A listing of the different types of Conservatives found in America today.

This is a listing of the various types, and sub-classifications of American conservatism today. As one delves deeper, one can clearly see that modern American conservatism comes in many types, shapes and flavors. There is no “one size fits all” American conservative.

The key to the success of any Presidential Conservative candidate or President is to be able to unite all these disparate groups under one singular banner. Is it even possible?

[1] The members of the “conservative movement.”

We start right off, addressing one of the most common themes used in the American mainstream media. That is, being a member of the “Conservative Movement”. This is generally a catch-all phrase that has no real meaning. However, it is useful by progressive liberal Democrats to single out and demonize non-Marxists.

While the mainstream American progressive-liberal media likes to talk about this “Conservative Movement”, most actual conservatives haven’t a clue as to what they are actually referring to. We kind of feel offended that we are so often labeled by the ignorant elites inside the urban centers.

From the article: [6] FReeper Conservatives

“Free Republic” conservative individuals go by the name FReepers. They have been around since the early days of the Bill Clinton administration, and came into being as a conservative back-lash against his most outrageous policies. Such as…

NAFTA
Replacement of the International Space-station with the ISS.
Paying Russian soldiers salaries.
They formed a chat-room on the internet and there they would post articles and comment on them. They formed clusters of activists and were instrumental in uncovering such things as the looting of Air Force One on EBay by the Clinton’s, and gluing down of the “W” on all the key-boards in the White House.

FReepers are true and real “grass roots” conservatives.
They became such a force to be reckoned with that there was a mainstream media backlash. Many of which forbid any of their articles to be reposted on the FR website. Today, most websites have buttons that allow a person to easily repost an article on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and other such venues, yet Free Republic postings are still banned.

Shared articles permitted to liberal websites.
Shared articles prohibited to conservative websites.
The organization itself is a loose collection of individuals from many different conservative camps. The active participation ebbs and flows over the years, but there is a core constituency that are very politically astute. Roughly speaking there is a community of “lurkers” who regularly read the postings but do not contribute or comment. This group is like an iceberg and represents the bunk of the FR readership.

This organization is also considered a “thorn in the side” of the liberal mainstream media, and is only permitted to exist as long as they can direct traffic to liberal-friendly mainstream media outlets. To this end, there are paid trolls that frequent the site in shifts.

The objective of the FR trolls is to limit conservative dialog to the site; box it in. Make it limited so that there isn’t any traceable “spill over” onto the Internet.

Trump tweet on conservative censorship of search data by Google search engines.
This is so that the Google algorithms do not notice traffic to other smaller conservative websites. It serves to keep small conservative bloggers, websites, and associated traffic way… way down in the search hierarchy. Instead of a Conservative post being on the top three pages of a Google Search, they can end up on page 50 to 60 in a given search.

(This is) Based on their internet connectivity to other websites.

They gamed the system that way. You can read about this in more detail in these other articles.

Tech giants plotting to suppress ALL conservative posts
How Google’s search algorithm spreads false information
Report: Google is biased against conservative websites
Google search algorithms are not impartial.
If Google Is Biased, So Are Its Algorithms
Evidence That Google’s Search Results Are Biased
By limiting small conservative websites from getting any internet traffic, they effective “box them in” in such a way that they are practically invisible to any given search. They have to compete against liberal posts, blogs and articles that allow linking to other liberal social media like Facebook, twitter, etc.

Social media share buttons help establish prevalence in Internet search engines. Trolls on Free Republic have a role to minimize small conservative, articles, posts and blogs from ever being recognized by the search engine. This is accomplished by limiting their internet connectivity.
Every time a person reads a Washington Post article, and then clicks on the “share on social media” button, the article makes an impression on the Internet. When a person reads a complete, wholly copied article on Free Republic, there is no impression made.

So from the Google algorithm, it appears that the liberal Washington Post article has more popularity and value (worth) than a conservative article posted on Free Republic. This is a significant factor in relevance placing in the search results.

To accomplish this suppression of conservative articles and blog posts, the FR Trolls do so using the following techniques…

Demand full text transcripts from conservative blogs or sites, not excerpts.
Ridicule posters that have a conservative ideology.
Spread lies about posted links (i.e. pop-up ads, or paywall, etc.)
Make derogatory statements regarding a particular poster.
The trolls are easy to spot, as they are usually the first to post on a conservative themed blog or article. They are also the first to say anything negative. Whether it is intentional redirection to just nasty comments.

Today, FReepers represent a good cross-section of everyday conservative thought. They tend to be part of a wide and deep demographic and thus serve as an accurate biometic to measure the pace and mood of the conservative audience. The website itself provides a good cross-section of conservative thought, intermixed with articles regarding other subjects (known as “chat”).

Known conservative lurkers to Free Republic include;

Rush Limbaugh
Donald Trump
William F. Buckley (Deceased)
The website can be found here; www.freerepublic.com

People should read it! From the article above:

The key to the success of any Presidential Conservative candidate or President is to be able to unite all these disparate groups under one singular banner. Is it even possible?

[1] The members of the “conservative movement.”

We start right off, addressing one of the most common themes used in the American mainstream media. That is, being a member of the “Conservative Movement”. This is generally a catch-all phrase that has no real meaning. However, it is useful by progressive liberal Democrats to single out and demonize non-Marxists.

Ex-Republican reveals how the Conservative Movement is a scam.
There is a dangerous trend that exists in the fringes of the Modern Orthodox Jewish world to imitate these errors of the Conservative movement.
The Dangers of the Gay Conservative Movement
While the mainstream American progressive-liberal media likes to talk about this “Conservative Movement”, most actual conservatives haven’t a clue as to what they are actually referring to. We kind of feel offended that we are so often labeled by the ignorant elites inside the urban centers.

What is the “Conservative Movement”? Does anyone really know?
In actually, and functionally, it is usually associated with a constellation of single-issue nonprofit organizations. All of which were singled out by former President Obama, for IRS targeting and harassment from 2008 to 2016.

As such, they were, thus effectively suppressed from political dialog during the 2012 election, which permitted the rousing reelection of Barrack Obama for another four year term. As well as to allow other conservative movements to arise to the forefront.

IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservatives

Most of these nonprofits sprung up in the 1970s and still exist in the form on single-issue conservatism. These non-profits include (and are not limited to);

Gun Rights, Second Amendment supporters, and their ilk.
Pro-life, anti-abortion, and anti-death-penalty folk.
Taxpayer rights, anti-16th amendment people, and transparency movements.
The Right to work movement, and other labor issues.
Privacy movements, and other 4th amendment movements.
Functionally, most “single issue” Conservative movements revolve around the American Federal Bill of Rights. All of the movements can be traced back to a point where the Bill of Rights is being violated.

For instance, consider the privacy issue. The Utah Data Collection Center would not exist at all if the 4th amendment were being followed as it was written.
The idea that a person can smoke Marijuana is a tenth amendment issue. The idea that there should be zero censorship, and no such thing as “hate speech” is a first amendment issue.
The right to bear arms is a second amendment issue, and the various issues today related to individual freedoms and violations thereof can be traced to fifth amendment construction.

[2] The Conservative “Intellectual” movement.

This group mainly consists of the well-written and published American Conservatives. It consists of writers, scholars, and others whose journalistic and political work deals mainly with ideas. These are the folk that will argue up and down, and sideways all elements of a particular issue through academic parsing.

Ivory Tower Conservatives also known as intellectual conservatives.
They are the “Ivory Tower” folk who tend to be quite bright but not really very practical. These are the conservative people that scream bloody murder when President Trump tries to implement an EO to stop some out-of-control situation simply because previous precedents were not clear. Their utility was too murky.

In real life, when confronted by an armed robber, they would hold up their index finger to the robber. Tell them to “wait a minute”, while they dial 911. Then wait until the police arrive, rather than deal with the robber themselves. They are that out of touch with reality.

[3] The Conservative “Talking Heads”

This group mainly consists of the visible (to the public at large) American Conservatives. This group consists of people that “Joe Average” would associate with Conservatives, good or bad. Noted members include…

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter - These commentators serve a very useful purpose. many of them voice the feelings, beliefs and motivations of the silenced conservative majority. They do so with amplification, and control over the air-waves, and in the case of El’ Rushbo, a Golden EIB Microphone.

They can educate, inspire, entertain, and lambast, but they cannot make policy. They serve as icons for whatever exists of modern contemporaneous conservative thought.

[4] Tea Partiers

The Tea Party movement is an American fiscally conservative political movement. Their primary emphasis has been on fiscal responsibility. Which means lower taxes, and a serious reduction of the federal debt.

In a way, one could argue that this group is focused on 16th amendment issues.

As such, the movement supports small-government principles. They are opposed to any kind of “big government” initiatives and opposes government-sponsored universal healthcare. They demand a re-look at the 16th amendment in light of the damage that it has caused the United States, and require an audit of the Federal reserve to determine just how in debt the United States actually is.

This is considered a serious threat by the progressive Marxists in power in the United States, and they took action against this organization.

Obama’s IRS Admits To Specifically Targeting Tea Party
And, of course, the progressive American mainstream news media (Newsweek) has tried to spin the narrative in favor of the Marxists. So they report the exact opposite. Makes sense in a kind of “Big Brother” sort of way…

Remember the IRS Scandal? It was Fake News All Along
The Tea Party movement has been described as a popular constitutional movement composed of a mixture of libertarian, right-wing populist, and conservative activism. It has sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009. According to the American Enterprise Institute, various polls in 2013 estimate that slightly over 10 percent of Americans identified as part of the movement.

[5] Grifter Conservatives

These people are NOT conservatives. Though they operate as conservatives. Instead, these are leaches that feed off conservatives. They control the pools of money that grass-root conservative efforts collect, and siphon off huge percentages for themselves.

Al Gore, a Democrat, exactly fits the profile of a grifter conservative. These are people who have no real political ideology, rather they use American politics as a kind of “gravy train” from which to profit from.
The are called conservatives as that is the mantle they wear while they are stealing money. Many, I am sad to say, then take that money and use it for their own personal needs and (perhaps) give the rest to progressive liberal causes.

These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans. They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don’t care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others.

They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of controlling everything and everyone in this world.

This precisely describes virtually every politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head, MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the president.

-US vs Them
By looking at the percentages, once can see that it is all just an enormous racket to steal money from conservatives.

Here’s some typical examples. Found from HERE.

Back in 2013, Conservative StrikeForce PAC raised $2.2 million in funds vowing to support Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign for governor in Virginia. Court filings and FEC records showed that the PAC only contributed $10,000 to Cuccinelli’s effort. Less than one-half of a percent of the collected moneys went to the professed cause. This is 0.45%.
Back in 2014, Politico researched 33 political action committees that claimed to be affiliated with the Tea Party and courted small donors with email and direct-mail appeals and found that they “raised $43 million — 74 percent of which came from small donors. The PACs spent only $3 million on ads and contributions to boost the long-shot candidates often touted in the appeals, compared to $39.5 million on operating expenses, including $6 million to firms owned or managed by the operatives who run the PACs.”
Back in 2015, RightWingNews reviewed the financial filings of 21 prominent conservative PACs and found the ten 10 groups at the bottom of their list spent $54.3 million only paid out $3.6 million to help get Republicans elected.
Back in 2016, campaign finance lawyer Paul H. Jossey detailed how some of the PACs operated and lamented, “the Tea Party movement is pretty much dead now, but it didn’t die a natural death. It was murdered — and it was an inside job. In a half decade, the spontaneous uprising that shook official Washington degenerated into a form of pyramid scheme that transferred tens of millions of dollars from rural, poorer Southerners and Midwesterners to bicoastal political operatives.”
In 2016, Roger Stone founded the Committee to Restore America’s Greatness. It raised $587,000 and spent $16,000 on independent expenditures supporting Trump.
In 2016, Great America PAC raised $28.6 million from donors. They donated $30,125 to federal candidates. In 2018, Great America PAC raised $8.3 million from donors. They donated $31,840 to federal candidates.
In 2017, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said that despite the actions of a PAC that claimed to be raising money for a Clarke bid for U.S. Senate, he was not running. That PAC raised $2 million.
In 2018, a federal indictment declared grassroots conservatives across the country gave $23 million to scam PACs run by William and Robert Tierney from 2014 to 2018, believing they were supporting conservative groups like “Republican Majority Campaign PAC,” “Americans for Law Enforcement PAC,” and “Rightmarch.com PAC.” Only $109,000 went to candidates.
In the 2018 cycle, Tea Party Majority Fund raised $1.67 million and donated $35,000 to federal candidates.
That 2018 cycle, Conservative Majority Fund raised just over $1 million and donated $7,500 to federal candidates. 0.75%
Conservative Strikeforce raised $258,376 and donated nothing to federal candidates. 0%.
Put Vets First PAC raised $3.9 million in the 2018 cycle; they gave $9,000 to federal candidates. Or 0.02%! That is two-one hundredths of one percent.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that David Bossie’s group, Presidential Coalition, had raised $18.5 million in 2017 and 2018 to support state and local candidates in furtherance of the Trump agenda. Only $425,442, or 3 percent, went to direct political activity.
There are pages and pages of examples. Conservatives are often enticed to fund conservative efforts, and in many cases the money is siphoned off for personal enjoyments, and the balance given to progressive and not conservative causes.

The article is amazingly fun to read, here’s another excerpt:[12] Neo conservatives (Neocons)

Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labeling its adherents) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party, and the growing New Left and counterculture, in particular the Vietnam protests.

These are war-hawks and have no problem with war, destruction and excessive military spending. One of the most well known is that evil son-of-a-bitch John McCain. You can read about him and his legacy here…
Neocon. A politician who, on the lectern, claims to be a conservative, claims belief in smaller government and less government spending, but in practice increases spending and increases the size of government. John Mccain calls himself a conservative, yet he votes for Cap and Trade. He’s just a centrist neocon.

-The Urban Dictionary..........Some characteristics…

They believe that war is necessary for social cohesiveness, and to keep donor coffers full.
They first started to have a voice in internal politics as early as the Ford administration.
They tend to lie in order to accomplish their goals.
One of their biggest lies is to support “smaller government” initiatives. In reality believe in big spending and tax cuts for their wealthy political and business friends, hence deficit spending.
They pretend being social conservatives, although true social conservatives believe they really care about social issues. Neocons distract the public by acting like they really care about social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and flag burning. Meanwhile they are busy conducting wars and stifling your freedom.
They believe in costly wars and creating boogeymen to try and make you think only they can keep you safe while they restrict your freedoms to “protect you”. This is their signature issue, to help keep them in power.
They actually despise any types of small government advocates, Barry Goldwater, traditional live and let live conservative, and libertarians
Some Neocons include George Bush I and II, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and John McCain.

[13] The Paleos

Where the paleoconservatives distinguish themselves from the other camps is foreign policy. The paleos are noninterventionists who, all things being equal, would prefer that America radically reduce her overseas commitments. In a way, they are almost the opposite of a Neoconservative.

I might be considered a Paleo Conservative, if I wasn’t having so much fun with food, drink and pretty girls.

Though it’s probably not how he’d describe himself, the foremost paleo is Tucker Carlson, who offers a mix of traditional social values, suspicion of globalization, and noninterventionism every weekday on cable television.

Carlson touched off an important debate with his January 3 opening monologue on markets. “Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined,” Carlson said. “Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible. You can’t separate the two.”

Tucker Carlson
Carlson’s indictment of America’s “ruling class” and “the ugliest parts of our financial system” was remarkable for several reasons.

First, he delivered it on a network whose opinion programs normally laud American capitalism and free enterprise.
Second, the speech was wide-ranging, criticizing everyone from Mitt Romney to Sheryl Sandberg to parents who let their kids smoke weed.
Third, Carlson offered a theory of the case. Social decline, he said, is related to the loss of manufacturing jobs. It happened in the inner cities. Now it’s happening in the Rust Belt and in rural America. When jobs disappear and low-skilled male wages decline, family formation breaks down.
While Carlson noted in passing that wage income is taxed at a higher rate than investment income, he did not make any specific proposals.

“I’m not a policy guy, I’m a talk show host, but I sincerely believe that no problem is solved unless you have a clear image in your mind of what you want the result to be,”

-Carlson told Michael Brendan Dougherty at the National Review Institute conference in March. Earlier this month, he welcomed John Burtka, the chairman of the paleo journal The American Conservative (TAC), on to his program. Burtka argued for treating the social media giants as monopolies. Carlson loved it.

Burtka offered a defense of “economic nationalism.” He advocates a national industrial strategy, without providing many details, though presumably incorporating some mixture of tariffs and government-directed investment. His reluctance toward nuts-and-bolts legislative proposals is widespread.

“We still need to figure out a lot of the details for how this vision of conservative politics, a pro-family, pro-worker, pro-American nation, conservatism actually looks in practice,” - J. D. Vance told a recent TAC gala.
Paleos have brought renewed attention to the condition of American communities.

Paleos might not have exact answers when it comes to domestic policy, but they are certain American foreign policy should be restrained, within constitutional bounds, and prioritize diplomacy over military force. Amen to that!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.