Conservatives are not necessarily Constitutionally literate

Conservatives are so-called Constitution defenders. We haven't had much for protection of the Constitution for over 70 years. I know it really started in the 1800's. With the decision of Abraham Lincoln to attack the seceded states. They seceded from the Union, legally, before they were attacked by the United States(the north). If you don't believe me, do some research yourself. The Republican party have been the original national abolitionists. But there was John Brown, who the US had quelled(killed). The Republicans are not interested in the Constitution. Prove to me that they don't want the Patriot Act. The so-called War On Drugs is an abomination. Now the War On Terror has our government spying and interrogating, without cause, regular citizens and at check-points not designated by nor allowed by the Constitution. We are being attacked by the same people that swore to defend our Constitution. We are required to have a gun license, a marriage license a farm fresh food permit, and a business license.

Attempted Terrorist Attacks

Starting the timeline at 9-11 is how the War on Terror is promoted. If we are to counter the misnomer that "the terrorists attacked us first" we need to start the historic timeline before 9-11.

This is what I say to moderates or conservatives in an attempt to counter that misnomer:

In the 2000 election one of the major presidential candidates criticized the foreign policy of the previous administration (Clinton's) by saying that "our soldiers shouldn't be used for what's called nation-building" and "policing the world" and "if we go around the world telling other people what to do, they will resent us".

That is exactly what the foreign policy of the 1990s (and earlier) was all about, and many people in other countries DID resent the US for "policing" their countries and "telling them what to do".

Saddam Hussein was encouraged and helped by US intelligence in his war with Iran from 1980-88. US (and Soviet) weapons helped Saddam stay in power by suppressing minorities in Iraq (Kurds and Shi'ites). Once he consolidated power, he invaded Kuwait after a US diplomat said that the US wouldn't object.

Instead of letting Arab countries remove Saddam, the US pushed the UN to sanction the Persian Gulf War (an undeclared war that left Saddam in power). This resulted in US military bases in Saudi Arabia (that remained long after the Gulf War was supposedly over), along with a lot of "telling other countries what to do", "policing" their Muslim holy sites and the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, and the occasional bombing of Baghdad in the 1990s.

Don't forget the intervention in Somalia to secure the UN's humanitarian mission in 1992, which was ramped into a "nation building" scheme in 1993. The 'Black Hawk down' incident turned the country against that blunder, and most of the troops came home, but then came the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo for the rest of that decade. All of those were "policing the world" and "nation-building" schemes to help the "poor helpless Muslims join the 20th Century", as Clinton and the national press corps repeated ad infinitum.

But some of them didn't want "our help" and resented the arrogance of outsiders to "tell them what to do" and station our troops on their land, aiding corrupt dictators (Mubarak) and monarchs (Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait and the Saudis) and meddling in their internal affairs.

Some of them resented the US enough to attack the US government embassies in East Africa and the US military in the Middle East (Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and USS Cole in Yemen). And then, around the time of the 2000 election, 19 of them were already in the US, working on their plan to fly planes into the WTC towers on 9-11.

The "resentment" had already boiled over into a few attacks on the US abroad. But even though that 2000 presidential candidate was not sincere about changing the policy (he responded by expanding it, instead) we now have a presidential candidate that not only makes the same statements, but has a proven record of voting for a "humble foreign policy" of "no nation-building" and "no policing the world".

------

People are tricked into thinking that someone saying something is the same as them doing it. They remember Bush saying those things in the 2000 elections, and they foolishly assume that "he tried it and it didn't work; 9-11 happened".

Sadly, you can't make people think, but you can keep trying to talk sense until you find people willing to listen and think. And keep trying different ways to explain things if people don't understand your first try. Resist the temptation to dig in your heels if people don't get it at first.

We (in the r3VOLution) have plenty of knowledge and information.

Unfortunately we have too little wisdom.

There is a huge difference between the two.
by Cliff Hutchison comment: Antiwar Conservatives: on Facebook, under John Lofton's post, "Attempted 'Terrorist' Attacks"

Our Constitutional right to seceed.

Our government was designed to withstand many types of friction. Secession was in the law for a reason. If the Civil war hadn't happened, then I contend, we would have gone further than we had as it refers to slavery and race relations. We were leaning hard that way already. Blacks were already in government and elected office at that time. I feel deeply the loss of many lives. The slaughter of fine men who died for or against secession. A law in the Constitution.

Immigration remedies for our Arizona Illegal Alien laws

This is a perfect example of trickery. National Identification Cards were opposed by most Americans until now. Look at what is sparked. The federal government has been waiting for a state like Arizona to do this. Now we will want ID's for everyone. We only need to patrol the borders and keep the illegal out at the line. Now we have 100 mile safe zones from the borders where the illegals will be tolerated. All due to the policies of the last 4 presidents.
I say safe zones because our I.C.E. is set up in the strangest locations and if legal ESL Americans do not carry their papers at all times, they may also get deported. Why should anyone free, be required through checkpoints. Can't you see tyranny?
We should be working the borders and securing it with our guns. We should be eliminating all red tape for naturalization of all responsible world citizens who want to become citizens.
Work visas are abused and ignored. We don't need them to extend past 1 month. We also don't need to be wishy-washy with our border.

I was hoping for change that we can believe in

In the election process when the primaries were tallying and it became apparent that Mike Huckabee would not have enough delegates in a state(I don't recall which one). Instead of allowing another conservative candidate to get his votes and delegates, he placed his support for John McCain. He should have given the delegate votes to either Mitt Romney or better yet, he should have given his support to Ron Paul a true conservative. I hold the loss to the Democratic candidate, squarely on the shoulders of first, Mel Martinez, Mike Duncan and then Governor Huckabee. Barrack H. Obama has an agenda that will be the undoing of the Constitution, if left to his plans. And we have a mess to clean up with the amount of non-conservative Republicans. We have little to work off of, since the constitution is hanging by a tiny little thread. All due to weak and useless representatives and candidates. A real true patriotic black candidate, if that is what we really wanted, hands down, would have been Alan Keyes. At least he loves our Constitution.