Continued after the jump.

Now, only CNN could do this with a straight face. According to the network, some say talk radio is “viciously partisan,” without of course defining “some,” as “people who work at CNN.” And so the segment began, with CNN using a shrink to examine the typical listener, as though he belonged to a rare breed of lizard that dines only on feces.

Check it out, check-it-outers. 

So the shrink, probably a devoted NPR fan – dismisses Rush’s popularity as the product of a bullying mentality – that the typical conservative finds safety and security under Rush’s protection in an otherwise friendless universe.

The solution? You could smell it coming: More access to liberal talk radio. According to the nutso radio host Randi Rhodes (who claims she’s not a liberal!), that’s what’s missing. Apparently, the left is banned from talk radio!

I’m sorry, but I don’t see a sign at the clubhouse, saying “no liberal hosts.” The only sign is from the public, who hates them. It’s called supply and demand. The demand is for a conservative viewpoint – and it’s currently being supplied.

What happens when you supply a product for which there is no demand?

You get Air America. Some might call that a noble experiment, but it was neither noble, or experimental. Instead it functioned like a jar of leftwing preserves– a time capsule of corrupt liberal thinking, circa 1977. And, of course, for NPR to succeed, it needs government assistance. For liberal ideas to survive, you need welfare.

So, in short, CNN is right: talk radio is about access. But they’ve got it backwards. The reason why talk radio is conservative isn’t because radio limits access for the left. It’s conservative, because the rest of the media limits access from the right. Other than Fox News, talk radio is the only place you can hear another point of view.

It’s a shame CNN can’t be happy with that. But like a whiny child who needs all the stuffed animals in the toy store, it won’t rest until there’s no opposition. It wants the Fairness Doctrine, when what it really needs is a spanking.

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.

Tonight we’ve have the delicious Remi Spencer, the delightful Father Jonathan, the hilarious Joe DeRosa, and more!

The list was comically, painfully long and the audience applauded and laughed at the real-life, obvious absence of leadership the sketch had captured in President Obama.  It is key to remember this is the work of comedy writers who could not find something funny about candidate or President Obama for nearly two years.  They did all they could to mock anyone and everyone around the man as to avoid skewering the “One” bearing gifts of “hope and change.”  But we’re coming up on a year in elected office and the liberals have grown restless.  

While their motives were most likely to gently nudge their hero to act on his promises, SNL’s writers still came to the conclusion that they couldn’t afford to lose what comedic street credibility they have left.  Doing what they’ve done since the late 70s, SNL finally acknowledged what the electorate recognized in our Commander in Chief months ago. Enter CNN.

Monday, October 6th Wolf Blitzer took to the airwaves:

“It seems no politician is safe from Saturday Night Live. While many people think SNL has mostly spared President Obama, what they’re doing now is not necessarily all that kind. They essentially cast the leader of the free world as a do-nothing president, at least so far. Even though SNL deals in comedy, what they said about the President rings true for a lot of you, apparently. So, did the show accurately capture a mood, or did it go off track for comedic effect? Let’s bring in CNN’s Kareen Wynter. She’s checking the facts for us. All right, Kareen, what are you finding out?”

Yes, CNN fact-checked the comedy of Saturday Night Live. 

Just this past Saturday, yet another opening SNL sketch slapped President Obama for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.  Armisen’s Obama conceded he’s accomplished absolutely nothing to deserve the award.   The sketch again received big laughs and applause – and more scrutiny from news media.   This time, the analysis came from the news division of SNL’s parent network, NBC.  Sunday’s NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt found the anchor asking his correspondent if the White House was “concerned” about the “comedy gloves coming off.” 

The comedy world sat up and took notice of the press scrutiny immediately.  The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart launched into a blistering, 12-minute assault on CNN’s fact-checking session this week.  “While you were doing your research did you also find that sharks live in water and don’t deliver candy grams…,” demanded Stewart, referring to a classic SNL sketch called Land Shark.

While Stewart’s admonishment of CNN was hilarious, it was also telling.  In just over 20 minutes of actual programming, the host and writers devoted two-thirds of their comedy to assailing CNN.  Why?  Stewart and company have just been introduced to the chilling effect of a White House and news media offensive traditionally reserved for the “wing-nuts” on Fox News and talk radio.

 It’s a beautiful symphony when your comedy, the White House, and the news media are on the same stage swinging at conservatives in concert.  Last week, however, the comedians strayed from the sheet music in a major way.  The public was demanding their honesty if they were to still enjoy a credible laugh with their favorite shows.   In delivering for their audience, our friends in comedy got a taste of the treatment “tea partiers” and conservative talk radio regularly receives.    Welcome to the enemies list, funny men.

This will certainly be only the beginning.  The fact that CNN and NBC News find comedians poking fun at the president as “news” acknowledges what honest media watchers have known all along.  The press, the President, and comedy formed an unspoken “circle of trust” with one another when it came to the Obama administration.  Banning together, they helped elect an inexperienced radical as President.  They also acknowledge their power “misdirected” individually can destroy all they worked together to create. 

The press is still willing to battle on behalf of this White House, but the comedians are off the reservation – choosing honesty over ideology.    The comedian’s punishment?  Fact checking and discrediting attacks from their former pals.   In no time, surely good members of Congress will call for a Comedy Fairness Doctrine.  Perhaps all broadcasts of comedy material should be reviewed by the White House before delivery?  Maybe an appointed, diverse community board of writers should be created in New York and L.A?  If the comedy seems particularly biting to the President or the Democrat Congress, President Obama’s appointed board members may add and subtract punch lines to maintain a sense of humorous equilibrium.

Sure it sounds absurd.  It did to talk radio hosts once, too.  Not so funny now, is it?

Still, when I do take in the rare hour or two, I have always found Rush to be a profoundly insightful thinker.  Far from the partisan blowhard the left portrays him to be, Rush is, from my limited listenings, a true philosopher, perhaps a bit more crude than his toga-wearing, boy-loving predecessors, but one of them just the same.  His philosophy is American Conservatism, and he champions it far above party.  In fact, I suspect it is the soft-left members of the GOP that fear him most, since the DNC cannot by their very nature be held to the standards of limited government and natural-liberty over enforced-equality he champions in the first place. 

Rush Limbaugh is hated, in my opinion, because he provides an inoculation in the minds of everyone who hears him against the permeating cultural narrative of relativism, peace through acquiescence, racial guilt, political correctness, redistributive change, and the soft-tyranny of an intrusive government bent on controlling the poor rubes and savages over whom it rules quite unconstitutionally.

All of this hatred is on full display in a new piece, published recently at the Huffington Post, written by Radio World contributor Bill Mann called, Rush Limbaugh’s Dirty Little Secret of Radio “Success”.  Like many critics of Limbaugh, and conservative talk radio in general, Mr. Mann’s chief complaint in the article seems to be that Rush is successful.  He bemoans the fact that Rush can always be heard in “rural areas,” which Mann generously identifies as everything existing “between cities.” According to Mr. Mann, this permeation of the EIB network to even so mean an environment as a suburb is “obviously” not due to audiences there finding any commonality with the views of Mr. Limbaugh (though Mr. Mann provides no support for this claim).  It is also not, as many on the right would claim, due to anything so pedestrian as the free market.  The truth of Mr. Limbaugh’s success is in fact, according to Mann, a little known and apparently nefarious system called the barter deal.

Here’s how a barter deal works, according to Mann:

To launch the show, Limbaugh’s syndicator, Premiere Radio Network… gave Limbaugh’s three hours away — that’s right, no cash — to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990’s…

In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local station’s available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.

Now, it’s worth mentioning that I don’t even know if this information is true, though I have no reason to doubt Mr. Mann’s statement.  I don’t have the slightest idea how radio is sold or marketed.  I did jock for a few years at a country music station in Lubbock, Texas in college (Esoteric Radio Theatre with Jeremy Danial…  You can imagine how successful it was…), but I have no idea how the economies of talk radio function.  (In the interest of disclosure, I do have a good friend who syndicates many of the top talk radio hosts in the country, but other than the fact that he is often generous when it comes time to pay for a meal, I have no real clue how his business works.)  I do know one thing though: THIS SOUNDS LIKE A BRILLIANT IDEA. 

