax cuts. His inability to understand basic economics is only topped by his inability to emote onscreen.

And yet these people have power and sway over our political process, all based on … nothing.

Be sure to check out Fox Nation’s headline.

Obviously, it means everything we’ve ever believed is absolutely wrong.

The free market just doesn’t work. Every conservative really is a secret dog-whistle racist. America is no more exceptional than North Korea. The earth really is barreling towards cataclysmic destruction because of you air conditioner. True equality and justice comes from redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Wait–

*brakes screech*

*spit take*

*jaw drops*

*pants fall*¹

Redistribution of wealth? Lucky for Aglialoro and his partner at Atlas Films, Harmon Kaslow, they’re located smack dab in the middle of millionaire country; and Los Angeles’s rich filmmakers all agree that redistribution of wealth is the right path for America! So, here is my plea to some of Tinseltown’s most beloved left-wing filmmakers. We’ve seen the light, and now we need your help.

Aaron Sorkin:  Your screenplay for The Social Network, a deconstruction of a modern-day captain of industry, was a runaway hit. It more than recouped its $40 million production budget with a global take of over $200 million.  Surely you can spare 50% of your Social Network royalties for a struggling production company for whom the free market has failed. Oh, I see; you’d resist because Atlas Shrugged doesn’t deserve this money, right? The writing was stilted and didactic? It skimped on marketing? That, Mr. Sorkin, is what we call blaming the victim. These hard-working people, who put their heart and soul into this film, are like an innocent Alaskan caribou shot and butchered by apathetic moviegoers– witless bullies destroying the potential to finish a historically important film adaptation. Mr. Sorkin, surely you have the moral courage to take a stand against this injustice, to give your hard-earned money to those less fortunate artists, cruelly maimed by the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism.

James Cameron:  What more is there to say about the success of Avatar? Yeah, you may have only surpassed the gross of Titanic by jacking up ticket prices, packaging them with little plastic sunglasses, but by gum, you surpassed Titanic, almost earning $3 billion. Now, at the very least, you can help offset the carbon footprint of your film, its DVD sales (remember, DVDs are wasteful), and Atlas Shrugged’s production.

Now, I know this is a touchy subject, but I think it’s a great opportunity for you. We’re quickly coming up on the five-year anniversary of Al Gore stating we only have 10 years to prevent a “tipping point” in our climate’s destruction. Since then, the only thing Al’s cut back on is his number of wives, and things aren’t looking so great for your own efforts against nothing less than the destruction of worldwide ecosystems. This is a crucial moment, Jim; this is your chance to turn the tide. Do you really need the money from DVD sales of your films? Please, Mr. Cameron, stand in solidarity with endangered species and donate 100% of this year’s royalties to Atlas Productions on the condition that 25% of them will be used for carbon credits. You’ve had a taste of the thanks you can receive from the world’s indigenous populations; why would you hold onto transient wealth and prevent yourself from receiving this thanks from the very fauna and flora of the Earth? Remember, you can’t take it with you, Jim. Not even the submarines.

Adam McKay:  Surely, sir, you see how the example of Atlas Films versus your own Gary Sanchez Productions is a textbook example of income disparity– the same disparity you handily reminded us of in the infographic credit sequence of your blockbuster hit The Other Guys, which cost $100 million to make and grossed $170 million worldwide.  That and your three previous films have all been profitable because you found ways to repackage Will Ferrell’s schtick in wildly different settings and situations, attracting a large, enthusiastic audience and making you a very, very, very, very, very, very, very rich man. You’ve stated in the past that executives in other industries make too much money and should keep less of it for the good of everyone.

So, let’s review some economic facts here (I can’t afford to hire animators for an infographic):  your theatrical films alone have earned a collective $453,190,451 in box office receipts, though their production budgets only add up to an estimated $263,500,000. That’s $189, 690,451 in profit, a profit margin of almost 42% (obviously those figures don’t include marketing costs, but they also don’t factor in DVD sales or money from product placement through multinational corporations). Atlas Shrugs still hasn’t recouped $15,659,145 of its production budget after a month in theaters. That loss could be covered by 8.2% of the profits of your films (and this isn’t counting the profits of Funny or Die or your income as head writer of Saturday Night Live).

