Obama's National Defense Executive Order Sets Up Martial Law! (Really?)

March 18, 2012 - Do you remember when, back in 2004 and again in 2008, a lot of liberals publicly worried that President Bush would declare martial law, cancel elections and make himself the Supreme Leader? Of course you do, and those of us on the Right thought it was damned funny, albeit pitiful.

Well, welcome to 2012, when a lot of conservatives are acting just as stupidly over a whole bunch of things, most recently an as-yet-unnumbered Executive Order (EO) signed by Obama on March 16. Reaction to the EO, mostly from conservatives, is panic driven and fueled by ignorance. Too many people are so willing to believe anything bad about Obama that they will swallow outrageous twistings of truth and regurgitate them without one moment of critical thinking. Look, friends, somebody's got to point this out and since not many fellow conservatives are willing to do so, I take it upon myself. You're welcome in advance.

I am no fan of Barack Hussein Obama. I just want to clarify that before I go on. I dare say that my creds as a conservative activist are well established and go back to 1976. I will admit that what I'm about to write will upset a number of my fellow conservatives, but it has to be said. What I'm about to say is addressed to all the idiots out there who are staying up all night posting crazy stuff, like this from Twitter:

Executive order panic: Martial law in U.S.? #TREASON! #NoPoliticalCastration #IslammunistOutOfUSA http://t.co/WI3lUupP 

The person who tweeted the above obviously did not read the article to which they linked at "http://t.co/WI3lUupP." That's a shortened version of the original URL for a story at World Net Daily, one of the calmer conservative websites out there. The tweeter mostly likely saw the headline, "Executive order panic: Martial law in U.S.?" and retweeted it, adding the hashmarks strongly indicate that they mistook the WND headline as a statement of fact rather than the question that it really is. What the WND article says is not at all what the tweeter likely thinks it says.

The March 16 EO has caused a storm of idiocy to fly through the Internet. Headlines such as "Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!" by Canada Free Press‎. The CFP article, lame by their own standards, offers no "proof" of the claim its headline makes. "A bit of history," writes CFP, as if to prove it's empty point, "During WWII, price stabilization didn’t begin until May of 1942, which froze prices on nearly all every day goods and rationing started in 1943. Why would the government want to control everything before a war?"

Huh? First of all, as we'll see shortly, Obama's March 16 EO does not give the federal government to power to "control everything." CFP's own question, however, is idiotic: They ask why a government would "want to control everything before a war," yet in the previous sentence they noted that "price stabilization didn’t begin until May of 1942." Uhm, news flash: The U.S. got into the war in December, 1941 – six months after the U.S. entered fight and years after WWII had already been raging. CFP's flawed assumption (I assume) is that Obama's intentions for allegedly wanting to control everything is that he's preparing to get us involved in a huge war. CFP offered no substantiation of that, however.

Calm the hell down, people! Take your tinfoil hats off and give your overactive paranoia glands a rest already. Breath deeply. Relax.

"The White House’s late-week release of an executive order," wrote Drew Zahn in the WND piece, "has sent the online community into an uproar, worried that President Obama had secretly provided himself means to institute martial law in America." Zahn added, "Filled with language about “government-owned equipment” and a “defense executive reserve,” among other vague statements, rumors began to spread that the executive order expanded the president’s power to do everything from seizing whole industries to drafting private armies."

Sounds scary, right? Sure does, if you're an ignoramus with a complete lack of critical thinking skills and not enough patience to get beyond the headline. Zahn let us know that Obama's March 16 EO is not a takeover or the beginning of martial law: "As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush."

Zahn cites a "side-by-side analysis" of Obama’s recent EO as compared to Clinton’s, which was nicely done by conservative blogger Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.com. Zahn points out, rightly, that Morrissey's analysis "reveals Obama’s order is essentially just an update to reflect changes in government agency structure."

Conclusion: Obama's executive order of March 16, 2012 is nothing to panic about. Or worry about. Or post ridiculous loony conspiracy theory nutter stuff about.

Better we should concentrate on legitimate examples of Obama's abuses of power, such as was highlighted by his recent spat with the Catholic Church. "We woke up one day," wrote E. Thomas McClanahan at The Kansas City Star, "to read that the government was ordering Catholic institutions - hospitals, charities and schools - to provide coverage for birth control and the rest." McClanahan asks, in his headline, "If our government can do this, what can they not do?"

When conservatives – and I am a conservative – let themselves become distracted by things like the latest Obama EO it causes attention on things such as what McClanahan wrote about to be lost amid a sea of  counterproductive, empty foam. It does a number of harmful things:

• It distracts us from real issues, actual facts and truth and causes too many of us to spend time and energy on things that do not have any substance;
• It provides Obama and the Democrats with cover by allowing them to do things while we're not looking;
• It makes the entire conservative movement look ridiculous;
• It gives the Left legitimate reason to criticize us as paranoid;
• It unduly frightens the ignorant and feeble minded (seriously);
• It embarrasses the hell out of most conservatives, who disown you as the nutjobs that you are when we're asked about your behavior by moderates and liberals (oh yes, we do).

The Twitter item that I mentioned above was reposted by somebody on Facebook today. I commented on it by saying, "READ the Executive Order signed on March 16. Jeez, please, I am NOT happy with Obama but this is blown waaaaaaay outa proportion." I provided a link to the HotAir.com story.

Immediately, another person responded to me with an absurd comment: "If you lived close to Los Alamitos you could have seen dozens of military planes flying in to the base and black hawk helicopters paroling civilian neighborhoods all last week and weekend. Pretty scary." After leaning against a wall for a few moments to steady myself while laughing uncontrollably, I responded.

"Wow, imagine that!" I wrote, "Military planes flying into -- a military base! And helicopters flying over neighborhoods! My, that IS scary. Not. I grew up in Madison WI and we always saw military aircraft flying overhead. You know why they did that? It's the most efficient way for them to get to and from their base, that's why. And I'll betcha there were military planes and helicopters flying Los Alamitos around last month, and the month before, and for years prior to Obama becoming POTUS. Please, calm down."

After an hour, no response to me. Perhaps Los Alamitos realized how silly his comment was. I can only hope, but the fact remains that there are tens of thousands of other idiots out there right now who are busily tweeting an posting elsewhere that "Obama has seized control of everything."

One of those idiots is Brandon Turbeville, who writes for fear-monger Alex Jones at the ever-spooked InfoWars.com. Turbeville's March 18 post is titled "New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness."  As we've already been shown by respected conservative bloggers such as Ed Morrissey, Turbeville's piece is nothing more than long winded paranoid drivel.

Consider this: IF Barack Obama wanted to seize control of everything and make himself a dictator, would he have even bothered with an executive order, let alone publish it for the whole world to see? Furthermore, IF Barack Obama was determined to seize control of "everything," why would he be going to all the trouble of raising campaign contributions so that he can run a re-election campaign? Hmmm?
There's an old saying that most of us know: "Just because you're paranoid," it goes, "doesn't mean they're not out to get you." That may be true, but it's also true just because you repeat paranoid fantasies loudly and often does not mean that they're not untrue.

In case I'm wrong about all this, I guess I'll see you all later after we've been rounded up and put into a secret FEMA camp. I just hope the authorities give some extra rations now and then for writing this.

White House Panicking Over Sarah Palin's Popularity

You want proof? Here it is. Organizing For America (OFA) is Barack Obama's perpetual propaganda mechanism, and they sent out hundreds of thousands of the email announcement reproduced in the image here (click to enlarge). You have to ask yourself: If Palin is really the insignificant, petty, unqualified amateur that the Left claims she is, then why are Democrats and Leftists working so damned hard to discredit her? They'll tell you she's an idiot. If so, why do they feel the need to attack her? RELATED: Liberal left is afraid of Palin Be Afraid of Palin Daily Kos: Are the Democrats really afraid of Palin? Video: Why are the liberals afraid of Palin? O'Reilly & Colmes ... MSNBC attacks young Palin Supporter : Western Journalism.com Leave a Comment Conservative T-Shirts We're on Twitter RSS Feed

About That Homeland Security Report

Janet Marion at American Dreamer writes a nice summary of the insanely politicized report from the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) that labels veterans and most conservatives as "extremists" and possible terrorists. Janet presents key excerpts from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," along with this comment: OK, I reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, I oppose abortion, I am concerned about the economy and home foreclosures, and I am antagonistic toward the new presidential administration, especially in its views of immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Full Post at American Dreamer... Another excellent commentary appears in the San Francisco Chronicle, where Debra J. Saunders wrote (emphasis added): Fox News posted a Jan. 26, 2009, assessment entitled, "Left-wing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber-Attacks Over the Coming Decade." This would suggest equal-opportunity political targeting. Not so. The "left-wing" assessment named entities - the Earth Liberation Front, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, The Hacktivist, the Internet Liberation Front - and explained the methods used in specific and recent cyber-attacks. It also warned how specific groups - loggers, farmers and named corporations - were or could be targeted. That is, the "left-wing" assessment included information that would be useful to officials investigating crimes. The "right-wing" document, however, targeted not activities, but political thought - opposition to abortion, immigration amnesty and gun laws. While the "left-wing" assessment reported on known criminal activities, the "right-wing" document started with the acknowledgment that Department of Homeland Security intelligence "has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." .... Then: "The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment." I'm a staunch conservative. I personally know many conservatives, black and white, and correspond with hundres more via email, Twitter, Facebook and a secret decoder ring. None of the conversations I've had - either in person, electronically or by decoder ring - have given any hint that "the first African American president" is a cause of resentment on racial grounds. We disagree with his politics and policies. We don't care about his ethnicity or race. For the Department of Homeland Security to issue such a report - and for the Administration that must accept responsibility for the DHS report - racist assumptions have, ironically, caused them to assume that we (conservatives) are racist. One day, many doctoral theses will be written about the twisted psychological pathologies that must have driven the authors of that sad and destined-to-be-long-remembered report. RELATED: Federal agency warns of radicals on right - Washington Times Napolitano Backpedals On Homeland Security Report Wording Washington, DC — According to the US government, I am an extremist Military Expert Ralph Peters: Fire Napolitano for Smearing Veterans AllGov - Department of Homeland Security - Office of Intelligence ... CommieBama Hats and More Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Follow ChiNewsBench on Twitter!

Are Conservatives and Veterans Terrorists?

In yet another goosestep toward its desired totalitarian control of America, Barack Obama's administration has issued a secret report (leaked to some in the media) that indicates that people who excercise their First Amendment rights might be considerted terrorists. The report comes from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FoxNews: The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran. That's what House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday in response to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of the rise of right-wing extremist groups. Are there, in fact, right-wing extremist groups? Yes, of course there are. There are extremist left-wing groups, too, such as SDS, a group that many of Barack Obama's friends were or are members of. Have the right-wing extremist groups suddenly grown or begun to bomb buildings? No. Has there been a sudden resurgence of the KKK? No. Do left-wing extremist groups continue to torch housing developments to "save the planet?" Yes, and more. Under Democrat Bill Clinton, did the federal government engage in violent domestic terrorism? Yes, as in Waco, Texas (photo above). Smith, who said the report on "right-wing extremism" amounts to "political profiling," said that DHS is "using people's political views to assess an individual's susceptibility to terror recruitment." He joins a growing chorus of protest from irate conservative groups that are protesting the report's findings. Full Report at FoxNews... But what about the left-wing extremist groups? Yes, there is a report about that, too, but it's different. As Hot Air points out (emphasis added): ....the report on extremism of the Left is much different than the other DHS report, starting with specifics. While the DHS report focusing on the Right expansively and generally indicted groups opposing abortion, illegal immigration, and federalism, this report instead focuses on actual and specific extremist groups — groups who have a long history of domestic terrorism and violence....In other words, it does not treat all animal-rights criticisms as indications of terrorist thought. It fails to paint all opponents of free trade as potential national-security threats. Global warming activism does not get treated in this instance as federalism does in the execrable DHS report on conservatives and libertarians. In other words, in this report, the DHS actually focuses on threats, not becoming the Thought Police. Full Post at Hot Air... In other words, Big Brobama is on the loose. If Leftists, Liberals and Democrats were freaking out about the threats they perceived under the Bush Administration, wait to see how freaked out they get when they finally realize that life under a true totalitarian (Obama) is like. And by the way, are all those gun toting gangstaz on Chicago's south side right-wing terrorists, or are they left-wing terrorists? RELATED: Right Wing Extremism (video) Hot Air - The vaunted “Left-Wing Extremism” report Michelle Malkin - Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job... The Right Cafe: Disgruntled Veterans & Voters: The Next Right Wing ... CNN Uses NAZI Pic To Depict “RIGHT WING Extremists” CommieBama Hats and More Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Follow ChiNewsBench on Twitter!

Ready to Storm Obama's Playing Field

There was much made - and is still being made - of Barack Obama's links to Muslims and Islamic entities during the recent presidential election. Some people were/are concerned with his father's Muslim beliefs. Some were/are concerned with his history in Pakistan. All were/are still concerned about the huge amounts of donations from foreign nationals in Muslim nations. The Bench also wrote about some of Obama's connections to Islam, but strove to do so in a way that examined facts, not conjecture or rumor. The Bench passed on a number of "stories" that readers sent to us, because after we cross checked them we found that they were false myth or perilously devoid of hard facts. Then there were those driven by anti-Muslim bigotry, and while The Bench does not run from calling an Islamic terrorist an "Islamic terrorist," we also acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Five weeks after Obama won the election, The Bench still gets such letters. The Internet still throbs with such items. Let us stress that bigotry against Barack Obama for any past or present Muslim influence in his personal life is no more acceptable than the hateful bigotry thrown at Republican contender Mitt Romney. Romney, a Mormon from a long line of Mormons, was savaged by bigots in both the Democrat Party as well as his own. Perhaps one day we can judge a person by the content of his character and not by the flavor of his religious beliefs. (That said, I confess that I would be a bit nervous about a candidate for any office who was known to be a Satanist.) A recent letter came to The Bench, in which the well-meaning author expressed concern about Obama's intention to deliver a major speech in the capital of "a Muslim nation" shortly after his upcoming inauguration. That, the reader wrote, as well as his Muslim campaign donors, is supposed to be a signal that Obama is really some kind of stealth Islamist. She stopped short of speculating that Obama owns a closet full of suicide bomber belts, but she might as well have written that, too. My response to her, and my advice to people who are still all worked up about Obama's Muslim ties, follows: Dear Reader: As for Obama and the Muslims: First, take a deep breath, hold it for ten seconds, then... let ... it ... out slowly. Now then, let me play Devil's advocate: Proceed with caution on this, because we do not know absolutely that he is a Muslim. In fact, overwhelming evidence is that he's not a Muslim. Think about it: The drug use years ago. The way Michelle dresses (like an average Western woman). The fact that he does not bow down five times daily to pray or attend mosque services as a worshipper. For argument's sake, let's agree that he was born to a Muslim father. So what? My dad was Jewish, my mother was non-denominational Protestant. I grew up agnostic but converted to Christianity after a personal epiphany, but have never prayed in a church. I pray at the beach or under a tree or wherever I want (because God hears all, everywhere, anytime). What does that mean? It means nothing, and it means everything: We are all unique, and one of the great things about the US, and the West in general, is freedom of choice and freedom from familial bondage to any particular religion or set of customs. So, is Barack Obama secretly Muslim? Only he knows, but I seriously doubt it. If he's some kind of sleeper agent or Manchurian candidate, well, we can't know that yet. In the meantime, I have to go with the overwhelming evidence (of his actions) that he is not Muslim. Is he sympathetic to the Muslims? No doubt he is. Is that, in and of itself, a bad thing? It depends upon the degree to which he sympathizes with them. Does he have the right to feel an affinity for Muslims? Yes. Does he have a right to make a speech in any city he chooses? Yes, he does, and I think the reason that he is making an announcement in "an Islamic capital" is that the subject of his speech will relate directly to Muslim and/or Arab concerns and affairs. That should not be suspicious, necessarily. We are, after all, engaged in friendly diplomatic relations with many of the Arab nations. We have invaded two Muslim nations recently. We import a huge portion of our petroleum from that region. We need to strengthen relations with them, not by appeasing, but through mutual cooperation in matters of security and military coordination, as well as a broad range of mutual concerns with all things economic. I could go on and on, but I think you see where I'm going with all of this. Just because he has Muslim contributors is not necessarily an indictment of his character or intentions, either. Any candidate who runs an election campaign for any office higher than dog catcher is likely to receive contributions from unsavory characters or controversial entities. I guarantee you that every Republican got contributions from neo-Nazis or Klan members. Does that make the Republican politicians Nazis or Klansmen? Of course not. Pedophiles, litterers, jaywalkers and all kinds of people donate to both parties. So, a large number of Muslims donated to Obama. What does that mean, really, except that they are anti-White, anti-Western and/or see Obama as somebody who might take us in a direction more favorable to Muslim countries. That, by the way, does not necessitate an anti-Israel stance. We cannot assume, and we cannot know, how many of the tens of thousand of Muslims who donated to Obama's campaigns (IL Senate, US Senate, President) are disloyal Americans or in favor of driving Israel into the sea, or may be terrorist sympathizers. My guess (and there is no way for anybody to measure this) is that the vast majority of them are average people who donated to a particular candidate (Obama, in this case) for average reasons: Ethnicity, their personal religious orientation, liberal political orientation, socio-economic history and status, and on and on and on. Let's sit back and enjoy the show. We, you and I, are spectators for the moment. Let's let the referees on the field officiate the game. If there is foul play down there, we trust that the referees will throw a flag down and issue the appropriate penalties. Like British soccer fans, however, we hold in reserve the option of storming the field if the referees don't do their job. RELATED: Obama Mulls Speech in Muslim Capital (The Washington Independent) Obama Reveals Plans To Reach Out To Muslim World (Huffington Post) Right Truth: Obama's World Apology Tour (RightTruth) Plans major speech in Muslim capital to 'reboot' America's image (WorldNet Daily) Here comes the Great Man complex (American Thinker) A Cairo speech? (Politico)

Email From Liberal Demonstrates Dementia, Paranoia

Paranoia, fear, loathing, envy. That pretty much sums up the raw hatred that so many Liberals have for Wal-Mart. It’s a company that employs millions, gives away more to charity than some nations have in their entire treasuries, but is nevertheless loathed by millions. I recognize that there are some valid reasons to dislike Wal-Mart, but no valid reasons to hate it. This morning, I received a bizarre email from an uber-Liberal this morning. It contains a childish list of statements about Wal-Mart, presented as fact with no sources of information listed. All of the statements are inaccurate in some way. The statements are apparently taken as fact, at face value, by the uber-Liberal who wrote it, and by the uber-Liberal who forwarded it to me in an email blast. I won't reveal her name, but I will say that she works at a very prestigious university in Evanston, Illinois. Her email, below, seems to be something that she received in an email or found on the web and decided to pass it on. The subject line, "HOW BIG IS WAL-MART?" contains at least two red flags. First, the word "BIG" is surely meant to be taken as "bad" (why do Liberals hate big business, but love big government?). Second, "WAL-MART" is Satan in the opinion of many Liberals. Let's look at the crazy email. I will inject my own remarks along the way. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- This should boggle your mind!! And scare you as well! HOW BIG IS WAL-MART? 1) At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! BENCH: If your mind is not yet boggled, consider this: There are 1,440 minutes in a full day. 36,000,000 divided by 1,440 equals 25,000. Sure, that’s even more than the author of this idiotic list claimed, but right away we’ve got a signal that the facts are not very accurate. This begs the question: Are you scared yet? If so, why does a magnificent profit scare you? 2) Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year. BENCH: “Will sell” sounds like someone has a crystal ball. Perhaps Wal-Mart sold that much more than Target in the first quarter of a past year, but how could the author know what future sales numbers will be? Furthermore, selling “more” does not necessarily mean that “more” profit will be taken. Target’s pricing is different than Wal-Mart’s. Again, the question: Are you scared yet? If so, why does the fact that some businesses outperform others scare you? Imagine two coffee shops on the same block, and you’re told that one “sold more” cups of coffee than the other. Would you ask why that was so? Would you ask how much each charges for their cups of coffee? These are important considerations, apparently not taken by the author. 3) Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined. BENCH: Yokay, but so what? The author childishly uses “bigger” as a pejorative. The author does not qualify what “bigger” means in this context. Bigger in terms of gross sales, gross profit, net sales, net profit, payroll, amount of taxes paid, amount of real estate owned, square footage of retail outlets? Bigger how? Again, the question: Are you scared yet? If so, why does the fact that a particular business is “bigger” than several of its competitors? Imagine a 7-Eleven that is across the street from a large and popular restaurant. Both sell sandwiches, but the restaurant sells four times as many as the 7-Eleven, occupies a larger space, employs many more people, and so on. It’s “bigger.” Does that make the restaurant bad? 4) Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer. And most can't speak English. BENCH: Actually, Wal-Mart has 2.1 million employees (another indicator of how inaccurate this list is). One of today’s headlines is this, from AP (Dec. 5, 2008): “Employers cut 533K jobs in Nov., most in 34 years.” Aren’t Liberals, like other Americans, concerned about rising unemployment? Yes? So how, then, is employing 2.1 million people a bad thing? Does the author of this list have some issue with people who don’t speak English? Wal-Mart currently has 620,000 "International Associates," which is one third of the total 2.1 million employees. (2.1 million minus 620,000 equals 1.48 million, so again the author's "facts" are way off.) Apparently so, but don’t Liberals claim to be more compassionate about non-English speakers? The author doesn’t indicate, however, where those employees are located. Could “most” of the Wal-Mart employees be manufacturing merchandise for Wal-Mart overseas, in non-English speaking countries? I don’t know, but if the author knows he/she is withholding the information. 5) Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World. BENCH: Yes, at the moment. But before Wal-Mart got there, somebody else was “the largest company in the history of the World,” and somebody else before, and so on. Sooner or later, some other company will become “the largest company in the history of the World.” In fact, it may happen soon. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 3, 2007 that “Wal-Mart’s influence over the retail universe is slipping. In fact, the industry’s titan is scrambling to keep up with swifter rivals that are redefining the business all around it.” 6) Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years. BENCH: I must be missing something here. Is selling a lot of food a bad thing? As for saying that Wal-Mart “did this in only 15 years,” we have another red flag. According to Wal-Mart, the company began in 1962, when founder Sam Walton opened the company’s first discount store in Rogers, Arkansas. Correct me if I’m wrong, but 15 years after 1962 would be 1977. Uhm, that was nearly 32 years ago. Where did the author come up with the 15 year info? 7) During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie). BENCH: What period is that? The author gives no dates. The author implies that Wal-Mart drove Winn-Dixie into bankruptcy, but in fact that is not true. Karen Brune Mathis of the The Times-Union wrote an excellent article on October 13, 2007 about the Winn-Dixie bankruptcy. Mathis wrote that “Winn-Dixie spent 21 months in bankruptcy reorganization, filing in February 2005 and emerging in November 2006.” She also noted that “long dominant Winn-Dixie watched service-oriented Publix Super Markets displace it as the top grocer in the area in 2000. In 2006, price-focused Wal-Mart took second place, pushing Winn-Dixie to No. 3.” Does that sound like Wal-Mart suddenly jumped up and cut the head off of Winn-Dixie? Mathis quotes Holly Felder Etlin , one of the turnaround advisers who helped Winn-Dixie reorganize and regroup as saying the main causes of Winn-Dixie’s demise were “the company's focus on cutting costs while not keeping the stores up to date, not focusing enough on new products and facing a bloated cost structure.” (I doubt that Wal-Mart had anything to do with Winn-Dixie’s own mismanagement.) 8) Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world. BENCH: This is essentially a repeat of #6 above. 9) Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are SuperCenters; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago. BENCH: Another inaccuracy: “Today, 7,390 Wal-Mart stores and Sam’s Club locations in 14 markets employ more than 2 million associates, serving more than 200 million customers per year.” (Source) 10) This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.) BENCH: So what? 7.2 billion divided by 200 million equals 36. That means that each of those 200 million customers had an average of 36 “purchasing experiences” per year. That’s three visits per month. I hit my local 7-Eleven three times a day, often enough. This figure means nothing unless you’re unable to look at big numbers, break them down, and realize that there is nothing out of the ordinary going on. 11) 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart. BENCH: So what? 90% of all Chicagoans live within 15 miles of City Hall. Does that make City Hall bad? Of course not. Temptation, greed and callous disregard make City Hall bad. 12) Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street. BENCH: Why? Did Wal-Mart cause the meltdown of Wall Street? What did Wal-Mart have to do with the gross mismanagement and corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Wal-Mart may be doing well, but I hardly think they have over $700 billion to give away. Speaking of giving money away, Wal-Mart gives away more money to charitable causes than most companies do. For example, “Wal-Mart’s support is helping the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation, Inc. break ground for the national memorial dedicated to the civil rights leader by providing a $12.5 million letter of credit from the Wal-Mart Foundation.” That’s just a tiny fraction of their charitable giving. So, let’s summarize the Wal-Mart list, point by point: 1) Americans love to shop at Wal-Mart. 2) Americans love to shop at Wal-Mart. 3) Americans love to shop at Wal-Mart. 4) Millions of Americans have jobs, thanks to Wal-Mart. 5) Americans love to shop at Wal-Mart, so much so that it’s now the largest company in the world. 6) Americans love to shop at Wal-Mart. 7) Some companies are not as well as Wal-Mart. 8) See #6. 9) Wal-Mart has been expanding rapidly because Americans love to shop at Wal-Mart. 10) The average Wal-Mart shopper shops at a Wal-Mart three times per month. 11) Wal-Mart is conveniently located within a short drive of 90% of all Americans. 12) Liberals think Wal-Mart somehow caused the current bad economic climate. My favorite part of the entire email is the last item. Note that today is December 5, 2008. Vice President Dick Cheney will leave office in just a few weeks, on January 20. Yet, at the bottom of the uber-Liberal’s email is this link, urging the impeachment of Cheney. Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F (WARNING! Follow that link at your own risk! I did, it seems suspicious. Don’t follow the link unless you are confident that you have a good firewall and a very good anti-spyware and anti-virus program running!) RELATED: http://money.howstuffworks.com/wal-mart.htm Why I Love Wal-Mart and You Should Too - Associated Content YouTube - P&T Bullshit Wal-Mart Hatred Part 1 American Thinker Blog: Wal-Mart hatred on display in LA Times The Wal-Mart hatred bandwagon is a load of crap... (cuss words!) From the Wal-Mart corporate site: Wal-Mart's charitble giving Wal-Mart's disaster relief Wal-Mart's international operations Wal-Mart's employment and diversity

BUSH DECLARES MARTIAL LAW, OVERRIDES ELECTION

FLASH: President George W. Bush just issued an executive order that declares martial law and cancels out last Tuesday's presidential election. Barack Obama and his top advisors have been rounded up and sent off to one of the many secret concentration camps scattered around the US. At this writing, others who opposed Bush are being rounded up. Some are being summarily executed. (No, no, just kidding. See? For eight years the lunatics on the left have been all paranoid over nothing. And some of you morons believed that crap for the whole eight years. Aren't you just a little embarassed?)