Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 3

So we’ve seen the Number 5 (Conservatives are fascists) and Number 4 (Conservatives are anti-science Neanderthals) lies that Leftists believe about conservatives, so let’s explore Number 3:

3: Conservatives are anti-government war-mongers.  A personal fave because what more clearly illustrates the inherent logical fallacy that denotes the majority of leftist thought than “anti-government war-mongers”?  Let’s get this straight, we hate government and don’t want any (they think/say/whine), but we, simultaneously (miraculously) want sufficient government to “police the world” and wage war on a whim (after all, if they can’t understand it, then it’s always insupportable, belligerent for the sake of belligerence (or oil), and “imperialistic”).  Uh huh, no contradictions there.

First, obviously, if we are Constitutional conservatives (and I am), then we (duh) support the Constitution, and the Constitution, in its turn, establishes our form of government.  Therefore, we support the form of government established by our Constitution (see how cleanly that works?  No faulty syllogism, no convoluted crap designed to obscure the obvious).  Our Constitution, of course, establishes a particular form of limited government, a form that leftists loathe because it doesn’t give them total control over every aspect of our lives (actually, our Constitution gives little control to the federal government and much more to the states and to the people), so to their tiny little minds, if we don’t want totalitarian control (the only type leftists like), we must be, have to be “anti-government.”

Clearly that’s not true, but they like to say it because it makes us sound . . . well, rather like they actually are (yes, more leftist projection.  As always).  Conservatives do believe in government (well, not in the Santa Claus kind of way that leftists believe in big government), but we think its powers should be, must be, limited in order to preserve individual liberty, and yes, even a moral sort of order that “infringes” on government’s right to dictate our religious, political, and other forms of free expression.

Far from being “anti-government,” we conservatives are very pro-government, even pro-authority–as long as that authority is limited and truly dedicated to American principles.  Conservatives support our troops; leftists don’t, not really, they make noises, but it’s more Code Pink-style than actual support of our guys’–and girls’–mission; they’re the ones who limit funding, tie our troops’ hands with ridiculous ROE, and otherwise handicap our troops’ ability to do their job.

They’re the ones who chant: “Kill the pigs” (and I can’t hear that without thinking Charlie Manson, it’s so evil and so ’60’s that it’s right in line with our current president’s destructive, divisive ideology . . . and with his past); they’re the ones who poop on cop cars, take cowardly pot shots at police, and otherwise provoke the police. Conservatives not only respect the police and military, but we actively support them. Leftists truly hate them, always have, always will.

Further, the notion that America is an “empire” is patently absurd.  America does not take land, rule peoples, or otherwise build an “empire,” much less one upon which the sun never sets.  No, we give back lands, we give the power to the people, and we leave.  Or if we stay, it’s merely as a base, a presence, not as an empirical ruler, demanding fidelity to the “empire” of America.  We don’t tax our “conquests” and new “commonwealths,” we don’t make them adhere to the laws of our land, we don’t demand that they recognize our president as their sovereign ruler, we don’t, in short, have, build, or maintain an “empire.”

Second, there’s the war-mongering thing.  Equally silly.  Conservatives tend to be “peace through strength” types who don’t run from the idea of war if and when it’s absolutely necessary.  We aren’t afraid, but we don’t like war, and we certainly don’t relish it as leftists purport.  Oh, we intend to win any war we get into, but that’s not the same thing.  Leftists, on the other hand, tend to create disastrous situations that can only be corrected by war; shunning peace through strength, they embrace peace through subservience, disarmament, and appeasement.  This never works.  Never has, never will.  But they keep doing it, weakening our position in innumerable ways and then wondering why we end up in another war.  Look at the mess that BO has made of the entire world (yes, the Middle East, but also empowering Russia, China, even Venezuela.  It won’t be pretty when it all blows up, and it will all be BO’s fault, the blood on his hands).

Republicans, historically, haven’t even “waged war,” at least no where near as often as have Democrats (and this before the Dems became nothing more than closeted communists).  Look at America’s larger 20th Century’s wars (and its not-wars, only Congress can actually declare war, and this hasn’t been done since World War II):

World War I: Democrat-controlled Congress, Democrat White House

World War II: Democrat-controlled Congress, Democrat White House

Korean War: Democrat-controlled Congress, Democrat White House

Vietnam War: Democrat-controlled Congress, Democrat White House

Gulf War (1991): Democrat-controlled Congress, Republican White House

Iraq War: Republican-controlled Congress (worth noting: only 1 Dem voted against it), Republican White House

Anyway, you get the picture.  The faux-pacifists who love to bash Republican leaders for “war-mongering” are actually the ones who embrace and actually create the conditions that make war inevitable; look no further than the utter silence from leftists about BO’s war in Libya and his on-going actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, throughout the Arabian Peninsula and who knows where else. Bush supposedly went to “war for oil” (even though we actually get more oil from Mexico and Canada than from the Middle East), but BO is not.  You know, somehow.

