"The Nazi’s believed in militarism, believing that a state could only remain strong if and only if it was expanding militaristically.

Numerous left-wing regimes have believed the same. Nothing "conservative" about it. Nazis believed in the total organisation and mobilization of society under the Party, including the military and everything else. That isn´t militarism, it is collectivism. Indistinguishable from the Soviet Union or Cuba.

As for expansion, nazis believed life to be a zero-sum game in which Peoples are in a constant fight for the distribution of limited resources. Modern pro-growth, free-market conservatives know this to be wrong, the left still bases its policies on this archaic view, with classes substituted for races.

"The Nazi’s also opposed homosexuality, as well as opposing other cultures. They insisted that German Aryan culture was superb, and all other cultures were inferior. Cultural relativism is a characteristic of left not the right."

The left is only relativist when it comes to traditional western, Christian, conservative values. The left is not relativist when it comes to their own values. The left invented political correctness, broke heads and defended ugly regimes around the world because they shared their values.

"It was a movement that opposed both Democracy, because democracy allowed for minorities to have a voice in politics, and communism because of the class-conflict and egalitarianism."

It was a progressive idea of the time that mere democracy had failed (we see its echo today when liberals from Friedman to Obama want us to be more like China).

And egalitarianism was one of the big selling points of Hitler. The antisemitism appealed because it had an egalitarian aspect. After all, everyone knew that good, honest Germans could not compete with those cunning Jews. Jews were synonymous with unbound capitalism. Some still believe it, which is why the liberal Occupy movement attracts antisemites.

"...the political concentration of power, and the suppression of cultures and viewpoints not consistent with Aryan goals, as well as it’s opposition to minorities, progressive women’s roles, and gays make it a political and socially conservative movement.

The nazis were romantic revolutionaries who wanted to destroy the traditional German society and they mostly did. Their writings and speeches stressed the need to overthrown and construct something new, which is inherently un-conservative. They ridculed traditional values and morality.
So what if they idealized rural life? So did Pol Pot. Like Pol Pot, Goebbels actually used phrases like "new time" and "new man". They were collectivists and in the context of their time quite progressive, which is why propgressives often liked them.

"That is not just a means but an end. In Nazism on the other hand, the goal was a heavily organized and militarized society directed toward racial supremacy and national expansion."

No, that was just one attribute of the German variant of fascism called nazism. What ties nazism to other forms of fascism is the primacy of the collective, which expresses its general will through the state. The individual is dissolved in the group, whether it is race or class based is a mere detail. For the nazis it was both.

The achieve this, the fascist needs to build a new society, even a "new man", which requires him to first destroy the given society, its traditions and values. In the US, this is a declared goal of the left. Obama calls it "fundamental change".

It is clear why this is anathema to all people who defend the founding principles and traditions of the USA, and who are commonly known as "conservatives". By contrast, fascism is revolutionary and inherently anti-conservative.

"Oliver Stone has already made a film with these same themes: “JFK.” He had one figure, Jim Garrison, pitted against the FBI, CIA, a presidential administration, and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. Like Chambers, Garrison was the target of a government-sponsored smear campaign."

Only in the movie. Unlike Chambers, Garrison was nuts.

Perhaps she went downhill because she was the kind of woman who would only hook up with a guy like Brown. You know, what they consider to be an alpha male. But you see that happen all the time. Those are choices made by adult women and why would I get upset when they don´t work out?

She chose him. Nobody forced her. She is not the first woman to choose a brutal dominant a**hole over all available decent guys.

He probably is. Does he strike you like a guy who is on top of current events?

If you talk to him about deficits and unemployment, the big numbers will just make him dizzy. He´s in the bubble made especially for millionaire liberals.

Oh, I´ll see it. But I´ll find a way to see it for free. This is the 21st century and there are ways not to pay for content.

I always pay for music but if a band is open about being communists then I make a point of stealing it. If I want to listen to it at all.

"So, it is not true that everyone votes for people who look like them. Unless, of course, Mr. Jackson thinks that all white folks look alike."

There is no white elected Democrat who didn´t get a majority of the black vote.
On the other hand, it seems black Republicans can only win in white majority districts.