Evidently you are unaware of the history of the US The leadership has been imperialist from the start and modern imperialism. Firstly it is important to define what imperialism is. There is a ‘new’ type of imperialism, differing from the ‘old’ one that usually comes to our mind when we think about the Roman Empire or Napoleonic invasions. The ‘old’ imperialism was merely military imperialism, but today’s imperialism manifests itself in several forms.

The new imperialism differs from the older, first, in substituting for the ambition of a single growing empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each motived by similar lusts of political aggrandisement and commercial gain; secondly, in the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests”. Imperialism is the sudden demand for foreign markets for manufactures and for investments which is avowedly responsible for the adoption of Imperialism as a political policy They need Imperialism because they desire to use the public resources of their country to find profitable employment for the capital which otherwise would be superfluous”. So this new imperialism is much more economic than military. Condensating several

Lenin (in imperialism the highest stage of capitalism, 1916) asserts that “if it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism”. So, the new imperialism cannot be described as a ‘policy’, but as an inherent stage of the economic system in which we live. Johan Galtung (in a structural theory of imperialism, 1971) would extend the analysis not only to the military or economic fields, but also to the political, So, now that we have briefly defined imperialism, which examples can we find of it in the modern world? The majority of them come from the hegemonic imperialist power, the USA, exercising its dominance through the economic power that emanates from it. In order to do it, they use the big monopoly companies with its national origin in the US and that are spread all over the world, searching for profit everywhere at any cost. Theotónio dos Santos (in Imperialismo y Dependência, 1978) calls these monopoly companies the cells of imperialism.

But imperialism does not come only from the US. It also comes from France, UK, Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, etc… Imperialism comes from where the concentration of capital is larger. Only a country that concentrates great amounts of capital (the material base) in its borders has the capacity to influence other countries in its favor, not only through economic means, but also through political, communicative, cultural, and lastly military means. So, the best examples of imperialism usually are not the ones that look more apparent or clear at first sight, but those that look hidden, almost natural and inherent to our society. Like poverty, underdevelopment, malnutrition, bad health conditions, etc. These are the most profound examples of modern imperialism and not the annexation of Crimea by Russia, or the Iraqi invasion by the US. If we think a little bit about almost any military invasion or war during the 20th century it always has an economic reason behind it, even if sometimes this does not seem so evident.

In response to JoyV and her response to Nickolai:
<<right wing authoritarians>> You could be right wing or you could be authoritarian or you could be neither. But you can't be both. {In my responses I will take every reference to 'right wing authoritarians to say right wing as it is the only way I can answer your assertions.}
Right wing conservatives want smaller government. Authoritarian rule needs a strong central authority i.e. government. If Trump and his followers wanted conformity and intolerance; why would we cheer his political incorrectness. It is not the right wingers who go to the extreme of making rules on what Halloween costumes are acceptable to wear based on the identity group you belong to. There is conformity and intolerance gone to the ridiculous. How is that diversity?
===> From Wikipedia:
"Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion,[clarification needed] to achieve it."
Sorry, but the preferred definition of 'right wing authoritarian' differs from your definition. Most right-wingers that I know fall into this definition.<===

<<"Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity.">>
Right wing conservatives want smaller government. Authoritarian rule needs a strong central authority i.e. government. If Trump and his followers wanted conformity and intolerance; why would we cheer his political incorrectness. It is not the right wingers who go to the extreme of making rules on what Halloween costumes are acceptable to wear based on the identity group you belong to. There is conformity and intolerance gone to the ridiculous. How is that diversity?
===> According to the accepted definition (see above), the quote from Nikki is correct. Social correctness is a must, and it must conform to the ideology of whatever group controls the government. The push for abortion being outlawed and the pushback against gay rights is an example of this.<===

<<"In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favor of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviors of people such as political dissidents and ethnic minorities.">>
You are describing socialist rule. Who are political dissidents? Everyone may dissent in many ways, and often do. As for constraining ethnic minorities; our constitution does not distinguish people by group identities.
===>Social control is a requirement according to the right wing philosophy. "My way or the highway." Dissent is not welcomed. Voter suppression is a classic example of this requirement.<===

<<"These constraints might include restrictions on immigration,">> Of course there must be some restrictions. But since we legally allow millions to come in each year; the restrictions are far from harsh.
===> This is at odds with what the immigration policy of this president happens to be. He would obviously prefer to limit immigration to white European stock.<===