Think about it, if you believe you have a product with a high value, and you believe that product can attract and sustain a broad national audience, why wouldn’t you trade the show itself for advertising time in markets that might not be able to afford the licensing rights upfront?  It is basically win, win.  You get to expand your income potential and your sphere of influence by adding gross listeners.  The local stations get to increase their ratings by hosting a well-hyped, news worthy, national show, which increases their ability to monetize the advertising time they retain.  I’m sure local radio hosts suffer, but that is true with competition of all kinds. Indeed, if the local station drummed up the money to license Rush’s show, the result for the local host would likely be the same. 

In truth, if you take out a few of the negative adjectives, I think Mr. Mann’s article would suddenly read like a glowing, how-to, self-help for businessmen of all stripes.  Instead of Rush Limbaugh’s Dirty Little Secret of Radio “Success,” you could just call it Rush Limbaugh’s Secret of Radio Success!, and sell a million copies to all sorts of radio entrepreneurs.  In fact, the syndicators of liberal talk radio would do well to emulate this model, if they haven’t already.  It makes great business sense.

Of course, that is where the real problem with Mr. Mann’s position lies.  Mr. Mann’s main objection to the barter system seems to be simply that he hates Rush Limbaugh.   He finds it immoral that Rush would use competitive advantage because it works.  How dare you use something that works!  All success and profit is patently evil, unless it is strictly controlled by the government or advantages people Mr. Mann doesn’t hate.  You see, the market still wins in the end.  Rush’s success in large markets has given him the opportunity to take a risk in the smaller ones.  He can give his show away in trade for something that might prove more valuable in the end because he has built enough success to sustain him if the gamble fails.  At the end of the day, though, an audience still has to respond to the show or the new ads will be worthless, as will the local stations remaining stock.  So, despite the protestations of Mr. Mann to the contrary, Rush Limbaugh is on the air nationwide expressly because his views are mainstream, or at a minimum, substantial enough to be valuable in the market (the fact that conservative candidates continue to win nationwide year after year speaks more to the true mainstreamness of Rush’s underlying philosophy…).  Certainly any other radio personality of any other political stripe could employ the same technique, the question that remains is will liberal radio shows that Mr. Mann approves of succeed in growing audiences capable of sustaining the deal with local stations. 

 The fact that so many on the left seem bent upon ensuring the government grant them equality instead of competing for it seems to be proof that they will not.  Perhaps it is Mr. Mann’s whose views are outside of the mainstream.

Mainstream news outlets have been caught off guard before, but they used to play catch up. Today they play “hide the ball.” For as long as I’ve been politically aware the media’s been biased, but willfully ignoring a major national news story at great cost to their credibility and relevance is a new low. So what changed?

Ironically enough, scrutiny and accountability is the cause of much of the media’s increasingly disgraceful behavior.

Once trailblazer media watchdogs like talk radio, The Media Research Center and Bernard Goldberg were joined with the awesome power of the Internet and Fox News, the media’s sins of omission and commission could no longer be hidden from the general public, or denied. This gave the Fourth Estate two options.  They could either: A) Clean up their act and do their jobs honorably … or B) Surrender their fig leafs of objectivity and run amok as the ideologues they really are.

Doing their jobs honorably would mean a setback for the Leftist cause, and so they chose B.

The good news is that this appears to be a suicide run.  

The Dinosaur Media is losing money, viewers and readers hand over fist. The reason they’re folding or on life support isn’t because there aren’t enough left-of-center Americans to keep them in business, it’s because, like everyone else, liberals don’t want to sit in a choir and be preached to. They want information. They want to know what’s going on in the world.

Our liberal friends may not like hearing Van Jones, the NEA and ACORN are under fire, but they still want to know.  What a disappointing revelation it must be to open the New York Times or turn on the network news only to discover after the curtain has already fallen that one of Obama’s Czars was forced to resign or that the U.S. Census Bureau let ACORN go.

The liberal media is failing for the exact same reason a dozen-plus anti-war films flopped: propaganda is dull. No matter your politics, people want stimulation and information, not affirmation. Obviously, that’s not true for everyone, but it’s true enough that those media outlets who haven’t figured it out are either dancing on the edge of financial ruin or, like MSNBC, continuing to double down on stupid thinking it will increase their abysmal performance metrics.

The rise of those who watch the Watchmen forced smart, savvy individuals to consciously choose between being tenacious, curious journalists who will hold the powerful accountable, or to finally come out of the closet and declare themselves the ideological warriors they really are.

They have chosen to become the Palace Guards.  

They are also cornered, scared and armed with the mighty weapons of the unethical: lies and the inability to feel shame.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we must continue to do our best as they let loose their worst.

The right way appears to be Mark Lloyd, the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer, a man who literally hates conservative talk.  Apparently, diversity does not include conservative talk radio.  As documented by the Media Research Center and others, Mark Lloyd thinks that if conservative broadcasters don’t present liberal points of view, they should be fined and the money given to public broadcasters.   

Lloyd co-wrote his recommendations in a well-publicized report “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” in June of 2007, that skewered conservative talk radio as we documented in Censorship.  A few weeks later, he wrote this about conservative talk:  “The status quo does not serve our democracy well.  We want to create more ownership opportunities and more speech focused on local interests.  We want either clear rules that promote these First Amendment values or a reasonable payment to the public for the use of its property [the airwaves].” 

Mark Lloyd does not care that the liberal point of view permeates all media and that talk radio presents the only conservative alternative. Like all far-left loons, he wants it all.  He wants a tightly regulated media to push aside conservative talk radio and this is why he thinks any call for the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary – because there are other ways to accomplish the same results.  Mark Lloyd is a danger to speech in the free marketplace of ideas.  He is only partially right when he says “conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves of the country.”  Conservative talk dominates only the talk radio airwaves and he is less than honest when he doesn’t tell you that talk radio listeners represent a minority when compared to all other media users.  Therefore, the only logical conclusion is he wants to destroy conservative talk as his writings suggest.   And, if there is any question to his motives, take a look at this video in which he praises Hugo Chavez of Venezuela – a dictator who has taken over his country’s media. 

–

Big brother is here.  He’s Mark Lloyd.  Because he has shown his hate for conservative talk radio in many writings, how in the world can he claim the title of “Chief Diversity Officer” at the FCC?  At best it is hypocrisy.  At worst, it exposes what many of us have been warning – that Obama and his left-wing loons want no opposition.  The left has panned our warnings about mitigating conservative values by shutting down the conservative voice.  They have voiced their opposition to a return of the Fairness Doctrine hoping to lull us to sleep.  But, they cannot deny their stealth approach to censor conservative talk in America any longer.  As they stated earlier….there is no need for the Fairness Doctrine because it is the “wrong way to go about it.”  And now you know the right way.  Meet Mark Lloyd.

It’s not easy being a conservative in comedy these days. Folks like Evan Sayet, and no doubt Drew Carey or Kelsey Grammer, can tell you that.

Add in the fact that I’m just trying to get to where they are, and not already fully entrenched in success, and a lot of people would wonder if admitting I’m a conservative (actually, libertarian but pro-life to boot) isn’t tantamount to career suicide. The fact I’m also a reporter in the ultra-liberal world of alternative-weekly newspapers, and some would say that I might as well pick out my casket.

I’ll admit that I was a virtually a card-carrying liberal for about a decade until I reached my moment of conversion last summer. Before that, I was hoping for Hillary to win it all, having grown up in Arkansas with Bill ‘n’ Hill keeping things colorful, and then watching Bill keep us out of wars and leaving us with a budget surplus while in the White House.

I bought the Kool-Aid that Bush could do nothing right and was a fervent follower of Michael Moore (I even have a photo with him where we sadly almost look like twins). But when I saw my brethren in the news media suddenly fawning blindly over the Chicago mystery man Barack Obama, giving him the easiest free pass to the White House I’d ever seen despite the fact he had less relevant job experience than it takes to manage a department store, I started to wonder if maybe my profession and its liberal slant had veered dangerously off-course.

And the more I read about him, the more questions I had. I also had always held respect for John McCain and his incredible sacrifices for the nation, so by the time fall rolled around, I was campaigning for the war hero and speaking out against the man who couldn’t even produce a normal birth certificate to prove he belonged in the White House.

All that intersected with the opportunity to fulfill my dream of combining my comedic interests and my journalistic abilities as a radio talk-show host. Bringing the two funniest men I know, fellow showbiz neophytes Jake Belcher and Brant Thoman, we pushed hard for advertising and landed a coveted spot on the lineup of one of America’s top talk-radio stations, KABC in Los Angeles.

Our show was called “Grand Theft Audio: The Jake, Brant & Carl Show,” and for three weeks leading into the election and one week after, we raged hard and comedically in the name of conservatism, McCain and against the encroaching trauma of the Obama Nation. We did it pretty creatively, too; you can still hear the episodes in the “Comedy” section of my website, www.americasfunniestreporter.com.

But then the station had a shakeup and brought in a nationally-syndicated talk show from Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa. We were out of luck, it seemed – that is until a month ago, when we learned about the site www.latalkradio.com and brought “Grand Theft Audio” back, bigger and better than ever because now we could be heard live all over the world. We also have been able to use our past episodes and my decade of experience in the stand-up comedy world to bring in some major players as guests, with comedy superstars like Carlos Mencia, “SNL” vet Kevin Nealon and Bob Saget on tap to guest soon. The site averages 10,000 listeners at any time, but with these kinds of guests and support from places like Big Hollywood, we believe we can grow explosively and soon cross back into regular radio and even TV in addition to our Web efforts.

Our show is like “The View” for guys, only rather than having a token conservative like Elizabeth Hasselbeck, we are the ones steering the ship on the literal Right course.  We’ve spoken passionately (yet, again, humorously) against cap and trade and tonight we’re ripping on the Obama health care plan. We talk about all sorts of entertainment and showbiz stories too, plus sports when it matters (like the Michael Vick reinstatement).

And thanks to great people like Evan Sayet and the folks at Breitbart, our daring to be boldly conservative hasn’t been suicidal at all. I’ve found, through Evan’s “Right to Laugh” show (where I recently performed), that not only is there a large conservative audience hungry for entertainment that doesn’t mock them, but that they’re the best and most appreciative audience I’ve ever experienced.

And so I welcome anyone reading this to come along for the ride. We want to take this far and show that not all young people are hopelessly, blindly liberal. We three, for instance, are libertarians in favor of marijuana decriminalization (I don’t use, but my partners are “don’t ask don’t tell” on that one!) and laissez-faire about same-sex marriage. There’s plenty of people our age thinking for ourselves as well, and realizing that we have to wake up now or risk losing so much of what makes our country great.

We may be making the medicine of serious messages sweeter by providing laughs, but our message is dead serious. Tune in at www.latalkradio.com, Channel One, at 7 to 8 p.m. PST, 9 to 10 p.m. CST and 10 to 11 p.m. EST every Thursday night or go to www.latalkradio.com/Grand.php for permanently archived podcasts.

I was listening to evil talk radio in the car and did hear and read a number of reports on the event.  Depending on whom I was listening to, it was a freak show/circus, a fitting memorial or “not as bad as I thought it might be.”

I always thought of Mr. Jackson as a talented singer/dancer/songwriter who had poor impulse control. I thought this was due to the fact that the leeches and toadies who depended on him for money never said one simple word to him: “No!” Apparently I was very wrong! Until I heard and read reports from his memorial, I was unaware of his role in our society as everything from a civil rights pioneer to basketball coach. Martin Luther King Jr. and Pat Riley, take a break, the king of pop has got your back. I heard he was quite the philanthropist too; although there isn’t a Michael Jackson Foundation, he did at one time donate a reported $22 million to a single California family.

The weekend before the deification of Mr. Jackson, there was another small media event which got a lot of coverage: the resignation of Sarah Palin. If you still have any doubt that there is a vast left-wing media conspiracy in this country all you need to do is look at the coverage of these two people and these events by alleged journalists.

On Tuesday, July 7th the Chicago Tribune featured a half page mocking Ms. Palin by Rob Manker on page three. Page three is usually where one might find the hard news of the day, but not in the Trib when there is a conservative to be skewered. Did this paper give the same kind ribbing to Mr. Jackson at any point?

I use the Chicago Tribune only as an example. The general tone of the reporting of these two events from television to the New York Times was to elevate and rehabilitate the reputation on Mr. Jackson and to denigrate that of Ms. Palin.

The real divide in this country is not political but cultural. As far as I know Michael Jackson was not political. I doubt if he even voted in the last election. The picture of him coming out of the voting booth may have shown up somewhere. He may have voted absentee but I am pretty sure if he had voiced an opinion on the election it would have been reported. Yet the media holds up this man as an icon to be admired. A talented man who lived an extremely degenerate and narcissistic life is not only exonerated but also held up and praised.

Sarah Palin, a woman who has served God, her country, and raised a family is mocked. Why?  Bcause she doesn’t fit the stereotype that the media prefers for successful and powerful women. She is from humble origins and has worked for everything she has gotten. The real sin of Ms. Palin is that she is not only a conservative but a devout Christian. To the east coast, Ivy League, taxicab progressives, allowing morality into government is the greatest stupidity.

Then it was minority groups petitioning the FCC to investigate the new radio ratings system called the Portable People Meter because they feel it under represents the ratings on urban radio stations and is unfair.  The meter can’t lie and registers in real time what radio stations those who wear the device are hearing.  Make sure all groups are fairly represented and all should be fine. 

Now, midgets want the FCC to ban the word “midget.” This latest controversy erupted following an April episode of NBC’s “Celebrity Apprentice” in which contestents, including Joan Rivers suggested “bathing midgets in detergent and hanging them out to dry.”  Now, the “Little People of America” are asking the FCC to ban the word “midget” from broadcast airwaves because it is demeaning. 

So what’s next?  Ban the word “fat?”  We can’t use that word because it will hurt someone’s feelings? Weight challenged Americans?  Ban certain songs, including violent rap music demeaning to women?  And while we’re at it, ban the countless words considered to be racist from the airwaves.  Ban this and ban that.  Instead of using their God-given rights to free speech to fight back in a free country, these groups run to Big Brother asking for speech regulation. They claim they value the First Amendment, but they always use the word “but” in qualifying their cause. It’s time we put an end to this nonsensical syndrome of political correctness and second guessing everything we say as Americans. 

As America tries to define hate speech legislation in the Congress, it’s time to tell it like it is.  We are a nation of cry babies and wimps.  This demand by midgets…er Little People should be ignored by the FCC and we predict it will. 

Language cannot be regulated and remain free.  Where does it stop?  Look at Canada’s cold chill of arctic air under their socialist Human Rights Tribunals and what these Tribunals have done to free expression in that nation.  Pastors have been banned for writing about their moral convictions condemning homosexuality.  Look at what Hugo Chavez is doing right now in Venezuela - taking the broadcast licenses away from  radio stations because he wants no opposition as a tyrant.  

Where offensive speech is prohibited, tyranny will follow.  Creating protected classes of people free from criticism or even stupid off-color humor is the first step and from there the foundation of a free people crumbles.  I’d rather be bathed in detergent and hung out to dry than have the government determine what is and what isn’t free speech.

Another thing a government can do to raise revenue to pay off their debt is expand the economy. That one is tough when you have just bought GM, AIG and are getting ready to nationalize health care. Corporate types aren’t too keen to expand their businesses when Uncle Sam is looking to control them.

A third option is to raise taxes. When President Obama was still candidate Obama he promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. At least I think that’s what he said, or did he say income taxes? Then too, there was a little vacillation on what was meant by middle class. Was it earners over $250,000 or $150,000?

If  President Obama were to take all of the money from the top five percent of all folks in the country I’m not sure he could raise the eleven or twelve trillion needed to pay off the debt. Since he has painted himself into a corner with the income tax pledge he has asked a blue ribbon panel to come up with some ideas for raising revenue. Here are their recommendations:

The Ambition Tax: It’s really not fair that you are willing to do more that someone else. That un-levels the playing field and gives you an advantage over lazy people who live around you. Take a second job and you pay more! Start a business and meet your new partner, Uncle Sam. You go back to school to try to get ahead, pay up sucker!

The Tax Tax: If you can afford to pay taxes you obviously have money. If you have money you can afford to pay more.  The more you have already paid the more you can afford to pay. I know it sounds like circular logic but circular logic works because circular logic works!

Gun Tax: The second amendment has a loophole so big you could drive a national debt through it! By taxing guns and bullets we could suck dry the coffers of the NRA and gun owners. The beauty of this is that when the economic crisis is over the gun nuts and the NRA will be as broke as GM!

 The Flush Tax: People who eat too much could be spending less money on food and more on the government. This proposal would have the government put flush meters on all toilets and charge surtax per flush. This would have the added benefit of decreasing carbon emissions.

The Talk Radio Tax: Since liberal talk radio is an oxymoron and limited to the publicly funded NPR we can eliminate the competition and raise a ton of cash by taxing ads places on talk radio shows.