Campaign For Liberty is selling us out!
I'm sure you've heard about the problems at C4l. With the vague nature of the foreign policy question on their survey for candidates, it allows anyone to say any war is ok as long as it's declared. I believe they want a lot of candidates to fall under C4L "acceptance" and so they get the recognition they want, regardless of how bad it whores out the liberty movement name. They want to ride the "Tea Party" train that Palin, Beck, etc. have stolen from us. Here was my reply to them (it appears they keep deleting my posts):
So, the Campaign for "Liberty" keeps deleting the posts of a donor, a max donor to Paul, a donor to his son, a local voluteer worker for the campaign, a pilgrim to the Rally for the Republic? I don't think anything I'm saying should be censored...
All right, C4L's mission statement:
Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
A portion of Ron Paul's list of what Neoconservatives believe:
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
Now, please view Ken Buck's website: "We definitely need to continue a major effort in Afghanistan. We are told this effort will take at least 10 years. It will require both military and civilian personnel to help build up the country. The generals on the ground tell us we are likely to be in Afghanistan for the long term with a difficult and complicated mission."
Please tell me how he does not stand against a major pillar of the Campaign for Liberty. Yet, this has not stopped the leaders of our organization from prostituting the logo of the freedom movement out to him in commercial form. They give us wishy-washy reasons for this, such as "he can learn" or "we can teach him." Well, that's not acceptable to me. No one should have to sell themselves out on the hopes of what someone will do. We've got enough "hope" in Washington right now and I've had my fill.
Please do not continue to support C4L until they have at least admitted to this horrible mistake. Scoring a 19/20 on a simplistic survey that doesn't even touch on Just War or interventionism is not enough to support a candidate. Instead it asks only if a declaration of war is enough to justify any number or reasons for committing what could be horrendous acts of inhumanity, torture, and imperialism. This survey opens the doors for accepting any number of candidates under the umbrella of C4L... candidates which by our own standards stand against us. Who's next, Palin? McCain?
Takin It Local
Secede from this Soviet style system.
Don't want to "compromise"? That's fine. But don't DESTROY
There is only one politician holding major office who arguably stands for the Constitution with every vote, and even the brightest contenders for 2010 have some aspect of their platform that is questionable (see the criticism of Schiff, Rand Paul, etc.).
As I said in the subject line, choosing not to "compromise" on those issues is your personal choice to make.
But when you extend that choice to a decision to wage open war on C4L or liberty candidates (as folks have done against Rand and Schiff), you are a destructive cancer on this movement.
There's nothing wrong with being a voice within the movement urging purity, just as there's nothing wrong with being a voice within this movement urging pragmatism. But those voices must respect certain boundaries if we're to have any success. They must exert their influence through respectful, constructive means. If they must put their foot down, they should do so through funding decisions, such as:
or
Having different voices in the movement is a good thing. It keeps us vital and intellectually active. Having destructive voices that overreact and attempt to tear down the movement because they disagree with decisions that are perfectly reasonable to other elements in the movement (be those elements pragmatist or purist), is cancerous.
Don't be a cancer. If your irreconcilably unhappy with the direction of the movement, and your respectful attempts to influence the course have failed, feel free to leave and join forces with those who share your vision. But if your next step is to focus your dissatisfaction on destructive attacks on the movement, YOU ARE THE GREATEST THREATS TO THE FREEDOM MOVEMENT. Forget Obama, Pelosi, McCain, or Bernanke: the Marescos and Memphises of the world are the more immediate threat to our success.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
Once the C4L starts endorsing pro-war candidates
there IS NO freedom movement.
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
I guess there never was one...it was all a dream
Because Ron Paul voted for "war" in Afghanistan.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
bravo
5 stars
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul
'Official" threads?? Is there a government czar in charge?
Bravo to Memphis for telling it like it is.
Thank you very much.
I think its very good, but
,
Ventura 2012
there are already official
there are already official threads on this issue. No reason to spam.
Ventura 2012
What makes this a "non official" thread or "spam"?
I liked reading this. Brilliant and accurate wording here:
I believe they want a lot of candidates to fall under C4L "acceptance" and so they get the recognition they want, regardless of how bad it whores out the liberty movement name. They want to ride the "Tea Party" train that Palin, Beck, etc. have stolen from us.
I think its very good, but
I think its very good, but the threads Michael made are the ones we should confine the discussion too because A: too many of these threads clutter the forum and make it seem like we're panicking or something and B: it keeps everything in one thread so that we don't miss it.
Ventura 2012
There can be no compromise on the War issue.
I am not a contributor to the CFL. When I got their solicitations in the mail, they seemed like carbon copies of the same old "right-wing" stuff I've gotten in the past. I'm a free market anarchist. Supporting Constitutionalist candidates is the most compromise I am willing to make. For me, the Constitution was a Coup D'Etat against the more libertarian Articles of Confederation. However, if we got back to the Constitution, I wouldn't have too much to complain about. I hear a lot of people on this board saying that we shouldn't toss some candidates under the bus because they aren't pure. I agree with that but there has to be some areas where there is no compromise. And for me, that is the intervention/War issue. I'll let James Madison speak for me:
The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .
[It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . .
The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . the power of creating offices. . . .
A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.
The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.
The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.
The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favourites or multiplying dependents."
Let us not be wishy washy here
If that is the kind of people we have in Campaign for Liberty then they have {the bad guys} infiltrated our campaign. So stop supporting them now. Even stop payment on checks if check are in the mail. Send not another cent until the leadership has been replaced or start a new organisation. And remember infiltration by the enemy is the name of the game!
On a scale of 1 to 10
Does every candidate have to be a 10?
It's just a question.
If Ron Paul himself is the 10 on the Liberty scale, Who would be the 1?
Like a Pelosi perhaps? I'm talking current working or campaigning politicians. or political pundits.
Someone contemporary.
Anyway, on a scale of 1 to 10..Where would you stop supporting.
I suppose different issues would have to carry different weights in the scale.
Where would Ken Buck be?
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
For me he would be a "1"
The fact that he wants us in Afghanistan for the next decade can only mean 1 of 2 things- 1. He actually still believes we are there for the reasons they want us to believe we are, or 2. He knows better, but plans to skim off of the ill-gotten gains and backroom deals by voting pro-intervensionist (and scratch the backs of the special interest group who ponied up 350K to get him in office, btw)So in my simple way of thinking, he's either dangerously naive/stupid or he's dangerously corrupt/ evil. So either scenario would make him a "1" on my scale.
Where does Buck think the money
comes from to be "over there in Afghanistan?" Those people "In Afghanistan aren't paying us to be there, the criminal CIA is however paying members of the opposition not to fight us?" The CIA is using tax dollars, to pay whoever it is they're shooting at, not to shoot back?
I'm assuming most here know this. And this is a war ? WE have an effing senate that confirms someone they very well might have to indict next week along with timmy geitner ? Uneffing believable
The whole GD group from the non-resident-alien president to the effing dogcatcher if non-elected, black boxed into office in the cesspool of Washington D.C. HAS TO GO, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. These people are laughing at us, and things are so sick I'm not sure it's not funny as hell. We are getting screwed coming and going and cannot seem to get it fast enough ??
Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow
I do think the war would weigh heaviest on my scale.
It's life or death.
Next would be Taxes and Spending.
then other economic issues.
Those second two are very powerful tools when manipulating or controlling populations.
I know those are very general categories. And very intertwined. But I'm also resigned to the fact that there's only one Ron Paul. I can allow for some slack.
With Afghanistan, if we're there for ten years. Pakistan will easily become another front. Even more than it is now.
I need to study this guy a bit more. I'm not liking the war drums though.
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
Here's some more info
This was my first exposure to Ken Buck, back on 5/12/09: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rocky-mtn-blogs/2009/05/13/rock... Ken Buck comes in at 15:19, is first asked about foreign policy at 40:28, and at 42:39 says this about Afghanistan: "And when you're talking about especially Afghanistan, I think the invasion of Afghanistan was appropriate, they were harboring Al Queda, there was no doubt about the link between Taliban and Al Queda. I think we have to do our best to extricate ourselves from that situation and not have a prolonged invasion of that country, or occupation, and especially if we're not welcome."
I suspect Ken Buck changed his tune in response to Obama's Afghan surge: I noticed quite a few republicans criticized it for being only a fraction of what the military generals were requesting. Take this all for what it's worth, but also keep in mind Ken Buck is aware of the economics: at 42:28 he says, "We have to take a serious look a whether we can afford the military involvement we have in 130 different countries."
Ah, thanks Ruth
I'll listen to it later.
Time for some sleep!
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
Even Ron Paul has stated he supported the Afghanistan operation.
BUT NOT IRAQ.
And I think he still wanted a proper declaration of war in Afghanistan to be voted on by Congress.
Of course it is understood that Dr. Paul believes our foreign policy is what caused the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
We have very successfully radicalized the entire middle east and terrorism is just getting under way if we don't change our ways.
"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul
Oh REALLY?
Can you please point me to where Ron Paul stated support for the Afghanistan operation. How long have you been a troll?
eilif,
he did in the very beginning.
but, he did not support it without a declaration of war from congress.
i'll do some research here and find it, i hope.
i just found this but it's not what i'm looking for:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/36703
Ron Paul is My President
Divisive, destructive "libertarians" are tearing us apart.
For some people, there is no perfect candidate.
If a candidate runs, he is "no Ron Paul."
If a candidate named Rand Paul runs, his subtle, minor distinctions with from his father are emphasized.
If a candidate named Peter Schiff runs, hypothetical remarks about foreign policy contingencies are highlighted.
If a candidated named Ron Paul is practically cornered into "backing" INCUMBENT LEGISLATORS FROM HIS OWN PARTY, he is crucified for "SELLING OUT."
Enough is enough. Look, I'm all in favor of an intellectual discussion. But you uncompromising "purists" are destroying this movement. You make credible people like me NOT want to run for office.
The fact is, most of you (not all, but most) are nuts. You couldn't win a local election for dog catcher. Face that reality. Then address the fact that people who agree with you on 95-99% of issues are trying to TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT, but you're opposing them.
You're telling them "you're a neocon" or other such nonsense.
Go ahead and work the system. Encourage these candidates to adopt your views.
But if you fail to look at the larger picture, you're doomed to failure. A candidate who agrees with you on 99% of issues isn't your enemy: he's your friend who needs some FRIENDLY persuasion. If you treat such people as enemies, you will NEVER be a force to be reckoned with.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
On interventionism there is no compromise
On violating the Constitution there is no compromise
So if within those parameters you want to compromise then go ahead!
Thank you
The person who started this post has become so hateful I can no scarcely dignify his posts with a response. I'm idealistic myself. I could not bring myself to make phone calls for Scott Brown, even though I understood the political strategy behind doing so. But Ken Buck is no Scott Brown, either.
Oh, hang it up already!
You admitted yourself you were inadvertently posting multiple times on the C4L website. Bonnie Solan-Cannon, who I know personally to be an honest and decent human being, was doing you a favor by deleting your multiple posts. If she deleted all the copies of any of your posts, which I doubt she did, it was only in error. You're not being censored.
Bonnie?
Isn't she the one over at the Ron Paul Forums who is saying that these ads don't actually use words spoken or written to declare support for Ken Buck, therefore the ad does not show support for Ken Buck, and people should stop making a fuss? I don't know her but thought she was being manipulative.
By the way, I don't give a
By the way, I don't give a crap if they censor me. The fact that they whored us out to an immoral, warmongering, neocon is about the lowest thing they could do. And then all they say is whoopsie daisy, we whould have worded it differently.
She supports a murderous
She supports a murderous neocon. I believe unjust wars are murder... which, by definition, they are. She supports C4L's decision to highlight that guy in an ad. He supports the unjust wars. Simple as that. How can you stand up for her? Why not stand up for Bush or Obama too? I don't care if she puts them all back up, she's trying to get people accept C4L's "mistake" of selling out one of the strongest pillars of the movement.
No, I'm choosing to stand up to you
You don't live in Colorado, you don't personally know Bonnie Cannon and you don't understand what we're up against here when it comes to the party leadership. You've never met Ken Buck, you've never seen him speak and you have no compass to gauge how "teachable" he is other than what you've read on his website. Granted, Ken Buck is not Ron Paul, but he's no Obama or Bush, either. More good than harm is coming from this incident.
No, you've decided to sell
No, you've decided to sell your soul to a man that says on his website: "We definitely need to continue a major effort in Afghanistan. We are told this effort will take at least 10 years. It will require both military and civilian personnel to help build up the country. The generals on the ground tell us we are likely to be in Afghanistan for the long term with a difficult and complicated mission."
I don't care how hard it is in Colorado. NEVER sell yourself out. NEVER compromise what you believe in.
I don't care if Hitler or any other murderer is not Ron Paul. If they support unjust wars, I will not settle on them.