One fat dumb redneck

Here's the guy responsible for the FL billboard that connects 9/11 with Democrats.

Does he look like a Republican or what? Fat, dumb and red.

Maybe he needs to ask himself: "on who's watch did
9/11 happen and why"?

The authoritarian conservative war on America

They say, if you don't support Bush, you're a Democrat who is giving "aid to the enemy," "invested in defeat," and "not supporting our troops." It is a partisan attack, 'us and them', where all Democrats are the enemy and in support of 'surrender.'

Did it ever occur to these authoritarians that lifelong Republicans - like military generals who'd seen a lifetime of military service have called the Iraq venture "a night mare without end" (Gen. R. Sanchez), and "the war in Iraq has fueled recruitment of violent Islamic extremists" (Gen. John Batiste). They also said about Bush: "there has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders" - Sanchez; and Bush has run a "failed strategy that is breaking our great Army" - Batiste.

Do these career Generals want to lose? Do they want to help the enemy? I can quote many more high ranking military that have spoken out. Included on this list are Generals Newbold, Eaton, Odom, Swannack, Zinni, Riggs, Clark and others. Many are life long Republicans. Below is a photo of General Charles Swannack, an Iraq vet and 30 year career soldier who spoke out against the incompetence of the Bush war plan. Does he look like a 'candy-ass liberal' invested in aiding the enemy?

And you Bush supporters have the balls to tell me I "don't support our troops"? If you support Bush, YOU certainly do not support the troops.

1. Bush sent in troops to Iraq with out adequate body armor or vehicle armor resulting in mass casualties including 320,000 brain injuries. A 2006 study showed that 80% of marines killed from upper body wounds would have survived, if they'd had adequate body armor.

2. Bush's "Stop-Loss policy" had prevented at least 50,000 troops from leaving the military when their service was scheduled to end - just since 2006.

3. Bush used National Guard troops for his surge that was overburdening units already stretched to their limits according to both Republican and Democratic governors.

4. Bush is sending troops in without adequate training. Two army brigades had to forgo their desert training to accommodate Bush's escalation schedule. Soldiers who were classified as medically unfit to fight are now being sent to war.

5. Bush has opposed pay raises for military, time and time again.

6. Bush proposed cutting funding for military housing and medical facilities. In the fiscal year 2004 budget the President Bush proposed spending nearly $1.5 billion less on these critical facilities than the previous year. (House Appropriation Committees)

7. Bush proposed rolling back increases for imminent-danger pay. Soldiers on the front lines recieve a small monthly payment as compensation for being placed in imminent danger. Bush proposed cutting this fee from $225 a month to $150 a month. (Army Times)

8. Bush eliminated aid to schools located on military bases. He sliced $125 million in federal subsidies for education children of troops. The cuts affected "about 900,000 children nationwide and 63 percent of children in military families." (Seattle Times)

9. Bush has said he would veto the Webb bill providing troops with increased education benefits. The first president in history to veto a benefits bill for those who served.

And you Bush supporters have the balls to tell me I'm "aiding the enemy"?

When a Government report flatly states that an al Qaeda attack is now likely because the Bush Administration has not met US security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the al Qaeda's safe haven. Further, the report states that the Bush Administration has no plans to eliminate this known terrorist threat.

87 months after Richard Clarke first insisted that the Bush Administration develop a strategy to combat Al Qaeda, 62 months after the Bush Administration announced its intention to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 45 months after the 9/11 Commission called for the Administration to develop a strategy to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 258 days after Congress required the Administration to submit a strategy to combat terrorist safe havens in Pakistan within 90 days, the GAO releases a report (pdf) finding:

No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the fight against terrorism has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007).

Result: al Qaeda is stronger than ever

If you support Bush, you are either a misinformed idiot, you buy the unreasonable fear that is peddled to control you, or you are an authoritarian ass-kisser whose only interests are to yourself and your politics, not to the well being of America or our military - your only interests are to save face because you are not man enough to admit you made a mistake by supporting an incompetent president who has severely damaged America. And all they can talk about is Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and the GOP swiftboat du jour... while trying to rationalize any & all failings of the Bush administration while they hide and tap dance - trying every way possible to avoid oversight, investigations, and accountability til time runs out in the term.

