Absolutely shocking facts about the GOP

It goes without saying that the modern Republican Party’s membership is largely Dixiecrats who left the Democratic Party over the issue of Civil Rights in the 1950s and ‘60s. That we cannot deny. This new Conservatism even surged into seizing reins of the party nomination in 1964 but ask yourself this, did the party leadership really change? True Conservatives, not the Neocon ilk, are not happy with the party but have found it hard to identify what exactly the underlying problem is.

If the Republican Party is such the Conservative party then why are its politics not really Conservative? To anyone with half a brain they know Neoconservatives are actually disgruntled former Liberals and Socialists who jumped ship with the rise of the New Left ‘Counterculture’ movement. Of course the party members and representatives must be ‘Conservative’ but to those of us who actually want real Conservatism, the GOP constantly fails to offer it.

The Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party never died, it merely absorbed into it the Barry Goldwater wing. It fused together Goldwater rhetoric with Rockefeller politics. Why is that? Look at all the people who are well known and were the ‘big dogs’ in the GOP; Rockefeller, Bush Sr., etc… Who among them were actually Conservative? They may be answering to a new voter base but that they never actually give them Conservative answers.

This just further proves why I despise the Western politics of today, especially American. If you are into egalitarianism, materialism, and ‘social progress’ then virtually every Western party will cater to your interests; I however spit on all of those ideas. My views are a mixture of Friedrich Nietzsche, Joseph de Maistre, Francois Rene de Chateaubriand, Klemens von Metternich, Oswald Spengler, and most of the other ‘Reactionaries’ who oppose liberal democracy, egalitarianism, materialism, and internationalism.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Well this is interesting. Thank you for the links!

This is a very well written, well researched post. Thank you!

reply to post by Misoir


Misoir,

Today in the south ...the Democrat Party is the thing to follow. What is not told to the general public and not posted in your threads is that the Republican party was originally the very liberal, radical, left party. It was not the Democrats. In the olde days the Democrats were the very conservative, constitutionalists.

What has happened since then is that both parties have done a flip flop..at least on the surface.

Today the Democrats are the radical, leftists, do and use/misuse anything, Drama Queen, Victim Dictum types.

And the Republicans tend towards being conservatives.

However...there is a very unknown part of the Republicans who are nothing more than Democrat Lite on certain issues.

Both political parties will sell the American public short and keep the party in power at the expense of the public and their oaths. This is an undefined arena of politics. It is also why both political parties are not the product advertised.

If Americans do not know this history...they can easily be led and seduced into voting with their emotions and not by thinking or knowing any history. The average American today votes with their emotions and has the attention span of a sound bite. This is not accidental but deliberately caused by public education non standards and a phony media.

Also one of the other posters mentioned that Edwin Stanton Killed Abraham Lincoln. I am in agreement with this.
I have a copy in my private library of a book seldom mentioned in history. "Mr Secretary" By Ben Ames Williams.

It is a biography of Edwin Stanton written by him using the above pen name and released in 1940 some seventy years after the death of Edwin Stanton. In it he tells how he sabotaged the civil war efforts to allow the Confederate troops to gain victories or to escape the Union forces...at the Peninsula Campaign, after Gettysburg etc. Also how he would not allow the accused in the Lincoln Assassination trial to give testimony and had them gagged and hooded such that they could not testify on their behalf ...even up to the time they were hung.
There was alot of double dealing during the Civil War...even up to allowing John Wilkes Booth to escape where he died in Ceylon India in the 1870s and someone on the Union Side knew this had happened.

You can find this information's in Izola Forresters book "This One Mad Act."

Izola Forrester is the grand daughter of John Wilkes Booth and she discovered this while doing research on her grandfather. That even in her family this was carefully hushed up.

This type of double dealing is still being done today in our government.

Nonetheless..the Republican and Democrat parties both have done a flip flop over the years.

The Republicans used to be the liberals...the Democrats used to be the conservatives. Today this is reversed.

Once you know this you can concentrate on who or what caused this reversal.