Leftists shriek for violence in the streets, the rape and murder of American citizens with whom they disagree, and every level of genocide imaginable, yet they have the audacity to point at conservatives as “war mongers” . . . and to, without the slightest bit of irony, use that to justify their own calls for violence, rape, slaughter.  It’s almost laughable.



26 thoughts on “Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 3

  1. you know, i hadn’t really realized who was in charge for the major wars in the 20th century. that is really helpful information, fuzzy. thanks for pointing that out!

    this also makes me wonder when that mysterious “switch” occurred between the republicans and democrats. because you know as soon as you point out these inconvenient truths (ha!) some lefty will say that the parties switched ideologies…at some point. or something.

    • It’s interesting to look back through our more recent history (before the leftists can claim that “change” in the parties they use to “justify” the Dems’ support for slavery, the KKK, and eugenics, etc.). And, of course, it’s more complicated. Look at the Iraq War, that, too, if you trace it back goes to a dem-controlled Congress, as does the War on Terror. If Clinton had responded adequately to the jihadist attacks on America, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, we would never have had a 9/11 (and let’s not forget his fun policies about home ownership and lending that led, directly, to the real estate bubble and the ultimate collapse of the real estate market.).

      The trouble with talking to leftists is that they don’t know either facts or history, they just babble “feel good” stuff while, bizarrely, spewing hatred and the desire to destroy (people, countries, whatever). That’s not to say that the ideologies didn’t, to some degree (think “compassionate conservative”), merge in both parties and that progs/commies didn’t creep into the GOP. They did. We’re just purging them. Heh. They call this an attack or some crazed, wingnut “takeover,” but we know better. It’s time to take our country, and its parties, back.

  2. Exceptionally well written and well-argued, Fuzzy!

    Progressivism’s heart is militant. They are the ones who started the “war on…” and other martial phraseology. And notice how pro-war they are now that their guy is in the White House. Barack Obama has killed more people than any other Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, including Yassir Arafat, and the left loves him!

    And you are so right on the empire subject. Two tiny countries, Panama and The Philippines, asked us to pack up our militaries and leave, and we did with no retribution.

    Doc Savage is right: Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    • I’m becoming more and more turned off by the clear partisan hackery of the left. The more things 0 does that Bush did, or worse things that he does, and the more the leftists defend him, the more apparent it becomes that they have no principles, no “core” as Santorum said of Romney. They don’t seem to believe in or stand for anything (beyond big government socialism and/or communism, and even that they adamantly deny, so can’t even be said to stand on that principle or set of principles.). It makes me more determined than ever to defeat them and their current Messiah.

  3. “It’s interesting to look back through our more recent history (before the leftists can claim that “change” in the parties they use to “justify” the Dems’ support for slavery, the KKK, and eugenics, etc.”

    The Democrats haven’t changed a bit. They’ve just discovered a new answer to ” How ya gonna keep them down on the farm?” All of LBJ’s Great Society, and the follow up programs since have only served to keep black Americans from realizing their potential and becoming active and productive citizens. The message is subtle but succinct. “You can’t compete without help from the government”, creates subjects to be ruled, not citizens to be respected.

  4. Fuzzy Girl, you hit another home run. We can probably look forward to being tested while this metrosexual is in the White House. We can only hope there’s someone in Washington to fend it off. We “war-mongers” will have a lot to do to clean this mess up after January.

    • Hopefully, President Romney will have the same effect that President Reagan did when he got into office and made it clear that he was no Jimmy Carter. And hopefully, we’ll send enough constitutional conservatives to DC to make a real difference.

  5. Excellent observations. I’ve decided the problem with liberals is they lack a sense of proportion. To be against overbearing government is to be for none at all. To be in favor of the existing government performing its constitutionally defined role to provide for the common defense is to be in favor of raping and pillaging villages all across the globe. To be critical gub’ment handouts that statistically go disproportionately to blacks is to be racist. Willing to tolerate in the civil society, but not personally “accept”, homosexuality in the civil society? You must be re-educated so they incur no risk of ever discussing the topic with you again. Think the EPA is over-reaching and tapping down economic activity. Well, obvious you “want” dirty air and dirty water. The list goes on …

    • Well put, LAS. This is such immature, juvenile thinking that it’s laughable. Reminds me of my 7 year old niece telling me I hate her because I wouldn’t buy her an ice cream the moment she wanted it. Yep, no ice cream this exact moment *must* mean I hate her. That’s how children think. And leftists.

  6. Oh, Sheesh!!! I didn’t update my reader and now I’m 3 posts behind. My bad! I’ll be back later to get caught up and will no doubt be linking you (and my reader has been updated! I hate it when that happens.)

  7. Pingback: Sunday Links: Facebook Friends Pics Volume 15 » Conservative Hideout 2.0

  8. And how about Joe Biden telling us Republicans that “We Don’t Get It” and telling us about the American Dream, and working hard to be successful?
    Well I have news for you Mr IDIOT! You DON’T GET IT! And neither do the idiots who put you in that office.

    • This is all part of the push to redefine the American Dream as only achievable through government (see 0’s ridiculously insulting “Julia” composite: a women dependent on government at every major stage of her life). They’ve been at this for decades, trying to subtly redefine it, declare it “dead” and resurrect it as some commie nightmare, but the push is full throttle now. Desperation? Last gasp before the boot comes down on our necks? Guess we’ll find out soon enough.

  9. Pingback: Buzz Links | I'm a Man! I'm 41!

  10. Yeah, I always get kind of amused by the contemporary “America the Empire” argument. America seems pretty much the only country that I know of that pays out massive amounts of cash and goods for the privilege of “ruling” over their allies, rather than collecting tribute. Weird actions for empires…

    But… this is a relatively recent phenomenon and has not been horribly consistent throughout America’s history.

    “Further, the notion that America is an ’empire’ is patently absurd. America does not take land, rule peoples, or otherwise build an ’empire,’ much less one upon which the sun never sets. No, we give back lands, we give the power to the people, and we leave.”

    Well… eventually and sometimes. There was the changing borders of Manifest Destiny. The US hung onto the Phillipines for quite some time. T. Roosevelt (as a Republican) supported and very likely orchaetrated Panama’s separation from Columbia so that the Panama Canal could be built, and the US maintained an overt presence in the newly made country for a very long time. The US has also exerted gunboat diplomacy within China (with many other foreign powers) for a good number of years, invaded Mexico in force during the 1840s and have occasionally militarily re-entered the country since. And there are many other historical examples.

    Yes, all of these incidents were a reasonably long time ago (by American standards) and my use of these as examples is not commenting on the morality or justifications of any of these actions. And these incidents do not, in any way, confirm the warmonger nature conservatives that the Left crow about. However, it’s important to acknowledge that these incident did happen, and that they do color other countries’ perceptions of us– which the American Left attempt to exploit (the “Obama the redeemer” b.s. from 2008 election for instance).

    As a side note, more recently the US has made population control a condition to receiving foreign aid (including relief funds for natural disasters such as famine aid). This is appalling. As far as I know, this was started under Lyndon Johnson in ’67. This would suggest a financial imperialism which is what some people on the Left mean when talking about Empire.

    Your peace through strength example is dead-on… as is the Left’s use of peace to simply be contrary to most recently the Iraqi wars and War on Terror.

    • Yukio!! OMG, are you back? I’ve missed you so much and hope so.

      There’s nothing at all new about “financial imperialism”; it’s been going on since at least the Roman Empire and probably long before. Early American presidents paid radical Islamists for the privilege of sailing safely on the open seas (until Jefferson put a stop to that when he became president); “strings” have been tied to foreign aid forever (remember what the French and Spanish wanted for their help before and after the American Revolution?). This is not uniquely American or even uniquely 20th- / 21st century. It’s the way it works. No country hands out money, expecting nothing in return. No country ever has or ever will.

      Frankly, I wish we were more careful about the foreign aid we hand out and what we require in return (remember the outrage a couple of years ago when the 0 administration dictated specific policy to Pakistan? That was typical leftist over-reach, and the outrage was justified. Normally, our “strings” are not so detailed, nor so dictatorial, but that’s not the leftist way.). I’d rather not give any aid than to include such requirements and restrictions . . . at least to our enemies. With countries like Haiti, corrupt to the core, we should have far more “strings” to ensure that the money actually reaches the people (it never does, as we saw all too clearly in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake; the money we’d been sending for years never went to infrastructure, to safety and protection of the people, or even into the economy.).

      That said, I have to agree that it is shameful that we have placed population control restrictions on foreign aid to some countries, but that is because, as a conservative and an American, I oppose all forms of population control; that’s the venue of lunatic leftists who want to control the world, and I find it abhorrent.

