# Liberty Movement > Grassroots Central > Archive > No Timeline Archive > Miscellaneous > Campaign for Liberty >  CFL Spent $350,000 on a pro-war Colorado candidate

## Knightskye

http://www.buckforcolorado.com/issues102k9.php




> My son is a third year cadet at West Point. I'm very proud of my son's decision to serve his country. He understands the risks involved. He also understands there is a price for freedom in this country and he's willing to stand up and shoulder that burden. For so many of our brave men and women today, that means shouldering the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> 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.
> 
> As Colorado's Senator I will always look first to the advice of the generals, and I will strongly support the mission of our troops who are in harm's way.





> A group called Campaign for Liberty is spending almost $350,000 on ads touting Ken Bucks GOP Senate campaign.


http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/...for-ken-bucks/

WTF?  That's where my money is going?

----------


## brandon

You gotta be kidding me.

Edit: Confirmed

----------


## dr. hfn

Is this our CFL?  Our CFL can't endorse or spend money on candidates.

----------


## MRoCkEd

The following note is from Ronnie Paul, chairman of C4L's Board of Directors:



> Dear C4L Member,
> 
> 
>     Last week, Campaign for Liberty bought airtime in Colorado as part of our candidate survey program. Our purpose was to get candidates for office on the record about their position on issues like undeclared war, abolishing the IRS, supporting competing currencies and rescinding the Patriot Act.
> 
>     Our intentions were good, but we made mistakes. We had poor communication with you about the program and the messaging of the commercial did not fit with C4L's principles. Many of you have spoken out and offered constructive criticism. We have learned some important lessons, and will be stronger as a result. We will implement checks and balances to prevent anything like this from happening again.
> 
>     A small but vocal minority has decided to wage cruel and vicious personal attacks against our president, John Tate. This is unfortunate. John is a kind and decent family man who has worked unbelievably hard and has always tried to do the right thing. There should be no place for this in our movement and simply wastes the time and energy we should be using to fight for Liberty.
> 
> ...

----------


## newbitech

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/ken-buck/

YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv

----------


## newbitech

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/pr...er=Gary_Howard

CFL Profile on Gary Howard

----------


## dr. hfn

motherfuckers!

----------


## MRoCkEd

edit: big misunderstanding

----------


## newbitech

So I did a google search for "candidate surveys" in the CFL website.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aql=&aqi=&oq=

Not sure who would authorize dropping 350k to promote some surveys over the boob tube.  However, there doesn't seem to be much buzz about the survey's at the website.

This doesn't even look like a local Colorado group, its coming from national.  And if giving a candidate media praise and spending over a third of a million on the ad isn't a tacit endorsement...

sheesh.  Why not drop that cash on Rand's campaign or any of the other liberty polls out there.  I don't get it.  Also, why not run a fundraiser for this instead of pulling it out of the "old money coffers" aka Tea Party (the real one) or Vendetta (remember remember the 5th of Nov.)  money bombs.

eesshhh.. this sounds like a stretch to me.

----------


## newbitech

> They are promoting "the survey", using Buck as motivation for other candidates to sign it.
> I want to know why they didn't do this with one of our liberty candidates though?



Well is this survey online?  Cause I am sure it would be nice if the CFL "leaked" this survey to the grassroots we'd be able to generate more of a buzz than endorsing "unelectable candidates".  

I mean hell, I have already looked up this candidate, that's gonna get him PR and more exposure.  That is the ancillary benefit for the candidate and I understand that, but with out more circulation of the idea of these candidate surveys, I see the potential of hooking other pols as being stunted.

Hell, national money was spent, why not make a national effort?

----------


## brandon

Looks like CFL has gone the way of the tea parties. 

RIP CFL.

----------


## MRoCkEd

I would like a strategy explanation from C4L before making judgment on this

----------


## dr. hfn

I demand transparency from C4L!

----------


## newbitech

> I would like a strategy explanation from C4L before making judgment on this


yeah no doubt there has to be something behind this other than we are promoting our surveys.

----------


## brandon

> I would like a strategy explanation from C4L before making judgment on this


Does it matter? Do the ends justify the means?  Is spending $350,000 of donated money on promoting a pro-war neocon really something you could consider being okay?

----------


## Elwar

They should have "promoted their surveys" in Kentucky with Rand Paul.

----------


## dr. hfn

C4L National has lost touch with the grassroots

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Looks like I will be dropping from C4L

----------


## Cowlesy

I don't know if this guy is a neoconservative, but he's wrong on the Afghanistan conflict.

I'm at a loss for words that 1) Campaign for Liberty has $350,000 to burn on ads 2) John Tate sent an email a few weeks ago saying he'd have to make "tough budget decisions" because they were running on E.

wtf?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

C4L fail. Yeah, let's not support Schiff, Adam, RJ, Jake, or any other libertarians, but lets throw money at a FREAKING NEO-CON. Are you kidding me. DIAF C4L.

----------


## brandon

In addition to being a war-mongering neocon that wants to continue a major effort in afghanistan for at least 10 more years, this Buck fellow used to be a DA and prosecuted a landmark hate crimes case. 

So The CFL are officially blowing almost their entire budget to support a Neocon "Thought-Crime" prosecutor that none of us have ever even heard of.

----------


## gls

Absolutely f**cking outrageous. I regret donating several times to the CFL and never will again.

----------


## JoshLowry

That's a lot of money/donations.  

CFaiL

----------


## Jeremy

This guy used to work for Dick Cheney and is only at 15% in the primary.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Is this supposed to be some sort of early April fools joke? Not funny at all.

----------


## gls

The Federal Reserve is more transparent than the CFL.

----------


## jmdrake

Sucky week for me.  AJ goes off on his own supporters and now this.  I know we want to "win over republicans" but that doesn't mean sending money to support war hawks.  Adam Kokesh could have used that money.  So could RJ Harris or Peter Schiff.  (Rand's in good shape right now).  How about an ad buy for Debra Medina?

----------


## Cowlesy

I can understand the dirty tit-for-tat $5,000 PAC donations that people trade back and forth, but (@#$@##@...*$350,000!?!?!?!?!?!*

----------


## MRoCkEd

> I can understand the dirty tit-for-tat $5,000 PAC donations that people trade back and forth, but (@#$@##@...*$350,000!?!?!?!?!?!*


I'm really waiting for clarification on this. Hopefully the number was wrong.

----------


## rancher89

As an EX- state coordinator for the C4L, I cannot imagine that this 
ad campaign is what it looks like it is.....

They are always pounding the "no supporting candidates" drum.  

Just sayin....we need more info, but if this is true...................

----------


## erowe1

Has anyone even confirmed that this organization is the same as the Campaign for Liberty that's related to Ron Paul. It looks to me like it's something else.

----------


## ItsTime

> I'm really waiting for clarification on this. Hopefully the number was wrong.


yeah where are the C4L people on this?

----------


## JK/SEA

Looks like C4L will fit right in at the TEAOCON convention.

----------


## dr. hfn



----------


## Old Ducker

This is pretty shocking.  There is nothing on Buck's website that distinguishes him from any other AIPAC-pwned neocon.

----------


## dr. hfn

http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/i...FORID%3A11#890

----------


## angelatc

> Has anyone even confirmed that this organization is the same as the Campaign for Liberty that's related to Ron Paul. It looks to me like it's something else.


I think the fact that Gary Howard is speaking for the expenditure is pretty damning.

Every one of us should go put a CFL blog entry up about this very topic.

----------


## Todd

Is CFL going to cease and desist with this guy?

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

The candidate could be pulling the typical Jingoism and Jargon to get elected and THEN, pull a Bushy/Obozo 180 on campaign promises.

We've seen it before... so who knows what's up with this guy. What's his voting record?

He has one strike for being another Attorney into government politics...

Donations: http://www.newsmeat.com/campaign_con...e_id=S0CO00237

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_...&first=Kenneth

----------


## erowe1

Notice what it says here:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/...for-ken-bucks/



> Its unclear whether the Campaign for Liberty praising Buck is the same Campaign for Liberty behind Ron Pauls 2008 presidential bid.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not. I think people here are jumping to conclusions.

----------


## gls

> As an EX- state coordinator for the C4L, I cannot imagine that this 
> ad campaign is what it looks like it is.....
> 
> They are always pounding the "no supporting candidates" drum.  
> 
> Just sayin....we need more info, but if this is true...................


Maybe the rules changed following the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned parts of McCain-Feingold?

----------


## rancher89

But what about Gary Howard????

----------


## JoshLowry

> Has anyone even confirmed that this organization is the same as the Campaign for Liberty that's related to Ron Paul. It looks to me like it's something else.


Yes, it is confirmed. Friend of mine contacted Mr. Howard and could not get a satisfactory explanation.

This is a $#@! up that may cripple the CFL. Pretty much shows it is a top down org since none of the members are deciding where their money goes.

$350,000 that could have been spent on actual liberty related projects.

----------


## dr. hfn

> Yes, it is confirmed. Friend of mine contacted Mr. Howard and could not get a satisfactory explanation.
> 
> This is a $#@! up that may cripple the CFL. Pretty much shows it is a top down org since none of the members are deciding where their money goes.
> 
> $350,000 that could have been spent on actual liberty related projects.

----------


## rancher89

I am so glad I stepped down last week....this is just horrible.....

----------


## erowe1

> I think the fact that Gary Howard is speaking for the expenditure is pretty damning.
> 
> Every one of us should go put a CFL blog entry up about this very topic.


You're right. I wasn't familiar with Gary Howard.

This is just really surprising to me.

----------


## brandon

Who is the CFL infiltrator(s) that approved this expenditure?

----------


## ItsTime

> Yes, it is confirmed. Friend of mine contacted Mr. Howard and could not get a satisfactory explanation.
> 
> This is a $#@! up that may cripple the CFL. Pretty much shows it is a top down org since none of the members are deciding where their money goes.
> 
> $350,000 that could have been spent on actual liberty related projects.


Yeah grassroots did so much better with a f#cking $400,000 blimp

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Has anyone even confirmed that this organization is the same as the Campaign for Liberty that's related to Ron Paul. It looks to me like it's something else.





> *Gary Howard, communications director for the Campaign For Liberty,* told TPMDC that the ad is not an endorsement of Buck, but is instead intended to promote their candidate surveys. "It's not a support ad or an endorsement ad, it's just based on our candidate surveys," said Howard. "And we want every candidate to answer our surveys. So as soon as another candidate answers our survey, we'll probably do another ad stating that."


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...video.php#more


http://www.campaignforliberty.com/pr...er=Gary_Howard




> Gary Howard 
> HQ
> Location: Arlington, VA
> Last login: _12/28/09_
> 
> As a member of the communications team for the Campaign For Liberty. It is my responsibility to widely promote its message and formulate a general public affairs strategy. This entails finding strategic uses of traditional and new media technology to disseminate messages and communicate to the public.


Interesting that Gary has not been on in almost a month. Has he gone rouge?? Someone from C4L has about 24 hours to reply to this or im canceling my membership.

Also to those saying that its not a endorsement, or a support to this candidate... Its still $350,000 that could have been used on some MUCH better purposes.

----------


## JoshLowry

> Yeah grassroots did so much better with a f#cking $400,000 blimp


Apples and oranges.  

At least the donators knew where their money was going - on a blimp in support of a legit liberty candidate.

----------


## pacelli

Not a penny more.  And Ron Paul has his name on this organization.  2.5 million that was leftover from the presidential campaign was funneled into the CFL.  

So much for principles.  I wish Ron didn't trust people so much.  The sad part is that I seriously doubt Ron had any say at all in this bull$#@!.

----------


## aclove

That Open Secrets link points to campaign finance reports for Campaign for Liberty from 2006, but C4L didn't even exist until after Dr. Paul suspended his presidential campaign in 2008.  How is that even possible?

----------


## Original_Intent

This really pisses me off. The next letter iget asking ofr donations, I am going to tell them where to stick it. This is just the exact same B.S. we are fighting against, if this is true it is clear that the CFL is only concerned about keeping the dollars flowing in and growing their organization, just like the problem with most elected candidates. Looks like a classic sell-out to me.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> That Open Secrets link points to campaign finance reports for Campaign for Liberty from 2006, but C4L didn't even exist until after Dr. Paul suspended his presidential campaign in 2008.  How is that even possible?



The advertisement and Howard's statement show that our C4L was involved, but perhaps they got the $350,000 figure wrong?

----------


## ItsTime

> Apples and oranges.  
> 
> At least the donators knew where their money was going - on a blimp in support of a legit liberty candidate.


Nope its not. Because Trevor used email lists not intended for their purpose (money bomb) and used it for his own ventures. Same kind of $#@!. Collect something (email/money) then use it for something else/unexpected.

----------


## dr. hfn

It is disgusting that the C4L isn't transparent with its money.

----------


## ItsTime

> There seems to be another "Campaign for Liberty" organization based out of Colorado. 
> 
> 
> The advertisement and Howard's statement show that our C4L was involved, but perhaps they got the $350,000 figure wrong?


So it might not be OUR C4L?

----------


## brandon

> This really pisses me off. The next letter iget asking ofr donations, I am going to tell them where to stick it. This is just the exact same B.S. we are fighting against, if this is true it is clear that the CFL is only concerned about keeping the dollars flowing in and growing their organization, just like the problem with most elected candidates. Looks like a classic sell-out to me.


I don't disagree, but what are they selling out for? What could they possibly gain from supporting some no-name neocon that's only at 15% in the polls? Who is this supposed to bring in?

----------


## dr. hfn

> So it might not be OUR C4L?


http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/i...FORID%3A11#890  who knows

----------


## ItsTime

> I don't disagree, but what are they selling out for? What could they possibly gain from supporting some no-name neocon that's only at 15% in the polls? Who is this supposed to bring in?


To Split the neo-con vote further? lol

----------


## erowe1

> Every one of us should go put a CFL blog entry up about this very topic.


Good idea. I just posted one.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31884

----------


## Bman

I demand some action and accountability...  IMMEDIATLY!!!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv


If the purpose of that ad is to promote CFL or their survey it is a major fail. Can we say "too subtle"? Is anyone with any knowledge at all about marketing involved there?

I will reserve any more negativity until more information comes out.

----------


## rancher89

> The advertisement and Howard's statement show that our C4L was involved, but perhaps they got the $350,000 figure wrong?


I really hope so, but they ARE involved.......and this is NOT a Liberty Candidate, so WTF??  

I'm all about candidate surveys, but you don't put buy air time or roadside billboards (or whatever they advertised on) when you only have ONE candidate answer the survey.  AND you don't put yourself in the position of even looking like you are supporting a candidate, any candidate.....there's something really wrong here.

----------


## gls

> Yeah grassroots did so much better with a f#cking $400,000 blimp


Um I agree that a blimp with Ron Paul's name on it funded by individual donations specified for that purpose is "much better" than the CFL spending general donations made in the name of liberty on a candidate whom appears to be a war mongering, "hate crime" codifying establishment tool.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yes, it is confirmed. Friend of mine contacted Mr. Howard and could not get a satisfactory explanation.
> 
> This is a $#@! up that may cripple the CFL. Pretty much shows it is a top down org since none of the members are deciding where their money goes.
> 
> $350,000 that could have been spent on actual liberty related projects.


Was the $350k amount confirmed?

----------


## jmdrake

> Notice what it says here:
> http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/...for-ken-bucks/
> 
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not. I think people here are jumping to conclusions.


Did you watch the ad?  (It's posted in this thread a couple of pages back).  If the CFL isn't behind this then they should sue whoever put the ad out for trademark infringement.

----------


## JK/SEA

Maybe its all part of the taking over the GOP strategy..?

so far so good...

not.

----------


## ItsTime

grr I cant get the video to play.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Can somebody call C4L and ask (my phone is dead atm)

(703) 865-7162

----------


## sofia

CFL are sons of bitches!!!!!!..."another 10 years in Afghanistan"....$#@! him!

why dont CFL spend that money in AZ and CT praising Kokesh and Schiff for "returning their surveys"!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul is too trusting...just like in the campaign...he is surrounded by double agents who are wasting our money!

----------


## RCA

Yesterday Alex's crap, and today this.

Facepalm.

----------


## brandon

On the bright side, YAL is still an extremely promising organization that has remained ideologically pure.

----------


## jmdrake

> Apples and oranges.  
> 
> At least the donators knew where their money was going - on a blimp in support of a legit liberty candidate.


Exactly!  If you didn't like the blimp you didn't have to donate to it.  And while you don't have to donate to the CFL either, I get all of the emails, letters and even some phone calls twisting my arm to donate.  In the past I've been torn between donating to the CFL and giving money directly to candidates that I *know* are good and I *know* need the money.  Up until now I at least thought the CFL money was being spent on good causes.  This is ridiculous.  There is no freakin' excuse!

----------


## JK/SEA

//

----------


## Brian4Liberty

...

----------


## jmdrake

> Nope its not. Because Trevor used email lists not intended for their purpose (money bomb) and used it for his own ventures. Same kind of $#@!. Collect something (email/money) then use it for something else/unexpected.


Oh please!  Everytime you give your email to someone you risk being contacted again.  And people always have the power of the "delete" button.  If Trevor took money and diverted it to the blimp you'd have a point.  But he didn't.

----------


## jclay2

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! Good luck getting donations now. My guess is any new funding will dry up from now on.

----------


## Dreamofunity

Disgusted...

----------


## JK/SEA

> Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! Good luck getting donations now. My guess is any new funding will dry up from now on.


Donate directly to candidate of choice...problem solved.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! Good luck getting donations now. My guess is any new funding will dry up from now on.


I know I will not donate again, and it will be lucky if I stay a member.

----------


## dr. hfn

I hope this is a misunderstanding or something...this is not what the movement needs...

----------


## Elwar

You might want to take a look at the YouTube user that posted that video (DemSenClips).

They have a clip of Robert Menendez (Democrat Plan: Split the GOP).

And a clip of the Republican Senator being quoted saying she doesn't think the government should be involved in Health Care.

Their operatives are on the move...hold steady on this one.

----------


## phill4paul

> Donate directly to candidate of choice...problem solved.


+1

----------


## JK/SEA

Any word forthcoming from C4L?...

Anyone call Ron yet?

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> You might want to take a look at the YouTube user that posted that video (DemSenClips).
> 
> They have a clip of Robert Menendez (Democrat Plan: Split the GOP).
> 
> And a clip of the Republican Senator being quoted saying she doesn't think the government should be involved in Health Care.
> 
> Their operatives are on the move...hold steady on this one.


what the hell is going on here????

----------


## Anti Federalist

not gonna say it...

Not Gonna Say It...

*NOT* gonna say it...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Seems this may be to battle the NRSC. This is on the CFL website:




> In Colorado, District Attorney Ken Buck, a tough prosecutor of illegal aliens, was gaining traction in his campaign for U.S. Senate.  Enter John McCain.  He calls Jane Norton, former Lt Governor and state chairman of his presidential bid, and convinces her to run against Buck, promising the NRSC endorsement, plenty of money, and a lock on the nomination.  Le Moine Dowd, a grassroots activist, summed it up perfectly:  "Do we want the NRSC deciding our candidate?  Does this action by the NRSC make the primary election irrelevant?  Does it make the Colorado Republican Party irrelevant?"
> 
> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26370

----------


## JK/SEA

> You might want to take a look at the YouTube user that posted that video (DemSenClips).
> 
> They have a clip of Robert Menendez (Democrat Plan: Split the GOP).
> 
> And a clip of the Republican Senator being quoted saying she doesn't think the government should be involved in Health Care.
> 
> Their operatives are on the move...hold steady on this one.


Should i go back and delete my comments yet?

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> not gonna say it...
> 
> Not Gonna Say It...
> 
> *NOT* gonna say it...


Yea, I'm pretty much you with AF.....

----------


## erowe1

> Seems this may be to battle the NRSC:


Yeah, I came across that Bay Buchanan article too. It looks like if there's any connection between this guy and the CFL coalition, it's in the paleo-conservative wing that she represents. She put a lot of emphasis on border security in that article, which looks to be something this Buck guy emphasizes. If that's the only thing that distinguishes him from the party establishment, that's a pretty poor reason to make this kind of investment in him.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yea, I'm pretty much you with AF.....


FFS,

Head, meet brick wall, brick wall, head.

----------


## phill4paul

> FFS,
> 
> Head, meet brick wall, brick wall, head.

----------


## Elwar

> what the hell is going on here????


It's the Dem plan to split the GOP...




> Showing that theyve learned the lesson of Massachusetts, Menendez and his staff will distribute a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to frame their opponents early  and to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

I just tried posting about this on the C4L facebook page and it was removed in less then a minute.

Something has gone very, very wrong.

----------


## dr. hfn

Can someone call them?

----------


## phill4paul

> It's the Dem plan to split the GOP...



  Well if it is then it is solved by an immediate response. If true I think they could look forward to double the number of donations. If not..... R.I.P.

----------


## jclay2

> I just tried posting about this on the C4L facebook page and it was removed in less then a minute.
> 
> Something has gone very, very wrong.


How many salaried positions does C4L have. If there are any that pay a decent wage, I bet they are waging a full range war to keep their job right now.

----------


## dr. hfn

Can someone put up a C4L Transparency petition?

----------


## Michigan11

Well I am f'n pissed and I gave to the CFL a few times, with all the damn letters coming to my place... No more playing around here. I'm going to drink a beer and try to relax..  No more donating to groups, just candidates. .. and if RP's name wasn't in the CFL I would never had donated.. Is there something going on here, that I'm not seeing, is it infiltrated by some crazy fuks?

----------


## erowe1

> How many salaried positions does C4L have. If there are any that pay a decent wage, I bet they are waging a full range war to keep their job right now.


As far as I know, it's these 14 people.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php#staff

I tried googling around to find a connection between any of them and Ken Buck and nothing turned up.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yeah, I came across that Bay Buchanan article too. It looks like if there's any connection between this guy and the CFL coalition, it's in the paleo-conservative wing that she represents. She put a lot of emphasis on border security in that article, which looks to be something this Buck guy emphasizes. If that's the only thing that distinguishes him from the party establishment, that's a pretty poor reason to make this kind of investment in him.


It seems as though they are looking to gain allies in CO based on the border security and immigration issue. That's the issue that made the majority of Republicans mad about the RINO McCain (McAmnesty). It's one of the things that made him a RINO. 

It's still a lot of money for a very subtle message though, with a candidate that disagrees on a different, but important issue.

----------


## akforme

This thinking is the Sarah Palin approach.

Be against the establishment, make people think she's fighting for the people, sell back to the establishment the minute you get power.

I've written them for details, if they give me that lesser of two evils bull$#@!, I'm gone.  It's all we can do to strike back.

I never gave to c4l, I didn't really trust them.

----------


## JK/SEA

This has the potential to be the biggest thread since the 'billionaire' days.

Lot of coin involved. Not good.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It's the Dem plan to split the GOP...


Yes, the Democrats forced C4L to spend 350,000$ on a Neo-Con. Makes a lot of sense.....not.

C4L is dead to me. They could have easily spent this money on KOKESH WHO NEEDS IT FOR $#@!S SAKE!!! OMG This pisses me off so damn much.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It seems as though they are looking to gain allies in CO based on the border security and immigration issue. That's the issue that made the majority of Republicans mad about the RINO McCain (McAmnesty). It's one of the things that made him a RINO. 
> 
> It's still a lot of money for a very subtle message though, with a candidate that disagrees on a different, but important issue.


The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is also being opposed by Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund. I wonder...quid pro quo? Will we be seeing Rand's face promoted by the Senate Conservatives Fund?

The post on CFL:




> In Colorado, District Attorney Ken Buck, a tough prosecutor of illegal aliens, was gaining traction in his campaign for U.S. Senate. Enter John McCain. He calls Jane Norton, former Lt Governor and state chairman of his presidential bid, and convinces her to run against Buck, promising the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) endorsement, plenty of money, and a lock on the nomination. Le Moine Dowd, a grassroots activist, summed it up perfectly: "Do we want the NRSC deciding our candidate? Does this action by the NRSC make the primary election irrelevant? Does it make the Colorado Republican Party irrelevant?"
> 
> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26370

----------


## rancher89

> I just tried posting about this on the C4L facebook page and it was removed in less then a minute.
> 
> Something has gone very, very wrong.


my post is still there and has one comment, pretty much "WTF".....

----------


## JK/SEA

> Yes, the Democrats forced C4L to spend 350,000$ on a Neo-Con. Makes a lot of sense.....not.
> 
> C4L is dead to me. They could have easily spent this money on KOKESH WHO NEEDS IT FOR $#@!S SAKE!!! OMG This pisses me off so damn much.


Speaking of Kokesh. I'm going to give on his moneybomb till it hurts because of this.

----------


## jclay2

> This has the potential to be the biggest thread since the 'billionaire' days.
> 
> Lot of coin involved. Not good.


lol at the billionaire days

----------


## newbitech

> Seems this may be to battle the NRSC. This is on the CFL website:



a proxy war?  If that is true then something much bigger is going on behind the scenes IMO.   eessshh

Someone said it earlier about the recent Supreme Court decision.  This pretty much makes political 501c3's irrelevant, no?

----------


## UtahApocalypse

my forum post on the c4l forums:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/fo...hp?topic=10584

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Can someone call them?


Here are their voice and fax numbers:
(703) 865-7162 (V)  |  (703) 865-7549 (F)

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Here are their voice and fax numbers:
> (703) 865-7162 (V)  |  (703) 865-7549 (F)


Phone bomb tomorrow or Friday? they need to know that this is not just one or two people that are upset but a large portion of their base.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> a proxy war?  If that is true then something much bigger is going on behind the scenes IMO.   eessshh


In addition, maybe quid pro quo for Rand (or something else) with the Senate Conservatives Fund...

----------


## AJ Antimony

This is too weird to be true.

I'm calling FAKE

----------


## Annihilia

This is seriously $#@!ed. Someone has to step down / lose their position over this.

Incredible.

----------


## devil21

I dont like this any more than you guys do but don't jump to conclusions and wash your hands of the CFL entirely just yet.  Someone may very well have gotten into the organization and was bought off to try to turn CFL into another Tea Party(tm) group.  Our best bet is to figure out if this indeed being accurately represented (not just media spin), who this turncoat is, and use our own power to get them OUT of the CFL.

Unfortunately it is a reminder of how fragile organizations like the CFL are and that no one plays fair in politics.  We can't rely on a single organization to represent us, ever.

----------


## MsDoodahs

Some of you are good detectives.

Let's get to work, shall we?

Who are the top CFL dogs?

The only names I know are John Tate, Michael Rothfeld, Debbie Hopper....I'm sure you guys can add a few more.

Where is the COMMON point with the candidate they lavished money onto?

What organizations IN THEIR PASTS do they have in common?

Find those.

Follow the history of the people - find their connections.   

Don't get me wrong, CFL toasted their OWN ass with this bonehead move.  I seriously doubt they will ever recover.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> This is too weird to be true.
> 
> I'm calling FAKE


Not fake.

It has been confirmed to at least one mod by CFL.

----------


## LittleLightShining

Think nationally act locally. If you have good people on the ground in your state C4L chapters, please don't withhold funds and/or support from them.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I dont like this any more than you guys do but don't jump to conclusions and wash your hands of the CFL entirely just yet.  Someone may very well have gotten into the organization and was bought off to try to turn CFL into another Tea Party(tm) group.  Our best bet is to figure out if this indeed being accurately represented (not just media spin), who this turncoat is, and use our own power to get them OUT of the CFL.
> 
> Unfortunately it is a reminder of how fragile organizations like the CFL are and that no one plays fair in politics.  We can't rely on a single organization to represent us, ever.


I agree with this.  

Before I go further, I want the full skinny on this whole deal.

----------


## devil21

Also, Ron HIMSELF should be personally notified of this.  After all, he did start the organization and it represents his views, which certainly are not pro-war.

Anybody know if his staffer, Rachel, still posts on this board or have her direct contact info?  I know you mods have to have some sort of direct line to her, right?

----------


## erowe1

> Some of you are good detectives.
> 
> Let's get to work, shall we?
> 
> Who are the top CFL dogs?
> 
> The only names I know are John Tate, Michael Rothfeld, Debbie Hopper....I'm sure you guys can add a few more.
> 
> Where is the COMMON point with the candidate they lavished money onto?
> ...


There are 14 people on this list.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php#staff
If a connection exists like you're talking about, I would start with them. My googling of all their names one-by-one with "ken buck" turned up nothing.

However, as a nonprofit, doesn't CFL also have to have a board of directors aside from it's paid staff? If so, who's on that? And don't they have to have some kind of financial reports that are available somehow?

----------


## Knightskye

> "Isn't a career politician."
> "He'll take on D.C. insiders."
> "A leader in fighting Obama's healthcare takeover, reducing taxes and stopping out-of-control government spending."
> "Championing Colorado conservative values."


Just don't say "It's not an endorsement video".  All of these things about a candidate in a GOP primary, but it's not to endorse him or promote his candidacy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Also, Ron HIMSELF should be personally notified of this.  After all, he did start the organization and it represents his views, which certainly are not pro-war.
> 
> Anybody know if his staffer, Rachel, still posts on this board or have her direct contact info?  I know you mods have to have some sort of direct line to her, right?


She was in chat the other evening.  So, yes, she still comes here.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Not fake.
> 
> It has been confirmed to at least one mod by CFL.


Don't be too specific!

So CFL spent $350,000 on ONE candidate? $350,000 for an ad that does nothing more than say some guy said ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL that he's going to do some things to 'shrink' government? THIS is confirmed by your source?

----------


## erowe1

> Just don't say "It's not an endorsement video".  All of these things about a candidate in a GOP primary, but it's not to endorse him or promote his candidacy.


Seriously. CFL could have just put out a press release at no cost giving him credit for taking the survey, and then if he wanted to use that for advertising at his own campaign's expense he could have. And I bet that if it did happen that way, his ad would be a lot like this one, only his own campaign funds would be paying for it and not CFL.

----------


## brandon

Ron better personally get involved and make sure several salaried people lose their jobs over this, including John Tate.  That's the only hope of saving the organization. Otherwise people just aren't going to donate anymore.

----------


## devil21

> She was in chat the other evening.  So, yes, she still comes here.


What's her handle?  I can't recall it at the moment.

----------


## rp08orbust

> There are 14 people on this list.
> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php#staff
> If a connection exists like you're talking about, I would start with them. My googling of all their names one-by-one with "ken buck" turned up nothing.
> 
> However, as a nonprofit, doesn't CFL also have to have a board of directors aside from it's paid staff? If so, who's on that? And don't they have to have some kind of financial reports that are available somehow?


Debra Medina is the only board member I know of.

----------


## Elm

> I demand transparency from C4L!


Good luck with that.

At the national convention when it formed we were promised the ability to vote and ratify the bylaws.  When we got there we were given no bylaws.  Has anyone seen bylaws - has the grassroots ever ratified any?

----------


## brandon

> Good luck with that.
> 
> At the national convention when it formed we were promised the ability to vote and ratify the bylaws.  When we got there we were given no bylaws.  Has anyone seen bylaws - has the grassroots ever ratified any?


Nope. I was at the original national convention in MN as well. The whole thing seemed kind of fishy to begin with. I've never trusted John Tate.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What's her handle?  I can't recall it at the moment.


ladyjade3

----------


## gls

> Debra Medina is the only board member I know of.


http://www.campaignforliberty.com/boardofdirectors.php

It looks like Ron Paul's son Ronnie is "Chairman of the Board" and his son-in-law Jesse Benton is "Senior Vice President".

Why hire based on experience and competence when nepotism works just as well?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Don't be too specific!
> 
> So CFL spent $350,000 on ONE candidate? $350,000 for an ad that does nothing more than say some guy said ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL that he's going to do some things to 'shrink' government? THIS is confirmed by your source?


No.  I did not ask C4L how much they spent and whether it was spent on one candidate or a number of candidates.  The only number I've seen was published by that paper, or whatever it was.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

It could be worse.  Here's another candidate (Tom Wiens) in that Primary race... 




> http://www.tomwiens.com/issues/details.asp?Issue_Id=11
> 
> Foreign policy
> 
> Nothing threatens the stability of the world more than the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. And make no mistake; Iran's nuclear program is aimed at one thing: developing nuclear weapons. Iran's leader has said that Israel must be wiped off the map. A nuclear armed Iran with aggressive intentions against one of the most faithful and staunch of U.S. allies should be a matter of grave concern. The U.S. should consider sanctions, and other means, including military means to stop Iran from threatening its neighbors, especially our ally Israel. 
> 
> http://www.tomwiens.com/issues/details.asp?Issue_Id=10
> 
> War in Iraq and Afghanistan
> ...

----------


## RedStripe

CFL, along with a lot of the Ron Paul movement, is getting too swept up in the GOP/FOX/Glenn Beck moronic portion of the right wing.  Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Edit: not to mention the Leadership Institute  /barf

----------


## phill4paul

> It could be worse.


  I've bowed out of the lesser of two evils dogma.

----------


## devil21

> ladyjade3


Thank you.  I PMed her about this.  Hopefully she can get RP himself directly involved and get to the bottom of this.  Our hands are somewhat tied...

----------


## purplechoe

well, that's a shame... can't say I'm surprised... I decided not to give them any more money a couple of months ago...

I wish I was wrong about everything, but pretty much 99% of the things swirling around in my head usually are confirmed to be true...

----------


## Tina Richards

Here at the Kokesh campaign, we haven't received our survey yet.  Looking forward to fill it out.

----------


## phill4paul

> CFL, along with a lot of the Ron Paul movement, is getting too swept up in the GOP/FOX/Glenn Beck moronic portion of the right wing.  Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


  Agree 100%. Once again I've had to accept the lesser of two evils dogma and the "there is only two parties" diatribe.

  I'll finish up what I've committed to this campaign cycle. After that...no more.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Here at the Kokesh campaign, we haven't received a survey or asked to fill one out.


That could be a good thing.

Stay tuned.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Here at the Kokesh campaign, we haven't received our survey yet.  Looking forward to fill it out.


All too telling. C4L is not trying to help Liberty Candidates.

----------


## rancher89

I'm thinking that this is what happened--I'm just guessing

1)  The local/state C4L prepared a "candidate survey."
2) This guy took the survey.
3)  He's now using the C4L survey, with logo, to promote his candidacy, without C4L approval.

----------


## rancher89

The $350K might how much it cost to come up with the survey, print it and distribute it.

Sounds pretty expensive though.....

----------


## devil21

> I'm thinking that this is what happened--I'm just guessing
> 
> 1)  The local/state C4L prepared a "candidate survey."
> 2) This guy took the survey.
> 3)  He's now using the C4L survey, with logo, to promote his candidacy, without C4L approval.


That may be true.  But I also know that I've been receiving a bunch of "spam" emails from random GOP candidates around the country that I never signed up for.  Few, if any, of them have any sort of Liberty platform bona-fides on their websites.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=222468


Someone is trying to sell us out.

----------


## eok321

Can anybody give me a brief run down of the last 145posts-is CFL endorsing/funding candidates that support undeclared wars?

----------


## purplechoe

> All too telling. C4L is not trying to help Liberty Candidates.


Screw them, I've been saving some cash for our man in New Mexico and the great dame in Texas. Lets make Feb 1st & 2nd days to remember!!!

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I'm thinking that this is what happened--I'm just guessing
> 
> 1)  The local/state C4L prepared a "candidate survey."
> 2) This guy took the survey.
> 3)  He's now using the C4L survey, with logo, to promote his candidacy, without C4L approval.


Nope; it was fully supported and funded by the C4L




> Gary Howard, communications director for the Campaign For Liberty, told TPMDC that the ad is not an endorsement of Buck, but is instead intended to promote their candidate surveys. "It's not a support ad or an endorsement ad, it's just based on our candidate surveys," said Howard. "And we want every candidate to answer our surveys. So as soon as another candidate answers our survey, we'll probably do another ad stating that." 
> 
> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...video.php#more

----------


## newbitech

> I'm thinking that this is what happened--I'm just guessing
> 
> 1)  The local/state C4L prepared a "candidate survey."
> 2) This guy took the survey.
> 3)  He's now using the C4L survey, with logo, to promote his candidacy, without C4L approval.



So C4L rewards him with 15% of the left over record presidential online grassroots single day fund raising money bomb we started the damn tea parties money?  

nahh.. 

I think the proxy war opinion holds some credibility.  Family Feud so to speak.  The establishment is pushing Grayson to dislodge Rand, and some backroom dealing is going on.  

The only reason I would think that the money went to CO instead of KY is if Rand's campaign is already bracing for defeat.  

Regardless, it seems like a HUGE gamble and I am struggling to see how this large a sum of money being directed to battle the GOP on this front with an "unelectable" candidate has any odds of bearing fruit.  

It seems like a desperate move, and with what I have observed from the C4L, entrenching within the Republican party seems to be a strategy.  What a way to dig in eh?? 

eeeesshhhh.//

----------


## devil21

> Can anybody give me a brief run down of the last 145posts-is CFL endorsing/funding candidates that support undeclared wars?


It's not entirely clear what is going on but it appears that tv ads in Colorado have been paid for by the CFL and feature a pro-war candidate.  Still very much developing and a lot of fact finding still left to be done so don't jump to conclusions.  Emails to the CFL (I sent to Tate personally) and phone calls are a start to getting this clarified and acted upon.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Screw them, I've been saving some cash for our man in New Mexico and the great dame in Texas. Lets make Feb 1st & 2nd days to remember!!!


Yep..double barrel shot gun blast.

----------


## newbitech

> Can anybody give me a brief run down of the last 145posts-is CFL endorsing/funding candidates that support undeclared wars?



Well first of all according to C4L's website, they are not allowed to endorse ANY candidate.

next its 350k from the C4L coffers that went to buy 1 ad.  

and also, no one really knows anything about these candidate survey's as it was not a national project.  The ad spot is a subtle reference to some survey that the ad is supposedly praising the candidate for.  The communication director denies that ad is an endorsement which is laughable.  

The GOP is endorsing the candidate's opponent apparently.  

Why is this money not being spent on candidates that Ron Paul's PAC actively supports?

It appears there is absolutely NO coordination however subtle between the PAC the CORP and the grassroot's individual members.

Something stinks..  

I'd like to get a confirmation on that number as well.  350k is no small potatoes.

----------


## Elm

> Nope. I was at the original national convention in MN as well. The whole thing seemed kind of fishy to begin with. I've never trusted John Tate.



They even cut off the mic of that guy Frank when he asked about the bylaws.

----------


## MsDoodahs

I am sitting on my hands here.

I am really REALLY angry.

----------


## Epic

CFL should choose which projects to fund by having a poll on their website.

The organization is run in such an unlibertarian manner.

----------


## Pepsi

A group called Campaign for Liberty is spending almost $350,000 on ads touting Ken Buck’s GOP Senate campaign.

“Career politicians are stealing our liberty and bankrupting our country,” the ad begins. “But Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck isn’t a career politician. He’s a tough prosecutor who will take on the D.C. insiders.”

It’s unclear whether the “Campaign for Liberty” praising Buck is the same “Campaign for Liberty” behind Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential bid.

Buck’s campaign consultant, Walt Klein, said the group didn’t contact the campaign first, which is the norm these days. Outside groups accounted for $2 out of every $3 spent in ads in the 2008 U.S. Senate race, Klein said.

Most of those ads were of the slash-burn-attack variety, but the latest ad is full of praise for Buck. 

“Thank Ken Buck for choosing Colorado conservative values,” the ad says and urges other candidates in the race to fill out a Campaign for Liberty survey.

Buck faces former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, retired businessman Cleve Tidwell and former state lawmaker Tom Wiens in the GOP Senate primary.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/...for-ken-bucks/

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Here's another candidate in that Primary, Jane Norton. Her official issues page makes zero mention of foreign policy or terrorism, but there is a Google cache of an old interview.

She doesn't mention TARP, and her association with McCain would make a person guess she supported it, and that's why she doesn't mention it.

It seems that McCain's support has rubbed some people the wrong way (Bay Buchanan, Tom Tancredo).

Her issues page:
http://www.janenortonforcolorado.com/issues

Here's the "missing" answer on foreign policy from Google cache. Seems she doesn't want to address this issue any more (no doubt McCain and Bill Kristol can fill her in at a later time).




> http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
> 
> 13.  What do you think is the most pressing foreign policy problem facing this country and what do you think the federal government should do about it?
> 
> There is no shortage of problems facing our Nation internationally, from the struggle for democracy in Honduras to the emergence of a nuclear Iran.  But I believe the most compelling foreign policy issue we face right now is the war in Afghanistan.  Our ultimate goal is to defeat the Taliban, suppress al Qaeda, and foster stability in Pakistan.  We cannot pull out prematurely, forsake our allies, and allow a terrorist haven to once again flourish.  We must listen to our commanders on the ground and not pursue a half-hearted strategy that makes political expediency rather than military victory the goal.


Apparently Tom Tancredo wasn't thrilled about McCain coming in and "sponsoring" a candidate:




> http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...rton_--_an.php
> 
> In an article by ace Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels, former Congressman Tom Tancredo unloads on fellow Republican (and former Colorado Lieutenant Governor) Jane Norton, saying the only reason she'll be announcing a Senate run later today is because she was talked into it by Arizona Senator and recent presidential nominee John McCain. "Does John McCain have a right to do that? Sure. Do I have a right to bitch about it? You bet," Tancredo told Bartels. "Jane Norton is a nice lady who I like. End of story. But I fear she is not ready for prime time."

----------


## MRoCkEd

Several of the C4L people are looking into this. 
We should have more information tomorrow.

----------


## eok321

Thanks Devil & Newbitech.

This is serious $#@!

----------


## JK/SEA

> I am sitting on my hands here.
> 
> I am really REALLY angry.


I hear you. If you want, i'll offer myself up to be banned for awhile...

hugs...

----------


## purplechoe

> I am sitting on my hands here.
> 
> I am really REALLY angry.


I know the feeling... I had it when Peter said to bomb Iran and the thread was quickly moved to hot topics as well as when it was allowed to promote Scott Brown's money bomb on here...

----------


## devil21

Buck's campaign site: http://buckforcolorado.com/issues102k9.php

Overall he's not terrible, at least he mentions civil liberties and supports Audit the Fed, but not a word about following the Constitution.  The rest looks like typical GOP talking points though.

On Iraq/Afghanistan:



> As Colorado's Senator I will always look first to the advice of the generals, and I will strongly support the mission of our troops who are in harm's way.


^^^^
That's where the big problem is.

----------


## Knightskye

> I know the feeling... I had it when Peter said to bomb Iran and the thread was quickly moved to hot topics as well as when it was allowed to promote Scott Brown's money bomb on here...


Scott Brown is a turd.

He has a nice truck and a cute daughter, but he's a turd.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I know the feeling... I had it when Peter said to bomb Iran and the thread was quickly moved to hot topics as well as when it was allowed to promote Scott Brown's money bomb on here...


Then, you will want to talk to the forum owner, Josh.

----------


## johnrocks

I don't believe for a second it is our CFL, if it is, not one dine more from me.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I don't believe for a second it is our CFL, if it is, not one dine more from me.


Sadly if you go back though the thread you will find several quotes direct from the C4L Communications Director.

----------


## MsDoodahs

Thanks, you guys.

Stay tuned, you'll have a much clearer picture as to why this has me extra, super sized angry shortly...

----------


## johnrocks

"Campaign for Liberty" Spending $350,000 On Buck

An ad run on behalf of Senate candidate Ken Buck is the most important of the three developments. A group calling itself the "Campaign for Liberty" (this is not necessarily Ron Paul's group, C4L is a 501c4 and is barred from running candidate ads) has purchased $350,000 of ad time focusing on Ken Buck's candidacy. These ads reportedly began running during local news programs earlier this evening and we are seeking a copy of the commercial to upload as soon as we can.

While Buck's fundraising has faltered in the last quarter and Jane Norton (who was not without fundraising issues of her own) has a modest lead after Q4 2009, Buck is poised to have a great deal of cash spent on his behalf by outside groups. In addition to national groups such as the Senate Conservatives Fund eyeing the race, certain interests based in Northern Colorado are preparing their own outside efforts on Buck's behalf.
http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=taxonomy/term/228

I don't think it's our CFL

----------


## purplechoe

> Then, you will want to talk to the forum owner, Josh.


Just ask yourself, how is that much different than what is being talked about in this thread?

Do people understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?

----------


## johnrocks

> Sadly if you go back though the thread you will find several quotes direct from the C4L Communications Director.


Then he needs to be fired

----------


## anaconda

Maybe it's a different "Campaign For Liberty?"..The article says it was not clear if the two were the same...

----------


## gls

> I don't think it's our CFL


It definitely is. The Talking Points Memo (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...date-video.php) article quotes Gary Howard as communications director for the Campaign For Liberty. Here is Gary Howard's CFL profile: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/pr...er=Gary_Howard

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Nope; it was fully supported and funded by the C4L





> "Campaign for Liberty" Spending $350,000 On Buck
> 
> An ad run on behalf of Senate candidate Ken Buck is the most important of the three developments. A group calling itself the "Campaign for Liberty" (this is not necessarily Ron Paul's group, C4L is a 501c4 and is barred from running candidate ads) has purchased $350,000 of ad time focusing on Ken Buck's candidacy. These ads reportedly began running during local news programs earlier this evening and we are seeking a copy of the commercial to upload as soon as we can.
> 
> While Buck's fundraising has faltered in the last quarter and Jane Norton (who was not without fundraising issues of her own) has a modest lead after Q4 2009, Buck is poised to have a great deal of cash spent on his behalf by outside groups. In addition to national groups such as the Senate Conservatives Fund eyeing the race, certain interests based in Northern Colorado are preparing their own outside efforts on Buck's behalf.
> http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=taxonomy/term/228
> 
> I don't think it's our CFL





> Maybe it's a different "Campaign For Liberty?"..The article says it was not clear if the two were the same...





> It definitely is. The Talking Points Memo (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...date-video.php) article quotes Gary Howard as communications director for the Campaign For Liberty. Here is Gary Howard's CFL profile: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/pr...er=Gary_Howard


It has been confirmed to be C4L

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Just ask yourself, how is that much different than what is being talked about in this thread?
> 
> Do people understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?


Oh geez, purplechoe.  *I told you that, because Josh had made the decision* (in fact he posted about it) about keeping the candidate forums positive and helpful.  I can't remember who it was that made the decision about the Brown threads, but as I recall, it was an Admin.  Also as I recall, it was decided to leave them there because so many long-time RP supporters appeared to be behind him and that the election was going to be over in a couple of days.  We're in the process of deciding how best to handle these non-liberty candidate deals in the future.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> ...this has me extra, super sized angry shortly...


Lot of that running around lately.

Welcome to my world.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

have to run to a SOTU thing with Adam. While getting to the bottom of this important topic, please keep in mind our visible enemies...

----------


## johnrocks

Confirmed so now what?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> It seems as though they are looking to gain allies in CO based on the border security and immigration issue. That's the issue that made the majority of Republicans mad about the RINO McCain (McAmnesty). It's one of the things that made him a RINO. 
> 
> *It's still a lot of money for a very subtle message though, with a candidate that disagrees on a different, but important issue.*


This is what happens when you hire a guy who doesn't agree with our foreign policy. Does Michael Rothfeld ring a bell? When I started asking questions HERE about the new C4L push to take over the GOP, and complaining about Rothfeld's derision of the education part of the C4L mission, Debbie Hopper contacted my state coordinator and asked him why I'm still a county coordinator. She wanted me gone. He said no. 

Shortly after (later that day or the day after, I can't remember now) I spoke with Debbie on the phone and asked more questions. Apparently she hired* him in 94 to present a lecture at the Constitution Party conference. (I can't help but wonder if his political strategy is so good why the CP isn't more successful by now.) On a side note there is a connection between Tate and Rothfeld via the Leadership Institute. (Again, let's remember Tate's omission of foreign policy during his 9/12 speech.)

*Hopper told me that he is a "cold warrior" and not supportive of the C4L's foreign policy position. I was told that he doesn't set political agenda or policy for C4L (just sends out frantic GOP talking point solicitations and directs strategy-- taking over the GOP). I was told that it shouldn't matter if he agrees with our principles. At which point my jaw dropped and I was ready to bang my head against the wall. In a nutshell I was told that there is no one out there who can fundraise or strategize that agrees with all of the guiding principles of C4L.*

On another side not it was not until AFTER I started asking all these questions and telling Hopper that they haven't said a word about foreign policy OR the Patriot Act in the mailers that were being sent out did the Patriot Act become one of the choices as to what C4L should focus attention on. BECAUSE Rothfeld is not only the guy teaching strategy at the conferences but is the mastermind behind the mailers.

Anyway, it was after that I decided to ask my state coordinator to demote me from County Coordinator to Local Coordinator. As a County Coordinator I am not supposed to speak about C4L in any way that might be considered negative and I do not wear a muzzle well.


*Hopper said she didn't "hire" him she "used" him at a conference.

----------


## FrankRep

Campaign for Liberty made a serious error, but give them another chance before abandoning them.

Mistakes and misjudgments will happen.

----------


## johnrocks

I just send Gary Howard a message, perhaps we all need to, be civil but ask if it is true and express your concern and opposition!

----------


## jabf2006

> Campaign for Liberty made a serious error, but give them another chance before abandoning them.
> 
> Mistakes and misjudgments will happen.


This is a pretty big mistake and misjudgment. They don't get another chance unless they publicly provide a full and detailed explanation as to what happened, and remove those accountable. This movement cannot afford to waste $350,000 on war-monger. Too many good people trying to scrape cash together to run competitive campaigns.

----------


## johnrocks

> Campaign for Liberty made a serious error, but give them another chance before abandoning them.
> 
> Mistakes and misjudgments will happen.


Touche' but $350000 is a lot of money from a new movement, that is some serious money going to a candidate that supports something that made me abandon the GOP in the first place.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Campaign for Liberty made a serious error, but give them another chance before abandoning them.
> 
> Mistakes and misjudgments will happen.


It will take a lot of ACTION and not just talk to even begin a process of earning my trust back. Some heads need to roll. there needs to be a complete open review of the C4L finances, projects, and establish a grassroots committee that directly works on things.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Campaign for Liberty made a serious error, but give them another chance before abandoning them.
> 
> Mistakes and misjudgments will happen.


I could believe that if it were a $10,000 mistake.

$350,000 is WAY BEYOND a "mistake" or "misjudgement."

It is a frikken DISGRACE and HEADS MUST ROLL.

----------


## Reason

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/fo...hp?topic=10584

----------


## MsDoodahs

> some heads need to roll. There needs to be a complete open review of the c4l finances, projects, and establish a grassroots committee that directly works on things.


^^^this.^^^

----------


## johnrocks

> It will take a lot of ACTION and not just talk to even begin a process of earning my trust back. Some heads need to roll. there needs to be a complete open review of the C4L finances, projects, and establish a grassroots committee that directly works on things.


I agree, it's not like we are talking about a minor issue, we're talking about a core issue;the center piece issue that brought so many with various ideologies together in the first place.

----------


## Reason

Campaign for Liberty 
 5211 Port Royal Road, Suite 310
 Springfield, VA 22151 
 Phone: (703) 865-7162  
 Fax: (703) 865-7549

----------


## johnrocks

> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/fo...hp?topic=10584


I just commented as well as send the director a message

----------


## nobody's_hero

RPF 1207, Audit the Campaign for Liberty

I will not be donating another dime to the CFL until they agree to disclose ALL expenditures so that I can see exactly how my donations are being spent.

----------


## brandon

> Thanks, you guys.
> 
> Stay tuned, you'll have a much clearer picture as to why this has me extra, super sized angry shortly...


Don't tease us! I'm dieing to know.

----------


## FrankRep

Campaign for Liberty better release a statement soon. They better fire the problem and reorganize quick.

----------


## Reason

*TURN UP THE HEAT @ THE C4L FORUMS IMO

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/fo...hp?topic=10584*

----------


## eok321

For what its worth i sent this 

"A group called Campaign for Liberty is spending almost $350,000 on ads touting Ken Buck’s GOP Senate campaign.

What is this?"

to

john.f.tate@campaignforliberty.com

----------


## someperson

If I had expectations for this group, I might have been disappointed. Once a group labels itself, or an organization titles itself, it exposes itself to manipulation. Stop representing groups, stop allowing groups to represent you. Represent yourself as an individual. I believe that individuals coordinating for a cause should do so without a collective name. A nameless set of individuals is infinitely more difficult to manipulate. 

Resource misallocations, like this, must be avoided in the future. Donations should be made directly to candidates, whenever possible. If, for a non-candidate-related project, resources must be pooled, it should be done via one-shot chip-ins and not permanent organizations. 

Incidentally, it would be great to see more candidates providing the donor with the option of "voting" for projects with their funds. The candidate could create a few ads, for example, and give the donor the option of either directing their funds to that which they liked best, or leaving it up to the management's discretion.

I saw something like this on Schiff's donation form; I'm not sure how prevalent it is among other liberty candidates, but it would be nice if such a system were to become the norm. Ideally, a per project donation tally could be presented so that each individual donor can decide where to best allocate their resources. This transparency would help to avoid situations where important things become underfunded.

I apologize for the rant; I hope some of these ideas resonate with someone.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Phone bomb tomorrow or Friday? they need to know that this is not just one or two people that are upset but a large portion of their base.


Let's get this planned for Friday. If they fix things tomorrow then we will hold off otherwise its phone bomb time.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> Let's get this planned for Friday. If they fix things tomorrow then we will hold off otherwise its phone bomb time.


alright

----------


## LittleLightShining

For the record, this (neo-con infiltration) is something I've been concerned about for a long time, which is what prompted acptulsa to post this thread last June.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195170

----------


## eok321

> For the record, this (neo-con infiltration) is something I've been concerned about for a long time, which is what prompted acptulsa to post this thread last June.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195170


O.k i do agree there are infiltrators.. but who in the freakin hell o.k's 350,000 of peoples money. I mean seriously

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Don't tease us! I'm dieing to know.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...&postcount=180

Alarm bells were going off IN JUNE.

----------


## ItsTime

> For the record, this (neo-con infiltration) is something I've been concerned about for a long time, which is what prompted acptulsa to post this thread last June.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195170


My guess is it wont last long.


Anyone from Campaign For Liberty out there and looking to replace some people contact me. I need a job

----------


## Reason

Does Ron Paul's staff have anything to do with C4L at all?

----------


## jmdrake

Well where I stand is in my sig.  In 2012 if I wake up an realize that all I've accomplished is helping the GOP wing of the RepubliCrat party get back in office I will be mighty upset.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Goddamnit. See this is why we need some litmus test. #1 Sound Currency #2 Strict Non-Interventionism #3 Laissez-Faire Misesian/Rothbardian Austrianism #4 Natural Law/Private Property Lockean principles #5 Anti-Central Banking and Anti-ALL regulation 

Goddamnit this pisses me off to no end. We can EASILY replace these bumbling nitwits with REAL LOCKEAN/AUSTRIAN LIBERTARIANS! GRRRRR. CFL is a $#@!ing waste of resources.

----------


## erowe1

> Does Ron Paul's staff have anything to do with C4L at all?


Jesse Benton is involved in both RP's staff and CFL I believe.

----------


## newbitech

> O.k i do agree there are infiltrators.. *but who* in the freakin hell o.k's 350,000 of peoples money. I mean seriously


a corporate director

----------


## nobody's_hero

> My guess is it wont last long.
> 
> 
> Anyone from Campaign For Liberty out there and looking to replace some people contact me. I need a job


Hell, the worst part is that from day one when the CFL was commissioned by Ron Paul, we've had *VOLUNTEERS* willing to carry out some of the website management duties, but there was an insistence on the inside that certain chosen-ones be paid to do a task that they do half-heartedly.

----------


## ItsTime

> Hell, the worst part is that from day one when the CFL was commissioned by Ron Paul, we've had *VOLUNTEERS* willing to carry out some of the website management duties, but there was an insistence on the inside that certain chosen-ones be paid to do a task that they do half-heartedly.


Yeah exactly.

----------


## Ricky201

Unfreakin' real.  I've donated at least 150-200 dollars to them in the past 6 months.  Well I guess I learned my lesson to donating money to an organization.

Tar and feathers anyone?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> does ron paul's staff have anything to do with c4l at all?


Debbie Hopper was in charge of the pcc.

----------


## specsaregood

So this is what it feels like to realize you have been co-opted? It's kinda like this time I got talked into going out to some new club, got drunk and woke up with a strange pain in my rectum.....

----------


## TheState

What really makes me mad is that instead of planning on ways to help candidates we like on this forum, we have to waste time dealing with stupid crap like this. 

I hate infighting when it's over small issues, but this is a HUGE issue and could be a major distraction when we need to be focused on upcoming elections.

I seriously wonder what the C4L is thinking sometimes (and this isn't the first time I've thought that). What exactly has all this money we have given to them done? I see way more results from people on this forum than I do from them.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Yeah exactly.


I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't mind people being compensated for their time, if they do a decent job. But, for my money, I'd like to see results. If they _were_ doing it for free, of course, I wouldn't expect much, other than for them to turn it over to someone else with more time and more dedication if others present themselves willing and able to do the task.

_Side note:_

The CFL webpage loads slow as hell for me. Anyone else have that problem? I see something in the bottom-left of my I.E. web browser that shows a rediculous number of items left: (438 items remaining), and starts counting down. Sometimes it completely freezes up and I have to ctrl-alt-delete to get out of internet explorer, but it could just be some settings I need to change. Yet, it only happens on the Campaign for Liberty website, and is really noticeable when I try to read blogs/edit my own blog/check messages, etc..

----------


## johnrocks

> So this is what it feels like to realize you have been co-opted? It's kinda like this time I got talked into going out to some new club, got drunk and woke up with a strange pain in my rectum.....


, I really hope that this is just a bad rumor or that heads will roll and a message sent that we don't tolerate our dollars going to neo cons

----------


## ItsTime

> I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't mind people being compensated for their time, if they do a decent job. But, for my money, I'd like to see results. If they _were_ doing it for free, of course, I wouldn't expect much, other than for them to turn it over to someone else with more time and more dedication if they present themselves willing and able to do the task.


No I know what you are saying.

----------


## muzzled dogg

lol this is hilarious

----------


## dr. hfn

YouTube - KHAAAAAAN!

----------


## MsDoodahs

> What really makes me mad is that instead of planning on ways to help candidates we like on this forum, we have to waste time dealing with stupid crap like this. 
> 
> I hate infighting when it's over small issues, but this is a HUGE issue and could be a major distraction when we need to be focused on upcoming elections.
> 
> I seriously wonder what the C4L is thinking sometimes (and this isn't the first time I've thought that). *What exactly has all this money we have given to them done?* I see way more results from people on this forum than I do from them.


Transparency - COMPLETE transparency - or CFL should bite the dust.

It's really just that simple.

----------


## ItsTime

Im trying to decide which liberty fumble was the worst 

a) Strange Bed Fellows - Break The Matrix works with far left on a money bomb. Far left turns around and uses the money to run ads against Liberty candidates.

b) Campaign for Liberty creates ads for neo-cons.


Will these be in the next Documentary? Or are we going to make up our history too?

----------


## FrankRep

> a) Strange Bed Fellows - Break The Matrix works with far left on a money bomb. Far left turns around and uses the money to run ads against Liberty candidates.


Seriously? Do you have a link for more information?

----------


## ItsTime

> Seriously? Do you have a link for more information?


It was all over the boards. Maybe if you do a search on this forum you might find it.

----------


## Dreamofunity

YouTube - Reel Big Fish - Sell Out

----------


## LittleLightShining

Apparently any and all non-profits should be listed on the guidestar website. However I'm finding nothing conclusive on the national C4L there. I am working on searches for 990 tax forms and expenditures but I'm coming up empty. This is weird.

----------


## dr. hfn

> Apparently any and all non-profits should be listed on the guidestar website. However I'm finding nothing conclusive on the national C4L there. I am working on searches for 990 tax forms and expenditures but I'm coming up empty. This is weird.


WTF, are they still a non-profit?!

----------


## LittleLightShining

> WTF, are they still a non-profit?!


*I don't know*, I'm just passing along what I was told by a friend who does research on nonprofits almost daily.

----------


## LittleLightShining

I found something. Costs $7.95 to download.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I found something. Costs $7.95 to download.


Found something intriguging on that page:




> This organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., *not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations*).

----------


## aclove

If that's the case, how in the holy hell could they afford to drop $350,000 on production and airtime for one ad?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Found something intriguging on that page:


I ended up creating an account at guidestar because I noticed that the address for C4L at the link above was Lake Jackson, TX NOT Arlington, VA. There is no information available for free from guidestar on C4L-- which again is kinda odd because my friend uses this site for a lot of the work he does and hasn't even had to register to get what he needs.

http://www2.guidestar.org/organizati...-liberty.aspx#

----------


## dr. hfn

this thread has 5,287 views!  It is unbelievable!

----------


## angelatc

> Here at the Kokesh campaign, we haven't received our survey yet.  Looking forward to fill it out.


I was wondering about that.  Apparently it's worth $350,000 if you return it! Such a deal.

----------


## erowe1

> WTF, are they still a non-profit?!


Yes.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/faq.php#type



> The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization. A "501(c)(4)" is an organization not organized for profit and operated "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." It is essentially a tax designation. There are many different tax categories for political organizations, each with its own pros and cons. In our case, the pros include having no limit on the amount that individuals may donate, while cons include a restriction from endorsing political candidates. Those who would like to donate to an organization that can support political candidates should donate to a Poltical Action Committee (PAC) such as the Liberty PAC. Donations to 501(c)(4)'s are NOT tax deductible.

----------


## gls

> this thread has 5,287 views!  It is unbelievable!


Yes, hopefully this will become a big enough liability for them that they won't be able to continue ignoring it.

----------


## pacelli

> Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! Good luck getting donations now. My guess is any new funding will dry up from now on.


I hate to say it, but is Ron Paul even writing his own emails when he is asking people to donate to various candidates?

----------


## erowe1

> I hate to say it, but is Ron Paul even writing his own emails when he is asking people to donate to various candidates?


I assume not. But what does that have to do with any of this?

----------


## Reason

GDI I'm wearing a C4L T-Shirt right now...

----------


## Mini-Me

Wow.  I just noticed this thread, and I haven't read through its 24 whopping pages yet...but it sounds like the CFL has truly jumped the shark.

It reminds me of this post in this thread:



> For a brief moment in time there was an organically developing movement arising from the public ranks.  Now we are all witnessing the fracturing and dismantling of everything and anything that might be used as a foundation for its continued operation or growth.
> 
> Toss it all out and start over.  It's all been infected.


I thought the whole "toss it all out and start over" thing was extreme when I first read the post, but I'm rethinking that now...

----------


## angelatc

Is anybody still reading?  I found some stuff on the IRS site. http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSe...FOR+LIBERTY%27

Current Organization Information
Name:  	CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY
EIN:  	205227484
Address:  	1701 WYNKOOP ST., STE 215
DENVER, CO 80202
E-Mail:  	campaignforliberty@gmail.com
Contact:  	JOHN BRITZ
Custodian:  	JOHN BRITZ

This form indicates that this CFL was established in 2006, for the sole purpose of supporting Colorado political candidates: http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSe...1&formType=E71

So why are they using the C4L logo, and why is somebody at "our" C4L speaking for them?  And if they're able to pass out $350,000, why no filings since 2006?

There are no filings that I can find for any other entities with the name Campaign For Liberty, but I've only been looking for about 3 minutes.

Who wants to email them?

----------


## RCA

> Wow.  I just noticed this thread, and I haven't read through its 24 whopping pages yet...but it sounds like the CFL has truly jumped the shark.
> 
> It reminds me of this post in this thread:
> 
> I thought the whole "toss it all out and start over" thing was extreme when I first read the post, but I'm rethinking that now...


FYI, this thread is only 6 pages long if you set your forum preferences to the maximum number of messages per page.

----------


## Paulitical Correctness

Not to hijack, but I feel the need to remind you all...

This movement is *a* campaign for liberty, run by individuals as they see fit.  We collaborate in various ways and decide our own grassroots methods.  *The* campaign for liberty is an organization that exists because of YOU.  It is up to YOU to further the cause.

We never needed a top down organization for success.  I've been out of the liberty loop for a while now, but if I recall correctly our activism flourished right here on RPF.

Whether or not this is a critical blow to the CFL, we are winning.  Look around you, the seeds have been planted everywhere!

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Is anybody still reading?  I found some stuff on the IRS site. http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSe...FOR+LIBERTY%27
> 
> Current Organization Information
> Name:  	CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY
> EIN:  	205227484
> Address:  	1701 WYNKOOP ST., STE 215
> DENVER, CO 80202
> E-Mail:  	campaignforliberty@gmail.com
> Contact:  	JOHN BRITZ
> ...


WTF??? We know already that they are using the National Graphics, and the National Communications Director even affirmed the ad was done buy the C4L. This is getting even more crazy and im losing any faith in this organization. Things are to fishy, and shady.

----------


## Mini-Me

> FYI, this thread is only 6 pages long if you set your forum preferences to the maximum number of messages per page.


Thanks, but that still doesn't make it any shorter.

----------


## angelatc

> WTF??? We know already that they are using the National Graphics, and the National Communications Director even affirmed the ad was done buy the C4L. This is getting even more crazy and im losing any faith in this organization. Things are to fishy, and shady.


http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...or-liberty.asp

That organization appears to only have been active for a single election cycle. The info on this site matches the info on the IRS site.

And there is absolutely no information for any other "Campaign For Liberty" entity there, either.

----------


## ItsTime

> Not to hijack, but I feel the need to remind you all...
> 
> This movement is *a* campaign for liberty, run by individuals as they see fit.  We collaborate in various ways and decide our own grassroots methods.  *The* campaign for liberty is an organization that exists because of YOU.  It is up to YOU to further the cause.
> 
> We never needed a top down organization for success.  I've been out of the liberty loop for a while now, but if I recall correctly our activism flourished right here on RPF.
> 
> Whether or not this is a critical blow to the CFL, we are winning.  Look around you, the seeds have been planted everywhere!


Without a doubt. And think about how many neo-con supporters of this douche will now visit C4L to check it out...

----------


## Bobster

> http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...or-liberty.asp
> 
> That organization appears to only have been active for a single election cycle. The info on this site matches the info on the IRS site.


This makes it smell like a plant organization more than anything else. This whole affair seems incredibly fishy.

----------


## purplechoe

oops... I wanted to star a news thread, continue with the C4L discussion...

----------


## ItsTime

> This makes it smell like a plant organization more than anything else. This whole affair seems incredibly fishy.


Dont be a moron. Yup Ron Paul is an illuminaty reptilian neo-con plant.

----------


## KCIndy

> Is anybody still reading?  I found some stuff on the IRS site. http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSe...FOR+LIBERTY%27
> 
> Current Organization Information
> Name:  	CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY
> EIN:  	205227484
> Address:  	1701 WYNKOOP ST., STE 215
> DENVER, CO 80202
> E-Mail:  	campaignforliberty@gmail.com
> Contact:  	JOHN BRITZ
> ...



WOW!!  

Good Catch, angelatc!!

Apparently there IS a Colorado specific Campaign for Liberty...

A quick Google search also turned this up:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...or-liberty.asp

Pardon the poor formatting...  but check out the groups and contributions!  I don't see a group like this coming up with 350 Grand to buy an ad... Granted, this is 2006 stuff.

Let's keep digging, people!!  





> CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY
> "527" Political Organization Filing Information
> 
> Organization Info
> Group Name	CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY
> 
> Stated Purpose	TO SUPPORT POLITICAL CANDIDATES IN THE STATE OF COLORADO
> 
> Email Address	campaignforliberty@gmail.com
> ...

----------


## angelatc

> This makes it smell like a plant organization more than anything else. This whole affair seems incredibly fishy.


Like LLS, I find it really, really odd that there's no IRS filings available. Tax exempt doesn't mean you don't have to file.

----------


## klamath

A little $#@! stirred up here Eh. I will withhold judgement until all shakes out but if this is true the organization is killed.  I did not join nor did I donate because I have always subscribed to the direct donation method as that is the only way I can be sure the money goes to the person that needs it.

I can see 3500 dollars but as everyone pointed out 350,000 for a candidate like this????

----------


## erowe1

> http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...or-liberty.asp
> 
> That organization appears to only have been active for a single election cycle. The info on this site matches the info on the IRS site.


Yeah, and they only had $19k in receipts and expenditures at that time. So I don't think they have anything to do with the $350k that bought ads with the logo of our CFL and that Gary Howard says our CFL did. I think it's just another organization that was around in 2006 that happened to have the same name. It is the sort of name another political group could have easily come up with some other time, after all. The fact that it was in CO is a little weird. But I think it's just a coincidence.

