Lincoln's choice to preserve the union, or let the south secede, certainly put more power in the federal government relative to the states. But that power wasn't used to take from some, only to give it to others until the New Deal. In fact, ALL government spending in the US as a % of GDP was around 8% from 1776 thru 1910. Today it's over 40%. I personally find the welfare state to be the biggest growth section of government, and don't see any of Lincoln's fingerprints on it. About half the federal government spending is for redistribution, not including corporate welfare. We didn't have Lincoln investing government money in private companies like Obama either.

You are right. And those industries expanded and prices dropped as a result. One would hope Democrats learn something from Carter about deregulation. And deregulation isn't what caused the deficits and inflation then either.

If you check polls of Arabs, you'll find that those living in Iraq or Afghanistan don't think they are any better off now than before the US invaded. E.G., see http://aai.3cdn.net/2212d2d41f760d327e_fxm6vtlg7.pdf for a Zogby poll. Given the citizens don't think they are better off, how is our "liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan" a good thing given the cost in lives, limbs, and money to do it? How exactly did Americans benefit from this war if the liberated don't think they are any better off? Zogby says "On the U.S. side, 58% of Republicans say Iraqis are 'better of'” compared with only 24% of Democrats. .... this pattern of disconnect between the groups in Iraq and the political parties in the US once again comes through"

A fence costs a lot of money and all fences can be breached. Fences do nothing to stop those who arrive in planes and overstay their visas. On the other hand, measures to deport illegals should be increased. When illegals see that their trip will soon result in being returned to their home country, they'll quit coming here illegally. As it is now, they are let go unless they commit a crime and even then they are often freed without being deported.

The Obama administration is working with environmental groups, including working with them to sue the government on environmental grounds, and when the environmental group wins the suit along with lots of money, they use it to help elect democrats. And Democratic politicians love it. It's a way to fund their advocacy with taxpayer money.

"The media seemed interested this week in finding out why and what the White House is hiding." The lame stream media are interested in their reputation, a reputation that is leading to their loss of readers, loss of advertisers, and loss of jobs. It's the loss of jobs that is troubling to them, and difficult for them to understand as well (after all they work for the hated corporations). Their colleagues losing their jobs is a form of getting mugged by reality. Obama lying to them also helps mug them. Some see the truth that Obama is a liar, and now seek the real truth. Like Hunter, I hope it lasts.

Democrats attack Paul, Cruz and other fiscally conservative, limited government Republicans because they are the real opposition in the Republican party. The rest of the Republicans are big spenders who don't threaten Democrat spending, and are willing to trade increased spending on the military and in their district, for increased Democrat spending. Paul, Cruz and other real fiscal conservatives don't play that game.

Many politicians lack the integrity to forgo using government agencies to harass their political enemies. Which is a reason to eliminate their ability to do that, by eliminating government agencies that aren't needed. The IRS isn't needed, if we'd only choose to have a government limited to protecting our freedoms from criminals and foreign enemies. From 1776 thru 1910, ALL levels of government consumed only 8% of GDP, while today it's over 40%. By cutting 80% of government, we wouldn't need the IRS (or many other agencies that harass us).

When the statists in Congress get rid of federal government welfare, then I'm amenable to increasing immigration. Today the US isn't a "shining beacon on a hill" instead it's a magnet for those looking to use government to live off of others. That's pro-growth - for government welfare and taxation - not for freedom. In the meantime, congress can pass a non-comprehensive increase in funding to catch and deport those here illegally. When illegals know they'll be soon caught and deported (rather than the situation now where they are usually freed to live here illegally) they won't bother coming here illegally. Ted Cruz is right, those here illegally should lose their opportunity for citizenship.

"The willingness of Republican Gang of 8'ers to allow a young conservative researcher and married father of two to be strung up by the p.c. lynch mob for the crime of unflinching social science research is chilling, sickening and suicidal." It's not so sickening if you realize these Republicans are not conservatives and are RINOs. But it's still sickening in that they advertise themselves as Republicans and claim to be conservatives - in other words they are, like Obama, liars.

The Left loves whistleblowers that fit their narratives – remember Enron? – and shuns those that don’t. " It'd be more accurate to say that Obama smears, demotes and prosecutes whistleblowers that don't fit his narrative, and the Left endorses it. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/obama-has-prosecuted-more-whistleblowers-than-all-other-presidents-combined.html