Now, obviously, the lion’s share of that money goes to the production companies who fund your theatrical films, so I have no idea how much of this money is actually yours. But I still have no doubt that you could fill the deficit of Atlas; at the very least, you could convince your good friend and collaborator Will Ferrell to donate that much from the $20 million he demands per film, leaving him with $4,340,855 to live on until his next project– a sum that many Americans would kill to earn for a few months of work. If that’s too unreasonable, surely you have enough millionaire friends that 16 of you could donate just under a million dollars for those whom the free market has forsaken?  Or are we gonna have to introduce more strenuous regulations to counteract your greed?

The Rest of Hollywood: Should these men fail to abandon capitalistic avarice and refuse to help out peers in need, this is an open call to make President Barack Obama proud of you and spread the wealth around. Remember, you pledged.

¹ They were actually already down.

This is what I love about New Media. As Obama’s Palace Guards in media and entertainment have circled the wagons to protect the President from exploding gas prices, as they’ve attempted to spin the Wisconsin union debate into a “rights” issue and Peter King’s hearings into the rise of Islamic radicalism into a “bigotry” issue — New Media has been doing our own thing, creating a parallel narrative going after NPR and dismantling Michael Moore’s hypocrisy and lies piece by glorious piece. 

In the meantime, we won in Wisconsin, Obama finally had to address gas prices in his news conference today, NPR is taking on more water than the Titanic, King had his hearings, and Michael Moore’s now in day two of a fact-based blistering.

Today that blistering comes courtesy of Mary Katharine Ham over at the Daily Caller who destroys Moore’s lies, anti-logic and fuzzy math:

This week, Michael Moore offered a simple and elegant solution to our debt problem.

Calling the assets of wealthy Americans a “national resource,” he suggested our problems would all be solved if we could just have access to all that money.

“What’s happened is that we’ve allowed the vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people, and they’re not circulating that cash. They’re sitting on the money,” Moore said. “That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this… we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.”

“America’s not broke,” he told a cheering crowd of pro-union protesters in Wisconsin.

So, we decided to try Moore’s solution. Laying aside the moral objections to the government simply appropriating the wealth of private citizens, could it work?

Facts, figures, logic, compassion… Shame on Mary Katharine for not playing fair.

—–

And on the way down here I drove and I heard about this guy in Wisconsin, his name was Walker and apparently he wanted to stop collective bargaining. That’s supposed to balance the budget. That’s the magic bullet. So you’ve got [Republican Governor] LePage in Maine, Walker in Wisconsin, you got [Republican Governor] Scott in Florida. It’s Larry, Curly and Moe. That’s what we got right here.

Now you might say, what are you doing up there? Aren’t you rich? The answer is: thank God, yes. Because I grew up poor. I lived in a family where my mother asked donated commodities from a Republican administration and got turned down. That’s where I came from. And you know what, as a rich person I pay 28% tax. What I want to ask you is why am I not paying fifty? Why isn’t anybody in my bracket paying fifty? …

Because [politicians opposed to raising taxes] come from the party of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, who one year put down on his taxes that he gave $10,000 to charity. Well, my wife and I … we try to make up the difference, the shortfall, that 22% we don’t pay, by giving it away. But you know what, I haven’t seen a lot of that going around.

Doesn’t Stephen King kind of answer his own question here? Yes, his elitist, holier-than-thou and arrogantly mistaken belief that a whole lot of people in the most charitable country in the world aren’t as charitable as he is, is off-putting in the extreme. But that he’s able to give that 22% of his income not swallowed up by the blackhole of the government directly to the causes he believes in is a beautiful thing. This is exactly why raising taxes is a terrible idea. Regardless of what people do with their money, whatever they do with it is better for this economy than what the government does with it. Obama’s failed stimulus settled that argument, especially when you compare the results of that to the roaring economy that resulted from Reagan’s huge tax cuts.

But King’s politics are, unfortunately, based on this arrogance, his high opinion of himself, his sanctimonious position that others aren’t as noble, good, generous and charitable as he is. And so therefore we simply must have a totalitarian government swoop in and force Americans to do what Stephen King thinks they should do. To heck with liberty and freedom, to heck with the fact that the Federal Government just spent a few trillion dollars and failed to create a single job. Stephen King knows what’s best and wants people forced to obey.

Also, King ripping on Reagan giving “only” $10,000 to charity one year is hilarious.  Even if it’s true, I’m happy to play that game. Could someone remind Mr. King that in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, Barack Obama gave a TOTAL of just over $10,000 to charity. But please don’t remind King that Vice President Joe Biden’s charitable giving was beyond laughable, I’d hate to see a best-selling author cry.

Then there’s this. Newsflash, Stephen King: You wouldn’t be so gosh-darned alone in your awesome philanthropy if someone like Ronald Reagan was president.

Second newsflash: Conservatives give more to charity than liberals. So it looks as thought that loneliness you feel is in your own ideological backyard.

Make sure to watch the whole video. King standing up for high-speed rail is a doozy, just another former hippie who sold out to The Big Government Man and remains all-too eager to strip everyone else of their freedoms if they don’t conform to King’s world-view.

 Remember when these people preached personal freedom, choice and liberty? Yeah, neither do I.

Adam McKay wearing Aaron Sorkin’s glasses and his little sister’s scarf…

On the pages of the Huffington Post, the uber-wealthy “Anchorman” director tries to hide his class warfare (something only wealthy liberals can afford to wage because the rest of us count on the “rich” to hire us and buy our goods) as some sort of concern over the federal deficit, which is the very definition of disingenuous:

As disappointing as Obama has turned out to be I think he still knows that $110 billion more added to the deficit in the next two years is a bad idea.

And yet McKay registered no righteous HuffPo indignation, not a peep of HuffPo hand-wringing over what ObamaCare and the $800 billion union/bureaucrat giveaway we now call The Failed Stimulus would do to the deficit. In fact, over at McKay’s “Funny or Die,” Big Movie Star support for the budget-busting ObamaCare bill (that makes $110 billion look like piggy bank shakings) was everywhere.

Adam McKay cares about the deficit like I care about the upcoming “Tron” sequel.

McKay and the legions of dishonest Leftists like him only care about the deficit when such a posture works as convenient propaganda in order to sound like fiscal hawks and further their socialist agenda. McKay doesn’t even care how silly and hypocritical he looks because the shame gene is non-existent in these folks. Reading the likes of McKay fret over a $130 billion deficit increase is like watching the Little Dutch Boy put his finger in the dyke after its burst and then stand there with a smug look that says, “I am selfless and amazing.”

And let us never forget that McKay is a proud and well-loved member of an entertainment industry that constantly has its filthy, greedy hands grasping out and its powerful lobbyists swarming throughout this great nation of ours in a quest for more of our money. This is an industry that chases corporate welfare and tax breaks for its rich self like hobos chase dollar bills tied to fishing string. The argument is that Hollywood needs those tax cuts to create jobs. Well, duh; and whether they’re hiring or purchasing, so do those making over $250,000 a year.

Why does Hollywood only believe in trickle-down Reaganomics when they’re the ones receiving the tax breaks.

That, my friends, is a rhetorical question.

I’m not rich, have never been close to being rich and now that I’m on the darkside of 40, I doubt I ever will be rich. I lack the brains, I lack the ambition, and as long as my pretty wife is healthy and my TV is working what more does a fella need? But I do understand how the world works. I watched firsthand as Reagan’s massive across-the-board tax cuts not only spurred 30 years of unprecedented prosperity (interrupted only by two shallow recessions) and — and this is important – DOUBLED TREASURY REVENUES in just a few years. And guess who also believed in the exact same economic principles as Reagan and got the exact same results? President Kennedy.

It’s also worth mentioning that while the percentage of the income the wealthy were paying in taxes went down, the wealthy’s overall tax burden increased substantially. For example, between 1981 and 1988 the top ten percent saw their burden increase by 48%.

Maybe this is what McKay and his selfish ilk are really worried about?

If Obama’s epic fail of a stimulus has taught us anything it’s that money in the hands of the government is at best useless in spurring the economy, while Reagan and Kennedy taught us that money in the hands of the American  people will always bring a sputtering economy roaring back to life and in turn raise treasury revenues.

Let’s review:

• Tax increases don’t increase tax revenues.
• A good economy increases tax revenues.
• If you want a good economy, decrease taxes.
• This isn’t rocket science.
• This is good for America.
• This is why the Left hates it so.

But here’s my message to McKay and all Hollywood lefties suddenly concerned with the deficit…

Lead. By. Example.

You won’t do it with Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change, but maybe you will here.

NEWSFLASH: You don’t need to run around in some helpless puppy-dog circle waiting for the government to raise your taxes.

Raise your own damn taxes in three easy steps:

1. To help federal and state deficits, refuse all production tax breaks, credits, etc.

2. Increase your own personal income and business taxes by simply doing the math and making a donation to…

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

3. Until steps one and two are completed, please stop embarrassing your hypocrite, socialist selves.