But I put no stock in either party...as it becomes obvious over time that both of these two parties are not the product advertised. This is an important clue as to the nature of what is is with which you are working concerning politics and the very nature and essence of politics.


Any legitimate business would have to deliver the product advertised or go out of business to their competition. But not so with these two political parties. They both fail to deliver the product advertised and yet they can both stay in power. This strongly indicates a very backwards and uninformed voting block/electorate out here...and that it is done so deliberately.


Thanks,
Orangetom

Another Layer to the Onion !

The United States had a Central Bank in 1792 with a 20 year charter. This was controlled by London Bankers.

Does anyone find it interesting that the United States had one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto in place 50 years before Marx even wrote it ?

Can someone pls summarize this wall of text.

reply to post by Misoir


It's time to kick out the Establishment Neocons with Skull and Bones CFR roots and go back to real conservative values, not more "moderate" ones.

A very interesting, well written and well researched thread.

My point to you is: so?

Every political party, every person---heck, everything created has a story to it. Whatever exists today winds through the machiations of daily life like a seashell in the tide----forming and reforming, forever changed by the winds and the movement of life. Nothing that exists today holds the same lines and characteristics that it started out with---not even you.

The same strange trajectory can be seen in many political and social institutions.

The question to you is this: How is this made relevant in practical terms today? Do you think conservatives are still leaning towards socialism? If so, is this view held by a majority of its members? Does it effect policy? If so, how?

reply to post by MRuss


How it effects today would be placed in skunkworks if I was to elaborate upon it but I believe this is why Neoconservatism is the dominant ideology of the party. If you would like to know what I mean by this read my thread here.

I was shocked when I learnt this little juicy tidbit. It's a mostly Repub. vote They have a currently undeserved reputation of being ultra-conservative. I don't theenk so.

Mostly Repub. vote on bill

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


This one of the main reasons the Tea Party was formed, because of disgust with both parties. Especially the neo=cons that have destroyed the GOP. Not only are the Tea party for lower taxes, hence the name, but for a return to constitutional values (and that doesn't mean slavery like the idiot lib media tries to use to discredit the movement) . It means being a representative government of, for and by the people. Unfortunately only 3 years later and the Tea Party has already been ransacked by the GOP. We just have to get fighting.

And just a side comment on all the quoting of Wikipedia...not a dependable source for facts of any kind..it's just a site where anyone can post anything and edit anyone else's posts. (not directed at you Eye)

reply to post by Misoir


Very, very, VERY good job here bud! You have discovered something here most middle class American conservatives have no clue about. The two parties that constantly battle back and forth are the same coin with sides that only "appear" different. When in fact they are the same coin made out of useless Zinc. You can trace out country's downfall, with the downfall of our coinage. 1913, 1933, 1964, 1974, 1982, 2004.....and so on. As our coins lost their precious metals.....so too did our country loss its rights and liberties.

reply to post by MarkJS


Here's part of the explaination why Rep voted against it....

It has been the most favorable to the majority since the early part of the 1990s. By intentionally skipping the committee of jurisdiction, the Democratic leadership has deliberately short-circuited the opportunity to methodically test the bill as tax policy. Unfortunately, this process defect has been more the rule than the exception. Since the stimulus bill in January of 2009, the Finance Committee has only marked up one tax policy bill, the health care reform bill. As a former chairman, I know the current chairman would not want to proceed this way. Nope. My sense is the Democratic leadership simply doesn't want this bill to undergo the extra scrutiny of a regular order process.

Unlike the 2004 JOBS bill, this bill is being presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Republicans are not supporting cloture because they are not being offered the opportunity to amend this bill with amendments that go to the supposed purposes of the bill. No amendments allowed on other tax incentives for job creation. No amendments allowed on measures to prevent offshoring of jobs. I have amendments dealing directly with the offshoring of jobs question. They are bipartisan amendments. If I vote for cloture, I have no assurances from the Democratic leadership that these amendments will be in order. Any look back on the way in which tax bills have been processed this year tells me I have good reasons for doubting that a full debate would occur. I would like to briefly describe the two amendments I filed earlier.