      You do realize, I think, that the rest of your examples are the result of leftist policies. Manifest Destiny was championed by Woodrow Wilson, evil progressive freak who supported eugenics, segregated our military because he loathed black people, and generally made a big government, propagandist mess of everything he touched. Manifest Destiny was a leftist nightmare that clearly reflects not only the superiority and horror of the leftists of the day but also that of today’s leftists who truly believe they can make humans “equal” by purging those who aren’t up to their standards. Needless to say, LBJ is not a great example of an anti-leftist Constitutional conservative; he was another progressive freak whose ideology ran counter to that of America’s founding. Screw your bootstraps, LBJ’s “Great Society” would pull you up (and push you down, see above comment to vibr re: his attitude to the Civil Rights Act). Ultimately, you’ve helped make the point of my post, so I thank you. (and am so glad to see you again! I miss your fabulous mind).

      • I missed you too, Fuzzy. No, I’m not really back. I doubt that I’m going to be blogging anymore, but I’m currently healthy enough to have a little time to cruise the internet again. It’s been a bad 10 mos. or so…

        Congrats on the new digs by the way. I should’ve mentioned it last time. I bet it’s very cool to finally be off google.

        I don’t understand the Manifest Destiny/ Woodrow Wilson thing. As I recall, Manifest Destiny was a 19th Century concept and had mostly to do with the Mexican-American War and the Westward Expansion. What’s the Wilson connection?

        My point was not to condemn Manifest Destiny. Frankly, I’m very glad that we live in a world shaped by America’s Westward Expansion and the Mexican-American War. My point is that the US HAS taken land and not given it back, imposed laws, collected taxes, etc.

        And certainly the US is not unique in financial imperialism. I was not suggesting that, nor that financial imperialism is a new concept. I’m just saying that America buying loyalty is a newer happening as compared to the 1840s. I’m also saying that the US uses this strategy regardless of Left or Right political leanings, and that this use is often sited as a justification for the American Empire concept. Financial imperialism is not an exclusively American-Leftist tactic, yet the Left exploit the anti-imperialist image to the hilt.

        And yes such meddling is inevitable when doling out foreign aid, but there are degrees. The US tying forced sterilization as a condition to famine relief (India 1967– LBJ again) is much different than expecting allies to support the US. And there is such a thing as a charitable donation. Should American relief for tsunami victims in SE Asia and Japan etc. be tied to fashionable American policies?

        “You do realize, I think, that the rest of your examples are the result of leftist policies. […] Needless to say, LBJ is not a great example of an anti-leftist Constitutional conservative; he was another progressive freak whose ideology ran counter to that of America’s founding.”

        Certainly I was not using LBJ as an example of a conservative. He was probably the most significant modern Leftist president.

        I think part of our disagreement is based on the definition of “Left.” I tie the term Left specifically to Marxiist theory. Far Left is conservative (sort of) Marxism (North Korea, Mao’s China, Soviet Union, etc.), Left is socialism incorporating Marx’s flawed economic theories which calls for value to be set by the product/service provider and a bureau regulating a largely centralized economy (note the overlap with Fascism btw, and thanks for posting about that. Do check out Gentile’s [credited to Mussolini] “The Doctrine of Fascism” . It attempts to very clearly spell out Fascism. My apologies if you linked to it in your post. I didn’t think that you did. Quick quote: “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State [hmmm], which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity.” Sounds like a real far-Right ideology, right? heh. Hegel screwed us all so bad…).

        Based on your historical examples, you seem to be tying Left to any form or wish for progress after the Constitution. That’s a Leftist’s (my definition) game and comes from a Marxist theory of history– History is made up of those who want to make things better (the Left or so they would have you believe) and those who resist any form of change (the Right). Thus Lincoln becomes a Leftist Democrat, all Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Act are Leftists (a larger majority then Dems), etc. And the Right become Southern Dems and the KKK. Cute, huh?

        I always remember my history prof. who outlined all of world in his little reader (it was actually only American and European history but he still called it “world” because I guess he felt those funny colored peoples shouldn’t count for anything in the world) according to his progressive versus conservative mentality. Thus he managed to tie Reagan together with Oliver Cromwell an example that he repeated endlessly– stupid comparison even by his own rules since Cromwell was overthrowing the Stuart monarchy and set up the short-lived Commonwealth of England which seems like an attempt at progression (his def.) to me, but that prof was a dumb a** anyway.

        I don’t believe you’re currently saying this, but you do seem to be edging into that interpretation of history. If one does it then they allow themselves to play the Left’s game according the Left’s rules. And there’s no way to beat the Leftist at their loaded game. They designed it ground up for them to win it.

        • It’s funny, Yukio, when I know you’re around, I’m more careful about what I say, how I say it. You’re good for me; I’ve let me critical thinking and writing skills atrophy, I’m afraid.

          I’ve written about this whole conservatives are fascists thing in this same series, but you are right to underscore the similarity here. I used to called leftists “liberals,” but I soon realized that was actually a huge mistake. The current (D) party, much of its base, and all of its rising stars are communists. There is no “left” as you seem to want to define it. Not any longer. Not now. We can piss up a rope all day (okay, maybe I, being a girl, cannot, even once, but you get the gist here), the bottom line is that there is no such thing, any longer, as a pro-America, anti-communist, pro-capitalist democrat. The few that hung on were either voted out in 2010 or they said they weren’t running again (and many more, now, are actually switching party affiliation.). That they were “othered” as “Blue dog democrats” was telling to those of us who understand how leftists work, how they think. Marginalizing patriotic, conservative Democrats by calling them something else was no mistake. You know this.

          You are right, too, about my Wilson-Manifest Destiny link being weak. All I meant was that Wilson, in true progressive fashion, quickly embraced Manifest Destiny, using it, much as 0 uses the Bible, to further his own ends. I don’t believe that he believed America was “fated” or that God insisted we take all of North America, that’s justification, explanation, defense. However, Wilson most certainly was a Manifest Destiny kind o’ guy . . . when it suited him. He was a disgusting political hack tool just like BO, so it was fun for him to ramble on about what God or fate wanted while simultaneously dreaming up crazed methods for ensuring what he wanted happened.

          I disagree that we can’t beat leftists at their own game; sure they made the game, wrote the rules, but it’s not like we are drooling morons and can’t read Alinsky for ourselves. There is absolutely nothing complex about leftist “thought,” it’s barely classifiable as “thought,” actually. Oh, we can warble all day about “nuance,” but at rock bottom, leftists are incapable of free thought and reason; they cannot put two and two together and come up with four. They get five. And sometimes six. They can have a two, which they subsequently deem a victim, then they add that to the government, which they deem the purveyor of “justice” (name that justice: social, green, economic, whatever, it’s all, at rock bottom, the same damn thing), toss in some unfair “specials” for minorities and other victims, and then they come up with five. And if you don’t like it, they take that victim, add the racist or otherwise unfair “equalizer,” and then add constitutional liberty to the mix (usually with invented crap like “separation of church and state”) and magically, as if infused with koolaid, come up with six. Totally nuts. Take “hate crimes,” do we really need a stronger sentence for beating a gay person than for beating a straight person? Do we really need assault, rape, whatever to be somehow “worse” if it’s committed with “hate”? It’s bizarre, stupid, insulting. I’m a white girl, so if I get raped, it doesn’t matter so much? Seriously? How does that work?

          Anyway, I’m babbling. As usual. So good to see you 🙂

          • Ah Fuzzy, it’s always nice to read your work. And I’m honored to be your critical thinking / writing skills… I don’t know… demon, I suppose. You keep me on the hop as well Fuzzy. And I’ve missed these conversations with you too. : )

            Actually I was defining Left as being Marxist, which you were as well. Correct?

            But when I was talking about the “Leftist game” I was referring specifically to the idea of history being made up of progressive movements and conservative efforts to retard “progress.” That view is Marxist, inspired by Hegel’s theory of a “planned” history. It’s a fundamentally flawed view of history, and it’s pointless to use it or battle Leftists with it. You simply have to attack the fundamental concept of it, namely that history is essentially planned, basically moves forward, and moves toward a specific and inevitable political end that is somehow defined and humanly knowable.

            I hate the “hate crimes” thing too, It’s total b.s. from the beginning and has all sorts of unintended consequences as well.

            • My next post in this series rambles on about Marxism and leftist “thought,” so be sure to catch that one. You’re quite right–of course :)–that it’s all rooted in Marx, that they truly believe in their own sort of “fate,” that everything will happen just as they expect it to, that it’s inevitable, that it’s been designed (but we’re the nutjobs who believe in God or a Higher Power).

              As to the hate crimes and unintended consequences thing, I think there is one totally intended consequence: to have two sets of laws, one for the minority (so-called) and one for the majority, with crimes against white people (and other undesirables like Christians, Jews, and conservatives) being treated as less serious, even unimportant. Heck, Holder’s DOJ has been accused by former DOJ attorneys of literally refusing to prosecute crimes committed by blacks against whites (and look at the NBPP voter intimidation thing). These people are racist, truly so, and evil (I know you hate that word, but it’s so true here).

              As an aside, I’m not sure why your comments keep getting stuck in moderation. I have it set to allow comments after the commenter has been approved once. 😦 I’ll try to figure it out, though. I’m really so enjoying “seeing” you again. Yay!

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s