Profiting From Paul
Profiting From Paul
by Michael Sternberg
Author' Note: This is a continuation of my article entitled: Don't Centralize Me Bro! (published on the Daily Paul)
The naysayers - they seem to be everywhere these days. This despite the fact that they've been proven wrong so many times that Las Vegas won't even post odds on them. They were there for the first money bomb; they were there for the second. They were there when Trevor Lyman and Co. put together the blimp. And they were there in Las Vegas... twice - the Las Vegas Tea Party '07 and Paul A Palooza 2008 (www.paulapalooza2008.com). "It can't be done," they said. "It can't be done."
Imagine the naysayer as the foot soldier; we all know soldiers need leaders. So, let me introduce you to the enforcer. They have many goals: some to get Ron Paul elected at any cost, some are operatives for other campaigns, and some don't really have any goals; they just like wielding power over the feeble minded. These are the folks staging coups in our Meet Ups. They are the ones in the online forums slandering productive members of the Revolution without any evidence to back up their claims. Enforcers are those attacking every grassroots project that comes up in an attempt to bog down the creators.
As varied as their objectives are their weapons of choice. A popular one seems to slinging the accusation that a project creator is trying to profit from Ron Paul. A few days ago, I introduced the Las Vegas Meet Up members to Operation Ron Paul Vegas (www.ronpaulvegas.com), and soon after, as expected, I received an email from "Ben." Ben (not his real name) is a well known enforcer amongst the Las Vegas crowd. He posts in Meet Up forums all over the country. He tried and failed to bog down Paul A Palooza 2008. Now he is accusing us of trying to make money off of the Revolution, and even threatened that he would try to get the campaign to shut us down. I'd like to address Ben's concerns with a question - so what? Let's assume folks are out their trying to profit from Paul - so what? Doesn't Ron Paul believe in free markets? If Trevor Lyman earned a nice profit for getting the blimp off of the ground in record time, would that be a bad thing? Why is it O.K. for some members of the campaign to draw a hefty salary and perform poorly, and not acceptable for a grassroots supporter that outshines the campaign to make money. Many will argue that any money sent to the blimp is a waste, and should instead be sent to the campaign. Pardon me, but that sounds a lot like the income tax. Isn't the reason we are against the income tax is that it presumes the government owns us, and that we are not allowed to freely choose how that money is spent? Why should the campaign, a central authority, be the sole decider? Isn't this a mentality that we are fighting against?
While writing this article, I received a threatening phone call from a member of the campaign - an enforcer. We've grappled before. This time he was angry that I was not disseminating approved propaganda. The Ron Paul philosophy has addressed this issue as well. Dr. Paul has been asked by the main stream media several times about why he chooses to go on Alex Jones' show. His response - If he only went on media that he agreed with, he would never get his message out. And isn't the message of freedom and liberty why we are all here?
On the whole, the campaign is doing a great job. So are the grassroots. And, although we are unified behind a message, our efforts are highly decentralized; it is now impossible to stifle us. So then, how do we improve?
Operation Ron Paul Vegas is going to happen. And therefore, I expect the personal attacks to continue. It is a conscious choice on my part. Fortunately, I have two events behind my belt to give me some credibility. Paul A Palooza 2008, from start to finish, happened within a 3 week time frame. We organized an enormous march, we booked a venue for Saturday night, and with the help of Farrington Productions (www.farringtonproductions.com) we booked some amazing entertainment. Only the Ron Paul Revolution could have accomplished such a feat. Imagine how much more we could achieve if we can conquer the enforcers and their naysayer army. So, I ask you, how do we do it?
Freedom is not a one way street
Why not start your own group, Then you can do whatever you please. This sounds like a power struggle. Call your group the entrepreneurial wing of the Ron Paul Revolution, or something to that effect. This way your for profit organization does not conflict with the volunteer non profit group.
I am not choosing sides, but it seems you are willing to fully disclosure your motives, so ..so be it. However you might want to take into consideration that the non profit volunteers may not agree with your entrepreneurial spirit. After all, they are putting time and effort in for free.
The simple answer is , while you have a right to make money, they have a right not to support your money making activities. Freedom is not a one way street.
Very good points
The intent of posting this article here was to spark conversations that would lead to solutions. Thank you, Jeff, for providing good, positive, feedback.
We are already working on starting a separate group. Hopefully that solves some of the problem.
People should be free to choose. You are absolutely correct.
Thank You
Thank you jg, for defining in action what an enforcer is. This article is asking a positive question - i.e. how do we improve? You were not named here, and there was no attack against you personally. Slandering your good name? I think you are doing a good job of that yourself. Your name is not mentioned once here.
Since you are all over this thread, I'll just write one response here.
Regarding your phone call - 500 copies of this article:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ron_paul_revolution044...
were delivered to my doorstep. I sent out the link, exactly as above to the meet up (so they could see for themselves where the article came from), and notified them that if anyone wanted copies for ANY reason that they could come and pick them up from me. Your claim that I said one thing before, and one thing after is false, and you know it is false since we have not spoken after the caucus.
I am not promoting or denouncing the American Free Press (AFP). I don't have an opinion one way or the other; however, although you continue to throw a fit in these forums, you have yet to address the fact that Ron Paul himself has contributed to the AFP:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/global_taxes.html
Why is it OK for Dr. Paul to contribute, and not OK for me to distribute?
So your accusation that I am trying to link Dr. Paul to anything is ridiculous. I don't have to address the others, because you contradict yourself in each post.
Magically Appearing AFP Articles
Michael,
You play the injured one well. In your note above you make it sound like 500 articles from a publication that denies the holocaust magically appeared at your doorstep.
Well, you and I both know that magical acts are only in the casinos.
So, either you or someone you know spent several hundred dollars procuring these articles and getting them to you just in time for distribution at the caucus.
But, again you lie. You told me on the phone that it was not your intention that these articles be distributed on caucus day, when it clearly was your intention.
Furthermore, you said I threatened you. That is also a lie. The only threat I may have posed to you is that I would be completely open and honest with all informtion.
All I've ever asked is that all of the information be presented and all cards be on the table, yet you've continued to disimilate and conceal and spin.
That's not honest.
So Soon?
Did you expect the attacks from the campaign to come so soon after writing your article? LOL
IMO, jg only seems to be proving the point of your article. He is continuing the nay-saying. His response to your thread is off-topic and talks about some propaganda. Who cares what was passed out and when? Don't we all agree on the free flow of information so people can make informed opinions and decisions? Furthermore, jg contradicts himself in his very own post. If this is the type of person behind the scenes at the campaign, the campaign's ineptitude is now self-explanatory. I am sorry that you Vegas revolutionaries have had to deal with these distractions.
I see no problems or conflicts of interest in profiting from ancillary activities which ultimately serve to campaign for Paul and spread the message of freedom. It's merely executing the free market of ideas that Ron Paul always talks about!!! If people are quitting their jobs to campaign and do guerrilla activism, should they not earn a buck to put food on their tables?
Free markets and the free flow of information are central to Ron Paul's campaign. If one of his staffers does not understand these basic concepts then perhaps they should stop wasting their time attacking revolutionaries on the Daily Paul and campaign for another candidate.
Re: So Soon?
Look below at my reply.
Two lies were told by the original posted and a claim of a threat. Yet zero evidence was provided. I provided data. Data of what actually happened. It's right there.
You provided no refutation of the specific lies told. Nor did you provide refutation of the data. Nor did you provide any specific.
You merely continued very vague innuendo and accusations.
It's clear why you will not or cannot. Because the facts and data do not support your position.
maybe you have something here
but as I read more on this site i believe maybe your just in the wrong place with your ideas. This site seems to struggle with itself too much. I can't believe the site facilitators have been asking for money to run it. Perhaps with rhetoric like this you could pay some money to host it. It is tiresome yet interesting to say the least. When we are starving for something fresh from the campaign and land our eyes on this it does take away from the credibility of the issue. It is rejected purely because you need to exhibit it elsewhere. Brilliant as it may be.
"...the most memorable concern of mankind
is the guts it takes to
face the sunlight again."-Charles Bukowski
More accusations, Zero evidence
Mike, It was *I* who called you. You said I threatened you. Really? What was the threat?