We must succeed in Iraq and with new and competent leadership, we can hopefully repair the damage of the Bush years, abandon the isolationist arrogant foreign policy and look to the world to build more partners in the war on terror. Gen Batiste has praised the recent gains in Iraq but notes: "Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery...tools yet sufficiently utilized." Without diplomacy, a willingness to reach out and a comprehensive world view, victory will be only temporary. This war should not have lasted this long and should not have been shouldered soley on the backs of our military. We have paid a terrible price due to the policies of GW Bush.

The swiftboating of Scott McClellan by people who haven't read his book

... like Bob Dole, Dana Perino, and GW Bush.

In typical Republican smear method of operation, Bushies are piling on Scott McClellan and attacking him personally without even considering the substance of what he is saying or even having read the book.

Why is this viewpoint which has been verified time and time again, by previous insiders, Clarke and O'Neil, by a documented Pentagon propaganda program, by military generals, why is this so hard for Bushies to admit or accept? From the book:

Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East. ... Rather than open this Pandora's box, the administration chose a different path -- not employing out-and-out deception but shading the truth; downplaying the major reason for going to war and emphasizing a lesser motivation that could arguably be dealt with in other ways (such as intensified diplomatic pressure); trying to make the WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable, than they were; quietly ignoring or disregarding some of the crucial caveats in the intelligence and minimizing evidence that pointed in the opposite direction; using innuendo and implication to encourage Americans to believe as fact some things that were unclear and possibly false (such as the idea that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program) and other things that were overplayed or completely wrong (such as implying Saddam might have an operational relationship with al Qaeda).

Yea, you can call him every name in the book, put up clever photoshops, link to websites that try to discredit McClellan through dubious circular reasoning (he lied then, must be lyin' now, follow the money, etc...), but in the final analysis, you have to listen to what he says and by every indication - he is 100% right. Unlike this post, you won't find links or substance in these attack posts. They don't document or refute anything, they just smear - pathetically, that's all they can do - carry out an authoritarian agenda.

I can't wait for more polling data to come out to show who is more believable, Bush or McClellan.

Who are the 28%ers?

Poll: Bush most unpopular in modern history

This is no surprise. This was confirmed by a Gallup Poll last week and reaffirmed in today's CNN Poll - except the CNN poll is even worse for the president. Bush is the most unpopular President in modern American history. This is part of his legacy that will go into the history books.

71% of Americans disapprove of how Bush is handling his job.
Only 15% think America is on the right track.

CNN:

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark." -- CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

What is surprising is that 28% of Americans still approve of the job Bush is doing. Both Nixon and Truman had lower approval ratings but never higher disapproval ratings. A stunning 73% see America on the wrong track, only 15% think the opposite.

Why do 28% still approve despite the direction of the country and Bush's multitude of failures? Who are these 28%ers and why do they think the way they do? I think I'd have to chalk it up to a number of things:

• A new breed of authoritarian partisans who care more about perceived principles they have formed based on insufficient or faulty information (a prime authoritarian characteristic). Stubbornly cult-like in their tenacity, they seem to put their 'personal principles' and perceptions above reality and what is good for America. Anyone who disagrees, they dismiss as the enemy, BDS, aiding the terrorists, etc.... Demographics reveal that these people are primarily white Christians. Studies have found Christian fundamentalists are often authoritarian by nature, and conservatives, stubborn by nature (failing to change habitual response patterns). Denial is very strong among those with this mindset.
  

• The concentrated misinformation campaign by the right wing media reinforcing false information already spewed by a lying administration. The latest - the vast Pentagon Analyst Program revealed to be nothing more than an expert propaganda program endorsed and operated by the Bush Administration. This is classic example of the weak-minded being manipulated by fear, 9/11 being the catalyst they keep coming back to.

You can tell who they are, they tend to be the least aware... only getting their 'news' from places like NRO, Hot Air, News Busters, Fox News, Little Green Footballs, etc... you can find a list in the sidebar of many 28%er bloggers. Many of them don't want to talk about politics. When engaged, they revert to fear-based discussions of jihad, the evils of the Koran, etc... It's not surprising that the huge Pentagon propaganda scandal or the GAO report showing the failure of Bush's war on al Qaeda never made it to the Drudge Report. Wonder why? That's called "fair and balanced" in Bushie authoritarian land.

Ned Williams: poster boy apologist - denialist of the Bush Administration's Constitutional violations

And he's a lawyer! If you've ever wondered how GW Bush can get away with so many Constitutional violations in this day and age, I present to you a case study: Ned Williams.

You would think a lawyer would have some reverence or respect for leading law experts and those that specialize in areas of Constitutional and International law. But no, the authoritarian streak runs too deep. This is compounded and strengthened by a seriously dogmatic fundamentalist Christian mindset.

What you have a psychological profile that combines:

1. Complete submission to authority
2. Abject denial
3. Suspension of professional logic and ethics where the world is filtered through a political/religious perception where the reality is: "either you're for us or you're against us."
4. A high degree of self righteousness
5. Rationalization and absolution from any and all failings of himself or his leaders gained in part through religious conviction (and his association with Bush to Christianity)
   

There are no shades of gray with such religious authoritarians and you might as well forget about ethics too. Ned could make a case for why Jesus would torture, spy, kill, or violate justice. Yet he's the first one to place his vote based on a Christian agenda of "protecting the zygote" but support his Christian hero president's war that has resulted in destabilizing a region resulting in mass suffering and mass murder. Stay the course because it is paramount to save face at any cost.

Can you imagine anyone in any profession denying, summarily refuting, and tossing off opinions of leading experts in their own field as invalid because they're a "bunch of Liberal(s)" ... with "a serious case of BDS."?

Case study:

I mentioned the irregularities of Bush signing statements that have reserved the right to subvert over 1100 federal laws. (In the previous 20 years before Bush there were only 327 such statements issued).

You would think Ned would have some respect for the American Bar Association - the world's largest association of legal professionals, the body that accredits the very law school that granted him his law degree.

By a unanimous vote of the American Bar Association Board of Governors, a Blue Ribbon Task Force was formed with a cast of legal all-stars from BOTH political parties to investigate the Bush abuse of powers. This ABA task force described the Bush use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as:

"contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".

When confronted with these findings that Bush had used signing statements to subvert laws such as the ban on torturing detainees, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, "whistle-blower" protections for federal employees, and safeguards against political interference in taxpayer-funded research (... to name just a few), and when put in perspective that Bush has attempted to subvert more laws than all previous presidents combined, how does a true-blue right wing religious authoritarian lawyer Ned Williams respond:

"What is the mental disorder that sees an impeachable offense behind every tree?"

and

"...you ought to realize that lining up a bunch of Liberal attorneys on a given legal position doesn't prove much of anything--except perhaps a serious case of BDS. "

Further, I cited the HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL on Bush's use of torture and detention:

"There are too many crimes and blunders to choose among. I will focus here on one central disaster, the use made of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and one egregious constitutional violation, the abrogation of habeas corpus."

-- Gerald L. Neuman, J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.

This is just one of many impeachable offenses of the Bush Administration, but none of these expert legal opinions are valid to a true Bushie authoritarian - even to a guy like Ned, smart enough to know.

So, if you ask, how is Bush able to get away with so many violations to law and the Constitution? Now you know the mindset that has made it possible - the type of mindset that remains oblivious to the potential consequences of the erosion of American democratic sovereignty.

Not alot of wisdom or deep thinking among authoritarians. They will either: deny, refuse to admit, blame someone else, or say 'they did it too'. That's about as deep as it goes. But, as we all know, the gig is up.

Al Czervic - "The Catskill Commentator" - conservative coward of the week

The Catskill Commentator blog wins this week's "conservative cowardly denialist comment deleter of the week." When I commented on his post, he couldn't handle the truth and deleted my comment. Al explained:

It’s amazing the amount of email this post has generated, and unprintable comments from crazed libs that I then delete for the sake of decorum.

Al gleefully posted on his blog a story highlighting this conservative red meat book, posing as a "study" by a so-called "eminent psychiatrist" - Lyle Rossiter entitled: THE LIBERAL MIND: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

First, looking at the elderly Dr. Rossiter's resume (pdf), you'll see he finished his medical degree in 1962, about the time lobotomies were being phased out. He completed his residency in psychiatry in the mid 60's. Since then, he reports just two pieces of research, one when he completed his residency in 1966 and one in 1991. This guy is not a researcher and certainly doesn't qualify as "eminent" by a long shot, particularly in the area of psychiatric research (except maybe to wingnuts like Al).

Rossiter's book seems specifically written for authoritarians who crave reinforcement of their ideology. Obviously, the good Dr. wanted a provocative book to sell in order to pad his retirement.

The Catskill Commentator didn't like the information I pointed out, particularly that this book was written as a pathetically weak, non-peer reviewed, unauthoritative response to two studies I cited. (See side bar for links).

One, the $1.2 million study by the US Government's National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as: a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

The other, A study by NYU and UCLA published in the Journal Nature Neuroscience shows liberals have a greater cognitive ability to problem solve and cope with changing conditions than conservatives who are more "persistent and structured" and are more reliant on "habitual responses." From the study:

"Liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern."

Essentially, conservatives tend to rely on ‘persistence’ in a ‘habitual response pattern,’ despite signals that this response pattern should change...

As I had mentioned in previous posts, denialism is a hallmark of authoritarian conservatism, as reported in Bob Woodward's book: State of Denial.

Here we see the Catskill Commentator illustrating these authoritarian tendencies:

Faulty reasoning: Uncritically accepting insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs. Uncritically trusting people who tell them what they want to hear.

Here's a complete list of such characteristics of authoritarians like Al Czervic, the cowardly comment deleter.

On his blog you'll also find such gems as:
LOW BLOW? HUSSEIN OBAMA SUED FOR THREATENING GAY DRUG USER
SLICK WILLY: WE MUST TRASH OUR ECONOMY –to save planet
COURT RULES SCHOOL CAN CHUCK LESBOS
PEACENIK SLIMEBAGS IN RETREAT-ADMIT DEFEAT

They just LOVE John McCain, their guns, war, and all things military, racist, anti-gay, anti-liberal, anti-education, anti-science, etc.... It goes to show you, dumb-ass bigot rednecks aren't exclusive to the rural south.
UPDATE:
Catskill Commentator posted a response to this post BUT DIDN"T EVEN have the balls to link to this blog. Dumb-ass coward. Note: this is how conservatives operate, when they can not understand or face facts, they employ denialism and surround themselves with 'yes men'. Sounds like Bush, doesn't it?

For Webutante and authoritarian religious conservatives, the First Amendment offers the right to denialism and ignorance

When a differing opinion is too factual, too convincing, too challenging to debate, just delete it. Denialism is a hallmark of authoritarian religious conservatives like Webutante. And she admits it:

“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Also a hallmark of Webutante.

I am flattered by your compliment and remain, happily, guilty as charged.

Unlike Webutante, I never delete comments on this blog. I am not threatened by her views or anyone else's as she is threatened by mine. This says a lot about her psychological profile and the political persuasion she subscribes to. (Bob Woodward wrote a book about it).

Ever notice how most college newspapers (like MTSU) provide opportunities for on-line comments on their stories and opinions? You won't find that opportunity at student newspapers at religious colleges like Liberty or Bob Jones Universities. Why? Because they are threatened by a diversity of opinion, a 'secular' world view, and just the plain old truth. Easier to live in a bubble and not answer to inconvenient truths. Right Webby? Just surround yourself with like minded wingnuts and refuse to learn anything.

The height of authoritarianism and abject denial: McClellan just wants to sell books

Unfreakin' believable!! Loyal apologists and authoritarian followers of GW Bush continue to fall in line and deny even his former Press Secretary, Scott McClellan's confirmation that he was passed lies by the Bush Administration to sell to the American people.

Think about this critically. A guy who spent his time as a loyal Bush staff member for 3 years is going to stick his neck out and essentially claim that Bush, Cheney and Rove committed treason ... so he can sell books? What makes makes this even more preposterous is that it was proven in a federal court that Cheney's highest ranking staff member lied and was convicted of perjury for protecting the White House liars. And now McClellan is lying too?

Doc at the Autopsy, (Mike from Wisconsin) a religious right-wing authoritarian conservative and loyal Bushie, global warming denialist, and rabid anti-abortion crusader, explains it all this way in the comments to his post:

"I’m thinking Scott McClellan is trying to sell books. ... It wouldn’t be the first time a former administration official stretched the truth to make themselves some money."

Of course Doc labels anyone that would actually believe Scott McClellan as "the rabid left." You've heard about this level of authoritarianism. "Doc" is a stunning example. Denial is an essential part of the culture of authoritarianism as clearly documented in the case of Bush. The demonization of all enemies (i.e. :"the rabid left") is another clear aspect of the psychological profile of religious right wing authoritarians.

Apparently Presidential Candidate Senator Chris Dodd is a member of the so-called "rabbid left" as he calls for an immediate investigation into the President's "fundamental betrayal of public trust."

"We need to launch an immediate investigation to determine the facts of this case, the extent of any cover up and determine what the President knew and when he knew it. If in fact the President of the United of States knowingly instructed his chief spokesman to mislead the American people, there can be no more fundamental betrayal of the public trust."

-- Presidential Candidate Senator Chris Dodd

In case you're unfamiliar with the concept of Bush cult authoritarianism, here's a good reference quote from conservative author John Dean:

"Devotion to authority and the movement's own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement."

-- John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience

More on Doc's cult of authoritarianism.

More on the psychological profile of Bush.

Regarding the whole Plame/Libby affair, you'd have to be pretty stupid or in denial to not see what was happening:


UPDATE:
A discussion on CNN

Cafferty: "...it doesn’t really seem to me like it’s breaking news that the administration, the White House, may have misled one of their own about something. After all, they’ve been lying to the rest of the country about a whole bunch of stuff for the better part of six and a half years. You remember when the story broke about the CIA agent and President Bush said I will fire anybody in the White House who was involved in compromising the identity of a CIA agent? Well, that was a lie wasn’t it? Because Karl Rove and Scooter Libby and some of those folks, they were up to their armpits in the compromising of Valerie Plame’s identity. so the President changed and he said I will fire anybody who is convicted of committing a crime in conjunction with the outing of a CIA agent. So I mean that place has turned into an oil slick a long time ago and I don’t believe a whole bunch of anything that comes out of there these days.

Borger: But what if he’s lied to Jack? What if somebody lied to the President?

Cafferty: Excuse me. Excuse me. The buck stops at the oval office. He’s in charge. It’s up to him to find out who’s telling the truth and who isn’t. It’s up to him to tell the American people what went on in his White House. It’s his, it’s his White House. It’s his White House.

Right wing authoritarians can't handle the truth - Terry Frank, Mark Albertini cowardly delete comments

Terry Frank on this post touts the global warming denialist, John Coleman. When I posted a comment stating the fact that Coleman is not a trained scientist nor has degrees in climatology and made his career as a "TV weather personality"... she deleted the comments. She also deleted my comment highlighting a Yale/Stanford study on the subject.

Mark Albertini from Chattanooga, TN State Senate Candidate completely disabled comments on his blog when reading comments I left despite the fact I allowed him the freedom to leave comments on my blog.

UPDATE: Albertini has resumed comments on his blog. He must have received my complaint or seen this post. (Site Meter shows a visit from his ISP/location Sun evening 11/11)
UPDATE II: Terry Frank has let my comment go through (after I called her on it). This is just one of several times she has deleted my comments, there is a long documented history of this - (see comments)


Question:
Why is it that conservative religious authoritarians can't handle the truth and delete comments? Why do you see so few liberal bloggers that similarly moderate and/or delete comments?

Answer:
Because ignorance is the ally of conservatives. Propaganda, spin, and half-truths are what they use to control people. What fuels authoritarians are their attacks and demonization of those who they deem as "the enemy" - often 'liberals.' Anyone who comes forward with inconvenient facts that dispute their tortured reality is an 'enemy.' They certainly wouldn't want people to know the truth, know the facts. So, they run from the truth.

You can see their tactic of manufacturing spin and division in society in everything from the Bush lies that brought us into war, the "Republican War on Science," the Fox News "War on Christmas," and the continued almost daily stoking of fear by the Bush Administration - a possible precursor to war with Iran.

Ever notice the fact than many conservatives these days "don't want to talk about politics?"

Why?

Because the truth remains uncomfortable for the supporters of the Bush regime, elected on a 'Christian moral values' platform that denies health care to kids, denies infrastructure repairs to US water projects, fosters an unprecedented culture of corruption, and starts a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

They call themselves 'conservatives' but support a president who has opened the floodgates to illegal aliens, and has fiscally ruined America. In just his first 4 years, the Bush Administration borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined, over a $TRILLION dollars - turning 4 years of Clinton surpluses into the largest national debt this country has ever seen and a dollar that is weaker than ever on the international market.

They don't want to hear the truth. It makes them uncomfortable so they choose their 'information sources' that tell them what they want to hear - Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the like. You won't find many of their blogs linked to standard main stream media sources (AP, Reuters, etc..) - they get their 'information' through the filter of 'Christian conservative' news organizations like WorldNetDaily, CBN, Cybercast - where you'll see ads for Ann Coulter hate books.

No wonder the Republican party is falling apart.