<<"limits on free speech and association">> And just who is it who pushes for political correctness? Who is it who holds violent "protests" to prevent people from speaking? And who is it who used the IRS to targets associations of people whose politics were not approved?
===>Who limited their campaign events and appearances to only supporters of the campaign or presidency? Most of the "protests" that you refer to were non-violent until one side or the other started it … mostly from the right.<===

<<"It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference.">> That sentence is a good example of meaningless jargon. If it had science sounding terms in it it would be called technobabble. But as is, it is doublespeak.
===> Made sense to me. Most of the right wing would prefer to see a white, Protestant, capitalistic state without minorities or differing views mucking up the reality. <===

<<"Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority,">> Again. It sounds like both socialism and fascism. Both are characteristics of the far left. Do you consider the ranchers we have been cheering to have been obedient to authority? <<"moral absolutism">> I see that trait in both the extreme right and the extreme left.
===>True, it does sound like that. But limiting it to the far left is to put blinders on. If the ranchers that you refer to are lefties, think again. They're as conservative as they come.<===


<<"racial and ethnic prejudice and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants.">> Only the first is seen in both the right and left. Though only institutionalized by the left. Right wingers don't have dissidents as there is too much dissent in the normal course of interaction to identify any particular dissent as being abnormal.
===> Tell that to the LGBTQ population or the pro-abortion folks. As for dissent on the right wing, all you have to do is look at the battle in Congress over immigration. If that's lack of dissent, I'd love to see the real thing.<===

<<"In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manner">> Obedience? Not really. Good manners and neatness; of course. Is it suppose to be good to teach your children to be slobs and rude? But one of the important things you did not mention was taking responsibility. That is encouraged not by merely telling the children what is good or bad/right or wrong/. It is practiced in youth groups like 4H and FFA. Go sit in on a meeting and you will see that the kids elect their own officers and run their own meetings. Adults do not dictate what the meetings will cover, or how they are run. Adults are there as resources, not authorities.
===>"Children should be seen and not heard.""Spare the rod and spoil the child." This teaches obedience to authority and creates children afraid to dissent. The FFA & 4H reflect the values of the parents, and while the meetings themselves are as you say, the indirect pressure from parents once they get home is what defines the culture in the organizations, and the larger society.<===

If you had ever listened to those who praised Trump for being strong, you would have noticed it wasn't to impose conformity on the American people; but to deal strongly with other nations in representing the American people.
===>Then going to the anti-abortion convention today and speaking in favor of their cause isn't trying to impose conformity on the country? Removing safety regulations and workers rights in the business sector isn't imposing conformity on the country? <===

Supporting the rule of law outlined in our constitution is not about destroying "radical new ways". In fact, since our constitution was written specifically to impose restrictions government power not restrictions on the citizenry; anyone wanting authoritarian rule would marginalize our constitution by saying things like, it is a living document to justify making laws counter to it.
===> The "rule of law" is whatever the party in power defines it to be. Sometimes it's progressive and other times it's regressive. But you must admit that there are sections of the Constitution that need modification … such as the Electoral College. The definition of a 'living document' was rejected by Scalia and Alito, and they were wanting to go back to a strict interpretation of the document as written. That doesn't work, since it isn't still 1787. Times change, the citizenry changes, and while the basics are needed, the interpretations must change with the values expressed by the majority of the population. Otherwise you have an authoritarian regime that is stuck in the past and won't move.

From Conservative Myths
Most people are clueless as to the common theme of all conservative ideology. This includes, unfortunately, many very well educated people, even so-called "experts" in the field of sociology, psychology, economics and politics. It is not liberty, or small government, or strong military, or low taxes. Liberals also believe in these same things. There are few liberals who do not want the maximum amount of liberty that the "common good" can withstand, or a larger government than is necessary to operate a huge, complex and powerful state, or a military that is less strong than needed for defense of our county and to assist our allies in times of need, or taxes that are any higher than necessary for the operation of that very large governmental entity and its full responsibilities.


Then what is the common theme? To many, including some very erudite conservatives, there is none. They like to believe that conservatism carefully ponders each issue, turning it this way and that to examine its characteristics and qualities, or lack thereof, before making a reasoned judgment and staking a position. Balderdash! The definition of conservative is one who "conserves" traditional beliefs, customs and institutions. Well, one of the longest-running institutions and traditions in human history is the Dominator Hierarchy (DH). Behind every conservative position, on every issue, lurks its support for the maintenance of one or more of the strands of the Dominator Hierarchy.

The Dominator Hierarchy is a socioeconomic ranking system, a continuum or scale, based upon innate and relatively arbitrary individual characteristics, that advantages those with higher ranking and disadvantages, and actually dominates, those people or social groups with lower ranking... including all animals and the rest of the planetary biosphere, which are at the lowest rank. The rewards are substantial: greater socioeconomic privilege, better opportunity and higher self-esteem, advantages which can be parlayed into climbing higher on the scale. Yet this system is also oppressive, exploitative, unjust, undemocratic, un-American, and contrary to some of the basic principles of every religious system. It seemingly endures forever (so far) because it very effectively manipulates the primal emotions of fear, greed and prejudice... and because so many people find it extremely helpful to their own sense of self-worth and that of their clan or "in-group."

The whole Dominator Hierarchy is comprised of at least nine separate strands of hierarchical domination. Everyone is familiar with these categories, but may never have thought of them as a hierarchy of individual worth. Any particular individual can rank relatively high on one strand and rather low on another. So the Dominator Hierarchy is itself a complex system with many working parts leading to great ignorance and confusion, as well as broad acceptance of its hidden-in-plain-sight control and influence in our cultures. The primary categories are:
1. A gender hierarchy (male above female, cisgender above transgender)
2. A skin tone hierarchy (lighter skin generally valued higher)
3. A wealth hierarchy (the richer the better)
4. A beauty hierarchy (beauty above lesser beauty)
5. A language hierarchy (local language is privileged)
6. A religious hierarchy (the local religion is dominant)
7. A sexual orientation hierarchy (hetero over anything different)
8. An ability hierarchy (physically or mentally abled over less abled)
and, of course, the biggest and saddest of all,
9. The matricidal anthropocentric hierarchy of man over nature.

These nine ways in which the overall Dominator Hierarchy is deployed are so intertwined within our culture that they just seem to blend in. This is why the Dominator Hiearachy as a system of oppression, prejudice and injustice is so well camouflaged that even experts don't recognize it. It's just culture. But no it's not... just culture. It's a sickness, a cancer embedded in culture, a malignancy that another part of culture's body - an agent of health and goodness, liberalism - has been fighting against for millennia. Orienting ourselves to how this back-and-forth struggle has been waged over human history is the key to perceiving the Dominator Hierarchy lurking right under our noses, and still getting away with harming individuals, communities, nations, the human family and the precious planet.

Racism, misogyny and sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, bullying, religious intolerance, subjugating, discriminating against, shaming or unkindness toward someone for things they cannot control... all of these arise from the Dominator Hierarchy and serve to perpetuate it. Just with this assembly of bad behavior we have created an amoral mess. Then stir in the overpowering advantage and privilege of wealth. Finally, ladle in a big batch of humanity's self-assumed right of "dominion" over the Earth and everything that stands on it, and you have a recipe for, well, the End Times, but before that a whole lot of pain and anguish and sin and misery.

From Conservative Myths
Most people are clueless as to the common theme of all conservative ideology. This includes, unfortunately, many very well educated people, even so-called "experts" in the field of sociology, psychology, economics and politics. It is not liberty, or small government, or strong military, or low taxes. Liberals also believe in these same things. There are few liberals who do not want the maximum amount of liberty that the "common good" can withstand, or a larger government than is necessary to operate a huge, complex and powerful state, or a military that is less strong than needed for defense of our county and to assist our allies in times of need, or taxes that are any higher than necessary for the operation of that very large governmental entity and its full responsibilities.


Then what is the common theme? To many, including some very erudite conservatives, there is none. They like to believe that conservatism carefully ponders each issue, turning it this way and that to examine its characteristics and qualities, or lack thereof, before making a reasoned judgment and staking a position. Balderdash! The definition of conservative is one who "conserves" traditional beliefs, customs and institutions. Well, one of the longest-running institutions and traditions in human history is the Dominator Hierarchy (DH). Behind every conservative position, on every issue, lurks its support for the maintenance of one or more of the strands of the Dominator Hierarchy.

The Dominator Hierarchy is a socioeconomic ranking system, a continuum or scale, based upon innate and relatively arbitrary individual characteristics, that advantages those with higher ranking and disadvantages, and actually dominates, those people or social groups with lower ranking... including all animals and the rest of the planetary biosphere, which are at the lowest rank. The rewards are substantial: greater socioeconomic privilege, better opportunity and higher self-esteem, advantages which can be parlayed into climbing higher on the scale. Yet this system is also oppressive, exploitative, unjust, undemocratic, un-American, and contrary to some of the basic principles of every religious system. It seemingly endures forever (so far) because it very effectively manipulates the primal emotions of fear, greed and prejudice... and because so many people find it extremely helpful to their own sense of self-worth and that of their clan or "in-group."

The whole Dominator Hierarchy is comprised of at least nine separate strands of hierarchical domination. Everyone is familiar with these categories, but may never have thought of them as a hierarchy of individual worth. Any particular individual can rank relatively high on one strand and rather low on another. So the Dominator Hierarchy is itself a complex system with many working parts leading to great ignorance and confusion, as well as broad acceptance of its hidden-in-plain-sight control and influence in our cultures. The primary categories are:
1. A gender hierarchy (male above female, cisgender above transgender)
2. A skin tone hierarchy (lighter skin generally valued higher)
3. A wealth hierarchy (the richer the better)
4. A beauty hierarchy (beauty above lesser beauty)
5. A language hierarchy (local language is privileged)
6. A religious hierarchy (the local religion is dominant)
7. A sexual orientation hierarchy (hetero over anything different)
8. An ability hierarchy (physically or mentally abled over less abled)
and, of course, the biggest and saddest of all,
9. The matricidal anthropocentric hierarchy of man over nature.

These nine ways in which the overall Dominator Hierarchy is deployed are so intertwined within our culture that they just seem to blend in. This is why the Dominator Hiearachy as a system of oppression, prejudice and injustice is so well camouflaged that even experts don't recognize it. It's just culture. But no it's not... just culture. It's a sickness, a cancer embedded in culture, a malignancy that another part of culture's body - an agent of health and goodness, liberalism - has been fighting against for millennia. Orienting ourselves to how this back-and-forth struggle has been waged over human history is the key to perceiving the Dominator Hierarchy lurking right under our noses, and still getting away with harming individuals, communities, nations, the human family and the precious planet.

Racism, misogyny and sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, bullying, religious intolerance, subjugating, discriminating against, shaming or unkindness toward someone for things they cannot control... all of these arise from the Dominator Hierarchy and serve to perpetuate it. Just with this assembly of bad behavior we have created an amoral mess. Then stir in the overpowering advantage and privilege of wealth. Finally, ladle in a big batch of humanity's self-assumed right of "dominion" over the Earth and everything that stands on it, and you have a recipe for, well, the End Times, but before that a whole lot of pain and anguish and sin and misery.

" Finally, ladle in a big batch of humanity's self-assumed right of "dominion" over the Earth and everything that stands on it, and you have a recipe for, well, the End Times, but before that a whole lot of pain and anguish and sin and misery." - nickolai

Are you aware of what provided big time misery, nickolai?
You just keep ignoring communist history.

Not many liberals have a grasp of what Communism delivers. The masses fell for the Bolshevik BS. The Chinese never knew what hit them. The ruthlessness is beyond most peoples comprehension, largely due to lack if studying it. It sure isn't taught in the government school system. Over 200 Million people starved and slaughtered by those regimes.
It is important to differentiate the different brands/sects of "Jew". The term "Jew" is misused a lot, fraudulently, and confusingly.
Judah is one of the 12 tribes of Israel. A Race (Hebrew)
Judaism is a religion (Torah/Old Testament and Talmudic/Babylonian Rabinism)
Jews are also a nationality (Nation of Israeli)
All categories attempt to claim they are the chosen people. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many hide behind that claim. Most fundamentalist Christian churches don't teach the differences, and fall for that misrepresentation.
Hence, we have impotent churches, and ignorant Christians, that are not aware of the enemies of God/Yahweh within our nation.
Think about who has been trying to drive God out of public education and the public square?
Atheists? Who do you think these atheists are?
The ACLU and the anti-Defamation League (ADL) for starters.

Behind Communism
Here is a link to the PDF downloadable version
http://jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Behind%20Communism.pdf
https://archive.org/details/BehindCommunism_201502
by Frank L Britton. Probably published in 1952.
(free down load from the internet)
This document is well documented from many sources.

Behind Communism is a short book which explains the connection between Communism, Communist activities, and Communist history and the Jews and Jewish history. Many events in American history related to Communists and Jews are also explained.

It is important to differentiate the different brands of "Jew". The term "Jew" is misused a lot; fraudulently, and confusingly. It goes all the way back to Cain, the slayer of Abel, and Esau/Edom and Jacob/Israel. Hebrew blood vs NonHebrew blood lines. The Bible tracked those Blood lines for a reason.

You are correct that the American conservative want to conserve. But wrong on what we as a whole want to conserve. The American conservative conserves the US Constitution. All the things you list that are commonly called for by conservatives which you say liberals also want, are by products of our constitution. But I note you only wrote that liberals want the same things. Not progressives. But liberals are often so carried away by idealism that they are easily led by progressives. And progressives definitely do NOT want freedom, small government, etc. So liberals vote for those who destroy the things you say they want. Intimidation to conform to the ideal of whatever freedom is being touted has become the norm. But yet they don't seem to see that the very act of demanding conformity destroys freedom. An insidious example is political correctness. This is far more dangerous than the blatant violent intimidation the Antifa have been using to shut down free speech on campuses.

In fact, the United States has done far better economically when operating under general liberal principles than it does under conservative ideology. For example, the Great Depression and this latest Great Recession both resulted following an extended period of conservative, "trickle-down" economic policy. Taxes were slashed, regulations were relaxed or eliminated, bubbles and mini-booms resulted, the rich got richer, the Middle Class struggled, the poor got poorer, and then the economy crashed. A tragic collapse in the economy - affecting hundreds of million of Americans - has happened twice now in the past 80 years... and still the conservatives won't learn the lesson!
Conversely, the largest expansion of a Middle Class in the history of the world took place under the auspices of the New Deal programs, policy and ideology. In this way, liberals often have to actually rescue conservatives and capitalism from their own web of greed. Barack Obama may have done it again by pulling the U.S. economy back from the precipice of depression that 30 years of "Reaganomics" steered us on to.


Now the conservatives are back, selling the same old snake oil. Donald Schtrumpinski our Russian president offers a tax plan that will lower the tax rates of the ultra wealth even further than the record lows they are at presently. His plan (according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center) will give the richest Americans a $250,000 tax break, while scattering peanuts to the little people and that is temporary while making the tax cut for the rich permanent. Newt Gingrich calls for zero taxes on corporations.

The current Democratic Party (far from actually liberal) favors just slightly increasing the top tax rate so that the richest Americans are paying a fairer share of their wealth, for the good of the commoners and the commons... which is to say, America. To get back to real prosperity, it will take more than this paltry bargaining by the moderates. America will need to return to strong unions, high taxes on the rich and corporations, and stringent regulation on business and industry, most particularly the financial sector That brought broad based prosperity for all and once built the largest middle class in history

Liberalism has nothing to do with communism . The Bolshivik was carried out by Jews in Russia . Tsarist had brutalized the Jewa and they rose up in revolution first in 1904. It failed and thousands of Jews fled to Germany then Vladimir Lenin led the Bolshiviks to revolution during WW-l eventualy Joseph Stalin and his faction hijacked the revolution and became dictator installing Stallinism and state capitalism. China was also. Thesre leaders were not in any way liberals they were ruthless authoritarian dictators a charicteristic of the extreme right not liberalism. The term Liberal was coined during the French Revolution. The French Motto of the Republic is "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Since the founding of America, liberals have sought to expand opportunities for the average person, and even the disadvantaged and downtrodden, seeking a more egalitarian society that works for everyone.
Liberals have a more fact-based, rather than faith-based, ideology. They are not so motivated by self-serving but actually negative emotions, such as prejudice, greed and fear, and thus can see the great advantages to a society of justice for all, and the "general welfare," a term used in the preamble of the Constitution.
Liberals are "utilitarian" in thinking that social, economic and governmental policy should be skewed toward the advantge of the largest number of people, not just the rich and powerful, or toward any particular clan, religion or cultural group. And liberals are far more magnanimous in being willing to share both their wealth (by not being so greedy) and their innate self worth (by not being so prejudiced) with other people.


Liberals take to heart, and mind, the ideas of liberty, equality, justice for all, and pursuit of happiness: true American values. Liberals also are a whole lot better at extending compassion for all: a true Christian value. And from this real commitment to universal values comes the continual liberal impulse to try to expand rights and steer toward a more equitable and just society. This does not mean that liberals wish to destroy rich people or capitalism, but that these people, and this economic system, must be controlled to the extent that they serve We the People, not vice-versa.

In fact, the United States has done far better economically when operating under general liberal principles than it does under conservative ideology. For example, the Great Depression and this latest Great Recession both resulted following an extended period of conservative, "trickle-down" economic policy. Taxes were slashed, regulations were relaxed or eliminated, bubbles and mini-booms resulted, the rich got richer, the Middle Class struggled, the poor got poorer, and then the economy crashed. A tragic collapse in the economy - affecting hundreds of million of Americans - has happened twice now in the past 80 years... and still the conservatives won't learn the lesson!
Conversely, the largest expansion of a Middle Class in the history of the world took place under the auspices of the New Deal programs, policy and ideology. In this way, liberals often have to actually rescue conservatives and capitalism from their own web of greed. Barack Obama may have done it again by pulling the U.S. economy back from the precipice of depression that 30 years of "Reaganomics" steered us on to.


Now the conservatives are back, selling the same old snake oil. Donald Schtrumpinski our Russian president offers a tax plan that will lower the tax rates of the ultra wealth even further than the record lows they are at presently. His plan (according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center) will give the richest Americans a $250,000 tax break, while scattering peanuts to the little people and that is temporary while making the tax cut for the rich permanent. Newt Gingrich calls for zero taxes on corporations.

The current Democratic Party (far from actually liberal) favors just slightly increasing the top tax rate so that the richest Americans are paying a fairer share of their wealth, for the good of the commoners and the commons... which is to say, America. To get back to real prosperity, it will take more than this paltry bargaining by the moderates. America will need to return to strong unions, high taxes on the rich and corporations, and stringent regulation on business and industry, most particularly the financial sector That brought broad based prosperity for all and once built the largest middle class in history

Evidently you're a hard head and just don't get it. The modern form of imperialism is not going in with the military and taking over and running things. The way it works is for the CIA to engineer a coup and depose rulers who wall street does not like and propping up a right wing dictator that does their bidding and protect the interest of US capitalist imperialist. Some examples are Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equatorial Guinea, Augusto Pinochet, Chile, Idriss Déby, Chad, Manuel Noriega, Panama, Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan, Ferdinand Marcos, The Phillipines, King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia, Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, Turkmenistan, Adolf Hitler, Breckinridge Long was the US Secretary of State at the time Hitler was in power. While he gave Henry Ford permission to buy Nazi tanks, he purposely prevented Jewish refugees from entering the US (recommended read: The Voyage of The Damned). Also, Breckinridge and Roosevelt gave permission for a few US Companies to continue trading with Germany during the war– I.T.T.,General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Davis Oil Co., and the Chase National Bank. Why? Because money and the stock market and not wanting to give these corporations a big sad.
Oh yeah, plus the U.S. was pretty damned anti-Semitic at the time.


Now, I’m not saying that because the U.S. currently supports horrific dictatorships and has done so in the past when it has been convenient, that there is anything OK about what the Syrian government has done to it’s people. Of course it’s awful. I don’t think military action on our own is the answer, but it’s still awful. I just don’t like it when politicians put on airs and pretend that we’re actually planning on invading any country for reasons of human rights, when that is clearly not the case. I could have named 100 other awful regimes we’ve supported. I could have mentioned that China is still our number one trade partner while they’re currently occupying Tibet. But sadly, I just don’t have the time. These examples of dictators we prop up or have propped up om behalf of wall street is just the tip of the ice berg

Bush' policies were NOT conservative. They were nearly the same ones that Obama used after him. They were New World Order. And semi progressive. The Republican Party had been betrayed by self serving elites who along with Democrat elites were destroying the freedoms guaranteed in our constitution. Do not confuse Republican Party with conservatism. The majority of conservatives are Republicans, as the majority of liberals are Democrats. But the parties have not been true representatives of either for a long time, and both had been moving farther and farther toward NWT. Trump is a true conservative. Did you ever wonder why so many Republican Party big wigs were Never Trumpers? If you think liberalism is good, you should try to find someone who embodies it as your candidate instead of more NWT candidates like Clinton and Obama.

You are correct that the American conservative want to conserve. But wrong on what we as a whole want to conserve. The American conservative conserves the US Constitution. All the things you list that are commonly called for by conservatives which you say liberals also want, are by products of our constitution. But I note you only wrote that liberals want the same things. Not progressives. But liberals are often so carried away by idealism that they are easily led by progressives. And progressives definitely do NOT want freedom, small government, etc. So liberals vote for those who destroy the things you say they want. Intimidation to conform to the ideal of whatever freedom is being touted has become the norm. But yet they don't seem to see that the very act of demanding conformity destroys freedom. An insidious example is political correctness. This is far more dangerous than the blatant violent intimidation the Antifa have been using to shut down free speech on campuses.