The first amendment mirrors a bill that the junior Senator from Vermont and I have coauthored. Known as the Employ America Act, this amendment would prevent any company engaged in a mass layoff of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest worker programs. Companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.


The rest can be seen @

thomas.loc.gov...:1:./temp/~r11188NgHf:e11047: these are the actual minutes from the discussions.

Originally posted by Misoir
It goes without saying that the modern Republican Party’s membership is largely Dixiecrats who left the Democratic Party over the issue of Civil Rights in the 1950s and ‘60s. That we cannot deny. This new Conservatism even surged into seizing reins of the party nomination in 1964 but ask yourself this, did the party leadership really change? True Conservatives, not the Neocon ilk, are not happy with the party but have found it hard to identify what exactly the underlying problem is.

If the Republican Party is such the Conservative party then why are its politics not really Conservative? To anyone with half a brain they know Neoconservatives are actually disgruntled former Liberals and Socialists who jumped ship with the rise of the New Left ‘Counterculture’ movement. Of course the party members and representatives must be ‘Conservative’ but to those of us who actually want real Conservatism, the GOP constantly fails to offer it.

The Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party never died, it merely absorbed into it the Barry Goldwater wing. It fused together Goldwater rhetoric with Rockefeller politics. Why is that? Look at all the people who are well known and were the ‘big dogs’ in the GOP; Rockefeller, Bush Sr., etc… Who among them were actually Conservative? They may be answering to a new voter base but that they never actually give them Conservative answers.

This just further proves why I despise the Western politics of today, especially American. If you are into egalitarianism, materialism, and ‘social progress’ then virtually every Western party will cater to your interests; I however spit on all of those ideas. My views are a mixture of Friedrich Nietzsche, Joseph de Maistre, Francois Rene de Chateaubriand, Klemens von Metternich, Oswald Spengler, and most of the other ‘Reactionaries’ who oppose liberal democracy, egalitarianism, materialism, and internationalism.

Keep in mind... Neo-cons are rejected by liberals, socialists, and so on. They are NOT considered liberal but rather majority conservative with sympathies towards welfare (though the Bush admin did a "heckuva job" promoting beneficial welfare for people in need).

So you spit on/oppose egalitarianism, democracy, and international relations...

Sorry, but that's insane and, to me, seems to have no rational basis. I have my assumptions about what you're referring to... and I'm going to also assume that you have many misunderstandings regarding such lines of thought. But I'll let you elaborate, if you will...

reply to post by Misoir

This just further proves why I despise the Western politics of today, especially American. If you are into egalitarianism, materialism, and ‘social progress’ then virtually every Western party will cater to your interests; I however spit on all of those ideas. My views are a mixture of Friedrich Nietzsche, Joseph de Maistre, Francois Rene de Chateaubriand, Klemens von Metternich, Oswald Spengler, and most of the other ‘Reactionaries’ who oppose liberal democracy, egalitarianism, materialism, and internationalism.

First of all, neither materialism nor internationalism are liberal democratic ideals. Materialism and nationalism are conservative ideals, idealistically opposed to liberalism and egalitarianism.

If you don't support liberalism and egalitarianism than you are diametrically opposed to the very ideals on which the U.S. was founded, as laid forth in the The Declaration of Independence, where they substituted the pursuit of happiness for property.

Your problem, like other conservatives singing the same song, isn't that the republican party doesn't represent you, they do, but that the policies and ideals you support, consistently lead to economic failure, and a break down of our society. Tax cuts for the super rich, failure to enforce laws against crooked business activities, big military, and oppression of individual liberties based on religious intolerance consistently fail.

Now, maybe you don't support a big military or government regulation of individual behavior based on religious intolerance, but most conservative do believe in these things. In addition, tax cuts for the super rich and failure to enforce laws against fraudulent business activities, will always lead to a military police state, where individual liberties are suppressed under religious intolerance, as these things support the power of the super rich, as history has demonstrated over and over again.

The republican party was from the beginning, a conservative party, with support of some liberal beliefs, such as the abolition of slavery, and the rights of family farmers over plantation owners. The embrace of the radical religious preferences demonstrated that at its heart, the republicans were conservatives.

The Democratic-Republican party started by Jefferson, which changed to the Democratic party under Jackson, was always liberal, and believed in liberal democracy and egalitarianism. They were moved towards conservative beliefs by conservative Southerners, who had always been conservative, where most of the loyalists during the Revolutionary War were located, and who are very religious.

Today's Democratic party fails to represent the working class, possibly more than any time in our nations history. They have become elites who look down upon workers as inferior people.

What we need is a party that recognizes the importance of the democratic process, which actually supports the common citizen against the tyranny of giant institutions.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Read any of the people I mentioned at the end of that post and it will be perfectly clear to you what I believe. At the moment I do not have the time to explain my views thoroughly.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
It's a nice read on the origins of the Republican party, but it doesn't reflect on the current iteration of the GOP. Just as the social-political environment has drastically changed from the 1800's, so too have the political parties. The GOP of today bears very little in common with that of Lincoln, with perhaps the exception of the evangelical wing of social conservatives. One of the core constituencies of the GOP of today is from those former Southern Democrats (the "dixiecrats") who bolted from the Democratic party when democrats began cracking down on Jim Crow and passing anti-segregation laws. Of course these 'shocking facts' might make for an entertaining conversation with diehard GOP neo-cons who love to bash 'socialism' at every chance, when one points out the hypocritical origin of their party.

Very good point. The inception of parties in the USA has little, if any, bearing on the current course of the modern parties. The thread originator's mention of "neo-conservatives" belies the fact that the Intellectual Republican Party died with William F. Buckley Jr. "Neo-Consrvatives" have been in charge for 30+ years! They just have a new name! While this is fascinating history, it does not hold up to the level of ongoing conspiracy that is implied. To get to the heart of the point (an explanation as to why Ron Paul is not supported by the party), Ron Paul is but one choice of several. Paul has never supported the Repub Party and the party treats him in-kind.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by MarkJS

 

Here's part of the explaination why Rep voted against it....

It has been the most favorable to the majority since the early part of the 1990s. By intentionally skipping the committee of jurisdiction, the Democratic leadership has deliberately short-circuited the opportunity to methodically test the bill as tax policy. Unfortunately, this process defect has been more the rule than the exception. Since the stimulus bill in January of 2009, the Finance Committee has only marked up one tax policy bill, the health care reform bill. As a former chairman, I know the current chairman would not want to proceed this way. Nope. My sense is the Democratic leadership simply doesn't want this bill to undergo the extra scrutiny of a regular order process.

Unlike the 2004 JOBS bill, this bill is being presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Republicans are not supporting cloture because they are not being offered the opportunity to amend this bill with amendments that go to the supposed purposes of the bill. No amendments allowed on other tax incentives for job creation. No amendments allowed on measures to prevent offshoring of jobs. I have amendments dealing directly with the offshoring of jobs question. They are bipartisan amendments. If I vote for cloture, I have no assurances from the Democratic leadership that these amendments will be in order. Any look back on the way in which tax bills have been processed this year tells me I have good reasons for doubting that a full debate would occur. I would like to briefly describe the two amendments I filed earlier.

The first amendment mirrors a bill that the junior Senator from Vermont and I have coauthored. Known as the Employ America Act, this amendment would prevent any company engaged in a mass layoff of American workers from importing cheaper labor from abroad through temporary guest worker programs. Companies that are truly facing labor shortages would not be impacted by this legislation and could continue to obtain employer-sponsored visas. Only companies that are laying off a large number of Americans would be barred from importing foreign workers through guest worker programs.


The rest can be seen @

thomas.loc.gov...:1:./temp/~r11188NgHf:e11047: these are the actual minutes from the discussions.

Dear..... VIP, Thank you for your response. It sounds like the problem is deeper than just the bill cited. It's true.... I have heard that this bill/law/legistation has been in place for a number of years.... which is tragic IMHO.... to have US Taxpayer tax dollars used to finance companies to leave the country. And you wonder why people are jaded when they hear that Repubs or Washington in general are 'for jobs'. On the surface, it does not seem like they are.

What I was alluding to, is that from your explanation, the problem is much deeper than just the simple process of bringing bills for review and subsequent cloture. The system/process is messed up. That is what sounds like needs to get fixed, as well.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by MarkJS

 

I have amendments dealing directly with the offshoring of jobs question. They are bipartisan amendments.

Good, sounds promising. Please follow up with these, for the country's sake.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by MarkJS

 

If I vote for cloture, I have no assurances from the Democratic leadership that these amendments will be in order. Any look back on the way in which tax bills have been processed this year tells me I have good reasons for doubting that a full debate would occur.

Someone needs to fix the system.

On a related note: I can't believe that we even have H-1B people coming in here, when there are so many Americans are unemployed. I believe that as more and more (cheaper wage) foreigners are brought in, they will have a detrimental cultural effect on entire companies. The companies are thinking- yes, we've got a bargain, but they don't see the potential long-term effects... while Americans are knocking on their door asking for work. It's kinda backwards, I think. It was Americans that made these companies great, by purchasing their products for decades. Now, they all want to export all of their labor to other countries- just because they can. It makes good business sense, but IMHO, it's just wrong, and observed as a betrayal to the American people and to the country itself. Payroll taxes that should be going to municipalities, states and the Fed. are not. Maybe a bill can be passed for..continued...

reply to post by MarkJS


Maybe a bill can be passed for corporations to compensate said branches of government of lost payroll tax and FICA dollars for every job that is exported.

Thank You for Your Consideration....

Poet1b,

When any government, be it from the Republicans or Democrat parties, has the ability to create money unlimited ..they will do so..and on the public purse...the public's back..the public's labor and RISKS.

This gives the government, be it Republican or Democrat parties, the ability to outspend the people of this country in the one marketplace out here which exists. There is only one marketplace.

This means that it is the American Public which is the competition of the government, be it from the Republican or Democrat political parties.

It is we, the American public, who must be controlled such that we do not out buy or out spend the Government, be it Republican or Democrat political parties.

It is we, The American Public, who must be controlled as to whom we vote for, whom we fear, whom we revere, what we think or don't think.,.et al.

We must be subject to a rigged system such that we do not think outside the authorized and sanctioned Boxes of what is needed at the moment.

One control factor or hate and division so popular today is "Tax Breaks for the Rich."
This is textbook of the fear and loathing promoted by government and politics looking for a bad guy to focus on such that we the people do not see what our government is doing .

It was not difficult to see a couple of years ago when the deficit was being increased so greatly that it would not be long before the next big increase in the deficit would be necessary and here we are already talking about trillions more.

When the government can create monies unlimited......."THEY ARE THE RICH"

Government just feeds us bad guys to keep us from seeing what they themselves are doing to the economy ...what monster they themselves are creating.

This is very similar to what other nations in history have done to create bad guys ...good cop/bad cop.

What is interesting to me is that there are some people in this phony fiat money system who can make money and these parasites want to take from them/penalize them for being successful.

If they took all the money from everyone with a million dollars or more today..it would not run this government for a month...and then we would all be broke.

"THE GOVERNMENT IS THE RICH IF THEY CAN CREATE MONEY UNLIMITED FOR THEY CAN NOW OUTSPEND EVERYONE."

The only candidate who even comes close to recognizing this of which I know is Ron Paul. None of the others..even in the so called conservative media will not touch this topic or tell the truth about it. They will perpetuate the lie ..same as the other liberal party. None of them will tell the truth on this. All the political parties are phony on this issue.

This is why Ron Paul is not liked by the MSM..both liberal and conservative. This is also why I call the Republicans as "DEMOCRAT LITE"

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom