The Ugly Mutation of American Conservatism

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
The Ugly Mutation of American Conservatism

by Steven LaTulippe
Lew Rockwell.com


Two separate incidents last week got me to pondering the current state of
conservative philosophy in America. The first was an announcement from the
Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation concerning their annual
Index of Economic Freedom. This index has been calculated for the past 11
years, and 2004 was the first time that the USA did not make the list as one
of the top 10 freest economies.

On the surface, this seems odd. Over the years, I frequently found myself
daydreaming about how wonderful it would be if the Republicans were ever to
gain control of the White House and both houses of Congress. I fantasized
about the drastic downsizing of government, the bureaucracies that would be
eliminated, and the flowering of individual liberty that would ensue.

Now that the Republicans have, in fact, achieved control of the federal
government, I am reminded of the old country song that warns, "Sometimes God
's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers."

Who would have thought that only two years after achieving "conservative"
domination of the federal government, that America would drop out of the top
ten completely?

Shouldn't we be climbing upwards on the list of the freest economies?

The second event last week which prompted introspection was Lew Rockwell's
column on "red state fascism." Perhaps therein resides the explanation.
Maybe we have been victimized by a "bait and switch." What the Republicans
were selling in the 1994 "Contract with America" does not seem to be what
they delivered in 2000-2004. And what the Republican masses said that they
wanted then does not seem to be what they want now.

From that premise, I decided that it might be worthwhile to examine what was
commonly agreed upon in 1994 as being "conservative," and compare it with
the current policies being implemented by the Republican-dominated
government.

#1 smaller government

Every conservative worth the name believes in smaller government. Ronald
Reagan always cautioned that America's greatness rests with her people and
not in Washington. The government is usually our problem, he warned, not the
solution.

Given this perspective, what has Bush delivered?

Can anyone name a single government agency or program that has been
eliminated in the first four years of Bush's presidency?

On the contrary, President Bush and the Republican-dominated congress have
ushered in an explosion of government spending, regulation, and bureaucracy
that has seldom been seen in our history. President Bush has allowed a
growth of federal spending that dwarfs that of President Clinton, even when
the Iraq War is taken into account. Bush has created the largest single
expansion of federal entitlements since LBJ with his Medicare prescription
drug program. He even managed to avoid vetoing a single bill in his entire
first term, a feat "achieved" by few presidents in our nation's history.

Apparently, Bush hasn't found any of the trillions in spending passed by
Congress to be wasteful or extravagant.

#2 maintaining fiscal responsibility

Throughout my years as a young conservative, the major criticism that the
right directed at liberalism concerned its penchant for fiscal
irresponsibility. We constantly railed that the left never met a program
that they didn't like. Under the stewardship of FDR-era dinosaurs, America's
financial situation deteriorated badly as "bleeding heart liberals" spent
money on program after program. Conservative ideologues mocked "knee-jerk
liberals" for inventing a bureaucracy for every conceivable human desire.
Liberal government meant higher taxes and endless deficits. Conservatives
spent a lot of time and effort informing our fellow citizens how different
things would be if we ever came to power.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that the subsequent performance
of the Republicans is a considerable disappointment. Under their rule, the
finances of our government have deteriorated horribly. While they did cut
taxes, they simultaneously went on a spending binge that has racked up
record debt. Their performance has been hideous even when discounting the
security expenditures of the post-9/11 era. The last spending bill in
congress was so ladled with pork that even a few Democrats objected. By any
reasonable measure, America's financial situation is far worse today than it
was under President Clinton, even when compared to Clinton's first two years
in power when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress.

It appears as though all those years of preaching fiscal responsibility were
mere rhetoric. Now that the Republicans are in power, they are rewarding
their own special interest groups with public money in the worst tradition
of Tip O'Neill and Dan Rostenkowski.

It's like a bad rerun of Animal Farm.

#3 government respect for individual liberty

In the 1990's, most conservative were (correctly) outraged at the numerous
incidents of government bullying and abuse that seemed to be occurring with
increasing frequency. I was appalled by the deaths at Ruby Ridge. I was
outraged by the military-style assault at Waco. I was sickened by Hillary's
FBI file scandal and her frequent use of sleazy tactics against her
political enemies. I prayed for a Republican victory to restore respect for
individual liberty and limited government.

Again, things haven't exactly worked out the way I'd expected.