I asked you if it was your intention to distribute literature from a publication whose website links to holocaust denying websites.
You answered no.
AFTER they were passed out at the caucuses, you answered Yeah, so what.
Your attempt to link Dr. Paul, once again, to a racist publication FAILED. I exposed you and now you are out to slander my good name.
In your post above you LIED two times. a) by omitting the fact that you (which you admitted to) did purposefully intend to pass out articles from a holocaust denying publication in an attempt to connect Dr. Paul to the charge of racism and b) by saying I threatened you. I did not.
I take that back. I DID threaten you. The threat I posed to you was that I would communicate the FULL truth and ALL the facts.
That upset you terribly as it always seems to.
Why does presentation of the FULL STORY and ALL FACTS to your intended con marks... I mean audience, seem to upset you so much?
"Now he is accusing us of
1) "Now he is accusing us of trying to make money off of the Revolution, and even threatened that he would try to get the campaign to shut us down. I'd like to address Ben's concerns with a question - so what?"
Well what's wrong with the info being out there? Let me, as a potential customer, decide how much weight I give that info. This IS part of the free market.
Let's say I only want to contribute to Ron Paul-tied events where the promoter/organizer is using ALL profits to help the campaign... never mind how silly you think my criterion is. What if only want to buy products that are made in odd numbered zip codes or produced in 4 story manufacturing plants?
The free market does not preclude advertising for and against specific viewpoints and products. Nor does it mean info that you deem irrelevant shouldn't be utilized by ME when I make my purchase/donation decision. I can use WHATEVER criterion I want. And the fact of the matter is a LOT of people's donation decisions would be affected if they found out others were profiting after telling them otherwise. If you do have faith in the free market, then who cares if the public knows who is profiting and who isn't?
.
.
.
.
2) "Isn't the reason we are against the income tax is that it presumes the government owns us, and that we are not allowed to freely choose how that money is spent? Why should the campaign, a central authority, be the sole decider? Isn't this a mentality that we are fighting against?"
A HUGE difference is that income tax uses FORCE. You are confusing people who use guilt-trips, please, and begging with people who use blatant FORCE. To the best of my knowledge, people advocating an "official-campaign-only" donation strategy have yet to cross over from the former to the latter, nor do I think they ever will. To be clear, I am NOT one of these campaign-loyalists, but I surely won't buy into a contrived analogy comparing them to income tax at the point of a gun.
vegas
i live in vegas, the official campaign tried to shut him down and brought up dirt on him and sent it around to the meetup, lots of drama!
infopatriots.org - infopatriots unite!
infopatriots.org - infopatriots unite!
Do you have one shread of evidence?
If so, please present it!
Just to be clear
Some members of the official campaign made attempts to thwart us using unconventional means. It does not mean their actions were sanctioned.
No dirt was dug up. They tried making a connection that did not exist.
What are "unconventional means"?
I called friends and acquaintances, people I have known much longer than you have and asked them, no BEGGED them, to come precinct canvassing.
Not only is that not UNconventional. It *IS* conventional. It is THE convention for WINNING campaigns.
Most of the meetup members in your group want to WIN, not indulge your and Michael's petty emotions and grievances.
More secret code?
Known only to a select few? What does that mean about an enforcer calling you etc...
It means he lied....
...nor can he demonstrate otherwise.
If you can, Michael, cough it up.
Definition
A definition of enforcer is in the article.
Yes, but
you stated it was a "member of the campaign". Is that the official campaign or a grassroots supporter?
Official campaign
official campaign
What is it you're doing that they don't approve of?
I find it difficult to believe the official campaign would have time or inclination to micro manage the grass roots efforts. Even if this is true, why would you have a problem listening to the official campaign. Maybe you need to stop seeing spooks and conspiracy behind every rock?!
Improvement
I'm not asking you to believe one thing or another. i simply submitted an article asking people how we can improve our efforts.
I don't have a problem listening to the official campaign. The article simply states that we should remain as decentralized as possible. If the campaign needs help with something, of course they should approach the grassroots with the request.
Where in the article does it mention my sight, spooks, conspiracies, or rocks?