Walmart is top welfare queen in Ohio

28% of Walmart employees in Ohio receive Medicaid. What else is there to say?


Walmart Tops State Assistance Rolls in Ohio
September 30, 2009 United Food and Commercial Workers

URL: http://ufcw.blogspot.com/2009/09/walmart-tops-state-assistance-rolls-in.html

Re: Krauthammer: Obama's French Lesson on Iran

First of all, Sarkozy is not France. Just like GW Bush was not America, although French people criticized all Americans for the policies of GWB.

Secondly, how is Obama's refusal to let big-talking France and UK manipulate America into doing all the heavy lifting in a war against Iran not putting America first? It is the exact definition of putting America first. Gordon Brown and N. Sarkozy want to be big boys at the big boys table, but all they do is talk and then let America spend all the money and spill all the blood. That's like me going to a bar and being a big loudmouth and then saying "my friend here [America] is gonna kick your ass" if you don't do what I want.

Let's just be clear, because Krauthammer and the other neocons like to dance around it: they want a war with Iran. Sanctions are a prelude, a mere technical hurdle to war because sanctions never work against stalwart regimes; and indeed they turn the population against the sanctioner who makes them suffer while their leaders live in palaces. The neocons like CK want to bomb Iran, which would require attacking all major Iranian cities, and perhaps require troops (since it's debatable whether bombing alone can truly destroy all of Iran's nuke facilities). That means more U.S. boots on the ground in the Middle East, hooray. And even then, how can we be sure? You can't bomb or shoot knowledge; and the key to building a nuclear program is the knowledge how to do it. So the only sure way to kill Iran's nuclear program is to destroy its government and install a new one, and ... to support that government would require U.S. aid and administration and security and training, and.... Are you having deja vu, too, or is it just me?

These chickenhawk, chicken-necked pundits and think-tank nerds are leading you and me by the nose into another disastrous war with unpredictable consequences, and unknown duration for the third time in less than 10 years (!) and making it seem as if America has no other choice. These war-mongering jerks who sit comfortably in DC telling us we need to go to war once again have no shame after starting two disasters that are still exploding in our faces. Somebody trying to be clever once said that, "Neocons are liberals who have been mugged by reality." Well, with great sadness but in all truth I would revise that remark: "Americans are mugged by neocons who live in their own reality."

Just be clear: Even bombing Iran would mean war. And it would be a real war, in the sense that American civilians will be put at risk, not just our military. We wouldn't be at war with a nation that is a basket case hobbled by a war and a decade of sanctions like Saddam's Iraq, or a primitive tribal culture with no government or army like Afghanistan. Iran can and will use its resources to foment anti-US terrorism all over the globe, their gloves will come completely off, and they will make bin Laden look like a Girl Scout. (And you'd better believe that Iran has been preparing for this contingency for years.)

Also understand this: you can kiss any hope for democracy or liberal reforms in Iran goodbye the moment the first U.S. bomb drops. Yeah, yeah, you say their elections are all fixed but this is not actually true, and there are opposition politicians and liberal/reform movements that are strong and have some protection in Iran. (Remember when McCain and the neocons said the U.S. gov't needed to do more to support them?) But when the bombing starts, Iranians will rally around Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs, and any stragglers will be rounded up and quietly disposed of by the secret police without a word of criticism while the world community is dazzled by the shock & awe on CNN.

Taking potshots at Obama is all fine and good, but please be conscious of what policy you conservatives are tacitly supporting: starting a third war with a stronger enemy than Iraq or Afghanistan, while those two wars are still unfinished, and killing any hope for democracy in Iran. Once the first bomb drops, there will be only one exit: through the barrel of a gun.


On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:16 AM, <> wrote:
wanted you to see this: Obama's French Lesson
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message from :
This is why I don't think Obama cares about America first. Even France sees he lacks intention.

Obama's French Lesson
By Charles Krauthammer

URL: http://townhall.com/content/13cdf7e0-7129-4a9a-95ed-e1456160fc00

Ames: Newsmax blog advocated treason until lefty blogs called them out

Here's a new rule: rightwing pundits and bloggers shouldn't be allowed to declare their (almost sexual) love of our nation's military -- a love which they assume gives them special claim to speak for the best interests of our military, and our nation -- unless they have done an actual combat tour in 'Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Simple rule, right? And yet how many writers would disappear from view forever if it were followed?

They're all pencil-necked geeks, flabby wannabes, and chickenhawks who have read too many Tom Clancy novels and not enough history books. They don't know the first thing. Oh, but they think they do. Because the LOVE our armed forces. Gimme a break.

Know what our generals are really good at? Doing what they're told. That's what they're educated and trained to do; and the ones who do it the best with the snappiest "Yessir!" rise up the ranks the fastest. Our generals have no special insights into politics or the human condition, and certainly no special gift for governing. Our top military brass are there because they are the best political chameleons and career climbers, able to shift and wiggle their way up the ranks through successive Democratic-Republican administrations.

I'll tell you another secret: our military works because civilian prick politicians who smoked dope, snorted coke and never fired a gun at anybody, like Clinton and Dubya, get to tell it what to do. They don't need the military's approval. They (and by extension, we) tell it whom to fight, and the military gets to tell us how many things they can blow up, how many people they can kill, when, and with how many resources. Now that's service. And the USA pioneered it. That's what we should be proud of.

Our only job is to avoid sending them into impossible missions that they can't possibly execute, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Such situations require civilians with independent minds, because, per secret #1, generals are always going to tell their commander-in-chief that they can get the job done, if only they are given the right resources. Unfortunately, the general who says to his president, "Sir, we can't do that," probably won't be reporting to that president much longer. To be sure, successful U.S. presidents should recognize that they're surrounded by sycophantic yes-men, whether they are appointed bureaucrats or career soldiers. They need to exercise common sense, and know a little history and geography -- or at least have advisers who do. But when all their advisers are like, "We love the generals, the generals are rock stars, they say we can win it!" then the President (and by extension, America) is in deep trouble. Exhibits A and B: Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rightwing Pussies Run Screaming From Liberal Bloggers

By Mark Ames

September 30, 2009 | Exiledonline.com

URL: http://exiledonline.com/rightwing-pussies-run-screaming-from-liberal-bloggers/

Zoinks! I think I heard a liberal blogger!

This is just like America's rightwing pussies: all bluster and no fight. When no one's looking, they're screaming crazy treasonous shit like they're badass revolutionaries, but at the first whiff of liberal-blogger criticism, they're fleeing with their tails between their legs.

Yesterday, on a rightwing webzine site called Newsmax, one of their columnists called for the US military to overthrow President Obama, in order to "resolve the 'Obama Problem.'" The column, headlined "Obama Risks a Military 'Intervention,'" laid out a nerdoid fantasy-scenario in which the U.S. military ousts Obama, and the junta rules America for an interim period to "restore" the Constitution:

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

You can almost smell author John L. [for "Loser"] Perry's urine-scented basement bedroom and sticky underwear wafting up from each word of his waffentwerp fantasy column.

In the great tradition of waffentwerp loudmouths like Perry, as soon as a few liberals started to blog his article, the yeasty pussies at Newsmax screamed "RETREAT!" and pulled the article down, and used the ol' grammar school excuse of "I've never even seen this guy in my life!" claiming that Perry isn't even on Newsmax's payroll. Translation: WE'RE TOO AFRAID TO STAND BEHIND OUR YAPPING POODLES.

It's like the screaming loudmouth jerk who makes a lot of noise about "I'll kick yer fuckin ass man!" but then when the other guy finally gets tired of it and starts to lift himself from his barstool, the loudmouth flees like Snagglepus, exit stage left, even. Fucking pathetic.

I'll write more about this soon, but a couple of points to note:

1. I've been following the angry-rightwing's obsession over the military coup in Honduras which overthrew the democratically-elected leftwing president, Manuel Zelaya. If you've watched how the rightwingers have framed that coup, it's been clear that they see it as both a proxy-coup for the battle they believe is unfolding in America, and a blueprint for how to get rid of Obama.

2. Since the John Loser Perrys of America are truly such big gigantic pussies that they can't feel safe without guns, it's time some of us who don't want to be part of John Loser Perry's twerp fantasy to brush up on our marksmanship skills at the local shooting range too.

And now, just to make sure that this article is posted in as many places as possible, I give you the mighty John L. Perry's coup blueprint:

Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM By: John L. Perry Article Font Size

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic. America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes: Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States." Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized. They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office. They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments. They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home. They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag. They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time. They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse? Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims? Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog. Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility? Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making. Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible. Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later." In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass. John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.

Here we go again... Impeach Obama Campaign

Brought to you by the guy who claims he initiated the Whitewater investigation, which started with digging into a funny-smelling land deal, and ended with discovering a funny-smelling cigar and a jizz-stained dress. If not for the efforts of brave and patriotic Republicans like Floyd to bring them into the public light, that cigar and dress could have destroyed America like hidden nuclear suitcase bombs.

Read Floyd's damning Articles of Impeachment of President Obama right here!

We can't wait 3 years to elect a new President, we need to impeach BHO now, before his real birth certificate conspires with the cigar and the dress to tear America apart!

Bring back McVeigh, Gingrich, Mulder and Scully, because Guvmint is evil again and we need to go on the offensive! Seriously though, like I said before, it's gonna be the wacky 90's all over again with these nutjobs....

Impeach Obama Campaign

URL: http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/#

URL: http://www.c4strategies.com/ImpeachObama/impeachobamaacn2.html

Re: On redistribution, Obama, W., and Hitler

R.,

The full story as told by Obama was that the leader asked Obama why Americans compared him to Hitler when all Obama wanted to do was give them health care. If you've been to Europe, where health care is considered a human right by conservatives and liberals alike, then you understand this leader's mystification.

I'm not jealous of rich people. (OK, maybe I am a little bit; but I don't want more of their money for myself courtesy of the federal gov't., which is what matters in our discussion.) Nor do I think gov't can make them un-rich. I'm not that naive: the super-rich aren't gonna let that happen.

I do object to huge disparities in wealth, where the U.S., the richest country on Earth, is in the same league with Mexico, Turkey, Russia, and Brazil, not its G-7 partners like the UK, France, Germany, and Japan: from 1993-2007, the top 1% of U.S. income earners captured half of all economic growth; in the period of expansion from 2002-2007, the top 1% captured two-thirds of all economic growth. And as of 2007 (the latest data) the top 0.1% of Americans controlled 6% of the country's wealth, and the top 10% took home half of all wages. Meanwhile, the poorest 10% of Americans had an average income that was 20% lower than the average bottom decile among all 30 OECD countries. You have to go back before 1920 to find a such a large disparity in U.S. incomes.

In other words, America is going backwards.

So we do need to redistribute wealth a little. I don't have a philosophical objection to redistribution. I think it's the price a successful or lucky person should pay to live in the greatest country on Earth, which guarantees his rights and civil liberties, protects his life and property with police and courts, provides him with a well educated and civilized work force, not to mention first-rate infrastructure, and ensures him access to overseas markets with its diplomats and, yes, its armed forces. People like to credit themselves with their successes and blame their failures on everybody else, and rich people are no different. Most of America's wealthy would not be so if they lived in another country. That is why they should not be so greedy and give up something in taxes to make sure those on the bottom can meet their family's basic needs.

Also, persistent and growing income inequality -- and stagnant wages for the middle class -- is a recipe for civil disaster. Just you watch. Maybe it will be a socialist on the left, or a fascist populist on the right, but somebody's going to try to exploit all of this building frustration and resentment for bad ends. (You'll say that guy is Obama, but come on, bailing out Wall Street should have erased all doubts that Obama is a typical Republicrat). Or we'll just have riots, increased crime, and mayhem. I don't know. Redistribution is like opening the pressure-release valve, politically speaking. Deep down, both parties know it.

Anyway, about Dubya and Hitler... Here's where the comparison is most apt: building a war state. Dubya started two wars in 4 years, and would have started a third if Cheney, Bolton, and others in his Administration had got their way. One war was arguably justified; the other was clearly not. Everything in his Administration became subordinated to the war effort (including Americans' civil liberties), which, by 2006, was already clearly a failure and should have been ended on both fronts, and yet he was rattling our saber to start a third war.

However, I am all for declaring a moratorium on Hitler/Nazi analogies and metaphors in U.S. politics. Shake on it? Hitler has been compared to so many people for doing so many different things that the poor guy can't burn in hell in peace. "Es gibt nur ein Hitler, not that schwarzer!" I bet he screams at FOXNews (which you know they get on satellite TV in hell) every day.

---------------------------------------------------------------

On September 30, 2009, R. wrote:

J,

I call complete BS on your assertion that I care about lazy people getting money. If that were the case, I would have a problem with lottery winners. No sir. My problem is that to give someone money, you generally have to take it away from someone else. THAT is what I have a problem with. The left is the side that cares about how much money individual people have, not the right. But, your comment highlights the way your side thinks about things. It is all about jealousy. Lots of people on the left are a lot more concerned with making sure that no one can accumulate wealth, as opposed to making sure there aren't any poor people. This explains why there is no outrage from your side about the horrible circumstances people live in in shitholes like Vietnam and Honduras (of course, the chasm in those countries between rich and poor are really huge, but never mind that), but there is ample criticism for a country that allows an executive to make $1M while sucking at his job, while a "poor" person in that same country dies because they ate too much. Pretty amazing. Man, unlike communism, capitalism sure does screw people. My criticism isn't that the gov't doesn't do as good of a job as it should, my criticism is that gov't takes on too much. Philosophical difference, no reason to waste more time on it. Also, it seems very odd to me that a foreign leader would ask Obama why such images would exist. Why is it odd? Because there are stupid people in every country (and despite the steroetype that Americans are stupid and bigoted, I have found that in the 12 countries I have visited, they have a much higher % idiots and people that are bigoted and narrow-minded - afterall, Hitler wasn't from the U.S.), so it should come as no surprise to a person who is a world leader, that a select few members of a country would claim that their leader is an evil maniac. Not to mention, GWB has been accused by a LARGE number of people all around the world on the left of being Hitler, a terrorist, a murderer that enjoys bloodshed, a liar, the Antichrist and everything else.