We now have a government that actively engages in the systematic use of
torture against its enemies. We have an administration that advocates the
lifetime detention of suspected terrorists without trial.even when the state
lacks conclusive evidence that they are, in fact, terrorists. The government
even denies that it must inform anyone that they are holding a particular
suspect. People can now just "disappear" in America, with no recourse to
lawyers or judges. We have new laws that allow government agents to engage
in searches and seizures without warrants. We have seen the creation of a
secret gulag around the globe in which detainees are held without due
process of any sort. There have been numerous stories appearing which claim
American security forces have "wink and nod" agreements with foreign secret
police agencies in which various abusive tactics are essentially
"out-sourced" to nations which have no constitutional restraints on the
treatment of prisoners. We have a government that has written numerous
briefs on the "out-dated" nature of the Geneva Conventions.

Many conservatives have rationalized these facts by claiming that these
extraordinary measures will only be used against terrorists.

That is bunk. The entire history of government teaches us that it always
attempts to accumulate power and always tries to undermine limitations on
its authority.

As night follows day, these new powers granted to law enforcement agencies
under the various anti-terrorism laws will be used against American citizens
in situations with no connection to terrorism. In fact, just a couple of
weeks ago, a story broke in which a man in New Jersey was arrested for
shining a laser at airplane cockpits. He is being charged under
anti-terrorism laws, even though the government admits that his actions had
no connection to terrorism and that he is not a terrorist.

I fully expect that this trend will eventually include the torture of
American citizens. After all, if it is permissible to extract information
from suspected terrorists in this manner, why not bank robbers or
rapists.and then, later, "tax cheats" or "political extremists"?

Folks who believe that this will stop with al-Qaeda are ignorant of history.

#4 local control of public education

Standard conservative ideology circa 1994 held that the major problem with
our public school system was federal involvement. Many right-wing candidates
wowed the faithful with promises of abolishing the US Department of
Education altogether. It was almost unanimously believed that local school
boards should control the public schools and that federal regulation and
funding have been a disaster.

Somewhere along the way, President Bush missed this message. His No Child
Left Behind plan is the largest expansion of federal control of public
education in decades. Every aspect of school policies and curricula now fall
under the aegis of federal bureaucratic domination. There are even financial
incentives in the law for the leveling of test scores between ethnic and
racial groups.a sort of bizarre affirmative action for achievement test
results.

Things have gotten so bad that many local school boards and several state
governments are in open revolt over this massive federalization of school
policy. I've even talked with NEA members who are beginning to see the merit
in local control.

President Bush has thus done something that I would not have thought
possible. He is turning some teacher's union members into partisans for a
less intrusive federal government. While this may represent an advancement
of conservative ideology, I don't think it is of the sort that most of us
originally expected when Bush was elected.

#5 respect for our military

Without dragging the decision to go to war in Iraq into this analysis, it is
relevant to examine the way that this administration's policies have
affected the military itself.

One of the traditional bedrock beliefs of conservatism has been a respect
and admiration for the US Military. Throughout my days as a young
conservative, I frequently heard accusations hurled at liberals that they
were "anti-military," usually in concert with stories of the mistreatment of
soldiers returning from Vietnam.

But how well have things been going for servicemen since the advent of
conservative control of the presidency and congress?

>From my perspective, things have not gone well at all. This administration
launched vitriolic attacks against retired military officers who questioned
the decision to invade Iraq. The neocons also attacked individuals in the
military and government who questioned their tactics for prosecuting the
war. Some were even sacked for suggesting that the predictions of a "cake
walk" were inaccurate and that we would need more soldiers than the existing
plans predicted.

Does this constitute respect?

Clearly, the administration did not have enough soldiers to occupy Iraq
after the fall of Saddam's government. Plans were not made to stabilize the
country in the immediate aftermath of the war. The administration also
refused to recognize that the burgeoning insurgency even existed until it
was too large to contain.

As a result of these failures, our military is now buckling under numerous
stresses. Just last week, the Lt. General in command of the Army Reserve
declared that the Reserve force is now "broken" and is unable to complete
its mission. Reservists and National Guardsmen are being sent back to Iraq
for their 2nd or 3rd tours of duty, and their active duty responsibilities
are being continually increased. The administration is engaged in a
back-door draft by issuing "stop-loss" policies which prevent soldiers from
returning to civilian life after completing their agreed time of service.
The manpower shortage is so bad that the Pentagon is considering collocating
women into front-line combat units for the first time in our history, thus
eliminating a long-standing policy of keeping women out of direct ground
combat.

Even worse is the woeful lack of proper equipment available for our soldiers
in Iraq. Stories abound of families who are forced to purchase vests for
their loved ones because of the lack of body armor available for front line
troops. Soldiers are even scrounging through dumps in Kuwait trying to find
armor fragments to weld onto their unprotected Humvees before making the
trip into Iraq.

Adding insult to injury, we were also forced to endure Donald Rumsfeld's
"pithy" reply to these accusations ("You go to war with the army you have").

Does any of this constitute respect for the military?

Not in my book.

The many years of flag-waving and rah-rah rhetoric are not squaring with the
actual performance of Republican government.

Conclusion

Lew Rockwell is correct. The seminal political event of the past several
years in America has been the changing political ideology of Middle America
from small-government conservatism to a virulent brand of fascism. There is
barely any discernable connection between 1994 and 2004. Almost all the
issues which were important to red state America then have since fallen off
of their radar screen. They are advocating many policies that are in direct
conflict with the fundamental tenets of traditional conservatism.

Some of my more strident libertarian friends claim that America is now
descending politically into a Hitler-Stalin dynamic. I think that that is
somewhat overstated. It is more analogous to say that the Republicans are
degenerating into the tin-pot fascism of Anastasio Somoza circa 1975, while
the Democrats have long since fallen to the tin-pot socialism of the
Sandinistas circa 1985.

America is morphing into Nicaragua, with the public finances, the current
account deficit, the civil liberties, and the electoral system of a typical
Central American banana republic.

Many of us prayed for years that the liberals would one day fall from power
and that the Republicans would rise to dominate the federal government.

When the Gods wish to punish us, they grant us our wishes.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
The far, right-wing fanatisicm and imperialism is what has destroyed what the Republican party has stood for.
 

Mountain

Senior member
Dec 7, 2000
326
0
0
Excellent observations,
A thought of my own. It seems that many decisions of this administration are justified because they believed what they were told. For example, the CIA or Rudolf Juliani. Either the folks at the top are stupid or gullible and they are not stupid. So, are they gullible? Or, are we?
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Good read. Thanks. Now you will see the centrists begin a new party, to include disinfranchised liberals and conservatives who are fed up with the rule of government we see at the hands of this adminstration. I didn't vote for Bush because of his extreme views. He thinks God has placed him in this postion and he can do no wrong. This arragant piss ant president deserves this kind of scrutiny, lets see the neocons defend his presidency now.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
The Republican Party has changed to reflect the values and mindset of a fairly sizeable portion of our society. What is more troubling...the Bush administration, or the people who voted to support Bush for a second term? The NEOCon agenda would not gain any traction if there did not exist the votes necessary to support such an agenda.

Neither party is loyal to the principles of their particular ideology. The most successful Democrats in the past two decades have become increasingly moderate in terms of their ideology, nearly isolating the far left. If you truly examine the fundamental principles of conservatism, Bill Clinton is probably the best conservative President we have had in the last 30 years save perhaps Reagan.

The Democrats cannot garner the votes necessary to win elections by steering to the far left. It is simply too easy to mobilize the far right against what the negative perceptions that have become associated with far left liberals.

It is not so much a case of the ugly mutation of conservatism as it is the ideological split in America...the roots of this split go all the way back to the Civil War, and it is no surprise that the Blue State and Red State split mirrors the geographical boundaries of the Union and the Confederacy.

The true villain in all of this is a two party system that has created such a bureaucracy in Washington, that neither party truly represents their respective constituency. I am waiting for the day that the moderates of each party will break away and form a third party, one that can truly challenge both the Democrats and Republicans.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
,
We need a bare bones third party arguing for rights without insisting others not only tolerate others, but accept them. One who argues fiscal responsibility without turning this into a South American clone country. One who considers many points of view before discarding them because they cant claim they thought of it themselves. One who puts us before themselves.

While it may be true that eventually Parties put themselves before the rest, for a time maybe democracy could function as it should.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Repeatedly taking the political compass test over time has shown me that my political views haven't changed much. I'm still somewhat economically conservative (in favor of small government and fiscal responsibility) and socially liberal (in favor of personal freedom and government butting out), yet I've gone from siding with conservatives and Republicans to disagreeing with most of them.

How messed up is it when the liberals are the ones saying the government is too big and intrudes too much into our personal lives? Really, the Republicans and conservatives have the same ideas as the liberals they claim to despise (increasing government intervention and control), they just disagreee on the specific issues that require intervention and control. That's not the Republican party or conservative agenda I was siding with.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith


One who argues fiscal responsibility

I would like to know the scope of the fiscal part of this argument.

If I had some help

With my questions in this thread Perhaps the argument could be put in a proper perspective.

Fiscal responsibility means different things to different people. Let's use me as an example.

If I have X income, I can support a level of spending, and a certain level of debt. If I raise my level of spending to the point it threatens the welfare of my family, that's being fiscally irresponsible. If I cut my income, I cannot spend more without accruing more debt. If the repayment of that debt becomes so great that it interferes with my families normal functioning, then I am financially irresponsible. If the law were to allow my family to inherit my debt, then the same.

One can create a number of scenarios of special circumstances, and I am sure someone will, however fiscal responsibility equals good stewardship of resources.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith


One who argues fiscal responsibility

I would like to know the scope of the fiscal part of this argument.

If I had some help

With my questions in this thread Perhaps the argument could be put in a proper perspective.

Fiscal responsibility means different things to different people. Let's use me as an example.

If I have X income, I can support a level of spending, and a certain level of debt. If I raise my level of spending to the point it threatens the welfare of my family, that's being fiscally irresponsible. If I cut my income, I cannot spend more without accruing more debt. If the repayment of that debt becomes so great that it interferes with my families normal functioning, then I am financially irresponsible. If the law were to allow my family to inherit my debt, then the same.

One can create a number of scenarios of special circumstances, and I am sure someone will, however fiscal responsibility equals good stewardship of resources.




[*]To define good/bad stewardship of resources and to define good/bad fiscal responsibility, one must list assets.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith


One who argues fiscal responsibility

I would like to know the scope of the fiscal part of this argument.

If I had some help

With my questions in this thread Perhaps the argument could be put in a proper perspective.

Fiscal responsibility means different things to different people. Let's use me as an example.

If I have X income, I can support a level of spending, and a certain level of debt. If I raise my level of spending to the point it threatens the welfare of my family, that's being fiscally irresponsible. If I cut my income, I cannot spend more without accruing more debt. If the repayment of that debt becomes so great that it interferes with my families normal functioning, then I am financially irresponsible. If the law were to allow my family to inherit my debt, then the same.

One can create a number of scenarios of special circumstances, and I am sure someone will, however fiscal responsibility equals good stewardship of resources.




[*]To define good/bad stewardship of resources and to define good/bad fiscal responsibility, one must list assets.


Well, assets are important. Nice things to have when the creditors come to call. For them that is
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
The GOP is in default on the Contract with America. When will Republicans see it. GOP is only interested in being conservative when a Democrat is in the white house.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
As a libertarian, I agree completely with this article. My hope is that Moderate Americans become the new conservatives now. They are the ones who want to keep the status quo and are against all these reforms. By 2012, the neocons will be recognized for the radical reformists (who are raping our country) that they in fact are, and the Republican party will be swept out of power for at least 20 years by these moderates for having foolishly allied with neocons.


BTW, I haven't spoken out on the Shinerburke issue but (after seeing bamacre's sig) I thought this might be a good time. I liked and respected Shinerburke, but I don't support how he got himself banned. Contrary to the popular stupidity here, there is nothing wrong with voicing your right-wing views here on AT, and simply doing so has never gotten anyone banned. That was not how Shinerburke got himself banned. What will get you in trouble is when you act like a petulant teenager and attack the mods' authority, as Shinerburke did. Like a parent trying to keep order in a house full of teenagers, the mods cannot operate with respect and authority, and when Shinerburke publicly challenged that, he sealed his fate. He should have known better.
How he reacted to the situation that he himself precipitated is quite telling about the "new conservative" mindset. Did he take responsibility for an outcome that only he could have prevented? No, he played the victim as bad as any liberal. Trying to garner support, I am sure, but my concern is that he might actually believe it.
Ah well, I will miss him. I respected him and valued his opinions. But trying to stage a little revolt against the mods is a pretty stupid way to get yourself banned. I hope that he comes to realize how he did it to himself.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Repeatedly taking the political compass test over time has shown me that my political views haven't changed much. I'm still somewhat economically conservative (in favor of small government and fiscal responsibility) and socially liberal (in favor of personal freedom and government butting out), yet I've gone from siding with conservatives and Republicans to disagreeing with most of them.

How messed up is it when the liberals are the ones saying the government is too big and intrudes too much into our personal lives? Really, the Republicans and conservatives have the same ideas as the liberals they claim to despise (increasing government intervention and control), they just disagreee on the specific issues that require intervention and control. That's not the Republican party or conservative agenda I was siding with.

That's because the voting has now become based of "Faith" voting not facts.

This is a taste of what it is like living in Theocracy based nations like Iran.

America is in transistion and it's not a good one.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Repeatedly taking the political compass test over time has shown me that my political views haven't changed much. I'm still somewhat economically conservative (in favor of small government and fiscal responsibility) and socially liberal (in favor of personal freedom and government butting out), yet I've gone from siding with conservatives and Republicans to disagreeing with most of them.

How messed up is it when the liberals are the ones saying the government is too big and intrudes too much into our personal lives? Really, the Republicans and conservatives have the same ideas as the liberals they claim to despise (increasing government intervention and control), they just disagreee on the specific issues that require intervention and control. That's not the Republican party or conservative agenda I was siding with.

That's because the voting has now become based of "Faith" voting not facts.

This is a taste of what it is like living in Theocracy based nations like Iran.

America is in transistion and it's not a good one.

While I don't think I see things as drastic as you do, I will agree that there is some measure of my dislike for the current "right" is based on religion. Despite sharing many views with traditional conservatives, as an agnostic, I feel uncomfortable siding with people who want to push their religion onto everyone else.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
In response to Winston's post, are there any countries that have 3 viable parties?
Canada has 3 national parties...4 if you include the Bloc (a quebec only party).

There are currently NDP, Liberal and Conservative governments running at least one provincial government currently.
Latest National Election : 2mb pdf
Note the 4 distinct colours.

Of course our system is structured much differently. The cabinet and prime minister are formed out of the house of commons. All votes go through the 308 representatives from accross the country.

2004 Results:
LIB 36.7% (135 seats)
CON 29.6% (99 seats)
BLOC 12.4% (54 seats)
NDP 15.7% (19 seats)
GRN 4.3% (0 seats)
IND 0.5% (1 seat)

Note that liberals are centre here, NDP (new democratic party) are left of centre and progressive conservatives are right of centre.
All are socially liberal with a few minor differneces...and differ mostly on fiscal agenda.

Also more than 2 major parties is not out of the ordinary.
Europe tends to have many parties in every country.
Look at Norway: 4 million people...
Norway Election
21 national parties

Party/Seats
Labour Party 65
Conservatives 23
Progress Party 25
Christian Democrats 25
Centre Party 11
Liberals 6
Socialist Left Party 9
Non-Partisan Coastal Party 1
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
So is there an "ugly mutant" out there that would like to defend this new "conservatism"?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
One word...

Republicrats.

Edit: Thanks GrGr, very good read. I was a registered Republican for many years and worked my way to an independant. Went Democrat looking for a party but still haven't really found a home. No party seems to want the fiscal conservatism that I need and the Dems seem to have the social policy (no pork social programs - i.e. Welfare. More of a social state of mind and actions). Conservatism is dead......at least for now.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Engineer
One word...

Republicrats.



All being feed at the trough of progressive taxation where few pay and all spend.


I don't disagree. Maybe mommy and daddy America should take the checkbook and credit cards from congress and the White House. The spending to get the votes. Throw in lobbiest's and corporate pushing, and you've got a nice mess - appropriately named DC. (not Distributed Computing either)


Spending...spending....spending.....keeps those presses printing...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Engineer
One word...

Republicrats.



All being feed at the trough of progressive taxation where few pay and all spend.

Well you can side with the Libertarians of course. A possibility.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
the closest thing i've found to my beliefs is the socialist party, which still really isn't close. Th green party is ok in some respects, although a little too anit-establishment for me.

Basically the repugs and the demoRATs both are bad, but of course one is truely the lesser of to evils.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Engineer
One word...

Republicrats.



All being feed at the trough of progressive taxation where few pay and all spend.


I don't disagree. Maybe mommy and daddy America should take the checkbook and credit cards from congress and the White House. The spending to get the votes. Throw in lobbiest's and corporate pushing, and you've got a nice mess - appropriately named DC. (not Distributed Computing either)


Spending...spending....spending.....keeps those presses printing...



it would require a flat tax, where every one pays and everyone spends.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |