October 2008

WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — The following is an excerpt from an editorial from New York Post, and is being released today by the Republican National Committee:

An unscripted moment with an Ohio plumber produced a startling confession from Barack Obama Sunday: The Democrat’s “middle-class tax cut” is in fact a scheme to “spread the wealth around.”

Obama dropped the mask long enough to tell the truth to Toledo plumber Joe Wurzelbacher — who had asked the Democratic nominee why he wanted to jack up his taxes just for “fulfilling the American dream.”

“I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” Wurzelbacher had told Obama. “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama replied. “I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too … When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

At last! The truth outs!

Obama’s plan isn’t about sinking hooks into Wall Street CEOs and other fat cats, as he usually says. Fact is, there’s not enough of them to raise the cash necessary to finance his other grand plans.

No, to do that, he’ll have to go after ambitious working-class guys like Wurzelbacher — who’s been a plumber for 15 years and is looking to better himself and his family while just maybe creating a few jobs.

The American Dream?

Wurzelbacher personifies it — but Barack Obama seems determined to tax it to death and be done with it, period.

That’s been the case all along, of course. What’s different is that the Democrat finally said so. …


The following article The Act Of Being Politically Correct Has Gone From The Sublime To The Ridiculous was authored by David G. Hallstrom, Sr. and was taken from http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com/politicallycorrectarticle.html

The Act Of Being Politically Correct Has Gone From The Sublime To The Ridiculous

By: David G. Hallstrom, Sr.

Please note: This article is not about being civil, having manners or being kind to others. This article is about taking things too far. There are thousands of examples that could have been used about political correctness being misused. Some of you may not agree with the examples I have used and others may know of much better examples, but in the end it all ends up being the same thing, extremism.

There was a time that being politically correct meant speaking and acting in a considerate manner to others. Now it means speaking and acting in a manner acceptable to the Hollywood and politically elite who have appointed themselves as the arbitrators of what is proper and what is not proper.

For instance Christmas is a legal holiday and was made a legal holiday in order to celebrate the birth of Christ. It is now, however, politically incorrect to say Merry Christmas because you might insult non Christians and atheists. We are told that the correct greeting is now Happy Holidays. Department and other stores that make most of their money selling Christmas gifts now advertise Holiday gifts, wish us Happy Holidays and play Holiday music that does not mention Christmas, Christ or God. God forbid they should insult anyone and lose a sale. It doesn’t matter that they are insulting Christians, because Christians, by nature of their beliefs, are forgiving. Teachers are teaching young students to say Happy Holidays because many teachers now believe that it is politically incorrect to bring religion into school and that it is okay to deny God but it is not okay to irritate atheists. If I were Jewish I would want to say Happy Hanukkah, not Happy Holidays. If I celebrated Kwanzaa I would want to say Happy Kwanzaa not Happy Holidays. Why can’t I say what I want without getting into trouble?

A janitor is now a custodial engineer and a garbage hauler is now a sanitation engineer even though neither has an engineering degree. An American Indian is now called a Native American. A person who is deaf is now hearing impaired. A blind person is now visually impaired. A handicapped person is now physically impaired. A pet is now called an animal friend. A person who is slow to learn is now mentally challenged. Orientals are now Asians. Anno Domini (AD) is now Common Era (CE) in many schools. A prison is now a House Of Corrections. An illegal alien is now an undocumented immigrant or an undocumented worker. Terrorists are now called insurgents even though the definition of an insurgent is a rebel and a rebel does not usually kill innocent people. Punks and delinquents are now called environmentally challenged youths. People are no longer laid off, they are now downsized. Merry Christmas is now Happy Holidays. Happy Thanksgiving is now Happy Turkey Day (don’t laugh I received several Happy Turkey Day cards from young nieces and nephews last Thanksgiving, all written in school.). Even Valentine’s day is now being called Friends Day in some elementary schools. I’m not saying that all of the foregoing descriptions are bad and I have nothing against others using them but I don’t like being told that I can’t decided for myself which description to use and I don’t like it when my wife and I give our Grandson a Valentine card and he advises me that his teacher says that it should be a Friend’s Day card because St. Valentine is a religious symbol and saying Valentine’s Day can be insulting to other people.

Don’t say “under God” when saying the Pledge of Allegiance, because you might make an Atheist uncomfortable and then the Atheist might sue. I don’t care if Atheists leave under God out why should they care if I leave it in?

It’s funny when Whoopi Goldberg, Barbra Streisand, Jay Leno, David Letterman and others insult President Bush and call him stupid, but it’s not funny if you make fun of Whoopi Goldberg. The fact that President Bush is the elected leader of this country and that when they insult him they are insulting the Office Of The President and thereby insulting this country, doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that their insults are read and heard by people in other countries who use the insults as fodder to justify their dislike of us, doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that they don’t like President Bush and they hope that if they insult him enough, people will start believing that the insults are true facts and not just jokes. I know that many of you will disagree with me on this one but I have never made fun of or insulted a sitting President. I may have thought certain things but I have never said them out loud to others. There are far better ways to get a point across that the use of insults. The point I am trying to make is that it is now politically correct to insult and make fun of our President, whomever he or she may be.

Drug addicts are victims not criminals, even though they broke the law by using illegal drugs and even though they are aiding drug pushers by giving them money, because many of the Elite also use illegal drugs and they don’t consider themselves to be criminals.

Don’t call God a him, because certain women will be angered. The fact that no one has ever actually seen God and the fact that no one really knows if God is a he, she or it, doesn’t matter. The fact that Christ is alleged to have said that God was his Father, doesn’t matter. All that matters is that certain celebrities and activists don’t like to hear God called a he and since they don’t like it they feel insulted.

It’s not only okay, it’s comical, to lump all Priests together and label them pedophiles like Jay Leno does, but don’t you dare say a teacher might be incompetent. If you do, a teacher’s union will jump down your throat. It doesn’t matter that the vast majority of Priests are kind, caring and honorable men or that a large percentage of teachers can’t teach their way out of a paper bag. All that matters is that Priests won’t fight back so it’s okay to lump the good ones with the bad ones and make fun of them.

We are no longer Americans, we are now African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Italian-Americans and a whole bunch of other -Americans. How can we hope to remain ‘one country, under god or not under god, indivisible’ if we are already dividing ourselves by ethnicity and prior nationality. I am solely an American. My ethnicity or the nationality of my ancestors does not affect my being an American. I can be proud of my ancestry without hyphenating my Americanism. My wife was born and raised in Mexico. She says that she is an American of Mexican descent. She is proud of her Mexican heritage but since she is now an American citizen she answers to American or American of Mexican decent not Mexican-American. And what is with this African-American bit. According to most biblical scholars and most scientists, the human race started out in Africa. If that’s true, then all of us are descended from people who lived in Africa and all of us could be called African-American. Additionally, what do you call a person, of African descent, who lives permanently in this country but is a French citizen and not a citizen of this country. You can’t call him an African-American as he is not an American. Do you call him an African-Frenchman or do you call him an African-Frenchmen who resides in America? You can’t call him a Black because no one is actually black. What if he is dark brown or light brown, do you call him a Brown. I am called white but in actuality no one is white and some so called whites are darker than some so called blacks. Why do we need to use color or ethnicity in order to tag people. I can see using complexion, ie: pale, dark brown, olive, etc. as a person’s description, but I can’t see using it as part of their identity.

Political correctness is fine to a point, but like anything else, take it too far and it becomes ridiculous. We have taken it too far and it is now ridiculous. Stop listening to the Hollywood elite and start thinking for yourself. Don’t be stupid. Oh; I apologize, should I have said don’t be mentally impaired? Be kind, be polite and have empathy for others. Don’t, however, let others tell you what to think and say.

About The Author

David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and currently publishes several internet directories including http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public. For more lifestyle information see http://lifestyle.resourcesforattorneys.com, the Lifestyle directory from Resources For Attorneys.

This article was posted on December 8, 2005

Obama has said, proudly and often, “I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage.” Are 47 million “Americans” without coverage? The 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants, who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally.

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven’t signed up. There may be a number of reasons for this, e.g. fear of the doctor, uninformed of eligibility, not sick enough to go to the doctor. If and when they choose, they can enroll in Medicaid and taxpaying Americans will pick up the full tab for their health care.

What about the rest of the uninsured pool? Almost all the children in this group are eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Some aren’t enrolled because the parents haven’t bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. Of these 7.3 million come from families with incomes of $75,000 or more, and an additional 6.9 million earn between $50,000 and $75,000, according to 2006 census estimates. A recent analysis by the New America Foundation, a Washington policy group, found that 16 percent of the patients who received uncompensated medical care in 2004 had family incomes of at least four times the federal poverty level (which means they currently earn about $41,600 for an individual and $84,800 for a family of four).

Judging from the numbers alone, it would seem that there are far better ways to handle the medical needs of the uninsured than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

Free Health care for illegal immigrants might be the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama’s program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes? Illegal immigrants now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening and other conditions, as any other American who’s entered an ER in an area with lots of illegal’s recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)

Covering illegal immigrants adds dramatically to the cost of any health care program. Under Obama’s plan they’d be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. Undoubtedly, this would encourage more folks to enter the United States of America illegally.

Furthermore, Obama’s plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems. An influx of millions of the currently uninsured would likely cause severe rationing of needed medical services. And puts bureaucrats in charge of deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI – and even who can have bypass surgery and who’d die for lack of it.

These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 19-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 50-year-old citizen with high blood pressure, who works hard and paid taxes his whole life.

John McCain hasn’t raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. This is a tactical mistake: polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is all American citizens. Nobody wants to die waiting in line – especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.

History has shown that socialism has been mortally discredited on economic grounds, this has been apparent in the economies of every socialist country in the world. The recent downturn of the American economy and the subsequent resulting downturn of the world markets show that their socialist economies rely on American capitalism. But for many people and as poll numbers show this has not been discredited on moral grounds. It is ironic how often people say, while socialism doesn’t work in practice it is good in theory.

How is this possible? If something is disproven in practice how can it make a good theory? This is akin to a scientific hypothesis failing repeated experimentation and people still wanting to test it. One would think that a system which needed secret police and censorship of press would be morally disqualified.

People regret that socialism doesn’t work because deep down they believe in fairy tales. They want a utopian dream, where people are truly altruistic. The regret about socialism turns out to be regret about human nature.

Originally socialism promised a superabundance of goods — so much of everything that no one would have to do without anything. Sharing would be unnecessary because scarcity would be abolished. Wasn’t that an appeal to acquisitiveness, even gluttony?

Socialism of course did promise to reconstruct humanity, but the message was always mixed. It promised to subordinate the individual to society while liberating him to be fully himself — free of the necessity to make a living. Leon Trotsky wrote that “Communist man . . . will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx.” But the nice Bolshevik also said, “In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”

Was the new Socialist Man to be a self-centered achiever or group-centered worker bee? It was never clear how both could be accomplished.

Maybe people when they lament socialism’s impracticality, is because they held out hope for an end to material inequality. I think that people long for fairy tales and children’s stories. Where Robin Hood steals from the evil rich and gives to the good poor, where Scrooge has a life changing experience and gives away the money he’s viciously hoarded. In reality, if the scrooges of the world gave away all their money, the next thing they’d do is fire all their employees, because they wouldn’t be able to pay them.

The ugliness of socialist theory now comes into focus. Under individualist and capitalist theory (and practice) each person is free to determine his own needs and, through the division of labor and voluntary exchange, to produce what’s required to satisfy them. Under socialist theory the individual’s needs are determined and satisfied collectively. Dissent and venturing out on one’s own are not options. As Trotsky acknowledged, everyone is an employee and tenant of the collective — that is, the state.

It’s a mystery why anyone would find that theory beautiful or regret that it doesn’t work in practice.

The 2008 Presidential election is approaching fast. This year’s theme seems to be about change; Americans want change. Before you vote, please look at Barack Obama’s Blueprint for America at www.barackobama.com. It’s a 60 page pdf full of his proposed change for America. After you read it, please contrast it with this definition of Socialism below.

“Socialism is defined as following Lord Keynsian economic ideas whereupon government operates and runs the important means of production such as health care, banks, utilities, transportation, and other social services that are important to the country. The European community, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and many other countries have a socialist parliament government without campaign financing by special interest who buy the govt. and the party delegates. This is socialism and practiced in Canada our closest neighbor. Free enterprise exists but not in an industry which is vital to the country. Social welfare and employees benefits are generous in providing the consumer with money and jobs to stimulate the economy by spending and circulating the money to the retailers to stay in business by having consumer spending and working.” Source, Socialist National Committee, Socialist Party USA Campaign Clearinghouse.

In my opinion if you look at Barack Obama’s Blueprint for America it isn’t clear that he isn’t running for the Socialist Party. He espouses every one of the ideas listed above. If you know economics, Keynesians believe that fiscal policy should be directed towards the lower-income segment of the population, because that segment is more likely to spend the money, contributing to demand, than to save it. In my opinion this promotes financial irresponsibility, which I believe is the cause of the mortgage meltdown which has had such devastating effects on the economy.

Now, most of you reading this will think I am a crazy, ignorant, ultra-right fool who thinks all democrats are socialists. I have alienated many a friend this year with my seemingly unpopular belief that life isn’t meant to be fair. That it isn’t the government’s responsibility to make sure everyone succeeds. That health and wealth is a personal responsibility not a national responsibility. That no matter how much we try to get the government to intercede there will always be homeless, hungry, people who live in poverty. Foremost, I believe people and companies should be allowed to fail.

Norman Mattoon Thomas, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America said “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

If you love freedom in this country as I do, please think about whom you’re going to vote for. Please do not vote based on the last president’s administration or policies. Please don’t vote based on the performance of the democrats under the Clinton years. I would point out, that for every Clinton there is a Carter, and for every George W. Bush there is a Reagan. Perceived success can come from presidents under any political party. Please evaluate the choices you have and decide who is best not just for your personal situation today, but for the future of the country we love.