Halloween isn’t just for kids anymore.
In 2014, about 70% of Americans will participate in Halloween, and will spend $7.4 billion. Yes, that’s with a “b”.
This huge avalanche of funds will go on such items as candy, costumes and decorations.
Halloween candy alone has run up a $2 billion tab every Halloween for the past three years.
And $350 million will go for pet Halloween costumes.
Spending on Halloween has risen by more than 55% since 2005.
Here’s how those expenses break down:
Costumes – 38%
Cards – 5%
Decorations – 27%
Candy – 27%
Click here: Wait, Americans Spend How Much on Halloween? – The Atlantic
Those putting out this avalanche of money will, of course, be adults. And a lot of those costumes will be worn by adults at parties across the nation.
This will be especially true in San Francisco.
In 1979, Halloween in its Castro District shifted from being a children’s event to a celebration among homosexuals.
The massive crowds quickly overwhelmed the streets, mass transit and due to the Castro’s location along two major transport corridors, disrupting traffic flow well outside the neighborhood.
In 2002, 500,000 people celebrated Halloween in the Castro and four people were stabbed.
It continued to grow into a massive annual street party until 2006, when a shooting wounded nine people and prompted the city to call off the event.
In 2007, 600 police were deployed in the Castro on Halloween. By 2010, San Francisco had banned the event in the Castro, directing celebrants to various balls and parties elsewhere.
But there’s another force working to suppress Halloween joy among its participants: Political Correctness.
A recent article in Anaswers.com offers Politically Correct advice on how to enjoy Halloween–without hurting the Politically Correct sensitivities of almost every group imaginable.
Click here: Top 15 Major Halloween No-No’s – Answers.com
For example:
Adolf Hitler: “There should be no need to explain why a Hitler costume is wrong. It’s offensive and upsetting to many people, especially those who survived the Holocaust and those who lost family members to it.”
Homeless Persons: “Dressing kids up as hobos used to be cute, but now it is a no-no. It is rude to the growing homeless population in America, which includes people of all walks of life and all economic profiles.”
Illegal Alien: “Making light of the issues America faces with the constant deluge of illegal immigrants crossing the borders is not politically correct, and it’s disrespectful to the people attempting to cross the borders, or even those who immigrated legally.”
Terrorist: “With terrorism hitting the news 24/7, it is never okay to dress as a terrorist. Even worse, some parents allow their kids to dress this way.”
Others on the list of groups that Answers.com believes it’s Politically Incorrect to dress up as include:
- Blacks (if you’re white)
- Plane crash victims
- Michael Brown (the thug whose shooting by a Ferguson, Missouri cop has touched off race riots)
- “Dirty Mexicans” (features a picture of a woman wearing a mariachi outfit and a man sporting a sombrero, serape and drooping moustache)
- Dead Steve Irwin (the publicity-hungry “Crocodile Hunter” who died when he got too close to a manta ray and it put a stinger through his chest)
- Christopher Reeve (the “Superman” actor who was paralyzed from a horse fall, wearing a large white neck brace)
- Pimp (“Glamorizing this type of person is offensive to all the women who get stuck in that vicious world”)
- Naughty Priest/Nun (“It is offensive to anyone stuck in the middle of all the church scandals that became big news in the ’90s and 2000s”)
If you follow the guidelines of this article, you might as well skip Halloween altogether.
So, if you subtract all the costumes that Politically Correct mavens say you shouldn’t wear, here’s what you end up with:
DON’T DRESS UP AS:
- Hobos, because it will hurt the feelings of bums who won’t be attending Halloween parties anyway.
- Adolf Hitler, because you’ll offend anyone who survived the Holocaust. (The same could be said for any actor who portrays Hitler in a movie, such as Downfall or The Bunker.)
- Terrorists, because you might upset Islamics, who make up the vast majority of the world’s terrorists.
- Illegal aliens, because it’s not nice to spotlight people who constantly violate the immigration laws of the United States.
- Naughty priests, because it’s offensive to mock religious hypocrites who violate the bodies of children.
This list is potentially endless.
Yet no one objects to children–or adults–dressing up as pirates like Blackbeard, who once terrorized the oceans as modern-day terrorists menace the world.
No one objects to those who dress up like skeletons–when almost everyone has lost a friend or family member to death.
No one objects to those who dress up as witches, who have been associated with evil for hundreds of years.
No one objects to those who dress up as Satan–the literal personification of evil for millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims.
The whole idea of Halloween is to momentarily step into a character that’s utterly different from you.
