1 vote

Anisha's Burning Questions About Articles For Freedom

Why have neither Michael Nystrom, nor John Tate used their growing communications networks to deliver the message of these Articles For Freedom?

It is said that our Liberty movement is anywhere in the ballpark of 3 - 5 millions and growing. Yet so far only 3,200 have signed the Articles of Freedom since they were completely ratified by all the delegates and ready for the public since Jan 31st 2010.

There are many of us patiently watching and waiting.

The sand in the hour glass is slowly running out for our Constitution. We now have something very viable for all Americans who uphold and defend our Rule of Law.

Well, what say you both? Is this not what we have been waiting for? Does this not dove tail with all that our dear Dr.Paul has been trying to do in his albeit, limited capacity as congressman? Would this not assist in creating more and more public awareness of our Liberty candidates if people knew about this document that shall have teeth once a critical mass rallies and makes it have teeth?

How will that ever manifest when people like yourselves withhold your support?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Just so people know.

I have attempted to change the title to say, Articles 'of' Freedom twice now and the owner of this website insists that this title be published in its misinformed way, Articles 'For' Freedom, which it is NOT, to detract google searches.

Wow. Just amazing. My editing privileges have been removed. So you want to know what those forces are that block honest grassroots awareness? You need look no further than right here people.

I am 'new' to DP--

been here maybe 3 months--

worked for GOP campaigns in several states (farflung) in the 70s--

became an independent, then a pro-life libertarian--

was too tired to become a 'constitutional party' member--

and now just try to search out truth.

I'm not in ANY political group.

I do come on here, because I like to read opinions, etc.

I don't know and haven't met Michael Nystrom or Ron Paul or the people on CFL.
I don't 'go back' with anyone on this site.


I can understand how people can feel urgent and want to 'press' other people.

I think that moneybombs have been (looking for the right word) almost spontaneous. I don't think they have been 'pressed'.

I think that people on DP are cats (personality wise); cats can't be herded.

I know that *my* first impulse is to be cautious. I've already been snookered by elected officials now for decades. I've already been taxed to death, lied to, etc.--

I like DP, because people CAN be suspicious on here!

*You* don't have to 'join' something. You sign up and post or don't post, but you don't have to 'belong'--

which suits people who have filled out forms tirelessly for years and don't want to do it anymore.

I think a lot of *us* (whoever we are; as I said I haven't met a soul on here; I have especially valid reasons for not having ever been in a 'group' of DPers or CFLers or whatevers)

are just contrary and suspicious by nature--

I may not be representative of anyone else on this site, but *I* am tired of being sold a bill of goods--

I've had people throw pyramid schemes at me. I've had people tell me that "this or that" will fix: health, government, etc.

I've struck out on my own in MANY ways--

and I am hesitant to 'join'.

So, I think this may be behind what is happening here. When I see/read something this 'urgent' I tend to want to run.

That is sad, if what *you* are offering is good. I think that maybe, since I'm an old person who has seen a lot of water go under a few bridges--

I would advise that you stop and analyze why something this good has turned into a fracas.

I think that many of *us* are quick to suspect that *we* are all working for "the enemy"--

who knows; maybe some are--

I would be the last to know.

But, if people can't say what they think, where does the freedom go? If someone can't say, I have to 'ponder' this--

then what good does working for liberty do?

*I* just found out about this. I remember hearing about it (on DP) a few months ago. I remember being told of a livestream; I tried to get on it, but I didn't quite catch what it was all about.

I did read some of this. I will take more time to read it. But I can guarantee you that I have been through enough hard stuff in my life that if someone jumps up and down in front of me and yells at me that I have to "do this or that" I will balk--

and run the other way.

Maybe that's what living in the U.S.A. when freedom began to die has done to some of us--

maybe we just don't want to be 'yelled at' anymore.

As I said, though, I don't know Michael Nystrom. I've never had a conversation with him--

I don't even know if I have responded to any of his posts--though I may have bumped something if I thought it was good.

Try putting it out there--

without the urgency. And maybe people will pick up on it.

It has taken Ron Paul many years--and even now he is fighting for his place. I pray for him.

I pray for America. I pray for the people around the world who have been hurt by *our* tax dollars.

Pray for this movement, and if it is good, God will prosper it.

I fully expect that the irreligious on here will smile a bit at that--

but God doesn't hurry.

If it's good, it won't die.

Give us time; some of us are 'out here' fighting to survive against amazing odds.

I like coming on here and reading and not having to tell people about me. I like not being required to sign things. I like trying to bolster people if I sense they are flagging, because I've come through a few things and now how to do that.

I believe in liberty. Don't give up. If your heart is right, and what you are doing is sound, it will survive.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


I was being grossly unfair when I told everyone "I am only too glad to finally leave this dog and pony show called Daily Paul where people pretend that they have 'power' when in fact the Rule of Law is in tatters." and " enjoy The Village' where you can all pretend to 'work for Liberty' while you chains lie loosely around your necks."

Truth is I love the people here. They're awesome.

That was an, unmitigated, unqualified, frustrated response and isn't true. 'The people' didn't deserve that from me.

There are many people here who are terribly earnest about what Liberty means to them but I am bereft when I see such a mass of people being led to such misguided dead ends like investing so passionately to 'reacting to teo-cons while being socially rewarded for those efforts.

It is painful to my mind when I know you are each sovereign unto yourselves. You don't need tea parties to define you, you don't need political parties to define you, you don't need the Daily Paul to define you, you don't need even a sweet grandfatherly hero to define you, especially when that wonderful grandfather has admonished you so many times that YOU are your own leader.

You are each AMERICAN as defined by our Declaration of Independence. An independent, sovereign individual who came here from the aethers to do 'great work' on earth. Know this please.

You are each sovereign and must have to see that in yourself first if you will ever be free from being 'played' by media moguls who love nothing better than a group of people who are blinded FROM their own dignity, sovereignty and knowledge of their legal Rights.

Here is the creator of a website, oh sure we are all grateful to, ok, granted. But this man, Mr. Nystrom was honored to speak and got kudos(perhaps rightly so) for creating the Daily Paul at the Rally for the Republic, again, wonderful, however in the same vein, 'teo-con parties' will get miles of coverage on his home page, why?? Why is that people? Will that get us anywhere really? Will teo-con parties restore our Constitution? NO!

What do you think would happen if the Articles of Freedom were actually placed on this front page? Would that NOT lead people to want to investigate it on their own? You bet it would. Would that not lead to greater numbers signing the pledge and adding their numbers to help create the critical mass so badly needed? Of course it would.

And then we have C4L's president, John Tate, getting caught with basically promoting a 'neo con' while real statesmen/women are left unsupported. Not a peep about the Articles of Freedom.

Yet something that has substance, 'real' soundness to it in all its forms and is a vehicle for 'real' civic actions connected to personal responsibility, oh forget it. Why?

I suspect it simply doesn't pay. Because its free. Because it is connected to the moral, to what is just and legal. Because it calls all things to come into soundness. Soundness doesn't create wealth out of thin air. Soundness is efficient and is just. But especially 'soundness' unites all because it is common sense. Soundness does not 'compartmentalize' people, it unites.

I vehemently disagree with Mr.Nystrom that, "the Articles of Freedom are simply NOT popular because 'there is something wrong with it", he says.

Nonsense! It simply hasn't been promoted by those very sites and people who advertise themselves as 'Liberty' orgs and 'Liberty' websites, yet their very behavior steers people into dead ends! Why is this?

Media moguls make a fortune off of 'dead end' activism every day and sadly, people eat it up and fall right into their trap. That goes for this site too.

Especially by the cruel and viscious response I got from Mr. Nystrom simply for asking a pertinent question, speaks volumes on what I am trying to communicate here.

I have seen people giving their passionate views here and soon that response will be removed. As I am sure this will be soon.

I have noticed this for some time. It just doesn't jive with the spirit that is truly 'Libertarian', with that which truly honors 'free speech'.

When I realized that I knew I had no more 'trust' for this site than I do for Fox news. So, the gig was up here for sure, for me at least.

Though I am sure Dr.Paul has quite a thick skin, still he seems surrounded by sharks.

That someone who married into his own family would set him up with a repulsive character like Bruno for example. Its not funny. That was demeaning and degrading of someone who only cares for all others with his heart and has truly devoted his life to that end.

I saw a news clip recently where Reuters interviewed Dr.Paul just outside the Capitol the other day. The announcer definitely stated that his bill HR 1207 had '250' co-sponsors! He actually says it twice.

So this minion scored twice for his masters. Now he may expect a reward. When he placed the mike near Dr.Paul to speak, the doctor didn't even correct him by saying it is 317, he simply answers the question because he is used to being misrepresented by these scavengers of opinion.

I just desire and encourage people to try to see things for what they really are and bust these 'illusions' that seem to appear each time there is a real organic movement for substance coming 'from the people' at the grassroots. AoF is from the grassroots. Can't get more grassroots than that.

Bust these illusions. These illusions keep us from what is 'real'.

The Articles of Freedom are very real. I stand firm with it. I've read it all thoroughly and I am convinced that if 5% of the entire population read this and knew about this, it would be game over for corruption of this country.

I listened to the entire 165 minute webinar with Mr.Schulz giving his update on these AoF and its vision, and yes, Dr.Paul did encourage Mr.Schulz and said he would sign the pledge too, but the people have to be behind this first.

For the life of me I have to ask openly why? Why is this not given coverage? And rumors don't count. Let the essence of the document speak for itself.

I urge you all to make the time to READ these Articles of Freedom and not rely entirely upon someone else's potential faulty perceptions whether they be me or the owner of this site or a journalist writing for JBS, of which I am a member.

Know that YOUR perception should be ALL that matters to you once you have investigated it for yourself.

There are forces that don't want you to read this. They would prefer you ignore it and take someone else's negative opinion of it. That means you are not responsible.

AoF is vitally important to YOU and vitally important to restoring our country back to its rightful place - a just place - a free place in a world of darkness for humanity to truly live in peace!

Ask yourself why something of real essence will not get covered, yet emptiness and dead end activism will?


You are one grand stateswoman!!!! That was a heartwarming and forthright and truthfull piece.I admire your courage.


I for one

2nd loken 1's response. Anisha-keep your spirit up!

I have been reading daily paul since the primaries

and I just have to say something here. I have been nticing these threads off and on about this cc2009 and what is called articles of freedom. Interesting, because a friend at work yesterday mentioned this and that got my attention because I saw it here. I spent the last few hours finally reading this and wow I am amazed at what this is all about.

Now I can see why these people here are so excited and should be so upset that this isn't being given much attention here, the person who owns this site, that is. That is a good question Anisha. Why? Too bad you left. I hope you keep writing here. I don't think you were rude at all Anisha. You seem to be very passionate about this. I will continue to study this before I sign that pledge. I will look into it further.

I mean this cc2009 is just a wonderful effort. I don't know too much about the person who set that up but he seems like a really good guy that Robert Schultz. I saw some of the videos on the cc2009 website and I like what he said. I like that Michael Bandarik fellow. I was reading below that dr.Paul was supporting this. If he was supporting this then how come that is not on the front page? Now that got me thinking a little bit more to.

I read the JBS article that Michael Nystrum pointed out. Ok, but that is his opinion.

I am worried that maybe this website and its owner could be a front that is controlling the liberty movement because it really is a powerful force in the body politic. I hate to say this but what if the owner is just a gatekeeper like Michael Moore was when people began to question the official story by the government.

Ok I'm new here but that is just my opinion for what its worth.

For more input

2 days-

You've been here 2 days and say something like this?

Actually, no.

I am a moderator. Since Anisha is using a sockpuppet, I thought I'd join her.

Do tell

who you were before.

"I don't think you were rude at all Anisha."

You missed the original title.

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

photoshopwiz's picture

yeah, 31 minutes new

with not the least bit of humility ... *sheesh*

    I am worried that maybe this website and its owner could be a front that is controlling the liberty movement because it really is a powerful force in the body politic. I hate to say this but what if the owner is just a gatekeeper like Michael Moore was when people began to question the official story by the government.

He thinks Michael is Zul???


Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

I Believe

in defending the COnstitution.





Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

reedr3v's picture

I believe people on both sides

of this thread are sincere and good liberty activists. But we individualists walk many different paths toward our common goal of freedom.
It is possible that anisha and others in agreement are right, and that the many who haven't "got it" are missing the best chance ever. Or maybe there are so many valuable projects we just can't attend to them all. Certainly we can't expect one individual, Michael, to be on top of every one. It's an unfair expectation; what he does is provide an open forum for all ideas to compete. If the Articles of Freedom didn't garner support it's not because it was denied a place in the forum.
Either that approach was just not one that most people were looking for, or the presentation of the idea was inadequate to inform and inspire people. I for one definitely was not inspired by the presentation.

It is heartbreaking to put time into an effort one feels passionate about and have it land with a thud. I feel for you who are trying so hard, I wish you good fortune even though it's taking longer than you feel it should. Those of us who've been around the liberty movement any time have all been in your position.

Most of us work as hard and as much as we can, and plenty of the projects don't get nearly the results people hope for. I'd advise searching the way the campaign was presented to learn how it might better reach people, rather than blaming those who didn't respond.
I'm sorry this issue, meant to advance freedom, has created a rift among good people. I hope tempers cool and that we can agree to work as best we see how and respect and appreciate each others' efforts. Anisha, I hope to see you on the forum in the future, finding new positive ways to promote all of our true goals.

Welcome advice

You read as a wise person.
How would you advise the AOF be presented. I fully understand some may not have the time to look into this project. However many will. What concerns me is the outright disdain shown by one for those of us that choose to present it and ask reasonable questions. Yours are welcome as well. That is what makes good dialogue.


reedr3v's picture

thanks loken, and I wish I could offer

effective advice. What we all have to deal with is that this movement is make up of individualists, many shy of organizational, centralized efforts.

The Ron Paul r3VOLution that brought us together initially, was a dynamic, grassroots movement in which everybody just ran with whatever activism they could pull together. We still are that disparate movement. So I could tell you what didn't ring bells for me, but I'm only one. In the marketplace of ideas, one learns as one goes. As in any marketplace, startups usually fail and a few succeed.
Beyond our movement it didn't appear to me to be an effort that would attain large support out in the world. It is very historic in look, feel, language. I didn't see it moving a lot of people in today's world. And I'm fine at discovering later, when your project wins the day, that I got it wrong from the get go. Good luck to you.

Great strides were taken to keep this quiet.

We were wondering why there was no call to action on a bigger scale, it was almost as if were a side note to the movement, but the CC is not supposed to be about a movement, it's open to the public in general, thus the need to keep it quiet. Without fair representation, there is no CC.

How could we possibly take this seriously? You DIDN'T want us there but you want us to sign a petition in which we weren't even invited to participate.

I believe the site

freedom's phoenix covered cc2009 pretty regularly. surely we can understand why it was not in the msm.

Yes indeed

SAndra, as you noted the mainstream media put a blackout on any thing to do with CC2009.Much likje Ron Paul during the campaign. You can probably answer your own question as to the reason. It was as if by stealth this all happened. That was out of the Control of those who attended. We simply did our best to present a blueprint to the free people of America for all to consider on merit. The media will never be an ally to the liberty movement.
The quietness you observed was by no means the result of the organizers. The record shows all was done to obtain the opposite result.
THe representation was as fair as it could be. It would have been much better, as you observe, had more folks known about the vote for delegates. In spite of that tremendous negative press bias the outcome/product (Articles of Freedom) was absolutely amazing.
Again consideration on merit is how it should be judged in my opinion.


Oh no no. NOT the MSM

I mean the folks putting the CC together. Most people I talked to we aghast of how it went under wraps. No answers to questions, secret emails, and the vetting process? Why was there a vetting process for a CC? It was run as a secret society. Shameful.

Not True

There was a vetting process. One needed to have demonstrated a love for the rule of law and not be a felon or have a poor reputation in the community. I received very few questions to answer until this thread. I have and will continue to answer questions as I am able.
I must correct you about run as a secret society. I do not see how it could have been more open. The entire event was streamed live and recorded on the internet. That cost a lot of $$$$. We did have a discussion site where delegates could debate points privately after each session adjourned. It was very valuable in facilitating the Committee work as well.The committee meetings were closed. The product of those meetings was totally public. AS a participant I can personally vouch for that, and the record cooroborates those concerns are not based in fact..
Again I suggest the product be judged on the merits of the product(The Articles of Freedom)www.articlesoffreedom.us
Hope that helps. Thank you for your question and expressing your concern.


No, there was no fair nomination process

which means the meeting was null to begin with. It was the NOMINATION for representation that was non existent, under wraps. How dare you guys come to us NOW! Hell, Orly AIPAC Taitz? How the hell did that uber neo con go there? She tickles you with the BC issue but trashes the Constitution on all other issues. You guys didn't even know how to vette at all.


We are not all perfect as you are.
Again, the best way to judge the CC2009 is by the product. www.articlesoffreedom.us . Sandra why did you not nominate yourself? That is what I did at the request of some of my friends in the liberty movement.
I might add. Mrs Taitz was an honorable delegate, but was not one of the signatories.


Michael Nystrom's picture

John Birch Society on CC2009

This is from the JBS Magazine, the New American, for possible reasons on why this only has 3,200 signers:

A Look at Continental Congress 2009

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Declaration of Independence

Michael ,
I recommend you and Mr Bradley actually read the DOI. This should answer any readers concern about the last nine words of the VERY first amendment. Mr Jefferson takes issue with you both. The DOI is effectuated by the Constitution. A right without accountability and enforcement is not a right.

I might add noted Constitutional scholars as The President of CC2009 Mr Michael Badnarik the signatory and delegate from Texas, along with Mr Jon Roland, Dr Edwin Viera, Robert Schulz one of the organizers of the Continental Congress as well as myself, Dr Tom Deweese of the American Policy center and Delegate from Virginia, Noted Constitutional author Joseph Andrews, delegate from California, myself,and many other scholared Constitutionalist will not yield to the uninformed rather shallow interpretations of Mr Nystrom and Bradley.

Many of us choose to defend the Constitution as does Dr Paul and Debra Medina. If we choose not to defend it we will have nothing left but tyranny. It is all that separates us from such an outcome. I suggest defending the Constitution is honorable. Some like Mr Nystrom may think otherwise. That is their choice. The question is what is yours?

Many liberty minded activist organizations such as the Oath Keepers also are in strong support. The list of supporting organizations who have joined the liberty coalition can be found at www.articlesoffreedom.us
To date the C4L and JBS are not among those. With many pledges to the AOF they too likely will come on board as those like me have with them. Partisan electoral process will still be vital in maintaining the rule of law once we regain it. This important and necessary branch of the liberty movement calls for you.


Michael Nystrom's picture


I think it is very rude of you to address me the way you did with this post. I have therefore changed the title.

This is my question to you. You state:

It is said that our Liberty movement is anywhere in the ballpark of 3 - 5 millions and growing. Yet so far only 3,200 have signed the Articles of Freedom

Can you tell me why this is?

It is NOT because it is not on the Daily Paul. There are many channels via the internet by which a good idea can go viral. Digg, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Many things go viral without the Daily Paul. In fact, I'm often one of the last to pick up on a trend, since I get most of my news from the Daily Paul itself.

99% of the content on the Daily Paul is user generated. Anything of interest to this community will eventually show up. There has been some talk of the project on this site. However, if users are neither interested nor passionate about a topic, then the discussion dies..

I heard some sketchy things about the project early on from people I trust. After I heard these things, which I will not repeat, I have not been inclined to do further investigation. I have chosen to remain silent on the subject. But you asked.

Something about it seems to me not quite right.

First, considering only 3,200 people of a potential 5 million have signed the document, I take that as a sign that the majority of the community agrees that there is something not quite right with it. It is failing in the marketplace of ideas.

Furthermore, I have not been impressed with the quality of people whom I have dealt with regarding the project. Many have been rude. Your post, with its inflammatory title is a perfect example. I don't think you want to hear my opinion so much as you want to stir the pot. But your behavior is just downright rude. Why not just email me?

I get home from work and I have to deal with this?

And you are not the only rude one. When the project got underway, I had people call me on my home phone trying to convince me to go be a delegate. I also received personal letters to my home imploring me to become a delegate. I have no idea where they got my address or phone number, nor was I impressed with why this was such an important project.

I thought that behavior, by those individuals associated with the project, was also sketchy and rude.

How will that ever manifest when people like yourselves withhold your support?

People like me? What about the 4.999 million others withholding their support? I guess the answer is: It won't manifest if people don't believe in it, and people won't believe in it if they don't understand the point of it.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Personal Attacks

do little to advance ones viewpoint. I would advise you consider actually reading the Articles and discuss intelligently on the merits. I do thank you for your opinion. It is very revealing.

I do not agree that Anisha's query was rude at all. The facts speak for themselves.
Let us discuss the merits please. I challenge you to do that. I think we may both learn things and those can be shared with any who care on this sight.
I remind you Ron Paul only got a handful of delgates that not lead one to the conclusion his ideas have little merit? Any difference of opinion we may have is not a reflection of our lack of either our resolve to conquer the beast.
Your fellow compatriot,