The GOP Is Dying Because The Liberty Movement Is Thriving

To the point of causing intestinal convulsions, there has been no shortage of analysis on the elections of 2012. Every no-name mop-head mainstream media hack with a niche audience has put in his or her two cents on the finale of perhaps the biggest non-event of the decade and almost every single one of them has been depressingly wrong or completely disingenuous - but perhaps this was to be expected. The word “journalist” has today become synonymous with “whore”, simply because success in the field makes whoredom essential. The job of news outlets is not to report on the facts, but to fashion an illusory world out of manure bricks and glossy paint, and this is exactly what they have done in their musing on the fate of the GOP.

For any saucer-eyed skeptic who still believes that all disinformation is mere coincidence or personal bias rather than an engineered and coordinated conspiracy, I would like to point out the sudden, similar and simultaneous conclusions of MSM pundits in the wake of Barack Obama’s “victory” in November. You would think that there would be hundreds if not thousands of conflicting ideas about what really happened this year, but instead, Americans are being presented with a chorus of identical viewpoints.

One meme that is being spread widely in the mainstream that I do actually agree with is that the Republican Party is “dying”. Oh yes, this is undoubtedly true. The GOP is on the fast track to the stew pot (or maybe another pot), but what the mainstream fails to mention is that this is something that alternative analysts in the Liberty Movement have been predicting for years, long before the name “Barack Obama” ever haunted the dreams of average Republicans, and this raises an important question; what did the alternative media see that the mainstream media missed?

The primary root of all the dysfunctional observations of the GOP is that most people today have no clue what conservatism is, and therefore, they have no idea how to diagnose problems in the Republican Party (an institution which is supposed to represent conservative values). You don’t send a lawnmower repairman to examine a cancer ridden human being, you send a doctor who knows what a healthy body is supposed to look like. You also don’t send a hardcore liberal or a Neo-Con flunky to comment on the failings of the GOP; you send a true conservative who knows how a healthy conservative organization is supposed to function. And, the only people left in this country who actually understand what conservatism really is are Liberty Movement activists.

Ironically, those of us in the movement who have deeply considered the election aftermath have predominantly concluded that it is WE who have taken the mojo out of the GOP, and frankly, we’re happy to do so…

The GOP is dying because it no longer supports or nurtures the progress of true and traditional conservative values or the people who hold them. The GOP is fading into the bowels of political history because real conservatives are LEAVING it behind, and searching for other more legitimate avenues. These are the cold hard facts which the establishment and those who aid in its dominance have tried to keep out of the mainstream limelight post election. They have concocted a swarm of unsupported and absurd talking points which have been unleashed shotgun-style on the unsuspecting American populace. Their goal? To hide the fact that the Liberty Movement has gained enough momentum to bury the Neo-Con led GOP and even swing state contests at will, simply by not participating in the farce.

During the 2010 mid-term elections, there was a mass resurgence in conservative voting based almost entirely on Tea Party optimism. Some might argue that the Tea Party was a sham, and I would have to agree…to a point. The Tea Party didn’t start out that way (I know because I was involved during its inception). In the beginning it was a legitimate force for reduced government power and spending, and increased protection for civil liberties revolving mainly around the campaign of Ron Paul. That changed, though, when Neo-Con elites began weaseling their way into the club, gushing about how they loved freedom.

What these vermin do not understand, though, is that it takes more than rhetoric to hold onto Liberty Movement voters; you also have to back your words with action, and this is exactly why some career Republicans were shown the door in 2012. Not because the Democrats were a better choice, but because the Republicans had not lived up to the promises they made two years ago. Neo-Con toadies would, of course, sneer at my observations, and tell a completely different story on why they are losers…

Let’s take a look at just a few of the mainstream media and GOP leadership arguments and propaganda initiatives and why they are shameless fabrications meant to hide Liberty Movement influence…

Lie #1: U.S. Demographics Are Changing And The GOP Platform Does Not Appeal To Minorities

The MSM and others are essentially suggesting that only white people will ever vote Republican, and by association, that only white people value conservatism and Constitutionalism. They are also cleverly and subconsciously implanting the idea that most minorities will only ever vote for a socialist and statist candidate (like Obama) in the future, or, that they will vote based entirely on skin color. That is to say, they are inferring that minority voters are predominantly narrow minded and stupid, and are also promoting a fabricated division based on race.

To illustrate why the demographics argument is a lie, I would like to use the examples of Allen West and Denny Rehberg; both high value Republicans in state races who “unexpectedly” lost to the Democrats.

Allen West, a black male candidate for the 22nd Congressional District of Florida, ran on a “Tea Party limited government platform” in 2010, and won by a margin of around 20,000 votes over Ron Klein, a white male Democrat. In 2012, West ran against another white male Democrat, Patrick Murphy, in Florida’s 18th District and lost by 2000 votes. Obviously, Florida’s vast population and myriad minority groups did NOT play the only part in West’s victory in 2010, or his loss in 2012. If skin color was ever the primary issue, then he should have won easily in 2012, just as he did in 2010 according to those who make the “changing demographics” race based argument. West’s opponents, Klein in 2010 and Murphy in 2012, had very similar and very standard Democratic Party policies, and neither man was overly interesting or influential. West did not suddenly have to face down a Dem. powerhouse in 2012; just another boring-as-crackers lefty.

West ran two campaigns against almost identical opponents under almost identical social conditions, somehow winning one, and losing the other. So, what happened? What was different in 2012? The fact is, the only thing different in 2012 was that this time around liberty based voters knew West was not a true conservative. West was a fraud, and a statist, and the Liberty Movement cast him out by declining to vote for him.

Almost immediately after West’s victory in 2010, his limited government constitutionalist persona began to change. He voted to strengthen pork programs which continue to pump fiat federal monies into local governments, generating massive national debt and making state officials beholden to federal control. He voted yes to line-item veto authority for the President, bypassing the constitutionally delineated powers of Congress. He supported CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing And Protection Act) which would have given government incredible legal power to violate the privacy rights of ordinary Americans. And last, but certainly worst, West not only voted for the NDAA despite its unconstitutional indefinite detainment provisions, he also worked to strike down initiatives to remove language in the NDAA that made it applicable to U.S. citizens. To ice the cake, he openly admitted to serving on the Armed Forces Committee which reviewed the bill before it was even released, and later attempted to lie about what it actually did.

Why would a supposed constitutionalist and conservative champion applaud the legislated rendition and indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without trial and without due process all on the mere accusation of “terrorism” by the President, and then pretend as if that power was not granted by the bill? Because, he is a fake conservative and an establishment thug.

In my home state of Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg ran a highly anticipated race for Senate against incumbent Democrat John Tester. Rehberg’s platform was just like Allan West’s; pro-Tea Party, limited government, thumbs up to the Constitution, and wrap up in the flag for good measure.

Rehberg had won many of his U.S. Representative campaigns by a vast margin leading up to his decision to run for Senate (around 60% to his opponent’s 30%). I can say that in a state like Montana, the idea of “changing demographics” affecting the election is laughable. Montana is freaken’ white! W-H-I-T-E! Rehberg, a Republican “dreamboat candidate” complete with carefully groomed cowboy mustache was thought to be a sure win in this state. By my personal observations seeing him at functions including a local Lincoln/Reagan dinner, I would say HE thought he was a sure win, to the point of ego-mania.

So in a predominantly white and predominantly conservative state, how did Rehberg lose? Because elections have little to do with “demographics” or party, and everything to do with the integrity of the person running, especially where the Liberty Movement is concerned.

Rehberg’s professed fuzzy feelings for freedom and limited government were undeniably false. His consistent support for big government programs aside, he voted for and viciously defended the NDAA. When approached by Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers at a Republican function about his vote for rendition and permanent detention without trial for American citizens, he side-stepped the question completely, and accused Rhodes (a veteran Army Paratrooper) of “not supporting the troops”. Rehberg’s attitude did not go unnoticed by the Liberty Movement population in Montana, and like Conrad Burns, the Republican incumbent who had been unseated in 2006, he lost by a substantial margin of voters who instead backed a Libertarian third party candidate.

The argument for “changing demographics” was certainly not applicable in either of these two incidences, along with numerous other state and local elections I do not have the space to mention. It also does not take into account the millions of Americans who refrain from voting because they feel utterly unrepresented in the election process. This lie is being pushed in order to hide the real change in America: a movement towards legitimacy and humility in government, rather than hubris and tyranny.

Lie #2: The GOP Does Not Appeal To Young Voters, Who Are Predominantly Liberal (Socialist)

I would still be considered a young voter, and so would many of my closest friends. They and I had all but abandoned politics in disgust years ago when we discovered Ron Paul, one of the only representatives in Washington D.C. that we felt actually embodied the traditional constitutional methodology (original conservatism). Not only had he received the highest amount of donations from the men and women of the U.S. military, he was also packing sold out speaking events on college campuses across the country while Obama and Romney were crawling on hands and knees throwing free tickets at elementary school children just to get a minor crowd. The point is, Ron Paul, a true conservative, was energizing the youth vote and even bringing some Democrats over from the socialist dark side.

The idea that a young voter is predestined to embrace collectivist nanny government and sell their soul to the Democratic Party is a lie of epic proportions. The GOP could have had them on board anytime they wanted; all they had to do was nominate Ron Paul as their presidential candidate. Instead, they went with yet another Neo-Con ghoul whose rhetoric and record was nearly identical to Obama’s. The GOP could have won, if they had actually wanted to win. But then, it would have meant disrupting the false left right paradigm, and surely, the establishment can’t have that…

Lie #3: The GOP Needs To Evolve With Our “Progressive” Times Instead Of Clinging To Traditional Conservative Principles

Ultimately, this lie is designed to infer that the Republican Party needs to take on a more collectivist attitude in order to appeal to the rising tide of a younger generation and our nation’s so-called “changing demographics”. Hilariously, the lie is suggesting that the GOP do what they have in fact already done: go full socialist.

The Republican Party has not “clung” to traditional conservative principles for a very long time. Over the course of the past several decades it has become a haven for the minions of Leo Strauss, a statist and Platonian fascist whose job was to subvert the core of conservatism and warp it into a festering cesspool of elitism - much like the Democratic Party. The GOP has failed because this elitism is now undeniably present, and the party has lost its ability to hide what it has become.

When a sad victim of academia tries to argue that the cause of our economic crisis is the “evil of the free market”, I always point out that he/she has actually never lived in a world where true free markets exist. They have, for their entire lives, lived under a socialized and centralized economic system, and so, blaming “free markets” for their financial woes is like blaming Tasmanian Tigers for the death of their Chihuahua. The same goes for conservatism. When people wail against the crimes of George W. Bush and the possible return of a “conservative” presidency, I always point out that Bush was not a conservative, and that there hasn’t been a legitimately conservative GOP since before they were born.

The Republican Party has already delved into the realm of centralized despotism as much as the Democratic Party has. Its only salvation now is to reverse course back towards limited government and freedom, not continue into federalized oblivion.

As I have shown, proponents of constitutional values have indeed swayed particular elections, at least at the state and local level. Therefore, the assertion is meant to inject disinformation in pursuit of a particular end. Strangely, I heard this argument all throughout the primaries and up until the week after Obama declared victory; the argument that our movement does not matter and will never gain tangible momentum. And yet, all through the primaries up until the day before elections the Neo-Cons were either courting us with gifts, goodies, and offers of a “place at the table”, or attacking us viciously as “traitors to our own ideals” whose non-participation was akin to a “vote for the Antichrist (Obama)”.

Now, my question is; if the Liberty Movement doesn’t matter, then why were GOP cronies so desperate to convince us to vote party line?

Why did they feel the need to regurgitate the “lesser of to evils” argument over and over again? Why did it matter to them if we voted for Romney, or voted third party, or didn’t vote at all? If our influence is so miniscule, then why invite Liberty Movement representatives like Rand Paul or Sherriff Mac to cheerlead for the “guy who will drive the bus off the cliff slower”? Why try in a grade school manner to shame us into setting aside our principles? Why not simply ignore us and let us wallow in our own “obscurity”.

First, that the Liberty Movement has grown strong enough to encompass a sizable mass of voting power, at least large enough to ensure that many GOP candidates will win or lose by a particular margin. That margin may be thin and we may not yet be in a position to launch our own party, but without us, they know they are likely to fall short, and this problem is only going to grow as time passes. They court us, or attack us, because they realize they cannot win despite us.

Second, if you subscribe to the well documented idea that elections, at least at the federal level, are entirely staged (which I do), then you might ask yourself again why the GOP elite were grasping for the Liberty Movement to relinquish for the sake of defeating Obama. If Obama and Romney are essentially the same monkey, the same exact errand boy for the same exact globalist puppeteers, then what the hell do they need our vote for? Romney wins, and they get what they want. Obama wins and they get what they want. Unless…what they really wanted was our participation in the farce.

That’s right, perhaps the greater purpose of the endless lesser-of-two-evils charade was to see if the establishment could convince us to compromise our conscience and be drawn back into the game. Maybe, just maybe, it was all a test, of you, of us, to discern how much of the Liberty Movement could be conned or swayed with moral relativism. Perhaps the death rattle of the Republican industrial complex was due to the one thing that the media will never spotlight in a 60 minute primetime special; the fact that the majority of the burgeoning Liberty Movement refused to sell out, proving that the GOP is no longer effective at keeping us reigned in or co-opted. The GOP is dying and we are thriving. Whether or not the two are related, I leave for you to decide…

It’s amazing, when the man-power is needed, what some in the Conservative wing focus on to dismiss a large swath of like-minded peoples. Focus and join on the major points and battle the little bits LATER.

Amen. Palin, Reagan, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams all know (knew, in the case of Reagan) better than to buy into the Libertarian-as-Stoner-Loser template, as assinine in its way as the MSM Republican-as-Redneck-Meanie template.

This is what it's about: restoring our rights to self determination within the framework of Judeo-Christian values enabled by smaller Constitutional gov’t, lower taxes, Rule of Law and FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM. The way the Founders intended.

Obamacare came before the last election.

Anyone enabling the GOP is responsible for their leftward movement.

You get what you reward. You rewarded the leftward movement of the GOP.

Own it. Be proud.

My single vote didn't change a thing.

/johnny

People like you gave us Obama. Thanks! Now we have Obamacare.

Waaaah waaaah waaaaah. Are you really so naive as to believe that you wouldn't have had Obamacare under Romney? He's the guy who originally INITIATED it -- Romney did what Hillary Clinton only dreamed of doing.

Vote fraud and a Democrat registered as a Republican as the GOP nominee gave us Obama.

H Hello???? That loser nominee gave Masschusetts Obamacare before Obama was even on the radar!!!

Wake up, smell the coffee, and STOP VOTING FOR LIBERALS.

Bogus. The Libertarian Party is primarily grounded in a perverse twist of Leftism — it definitely stands for something. These so-called Libertarians are not really libertarians, however. A true libertarian wouldn’t support the killing of nascent Life nor support the homo-fascist laws that effectively force others to support homosexual behavior.

The extreme endpoints defined by libertarianism and statism are non-starters for any free society. The best in my opinion would combine the values of Conservatism and the governing principles of libertarianism

People like you gave us Obama. Thanks!

Now we have Obamacare.

Diamond -

As JRF mentioned that was before last election that 0care came about. Since you seem to be willing to take whatever the Stupid Party (R) is willing to put on a ballot, I have some questions for you.

Romney supports giving "rebels" [Al-Qa'ida] weapons in Syria. Romney supports abortion. Romney supports socialized medicine. Romney supports "assault" weapons bans. Romney stated he was amenable to taxing the top income earners. Romney supports queers in the military. Romney supports queers in the Boy Scouts. Romney supports queer "marriage.".............so does Hillary Clinton. If Hillary became an (R) and was running against 0bama....would you vote for her? If so/not, why/why not?

Who says they don’t stand for conservative values? I assume you mean the values falling outside the golden rule compass. Maybe some of them don’t, or even most of them. But it is a political ideology, not a philosophy for everything. They don’t want the values of which you speak being enforced by the State.

You may think without political force backing the morals that purportedly used to hold the country ravelled said morality will wither. I disagree. That’s a cultural problem, not a political one. And though politics can hurt higher culture, it can never save it. Bringing in the state does more harm, I think, than good.

Just because you say various drugs and sexual exchanges should be legal does not mean you are encouraging people to use them. If more do, that might be the fault of legalization in a sense, but that’s the price of freedom. Anyway, I still blame culture at large, not politics.

What’s all this nonsense about diversity and political correctness? S

"People like you gave us Obama. Thanks!"

Well just like in a card game I'll rise you Bob couldn't wait to make a deal, Dole, or Read my Lips No New Taxes, Bush No.#-1 a.k.a., 41st President, and go all in with 43rd president Bush who could not spell, or write the word VETO!!

During the early to mid 1940's (I think it was or maybe the 1950's) a farmer actually invented a pair of "eyeglasses" or that would be "ROSE COLORED Eyeglasses" so that the chickens would not peck and kill each other. Obviously your wearing a pair. Same argument for all of the above, but left out of the article is how the Elites "Repub's" would cry (To get Conservatives to vote for their dog & pony show) don't forget about the SCOTUS. Need I remind you of just who was "Harriet Ellan Miers????????"

Again, you demonstrate that your infected with HOOF & MOUTH, ergo, every time you open your mouth, you stick your HOOF in it. Please find below just who was Harriet Miers.

On October 3, 2005, Harriet Miers was nominated for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by President George W. Bush to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Miers was, at the time, White House Counsel, and had previously served in several roles both during Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas and President.

The nomination almost immediately drew criticism, virtually all of it from within the President's own party: David Frum castigated an "unforced error",[1] and Robert Bork denounced it a "disaster" and "a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years. Stop drinking the KOOL-AID made with "Potomac River" water supplied by the Carl "ROSE COLORED Eyeglasses" Rove's et. al.

The GOP-elitist said "Beat a Marxist with a Liberal!" What a colossal blunder.

"Life is hard; it's harder if your stupid" John Wayne.

Sadly, most people, even here, would run howling back to their chains if they had a choice between them and Liberty.

Even now, they live in denial of the depth of tyranny which we have, and the looming totalitarianism--so much so they think this can be fixed by voting for the people who have helped craft it.

They have no concept of freedom, nor the ability to live a moral life without myriad legal constraints and value the illusion of security far too much to leave the fenced in plantation they live on.

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.