So if you are a terrorist, try dressing up at Halloween as Dr. Albert Schweitzer or Florence Nightingale.






2014 ELECTIONS, ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ANDREW JOHNSON, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CIVIL WAR, CNN, EDWIN STANTON, FACEBOOK, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, IMPEACHMENT, JASON CHAFFETZ, MITCH MCCONNELL, NBC NEWS, RECONSTRUCTION, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE
THE COMING IMPEACHMENT
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on November 11, 2014 at 12:48 amSome Republicans–like Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah–want their new majorities in the House and Senate to make “producing legislation” a top priority.
But others will soon make the impeachment of President Barack Obama their top priority.
Here’s how it will happen.
“We now have the votes and we have the ability to call the agenda, so stop name-calling and let’s actually produce some legislation that helps jobs and the economy and moves our country forward,” Chaffetz said in an interview after Republicans captured the U.S. Senate on November 4.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz
“I think the country has figured that out, and they’ve given us the mandate to do it, and we better produce, or they’ll kick us out too.”
Obama has vowed to act unilaterally before year’s end to reduce the number of deportations and grant work permits to millions of illegal aliens living in the United States.
After promising to take executive action on immigration by the end of the summer, Obama delayed his plans until after the elections. Democrats–especially Senators from conservative states–had warned him that such administrative moves could threaten their reelection.
Illegal aliens crossing American borders by the millions
But on November 4, most of those Democrats lost anyway, leaving immigration advocates–and their millions of illegal alien constituents–feeling that the delay was needless.
“What I’m not going to do is just wait,” the president said as immigration legislation that the Senate passed in June 2013 remained stalled in the House.
Kentucky’s U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell–who will become Senate Majority Leader in January–has warned that this would be an in-your-face affront to the new majority GOP:
Mitch McConnell
“I think the president choosing to do a lot of things unilaterally on immigration would be a big mistake,” McConnell said. “It’s an issue that most of my members want to address legislatively and it’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull to say, ‘If you guys don’t do what I want, I’m going to do it on my own.’ …
“I hope he won’t do that because I do think it poisons the well for the opportunity to address a very important domestic issue.”
To which Obama responded: “I have no doubt that there will be some Republicans who are angered or frustrated by any executive action that I may take.
“Those are folks, I just have to say, who are also deeply opposed to immigration reform in any form and blocked the House from being able to pass a bipartisan bill.”
Barack Obama
Republicans could use spending bills to restrict or stop such executive action, by cutting appropriations to those agencies that would be tasked with carrying out Obama’s directives on immigration.
Several Republicans hold the deep-seated view that Obama already has been abusing his constitutional authority.
“Abuse of power” is an impeachable offense under the United States Constitution. So making this assertion would provide Republicans with the weapon they’ve long sought to drive Obama from the White House.
Republicans, in fact, have a tainted history of using impeachment to remove a President who dared to thwart their agenda.
After the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, in 1865, Republican President Andrew Johnson tried to carry out Lincoln’s humane policies to reunify the nation after the Civil War.
He issued a series of proclamations directing the former Confederate states to hold conventions and elections to re-form their civil governments. In response, Southern states returned many of their old leaders, and passed Black Codes to deprive freed slaves of many civil liberties.
Andrew Johnson
Congress refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions. Johnson vetoed their bills, and Congress overrode him, setting a pattern until he left the White House in 1869.
As the conflict grew between the executive and legislative branches of government, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, restricting Johnson in firing Cabinet officials. Johnson then tried to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton–with whom he had an antagonistic relationship.
An enraged Congress impeached Johnson in the House of Representatives. He avoided conviction and removal from office in the Senate–by one vote.
If President Obama tries to end-run Congress on immigration policy, history will likely repeat itself with another round of impeachment hearings.
It was Mitch McConnell who infamously vowed–immediately after Obama’s election in 2008–to make him “a one-term President.”
Moreover, there is actually no reason for Obama to risk his Presidency by granting the privileges of American citizenship to millions of illegal aliens.
Democrats–and especially Obama–had counted on millions of illegal aliens to retain Democratic control of the Senate. But those masses of Hispanic voters never showed up at the polls, thus giving Republicans control of both houses of Congress.
If Obama practiced ruthless “Chicago politics” as charged by his enemies, his response would be: “You [illegal aliens] didn’t live up to your end. Therefore, I have no further responsibility to you.”
Unfortunately for the President, he seems unable to break with his past of backing unpopular causes for little in return.
Share this: