Thursday, October 28, 2010

Obama - The Perfect Stranger

Don’t tell me - I don’t want to know.

Ever known someone who is head over heels for someone they just met?

When it comes to love, people do stupid things. They wind up hooking up with people they hardly know, even committing to spend the rest of their lives with them. No, it usually isn’t love. It is some form of lust, or a intense need to be wanted, or a desperation to be settled in. Whatever it is, it happens frequently, and usually people outside the relationship see it coming and have serious doubts.

In 2008, the American public was just such a lonely lover. The war was unpopular, Washington was unpopular, and the country was craving for something new. This was the perfect storm for the perfect stranger. Enter Obama.

Not only did the public have an underlying need for something positive in their lives, something upbeat and different, but also a need for change. Couple this with the guilt many white Americans carry over the racial thing, and Barrack was the perfect answer. Not only is he the perfect stranger, he is black! We can elect him and our guilt is gone! And to many of us who don’t feel racial guilt, the idea of a black person as president is still positive. I would not vote for someone because they are or are not black, but if all else is equal, I might give the black person the nod - just because. And because I know the pride it would give the black community.

Not that Obama isn’t a charming and tempting figure anyway. Commentators have drooled over his speaking ability. And his ability to capture a crowd, especially a crowd that wanted to be captured, hasn’t been seen in as long a time as I can remember. And, given that the mainstream media was part of the crowd that wanted to be captured, the blind enthusiasm was likely to be powerful and swift. It was.

Of course, when you find out this perfect stranger who is charming a friend of yours has serious faults, you tell your friend, but they don't want to know about it. They pass off your comments as jealousy, ignorance, or blindness. Or they may just say that regardless, things will work out because this person is wonderful, and they are in love.

Most of the time, the star-struck friend will, given some time, see the error of their passion. Hopefully, no life altering decisions are made while under the spell, and after a time of mourning (mourning their own foolishness as well as the loss of a dream) they get back to business. Usually, however, there is considerable residue of embarrassment.

In the christening of Barrack Obama, we saw a country (at least a voting majority) fall in love with the Perfect Stranger. We wake up one morning and here is this handsome, charming, well-spoken man talking about hope and change. He was gorgeous. He was the solution to all our problems. He made us feel hopeful again instead of concerned and stressed about our futures. He claimed to represent everyone - all minorities, poor white people, union members - everyone except the rich. (A little taste of Robin Hood never hurts for a little extra sizzle.) Nobody knew anything about him; nobody wanted to - especially those we count on for information, the media. They wanted to believe. His mystery and lack of experience and record turned out to be one of his best assets. He could paint himself any way he wanted. And like the Perfect Stranger, we painted him any way we wanted to as well.

Of course, he didn’t spell out for us the nature of the hope and change referred to because he didn’t want to, and because we didn’t ask. Nor did we want to know. And when people started digging into his past, apparent causes for concern were dismissed by the media and the Followers as either not relevant, or happened way too long ago to mean anything. Worse, many were just plain ignored. For instance, how anyone in their right mind can believe that this man they think is so intelligent could sit in church led by a vile, hate-spewing racist pastor and “not know” what was being preached is remarkable. They did not want to believe anything was wrong with their savior.

As with your friend’s Perfect Stranger, Mr. Obama could not keep the mask on forever. Eventually the truth emerged; notably that he is a great speaker, but a poor decision maker and leader. Throw on top of that his policies are in direct opposition to the views of large majorities of the American people, and we get the extent of this incredible snow job. A colossal bust. An enormous mistake.

Unlike your friend who can immediately take steps to correct the problem and end the relationship, we are stuck. Sure, we had the midterm elections, and they no doubt cast evidence of our displeasure. But we still have the object of our disappointment at the helm. We wake up every morning, watch the news, and cringe at this impostor of a president, knowing we have to suck it up for two more years before we can get him out of our lives. We already know the damage he has caused to date. We can only hope the damage he causes in the future will be minimal.

So, listen girls, when your Dad warns you about knowing someone before you get your hopes up, listen to him. He's giving you good advice.

Mercer Tyson

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

911 Trials

If there was ever an issue that clearly demonstrates the Obama brand of politics and how destructive it is to America (not just traditional America, but all of America) it is the issue of the decision made by Eric Holder concerning the trial of the 911 terrorists.
First, make no mistake, it is clear (as in Supreme Court decision and United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166,) that Eric Holder (thereby President Obama) had the right to hold the trials of the 911 defendants in either military tribunals or civilian courts. He chose to have them in New York in the civilian court system. The terrorists have already admitted their guilt, and have already stated their intent to use the trial to advocate their position. Here is a quick and fair analysis of the pros and cons of the decision.
Military courts would proceed quickly. Possibly as little as 6 months.
Civilian courts would take upwards of 4-6 years.
Military cost has not been stated, however, it should be somewhat minimal, as it is handled by existing military courts. Maybe $500,000 (guess)
Estimate of the cost in the civilian courts is expected to be $75 million to $100 Million. That is just for the first four defendants.
This will provide a stage for the defendants to market their program to the world. Five years of propaganda from these terrorists, all paid for by the US Government (our tax money). It will also drag on this situation for the victims of the 911 disaster (and the rest of us) who would like closure.
Loss of Life to American Civilians
There is clearly a risk to the lives of American citizens during this process. The location of New York City provides an excellent location for further terrorist acts that would threaten the lives of far more people than can be affected by a military tribunal on a military base.
Eric Holder’s only reason to have the trials in civilian courts is to “make sure that the defendants get a fair trial.”
- This assumes that they (people who have already confessed their guilt and have stated that they intend to use the trial for propaganda purposes) can’t get a fair trial in the military system
- This gives the defendants the chance of acquittals (or mistrials) because of technical miscues by the prosecution, thus increasing the chance that they are released.
When President Obama made his campaign statements promising sweeping changes in America, he obviously meant it. The cost of this trial in the middle of a horrendous economic recession that will impact the American taxpayer for decades to come is an indication that he and Holder have no concern for the American taxpayer’s bank accounts, and the other aspects of the trial indicate that they have no concern for the safety of the American people.
All the other political decisions that President Obama has made since taking office may appear to some Americans that he is attempting (appropriately or inappropriately) to change America - for better or worse is a matter of opinion. However, this decision has no defense. We really have to question the motivations behind a decision that has no benefit for the American people whatsoever. The only motivations I can perceive are all negative.
Is anything in this wrong?
So, Mr. Holder, President Obama - I hope no additional lives are lost because of this decision. If there are attacks because of this travesty of justice, I and many other Americans will hold you personally responsible for the deaths. The additional financial, emotional, and political damage is immeasurable.
Mercer Tyson

What Did We Learn From Gloria? Don't Hire a Mexcan!

Beware the law of unintended consequences. -

As elections draw near, I tend to get a little nervous. I don’t really trust large portions of the American electorate to make the right decisions at the polls. Not that they are stupid, because they aren’t. However, most are busy running their own lives and too busy to study candidates and issues. This is especially true of the bulk of working-class America, who would tend to vote in accordance with how I see things if they really knew the issues and the facts. However, since the time they have to devote to political thinking is limited, they form their opinions based on snippets they see on TV. As we know, those can be very misleading. I am waiting for the malicious hit-piece ads that usually occur near election time so victims of these ads don’t have time to defend themselves.

Lurking under of all this was the horrible feeling that we hadn’t heard from Gloria Allred for a while. Had she disappeared? Retired? Alas, no. She finally surfaced on September 29. Ms. Allred announced to the media she would be representing an illegal immigrant, Niki Diaz, with “explosive” allegations against GOP Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman.

How most people viewed this likely was determined as soon as they heard the charge. If you are of a liberal persuasion, you probably assumed the charges were true and thought of Ms. Whitman as a hypocrite and liar in accordance with Gloria’s claims. If you are a conservative, you immediately were suspicious this was a political hit piece with little or no truth. Regardless of the debate to follow, the TV and internet pundits, for the most part, stuck to their initial versions of the story, and their opinions.

What’s interesting to me is the lack of discussion of the potential effects of this fiasco. What was going through Gloria Allred’s mind in taking this maneuver? As far as I know at this time, there is no actual legal action, so this is all for show. What is the show? Who benefits and loses from this show?

Okay, probably Jerry Brown’s election chances will benefit, and thus Meg Whitman loses. Any open-minded person who heard the charges and saw Ms. Diaz on TV crying under Ms. Allred’s arm probably got the intended message from Ms. Allred. It is my view that informed reasonable people not only deduced from Ms. Whitman’s reply and the facts that Ms. Whitman not only was well within the law, she behaved far better than the law requires, and should be held up as a good example, not a bad one. I suspect reasonable people will believe it was an unconscionable hit piece. But whether they actually heard the answers from Ms. Whitman depends on chance. It is absolute that many won’t hear the rebuttal, and if they don’t, they will believe Gloria’s charges. It is a numbers game. Throw it out and some people will believe. Therefore, Meg Whitman will probably lose to some degree, thus benefiting Jerry Brown.

I guess Gloria Allred will benefit from this as well. She probably thinks the notoriety is good for her, so this is right up her alley.

Now, how about who loses? In addition to Ms. Whitman, there are others. Niki, Latinos everywhere, legal and illegal, and anyone who is not an “obvious” American.

For starters, unless Niki reaches celebrity status, who will ever hire her again for a good wage? I mean, if you are a wealthy individual and are looking for domestic help, would you hire her? Especially after she is now known to be illegal? After 9 years of working for Ms. Whitman for $23 per hour (over twice the normal wage for that job) she complains and files a public charge against her? There’s gratitude for you! As an employer, why take a chance? If Niki ever was likely to get a good recommendation from Meg, she won’t now. And anyone paying attention to the news won’t hire Niki either.

In addition, Ms. Allred has opened up the door for potential legal charges against her own client. Niki admittedly filed false paperwork, including using a phony social security card. These are potentially serious criminal charges. Of course, with Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano running the appropriate departments, it is not unlikely they will turn their heads from the matter. Nevertheless, she is not in an enviable position.

But here is the real kicker - this has to make you question if you should ever hire a Latino or any possible foreign person at all, even if they have documentation.

Let’s look at some undisputed facts. Niki was hired through a legitimate employment agency. She had a social security card. Ms. Whitman paid all withholdings and payroll taxes. She said she was here legally. Again, these facts are undisputed.

There are also disputed issues. Since Niki retrieved the mail, did Ms. Whitman ever get the incriminating letter from the SSA as stated by Gloria? Was the note scratched on the back by Meg’s husband suggesting Niki “look into this” legitimate? Even if those charges are true, when he asked Niki to “look into this” probably believing her to be legal and was worried she might not be getting her SS benefits, should anything else have been done?

In my view, Meg and her husband did absolutely everything reasonably expected of them, not only by the law, but by common decency as well. Would it be reasonable of them to stay suspicious of their employee without any real justification? You may think so, maybe not. Regardless, there is no reason to take the chance. Why go through the extra layer of effort when you don’t have to, especially if a slip on your part can cause you serious harm? Hmmm, let’s see, hire someone with a risk of damage to my reputation and financial well-being or hire someone without that risk, which is the better choice? Hiring anyone besides an obvious American citizen is a break even or lose situation, so why do it?

After this Allred stunt, anyone who is wealthy, or anyone who thinks they will ever be in a position to be compromised if something like this happened would be foolish to hire anyone except someone who appeared to be a natural citizen, i.e., white people or black people who speak natural English. How about someone named Martinez who speaks perfect English and seems perfectly “American?” He could, after all, have been brought here illegally, but grew up and is indistinguishable from the typical illegal person. While the risk might not be great, or if it is worth it to you to go through the extra effort if you like someone, it still should cross your mind that you are taking a chance.

Most likely, the average everyday Joe who hires an illegal to do his lawn once a week or clean his house is not at great risk. But bear in mind that we don’t really know where life leads us, and something like this could pop up as an embarrassment or even a criminal action sometime in anyone’s future, even 10 years down the road.

It is clear the federal government is responsible for our immigration system. The responsibility should not be placed on our citizens to determine if potential employees are legitimate. Until the federal government accepts it’s responsibility in this issue and can either close the borders or come up with easy, sure-fire ways for the public to make a determination of someone’s legal status, it is hypocritical to blame citizens (or companies) for hiring someone with a social security card. In the case of Niki Diaz, the SSA should absolutely have been the entity to “look into this,” not Ms. Whitman.

Meanwhile, you are taking a chance hiring anyone of Hispanic heritage, especially for a well-paid job. So, until the feds can come up with a way to make Americans comfortable hiring anyone of Hispanic appearance, Muchas Gracias Gloria Allred.

Mercer Tyson

The Boxer Racist

The long-term senator from California exemplifies the functional racism prevalent in Democratic policies and culture.

For as long as I can remember, Dems have trumpeted the cause of anti racism. Their righteousness on this issue is so strong, that anyone who disagrees with them on any remotely race-related issue must be a racist. They would even imply or state directly that Dems are the party of racial equality, and Republicans are not, period. If you disagree, Dems would laugh in your face and presume you are stupid, ignorant, and yes, racist.

While their beliefs may have been true at one time, it is no longer the case; like a baseball team winning the world series and declaring they were world champions forever. What’s important is not intent, good wishes, or assuaging guilt. The outcome of political decisions and policies are what count, and Dems, no matter what their intentions, are responsible for the plight of many economically poor and underperforming minorities in the US today. I am referring, of course to the myriad of social and/or give-away programs that target minorities for special and preferential treatment. These programs suck the life out of the very people they are supposed to help. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Welcome to the left-wing freeway.

Today’s Conservatives are not racist. They believe wholeheartedly in equal opportunity. Equal opportunity, not favoritism. And there are reasons beyond those the average liberal wants to understand. The first reason is obvious - all people should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This is right, it is good business, and it is honest. It is also in the constitution. Without people earning their standing, the basic concepts of fair and equal treatment cannot be achieved. The Civil Rights Acts were good and necessary legislation, and went a long way towards initiating racial equality.

However, far-reaching “correctional” legislation in this area is overdone, expensive, ineffective, and more importantly contributes to the problem instead of alleviating it. While many believe that preferential treatment programs are a way of leveling the playing field, they are, at their core, dishonest to the concept, and simply do not work. John McWhorter, in a New Republic book review of Amy Wax’s “Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century” notes that Ms. Wax … “appeals to a parable in which a pedestrian is run over by a truck and must learn to walk again. The truck driver pays the pedestrian’s medical bills, but the only way the pedestrian will walk again is through his own efforts. The pedestrian may insist that the driver do more, that justice has not occurred until the driver has himself made the pedestrian learn to walk again. But the sad fact is that justice, under this analysis, is impossible.” The pedestrian must learn to walk by himself, “Not that they alone should fix—Wax is making no moral argument—but that they alone can fix.” Similarly, today’s Dems insist that financial compensation can fix the problems. It can’t.

Problems with the current state of the family structure (or non-structure) in large numbers of the black community lead to increased teenage pregnancies, sub-standard educational achievements, and crime, most of which is attitudinal. While these problems are apparent in all aspects of our society, they are dramatically evident in portions of the black community. It is my view social give-away programs directly lead to increased acceptance of this way of life. I would submit that such policies are mostly inspired by guilt which, again, may make proponents feel better about themselves and their efforts, but does not correct the problem.

Additionally, people respond better to incentive than to gifts. Funny thing - when you give people no option but to take care of themselves, they will! For the sake of our economy, the people who have been expected to pay the bill, and the target population of these programs themselves, getting people to work is the only fair thing to do. People will take care of themselves if you make (let) them.

The third reason, and possibly the most important reason, is really hard for liberals to understand: by handing people their livelihood, you rob them of a sense of purpose and well being. Self-supporting people are more motivated, have a better feeling of self-worth, and live happier lives. It can be a struggle making ends meet in this (or any) economy. Often it can seem you are on a tread mill and not getting anywhere. But at the end of the day, working people who make their own place in the world live better, more fulfilling lives. John Stossel had a television special on a report called the “Blue Zones,” areas where people live longer than in other parts of the world. One of the significant characteristics of these areas was that people felt needed and had a purpose. It is absolutely horrendous what liberals and the social give-away programs have done to large segments of our society and minorities in general. Most people will not wander far from the teat, unless they have to. And there they stay -- permanent residents on the Democratic Plantation.

But what about those who are truly unable to care for themselves? Private organizations and religious institutions do a far better job than government in both identifying those who actually are incapable and how to help them. Without the obnoxious amount of money spent supporting those who are draining the system unfairly, there would be plenty of money left for those who do need it. In fact, the amount of money for those who do need it would be greater than now exists, more closely giving them the care they need. There are good ways to fix the system, but that is not the subject of this article.

Why are Dems like this? In contrast to conservatives who see blacks and other minorities as individuals with promise, liberals see them as groups with inherent deficiencies. Liberals assume they cannot take care of themselves without help. If I were black I would be insulted. How dare anyone think that a group of people is not capable of rising on its own. Talk about a racist attitude!

Liberals also think that blacks should all think alike. The reason I title this “The Boxer Racist” is because Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA) represents exactly the point, partially evidenced by a clip on you tube with Barbara Boxer conducting hearings on the proposed Cap and Trade legislation. In this segment, she is questioning Harry Alford, president of the national Black Chamber of Commerce about why he disagrees with the proposed legislation. His response is simple; because it would hurt business and cost jobs. She then informs him that John Grant, CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta, and the NAACP support the proposed legislation. These other entities weren’t in a similar business or connected to Mr. Alford in any way, except for color. Ms. Boxer just assumed that, since they were all black, they should feel the same way on this issue. Mr. Alford was justifiably insulted, and told Ms. Boxer her statements were condescending and racist. Ms. Boxer ignored it, probably because she didn’t even see the whole picture or how her deep-seated beliefs about blacks (that all blacks are identical) contributed to such an insulting statement. If she is reading this article now, she probably still does not get it. This is a common Liberal mindset.

In an October 8, 2010 Daily Beast column liberal writer Kirsten Powers discusses how liberals treat conservative women and states: “...whereas you never hear anyone claim that men should vote a particular way because of their gender, feminists have no trouble treating women like pre-schoolers who have to be herded into the right camp, a camp that is apparently preordained at birth.” It would take more guts for Ms. Powers to admit that liberals treat blacks that way as well, so she probably won’t. It is true, however, and should be terribly insulting to black people who are proud of their individuality.

To Ms. Boxer and friends of mine who are quite liberal and would say they have supported minority causes at every turn, I hate to make you feel bad, but your idealistic correctional policies defeated exactly what you were trying to accomplish, and, in fact created (and still do create) horrendous problems for minority communities leading to illiteracy, unwanted single-woman pregnancies, breakdown of the family structure, poverty and unspeakable violence perpetrated upon themselves. For this, you should feel guilty, because it was and still is you - not faceless generations before you - that are continuing this madness.

Understand that not all minorities are failing to keep up. Many are doing well. In fact, enough are doing well without government help, that it proves my point. Those that have not been cursed with government intervention know the joy of success and accomplishment. Correspondingly, successful blacks have told me they are disturbed that people (including other blacks) assume their success is due to governmental programs. Liberals have robbed successful blacks of their just reward and status they deserve at the same time they have pushed others to become wards of the state.

Unfortunately, in order to correct this gross administration of seemingly unintentional racism, the pain to a generation or more of minorities who have been raised to believe they have a right to government handouts will be staggering. But this must happen if the problem is to be corrected and if minorities are to have a bright and productive future. So, as painful as it will be, the sooner we start demanding people take care of themselves, the sooner they will. The sooner we start insisting they put their nose to the grindstone, the sooner they will be productive and live fuller lives. The sooner we stop treating them as some mass of incompetent clones and start treating them as capable individuals, the sooner they will become seamless contributors to our society and the world, and the sooner they will know the joy of success and life itself.

So, all of you well-intentioned but resultant racists liberals, how long are you going to keep robbing them of their futures? To remedy this, you have to accept the fact that you blew it, and change your ways. The clock is ticking, and the problem gets worse every day. As you read this, another potentially gifted black child is born into an environment that will encourage him or her to do nothing. Tough Love? Okay, whatever you want to call it. Feel guilty all you want, but get out of their way and let them thrive. You owe it to them.

Mercer Tyson

Paul Revere Was a Fear Monger

One if by land, two if by sea!

From Paul Revere’s Ride, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

“The British are coming! The British are coming!” Famous words from America’s best-known fear monger.

Of course, we don’t commonly refer to him that way, but that’s what he was. I mean, what a nut – riding willy nilly through the towns and countryside screaming his head off, scaring everyone in order to get them to wake up and fend off impending danger.

Mr. Revere was right, of course, and people believed him. If not we wouldn’t even know who he was. And given that we might be British subjects and Great Britain is now overloaded with heavy duty socialism, I am grateful to Mr. Revere for his fear mongering.

We see fear mongering every day. Signs warn us not to dig where there is a gas line so we don’t blow up, or to stop smoking cigarettes so we don’t get cancer, or not to enter the wrong way on a freeway off ramp. These are very helpful. Fear Mongers have been good to me, and all of us.

But wait. Maybe we should define fear mongering. An assemblage of definitions from different sources would define fear mongering to be along the lines of selling something by instilling fear with shady overtones or hints of dishonesty. It is evident the definition includes either false intent or false information as critical to the identification of a statement as fear mongering. That would imply that Paul was, in fact, not a fear monger. Whew, I so revered him!

This raises the question – how did the villagers in early America know Paul wasn’t fear mongering? If they had all gone back to bed when some politician-type had come out and cried “fear monger” as Paul rode through the town, we might bloody well be speaking with a British accent today. Does this mean we should not label a person or a statement as fear mongering until we have a chance to see what history provides?

Today when it comes to leveling charges of fear mongering, being correct seems unimportant. Politicians and pundits in the US have a habit of ignoring facts when it doesn’t suit them, and throwing the charge out as they please. It’s easy to scare us into believing all kinds of things in order to get someone elected. Is that fear mongering? Are statements about global warming fear mongering? Are warnings of terror plots fear mongering? How about warnings of death panels in the health care bill? When does it move from the realm of legitimate warning to fear mongering?

When listening to political debate I cast particular doubt on people who answer someone with the charge of “fear mongering.” To me, it is an indication they may not be bright enough to understand the issue at hand, consciously want to avoid the issue, or might reside in Polyannaland. If a statement is so blatantly false as to call it fear mongering, there should be plenty of facts to disprove the statement without resorting to the discussion-canceling label. Of course, if a subject has been discussed over and over again with an obvious conclusion, use of the fear mongering label might be justified. This is usually not the case.

From now on, when you hear the charge of “fear monger,” notice who is saying it, and ask yourself if the issue is so clear cut that they have a right to call it that.

It would be nice if politicians and pundits would just stop using the term, but that won’t happen. I would ask that you don’t accept the word as immediate and legitimate discreditation of a statement. I have my opinions as to which side uses the “fear monger” accusation more often to avoid discussion, but I would recommend you form your own opinions. So listen with a jaundiced ear to anyone who claims their opponent is a fear monger.

By the way, I do know it is unlikely that Mr. Revere actually rode through the towns shouting as is legendary, but you get the point. And needless to say, I never intend to start swinging a pick around a gas line, nor go up the wrong way on a freeway off ramp - unless I am trying to escape Charles Manson, Paris Hilton, or Keith Olberman.

Oops! There I go fear mongering.

Mercer Tyson

Let's Just Get It From The Well

Going to your house of worship doesn't make you a religious person, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

When I was a kid, a guy down the street used to ask me “Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?” He must create policy for Ben Jealous and the other great thinkers of the left.

I was reading a CNN article on Fluent News concerning the "One Nation Working Together" rally in Washington. Some of their own quotes left me howling with laughter, except they not only believe this stuff (sort of, because they really don’t know what they believe) and they vote accordingly. It’s the vote accordingly part that makes me stop laughing.

When I say they don’t know what they believe, here’s what I mean. They want jobs, food for everyone, health care for everyone, songs and joy and hybrid automobiles for everyone, as though expressing these wishes will make it happen. They want all good things. They must believe everything they want is sitting in a warehouse somewhere, and all we need to do is vote accordingly and UPS will deliver it all by Saturday. What they can’t understand is you have to actually plan, invest and work to make all those things.

From CNN - “Jealous said the alliance of groups has come together to offer a positive alternative to negative rhetoric, and to demand better education and more economic opportunities. The "One Nation" movement, he said, would rather see jobs for 99 percent of Americans instead of tax cuts for one-percent of Americans.” In addition to being gibberish, that’s like saying you want to eat chicken but you don’t want to eat poultry. Or buying a flat-screen television and turning off the electricity. Jobs and tax cuts are on the same side of the fence, not the opposite.

Imagine a wealthy guy. Dislike him all you want. Picture him smoking a dirty cigar while walking his poodle wearing green and purple plaid shorts with a red shirt, brown sox, and white tennis shoes, and yelling at a kid trying to sell him lemonade. Imagine this guy has a net worth of $20M, and he earns $750,000 per year. Filthy rich. Go ahead, hate him. Now ask yourself - if you take an extra $150,000 off his income by taxing him more, is he going to cancel his ski trip to the Alps, or not buy that Ferrari he was planning on? Of course not. He is just not going to have as much money to invest. And what happens when he doesn’t invest? NO JOBS! Like it or not, in order for you to get a job, the cigar-smoking, plaid-shorted, red-shirted, brown-socked, white tennis-shoed, kid-lambasting poodle walker has to make money. Not just enough to live life the way he wants, but extra money. Money he can invest without sacrificing life style. Capital, as in Capitalism. Capital is what drives the economy. Capital is extra money. It creates jobs. So to say they would “…rather see jobs for 99 percent of Americans instead of tax cuts for one-percent of Americans” is an oxymoron.

Jealous is right about the negative rhetoric from the right, however. We need to make it positive rhetoric. Instead of saying “No more taxes!” we should be saying “Yes to lower taxes!” Would that make you happy?

The most ironic part is Jealous represents the NAACP. If there is any group that needs jobs, it is African Americans, especially young African-American males who have the highest unemployment of any group in the nation. The NAACP wants to provide jobs for minority youth instead of sending them to jail. Good idea. Start now - cut taxes. Quit killing businesses. Quit strangling the goose that has been laying golden eggs.

Another great statement from the CNN article. “The group's website sets out a list of basic principles and priorities. These include direct assistance for unemployed workers and assistance for small businesses and local governments trying to hire new workers; a minimum wage increase; health care reform; immigration policy changes; increased bankruptcy and foreclosure protection; and more money for education, from kindergarten through college.” The assistance for small business part is good. Much of the rest is contradictory to that. (Let’s see, I have enough money to hire 7 people at $7 per hour, or 3 people at $10 per hour and give them health care.)

And what’s with the help for “…local governments trying to hire new workers” part? What? Did I hear that right? Please, please, please! Give this man a lesson in economics! We need fewer government workers, not more! Government workers are bleeding us to death!

Actually, I’m just being sarcastic. There is a solution. Let’s all get together on Sunday morning and go to the well. Instead of water, let’s pull out money! And, we should insist this is a bottomless well, because it has to be for all of us to have as much as we want. Just keep dropping that bucket and demanding that it comes out full.

Oh yes, while we are at the well, let’s not forget to pull out a couple hundred thousand doctors we will need for Obamacare.

Mercer Tyson