The unbearable whiteness of being liberal

By Ben Crystal

The unbearable whiteness of being liberal 

White people are bad. I know this because the Democrats have devoted an inordinate amount of time informing Americans that white people are responsible for everything that ails our great nation. When white men aren't raping women on their way to the Supreme Court, they're stepping on black people's heads to get there. And it's not just the white men who are to blame. According to quite a few of the Democrat/media complex's spokesholes, the successful confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh proves white girls are spreading plenty of misery on their own. The New York Times charged "white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain." Rolling Stone blasted white women for "a new 21st century version of Jim Crow." And Islamofascist hate group fuhrer Linda Sarsour, who continues to be the Women's (sic) March leader despite her affinity for removing women's genitals, shrieked that Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) vote to confirm Kavanaugh makes her "a traitor to women." 

OK, so having established that white people, of either gender, are the devil incarnate, I have a question: Why am I still seeing Hillary Clinton everywhere? A septuagenarian multimillionaire who built her entire career on her husband's coattails seems like a poor choice to continue bearing the standard of a political party which considers old white people to be bipedal viruses. And given Madame Clinton's husband's history of sexual assault, I would have ranked her higher than Susan Collins on the "traitor to women" scale. And yet, there she is, jet-setting around America with Bubba on her arm; charging close to $1,000 a head to watch her do it.

While the "Lady MacBeth of Little Rock" doesn't appear to be considering a reboot of her disastrous 2016 presidential campaign, likely because she doesn't want to take the pay cut, the roster of aspirants from the "Down with Whitey" party is pretty damned pale. According to a CNN poll released Sunday, the leading challenger to President Donald Trump's re-election is — an even older white person than Nana Hilldawg. Leading the libs by a nearly 20-point margin is former Vice President Joe Biden, all 75 grope-y years of him. In second place is the only other candidate to climb into double digits: 77-year old Senator Bernie Sanders (Communist – VT). A few nonwhite names, Senator Kamala Harris (LOL-Californistan), Senator Cory Booker (D- SPARTACUS!!) and even Eric Holder (D-Sinaloa Cartel) pop up in the also-rans section, but they're stuck rubbing shoulders with crusty old palefaces like John Kerry and Michael Bloomberg. Holder is even outpointed by fake Latino, and real drunk driver, Rep. Robert Francis O'Rourke (D- "Beto"-ville).

We just finished a week in which Kanye West's visit to the White House sent liberals into such a racist meltdown, they did everything but burn a cross on the lawn. At one point, CNN analysts actually questioned whether West, who strikes me as kindred spirit to Trump — self-obsessed, kinda boorish, but undeniably successful — knew how to read. This from the same people who thought it was the coolest when Obama had some yuks with a lady who got famous for taking a bath in milk and breakfast cereal.

The left have proclaimed themselves the African-American's true defender, but any who step out of line are subjected to psychiatric diagnoses by reporters whose medical knowledge is limited to the homeopathic section at the Whole Foods. Serious people, including Secretaries of State, U.S. Senators and Supreme Court justices who don't toe the racial line set by liberals are mocked, ignored and/or targeted for the kind of bigoted hatred that would make Hillary's mentor, Senator Robert Byrd (Grand Dragon – WV), turn whiter than his Sunday-go-to-cross burnin' sheets.

And yet, atop their molehill, Hillary Clinton stands as queen, with Joe Biden as crown prince. I guess that makes Bernie Sanders the court jester. After all the hate, all the racial division and all the violence, the Democrats are led by the nose into the political arena by a bunch of rich, old, white people. 

Judicial Watch Uncovers More Classified Material on Hillary Clinton’s Unsecure Email System

New emails appear to be among those Clinton had attempted to delete or had otherwise failed to disclose

Federal Court Hearing Scheduled for Thursday, October 11, to discuss documents State Department continues to hold, review possible Judicial Watch challenges

From Judicial Watch October 2018

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it received 288 pages of newly uncovered emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that were transmitted over her unsecure, non-“state.gov” email system, three of which contain classified information.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on May 6, 2015, after the State Department failed to respond to a March 4, 2015, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)) seeking:

All emails sent or received by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in her official capacity as Secretary of State, as well as all emails by other State Department employees to Secretary Clinton regarding her non-“state.gov” email address.

The documents are part of an accelerated schedule of production ordered by U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg, which required the State Department to complete processing by September 28, 2018, the remaining documents of the 72,000 pages recovered by the FBI in its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit email server. These new classified and other emails appear to be among those that Clinton had attempted to delete or had otherwise failed to disclose.

Classified information was sent in a January 26, 2010, email from Jake Sullivan, Secretary Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, to Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin explaining that he has “pasted” (his word) from another document a written summary sent to him from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair’s conversations are with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Irish leaders regarding the sensitive Northern Ireland peace process.

Also included is a classified April 8, 2010, email from secret Clinton adviser Sid Blumenthal (who was barred from a State Department position by the Obama administration and regardless continued to advise Clinton on matters of state) about the change of government in Kyrgyzstan.

And the emails include a classified June 13, 2009, email from Sullivan to Clinton and aide Cheryl Mills regarding Sullivan’s discussions with Northern Ireland leaders.

The new documents obtained by Judicial Watch also show Hillary Clinton being given speech-making advice by Blumenthal. They reveal a potential conflict of interest between the Clintons. They also contain information about a CIA team killed by al Qaeda:

• In a January 24, 2008, email from Clinton aide (and later 2016 presidential campaign manager) Robby Mook to Maggie Williams and Mills regarding staffing of the State Department, Mook describes seven categories of applicants on a spreadsheet, and includes the category “Friends and Family.”
• A November 6, 2009, email from Hillary Clinton speechwriter Tomicah Tilleman to Sullivan details a memo Blumenthal sent to Secretary Clinton containing suggested material for a planned speech in Berlin. Tilleman wrote: “Due to the need to produce the second Atlantic Council speech, we’re just going to run with Sid’s draft. Megan’s in the process of cleaning it up and cutting it down.”
• In a December 30, 2009, email exchange, senior adviser Phillippe Reines disclosed to Clinton and Abedin that the seven individuals killed in an al Qaeda attack in Khost, Afghanistan, were in fact CIA personnel. The CIA had been trying to keep this fact secret. Reines wrote: “To the extent it’s currently being reported, they are being identified as DOD personnel, not Agency.” He goes on to say that CIA Director Leon Panetta’s chief of staff, Jeremy Bash, told Reines that “The details are thin and he [Bash] couldn’t get into specifics on an open line, but they believe the contact they met with set them up and was either carrying the explosive or detonated it.”
• On June 28, 2009, Bill Clinton’s aide Justin Cooper emailed Hillary Clinton, with a copy to her household assistant Oscar Flores, edits made by Bill Clinton to a speech Hillary was to give at the Council on Foreign Relations. Cooper blind-copied Cheryl Mills on the email. Mills forwarded it to Sullivan with the warning: “I was BLIND COPIED ON THIS SO DO NOT FORWARD ETC.” Bill Clinton’s involvement raises conflict of interest questions, as he was heading up the Clinton Foundation at the time.
• In a February 14, 2009, email exchange, Sullivan apologized to Hillary that it took so long for him to respond to some of her emails, saying in his subject line “Again apologies — not sure why these emails just arrived.” Secretary Clinton had sent her last message to Sullivan at 2:26 p.m. that day, and Sullivan replied at 8:09 p.m., suggesting the email was down for six hours. Hillary replies: “Thanks for both responses. Huma told me State email was down so that may account for the delays.”
• In a March 21, 2009 email to Sullivan and aide Jack Lew, Secretary Clinton noted that under the Obama Fiscal Year 2010 proposed budget, with projected deficits of $1 trillion per year and 5-6% GDP, the United States “wouldn’t be able to join the EU.”

“We continue to uncover the mishandling of classified information in Hillary Clinton emails that she tried to hide or destroy. This is further evidence of the urgency for the DOJ to finally undertake a complete and legitimate criminal investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Attorney General Jeff Sessions should immediately order a new investigation of the Hillary Clinton email scandal.”

Last year, the FBI uncovered 72,000 pages of documents Clinton attempted to delete or did not otherwise disclose. Until the court intervened and established a new deadline of September 28, 2018, the State Department had been slow-walking the release of those documents at a rate that would have required Judicial Watch and the American people to wait until at least 2020 to see all the releasable Clinton material.

Hillary Clinton repeatedly stated that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in another Judicial Watch case, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”

In a hearing on Thursday, Judicial Watch will report the estimated number or percentage of withheld information it intends to challenge.

A hearing in federal court is scheduled:

Date:               Thursday, October 11, 2018

Time:               10:00 a.m.

Location:        Courtroom 25

     U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

     333 Constitution Ave NW

     Washington, DC 20001

To read all press releases related to this case click here.

Judicial Watch Sues ATF for Records About Obama Administration Attempt to Restrict AR-15

OCTOBER, 2018  From Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), a component of the Department of Justice, for 1,900 pages of records about a proposed reclassification that would effectively ban certain types of AR-15 ammunition as armor-piercing (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02218)).
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the agency failed to respond to a May 14, 2018, FOIA request for the 1,900 documents about the Obama administration’s AR-15 ammo ban efforts. The documents include ATF talking points about the “Armor Piercing Ammunition Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” and other records discussing ammunition classification.

The lawsuit is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s more than three-year effort to obtain documents from the ATF. Judicial Watch discovered the document cache in separate litigation on the ammo ban issue.
In March 2015, more than 200 members of Congress wrote to former ATF Director B. Todd Jones to express their “serious concern” that the proposal to reclassify the ammunition types as armor-piercing may violate the Second Amendment by restricting ammunition that had been primarily used for “sporting purposes.” The ATF’s move “does not comport with the letter or spirit of the law and will interfere with Second Amendment rights by disrupting the market for ammunition that law abiding Americans use for sporting and other legitimate purposes,” the letter said. The ATF subsequently halted its efforts.
The precise statutory definition of armor-piercing ammunition can be found in 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(17).
“Simply put, the ATF refuses to comply with federal open records law,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The ATF has withheld records for over three years concerning the Obama administration’s shady attempt to institute gun control by restricting ammunition instead of guns.”

Government Economists Offer Window Into What a Socialist US Economy Would Look Like

By Fred Lucas the Daily Signal

If the United States were to adopt the socialist policies of Venezuela, the move would slash the economy by 40 percent—or $24,000 per year for the average American, according to a report by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“Coincident with the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’s birth, socialism is making a comeback in American political discourse,” says the council’s report, “The Opportunity Costs of Socialism.”

“Detailed policy proposals from self-declared socialists are gaining support in Congress and among much of the electorate,” the report continues.

The report specifically cites so-called “Medicare-for-all” proposals, which essentially would be a single-payer health care program. The study found that if Medicare-for-all were financed out of current federal spending—without additional borrowing or tax increases—it would eat up more than half of the entire federal budget.

That would require drastic cuts in Social Security and in national defense to pay for it, said Kevin Hassett, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday.

Further, the report states, if the Medicare-for-all plan were financed through higher taxes, the gross domestic product would fall by 9 percent, or about $7,000 per person in 2022, because of the high tax rates that would reduce incentives to supply the factors of production.

Venezuela, where the economy is falling apart, is a profound example of what can happen under socialism, Hassett said.

“When you have a breakdown in the rule of law, and you take away private-property rights, it’s not unusual to have a pattern of destabilization,” he said. “When you undermine property rights, it undermines stability.”

Citing the worst examples, the report refers to Mao-era China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union, which nationalized the agriculture industry and caused tens of millions of deaths by starvation.

Asked about current-day China’s strong economic growth, Hassett said that’s due largely to a “hybrid” within its economy that allows private property and market forces in the parts of the economy that are most successful.

Even if the United States adopted the less-repressive socialist policies of Nordic countries—Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland—it would mean a 15 percent lower standard of living, the council’s report says.

The Nordic countries in some areas are less regulated than the United States, the report says.

“Marginal labor income-tax rates in the Nordic countries today are only somewhat higher than in the United States, and Nordic taxation overall is surprisingly less progressive than U.S. taxes,” the report says.

“However, the Nordic countries do regulate and tax labor markets somewhat more; thus, American families earning the average wage would be taxed $2,000 to $5,000 more per year net of transfers if the United States had current Nordic policies,” the report continues. “Living standards in the Nordic countries are at least 15 percent lower than in the United States.”

However, in the 1970s, the Nordic countries had more restrictive socialist policies. If the U.S. adopted the Nordic policies of that era, the gross domestic product would be about 20 percent lower, according to the council’s report.

Voters Say Government Should Stop Hondurans At the Border

Voters Say Government Should Stop Hondurans At the Border

RASMUSSEN

Voters agree with President Trump’s efforts to stop the horde of Hondurans marching through Mexico from entering the United States illegally.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the U.S. government should stop all the Hondurans headed this way from entering the country. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree and say the government should allow them to enter temporarily until each of their cases can be individually reviewed. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This is nearly identical to findings in April when another caravan of Central Americans was moving through Mexico toward the United States.

Ninety-three percent (93%) of voters who Strongly Approve of Trump’s job performance want all the Hondurans kept out. Among those who Strongly Disapprove of the job the president is doing, 69% think the migrants should get case-by-case reviews.

Eighty percent (80%) of all voters have been closely following news reports about the Honduran group that is coming here illegally, with 46% who are following Very Closely. By comparison, 88% were closely following news reports about the Senate confirmation hearings of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, with 66% who were following Very Closely. 

Among voters following news reports about the Honduran caravan Very Closely, 61% think they all should be stopped.

Rasmussen Reports invites you to be a part of our first-ever Citizen-Sourced National Midterm Election Polling Project. Learn more about how you can contribute.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 21-22, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Voters continue to believe illegal immigration is a major problem, and few feel the government is doing enough to handle it.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans and 53% of voters not affiliated with either major political party say the government should stop all of the Hondurans. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats think they should be allowed in temporarily until their cases are reviewed.

Republicans are following news reports about the Honduran march more closely than Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

Men feel more strongly than women that they all should be prevented from entering the United States illegally. Those under 40 are more supportive of a case-by-case review than their elders.

Blacks are more welcoming to the Honduran migrants than whites and other minority voters, but they are also following news reports about them less closely.

For Republicans, illegal immigration is the most important issue in the upcoming elections, although this survey was taken before the Kavanaugh controversy.

Most voters think it’s better for the United States to tightly control who comes into the country.

Right now, voters think it’s easier for illegal immigrants to get into the United States and stay here than in much of the rest of the world.

The Republican-led Congress has produced yet another big spending bill that fails to fund the president’s border wall even though a sizable majority of GOP voters supports the project.

Most voters (52%) think illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget, and 45% believe illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

A Rape Survivor Just Won the Nobel Peace Prize. ‘Feminists’ Are Nowhere to Be Found.

From the Daily Signal

By Kelsey Harkness

A Rape Survivor Just Won the Nobel Peace Prize. ‘Feminists’ Are Nowhere to Be Found.

As feminists were busy peddling their “War on Women” narrative in the U.S., Yazidi sex slave survivor Nadia Murad was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting a real War on Women in the Middle East.

Nadia was honored for her efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, together with Dr. Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who has been a relentless healer and advocate for women.

Their stories serve as an important reminder that as American women debate what constitutes enough evidence to block a nominee from taking a seat on the Supreme Court, corroboration and evidence are abundant in places such as northern Iraq, where hundreds of women and girls are still enslaved and routinely subjected to rape.

Nadia was abducted in northern Iraq in August 2014, when ISIS took over her village. Militants gave the Yazidi people—a Kurdish and Arabic-speaking religious minority—two choices: Convert to Islam or die. Refusing to give in, Nadia watched men get massacred and family members march to their graves.

At just 21 years old, she was kidnapped alongside an estimated 3,000 other Yazidi women and girls, traded as sex slaves from one ISIS fighter to another. She was forced to pray, dress up, and apply makeup in preparation for her rape, which was often committed by gangs.

While any comparison between Nadia’s story and the accusations leveled against newly minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would be completely unfair, it is fair to wonder how news of uncorroborated allegations of gang rape brought by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti can overshadow a gang rape survivor-turned-women’s advocate being honored with the most prestigious award in the world.

For years, it seemed the world didn’t care about Nadia’s story and the thousands of others like it. It took two years for then-Secretary of State John Kerry to declare crimes against Yazidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims genocide, and the United Nations as well.

Thousands of Yazidis remain missing, including at least 1,300 women and children, and the question of how to hold ISIS accountable for its unspeakable crimes remains unanswered.

Nadia is a lonely voice in the fight against ISIS genocide. After making the genocide designation, the Obama administration did little to hold ISIS accountable for its crimes or to alleviate the suffering of survivors. The Trump administration is trying to right those wrongs by providing aid to the most vulnerable victims of ISIS genocide, but a lot of work remains to be done.

“The world should bear its moral and legal responsibility and ensure its proper and fair accountability,” Nadia said as she accepted her Nobel Peace Prize. “The sexual violence and conflicts in our towns and cities must be stopped.”

AFP news agency

✔@AFP

VIDEO: Nobel Peace Prize winner Nadia Murad wants to see members of the Islamic State jihadist group face justice -- not death, but trial in a courtroom

7:45 AM - Oct 9, 2018

• 463
• 268 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

It’s strange how women who self-identify as feminists get so worked up over unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault, yet so callously overlook human rights injustices staring them in the face.

Imagine the difference these “feminists” could make if, in addition to banging on the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, they also took a few minutes to bang at the doors of the United Nations.

In the #MeToo era, feminists are rightly concerned about women being heard. It appears that Nadia’s with them, too.

“My hope is that all women who speak about their stories of sexual violence are heard and accepted, that their voices are heard so they feel safe,” she said.

But Nadia’s story is falling on deaf ears. Because being “heard” requires others to listen.

Listening to a Nobel Peace Prize winner whose mission is to bring back life after being destroyed by sexual violence and war is the least feminists can do as the freest and most liberated women in the world.

Sure, it’s easy to get caught up in the moment. There’s certainly no shortage of issues to debate. But it’s our job as feminists to look beyond ourselves and realize that Nadia’s fight is our fight, no matter what’s happening here in the U.S.

Are Republican politicians on our side?

Are Republican politicians on our side? 

(This is the first installment of a four-part series on how conservatives should view the upcoming national midterm election. We will publish subsequent installments each Monday between now and Election Day.)

If the Republican politicians are our friends, who needs enemies?

There is a common theme in discussions with conservative friends who believe that Republican politicians — particularly those residing for very long in the District of Criminals — are cowards or become cowards who are afraid to stand up for conservative causes. It's also a message regularly delivered by Republican-loving scribes and talking heads who claim to be conservatives. 

An example of this trope appeared this week recently on the website American Greatness. Author Brandon J. Weichert writes:

There are times I forget the Republican Party won the 2016 election. The reason is simple: because most of the establishment GOP continues the loveable loser act. The Republicans appear to be appealing to some invisible referee who will wade into the great debate between those on the American Right and those on the Satanic Left and adjudicate the arguments fairly... If elected Republicans stood together the way the Democrats somehow manage, there is no policy that the GOP could not push through. Yet the Republicans struggle because their leadership is weak and malleable.

The Republican Party has well earned the appellations from conservative voters the "Loveable Loser Party," "the Stupid Party," the "Coward Party" or "weak" — all terms I've heard or seen used by Republican voters — based on its abandonment of moral and genuine conservative principles as well as its inability to lead in Congress. Not that the Democrats are any better, mind you, because their claims to morality and principle are even more ludicrous!

The abysmal Republican failures in Congress, most notably their inability to repeal Obamacare, unwillingness to reduce government size and spending and fumbling over the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court seem to give weight to the premise. But this is a page right out of Republican Party politics 101, which promises conservativism to its followers but delivers unmitigated collectivism.

Republican politicians, for example, profess pro-Christian, anti-big government ideals but join the Democrats in faith-destroying, socialist legislation to expand the welfare state. The Republicans are not stupid, fickle or cowardly, they are hypocrites. They are not more effective, much less more trustworthy, than the Democrats in preserving your liberty. Republicans have long claimed to have the corner on genuine conservatism, much as Democrats claim to have the corner on genuine liberalism. Both claims are untrue but are perceived as true thanks to mass deception. Today's conservatism and liberalism are but twin pincers of the same, dynamic, ever-changing, collectivist dialectic.

I want to limit my examination to the conservative side of the problem because today's pseudo-conservatives are particularly adept at leading astray large numbers of middle-class Americans, especially Christians, patriots and other good folks. Also, if not for the consistent acquiescence of Republican "conservatives" to the collectivist agenda, America would have retained its limited, constitutional Republic, even in this "sophisticated" day and age.

Note that in a federal government dominated by a Republican majority, the federal leviathan grows in power, coupled together with New World Order. Note, too, that Republican judges and juries continue to rule for the state; codifying into law the evil practices of the progressive left such as socialized "healthcare," sodomite "marriage" and the right to murder the soon-to-be-born.

The Republican Party was born of corporatism and nurtured on bloodshed, and that continues to this day. As the historian Bruce Catton wrote in The Civil War, in 1860, Abraham Lincoln wanted to be the nominee of the Republican Party — a party that consisted of an amalgam of former members of the defunct Whig Party, Free Soilers (those who believed all new territories should be slave-free), business leaders who wanted a central government that would protect industry and ordinary folk who wanted a homestead act that would provide free farms in the West. "The Republican platform, however, did represent a threat to Southern interests. It embodied the political and economic program of the North — upward revision of the tariff, free farms in the West, railroad subsidies, and all the rest."

In the early 1860s, the Republican Party's flurry of new laws, regulations and bureaucracies created by Lincoln and the Republicans foreshadowed Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" for volume, scope and questionable Constitutionality of its legislation.

The term "New Deal" was only co-opted by Roosevelt. It was first coined to describe Lincoln and the Republican agenda by a Raleigh, N.C., newspaper editor in 1865.

"Lincoln's massive expansion of the federal government into the economy led Daniel Elazar to claim, '...one could easily call Lincoln's presidency the "New Deal" of the 1860s.' Republicans established a much larger, more powerful, and more destructive federal government in the 1860s," Mises.org explains.

Already a fascist party (as evidenced by its long history of corporatism and its embrace of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism," bailouts, big government and perpetual wars), the Republican politicians have slowly and almost imperceptibly abandoned any pretense to adhere to conservative first-principles while positing the notion that what was once true conservativism is now extremism.

True conservatives reject statism, embrace small government and abhor confiscatory taxes. Conservatives believe in a strong military for the nation's defense (not military adventurism). Conservatives defend innocent life. Conservatives advocate liberty and personal responsibility.

The Republican Party is ruled by CINOs (conservatives in name only), pseudo-conservatives who bow to the will of their corporatist masters while playing the fools.