----------


## ItsTime

> Like LLS, I find it really, really odd that there's no IRS filings available. Tax exempt doesn't mean you don't have to file.


When is the last time the government did anything right?

----------


## dr. hfn

C4L National already confirmed they made the ad! Forget the CO C4L.

----------


## ItsTime

nevermind my last posts I think I lost the convo somewhere

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> A little $#@! stirred up here Eh. I will withhold judgement until all shakes out but if this is true the organization is killed.  I did not join nor did I donate because I have always subscribed to the direct donation method as that is the only way I can be sure the money goes to the person that needs it.
> 
> I can see 3500 dollars but as everyone pointed out 350,000 for a candidate like this????


It's already confirmed as true. the C4L Communications person has verified it, as well as a mod here. Were now awaiting a response tomorrow as to why the hell they would spend OUR money this way.

----------


## erowe1

> http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...or-liberty.asp
> 
> That organization appears to only have been active for a single election cycle. The info on this site matches the info on the IRS site.
> 
> And there is absolutely no information for any other "Campaign For Liberty" entity there, either.


Here's that John Britz who ran that other CFL in 2006 (I think).
http://www.welchertandbritz.com/JohnBritz.html




> As a Pueblo native, John's Colorado roots run deep. He graduated in Political Science/Psychology from the University of Denver (where he competed in lacrosse) and his knowledge of the political landscape in the Rocky Mountain west is second to none.
> 
> Britz is fond of saying, "we often go where angels fear to tread." That's in evidence by the work Britz and the firm have accomplished. *He directed the work on two ballot measures that would have changed the face of education in Colorado. NO on 17 stopped private school tax credits (vouchers) and NO on 31 preserved bi-lingual educational choices for immigrant children.* He was instrumental in passing the "first-in-the-nation" professional compensation (pay for performance) system among teachers for the Denver schools. And many of the new schools on Colorado's horizon also have Britz to thank for successful tax election strategies.
> 
> Keeping a finger on the pulse of education policy and politics is only a part of the Britz story. His work for local fire districts, municipalities and school districts has greatly improved the quality of life in the region. Clients routinely count on him for his expertise and development of budgets, planning documents and timelines. That's why the W&B credo is "plan the work and then work the plan." In addition to advancing public policy through initiative, Britz has played a pivotal role in numerous candidate races including U.S Senate in Wyoming and Colorado, congressional seats across the Rockies and legislative races too numerous to count (he previously directed the House Democratic Caucus). Britz has written and participated in client training, developed successful grassroots lobbying campaigns and designed corporate communications that got results. For example, his creation and implementation of El Liderazgo del Futuro (Leadership for the Future) provided training for over two thousand Hispanic leaders from across the country and was hailed as a magnificent achievement by California Speaker of the House Antonio Villaraigosa who keynoted the three-day event.
> 
> When he's not watching sports he's coaching or volunteering with his two daughters--basketball is the current passion. John has also stepped up to aide the Denver Public Schools Middle School sports program through the Denver Nuggets/Colorado Avalanche Prep League. In 1995 the Denver Post recognized John Britz as a rising star and he has been honored with inclusion in Who's Who in America. Mayor Webb has also appointed Britz to serve on the Metro Wastewater Board of Directors.
> 
> What you didn't know: JB ran the clock for DU hockey games in college…best seat in the house!


It looks unlikely to me like he would have any relationship with our CFL or with ads for Ken Buck.

----------


## angelatc

> When is the last time the government did anything right?


I deal with the IRS and non-profits on a fairly regular basis. 

I could believe they might lose a single form, although I've never seen it happen.  I can't believe they would lose every single form, especially since so much of it is filed electronically.

----------


## RCA

I know that here in Florida a separate state, C4L-related organization was created by the State Coordinator that was distinct from the national C4L. I don't know about other states.

----------


## angelatc

> I know that here in Florida a separate state, C4L-related organization was created by the State Coordinator that was distinct from the national C4L. I don't know about other states.


That's a good point.  What if the Colorado C4L raised the money themselves, and donated it to that guy?   I guess we could blame the oxygen deprivation ....

----------


## smashysmashy

I was a C4L member, but I think this is the right place for me. Even if there is an explanation, I am far too sketched out by what I am reading here. Thanks to MrOcked for letting us know about this over at C4L.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I know that here in Florida a separate state, C4L-related organization was created by the State Coordinator that was distinct from the national C4L. I don't know about other states.


Irrelevant. the NATIONAL Campaign for liberty communications Director has already stated that they created, and funded the ad as a reward for filling out a survey.




> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...video.php#more*
> Gary Howard, communications director for the Campaign For Liberty, told TPMDC that the ad is not an endorsement of Buck, but is instead intended to promote their candidate surveys. "It's not a support ad or an endorsement ad, it's just based on our candidate surveys," said Howard. "And we want every candidate to answer our surveys. So as soon as another candidate answers our survey, we'll probably do another ad stating that."*

----------


## erowe1

> That's a good point.  What if the Colorado C4L raised the money themselves, and donated it to that guy?   I guess we could blame the oxygen deprivation ....


They raised $350,000? And they did that without anybody here or any of the other RP sites talking about it, or even trying to sell Ken Buck to the rest of us as someone worth supporting? And they involved Gary Howard somehow? I don't think that's it.

----------


## KCIndy

> Irrelevant. the NATIONAL Campaign for liberty communications Director has already stated that they created, and funded the ad as a reward for filling out a survey.



Let's *ALL* fill out a survey!!  Hooray!!  Cash and goodies for _EVERYONE!!!_  Whooo-Hooo!!!

----------


## FrankRep

Watch out for people who want to exploit the C4L problem to cause division in the Liberty movement.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Irrelevant. the NATIONAL Campaign for liberty communications Director has already stated that they created, and funded the ad as a reward for filling out a survey.


Gary Howard
Director of Media Relations
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/pr...er=Gary_Howard

----------


## dr. hfn

send this thread to all of your C4L friends.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> send this thread to all of your C4L friends.


Its already got a thread going on the C4L site and FB page as well.

----------


## erowe1

I just searched our forum to see if Ken Buck had ever been mentioned here before and he has. There are a couple news articles about immigration related stuff that mention his name as an attorney, and then there was a post a few months ago that included that Bay Buchanan article that's already been mentioned. There has never been a single post in these forums presenting him as a candidate worth our attention.

But then there was this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=ken+buck

It appears that Ken Buck beat out a Ron Paul Republican who campaigned on a promise to support only those powers enumerated in the Constitution for the nomination.

----------


## angelatc

> They raised $350,000? And they did that without anybody here or any of the other RP sites talking about it, or even trying to sell Ken Buck to the rest of us as someone worth supporting? And they involved Gary Howard somehow? I don't think that's it.


Well, I would never underestimate the propensity for national to claim credit for something they didn't actually do, but yeah.....I am grasping at straws. I'm not a huge fan of C4L, but I never wanted this to happen.

----------


## erowe1

For convenience, here's that article from the old thread I just linked.
http://www.coloradostatesman.com/con...ve-competition



> GOP shows big love for competition
> 10/02/2009
> 
> By Leslie Jorgensen
> THE COLORADO STATESMAN
> 
> KEYSTONE — “We ought to embrace competition,” Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams told Republicans gathered at the state party Central Committee meeting in the Keystone Lodge last weekend.
> Jane Norton, candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, won 119 of 344 votes cast in the straw poll for Senate in Keystone. Ken Buck and Ryan Frazier each captured 94 votes.
> Photo by Brad Jones
> ...

----------


## angelatc

> Its already got a thread going on the C4L site and FB page as well.


Have we dragged Daily Paul on board yet?

----------


## qh4dotcom

Look, if you guys want to help CFL, Rand Paul and Ron Paul you guys are doing it the wrong way...give money to them directly and this stuff happens...I don't trust the Paul family with my money after they blew $34 million in the 2008 presidential race. I don't ever recall him saying that he would spend campaign contributions wisely like Peter Schiff has. What you should do instead is buy bumper stickers, T-shirts, etc at the Campaign for Liberty Store, the RonPaulforCongress.com store, etc and pass this them out or sell them on Ebay...that way you accomplish two goals...helping spread the liberty message and donating to their campaigns. Store purchases are considered as campaign contributions....at least if you make a purchase at their stores, you get something in return and you may even get back your money by selling the merchandise.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I just searched our forum to see if Ken Buck had ever been mentioned here before and he has. There are a couple news articles about immigration related stuff that mention his name as an attorney, and then there was a post a few months ago that included that Bay Buchanan article that's already been mentioned. There has never been a single post in these forums presenting him as a candidate worth our attention.
> 
> But then there was this one:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=ken+buck
> 
> It appears that Ken Buck beat out a Ron Paul Republican who campaigned on a promise to support only those powers enumerated in the Constitution for the nomination.


So now we even find that he has gone against one of ours??

Im getting more and more pissed every minute that C4l is not explaining and firing half of the damn staff over this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Have we dragged Daily Paul on board yet?


I don't get on there but if anyone IS or KNOWS a Daily Paul blogger can you please get this information out!

----------


## angelatc

Maybe somebody should contact Luke Korkowski, since he's got his boots on the ground there.

----------


## MsDoodahs

Maybe it's just me but since CFL HQ knew this was blowing up before their day ended, I would THINK they'd get some sort of statement up about this.

ho hum...nothing to see here...move along....send us a check...problem?  what problem?  send us more money.

----------


## RCA

> Look, if you guys want to help CFL, Rand Paul and Ron Paul you guys are doing it the wrong way...give money to them directly and this stuff happens...I don't trust the Paul family with my money after they blew $34 million in the 2008 presidential race. I don't ever recall him saying that he would spend campaign contributions wisely like Peter Schiff has. What you should do instead is buy bumper stickers, T-shirts, etc at the Campaign for Liberty Store, the RonPaulforCongress.com store, etc and pass this them out or sell them on Ebay...that way you accomplish two goals...helping spread the liberty message and donating to their campaigns. Store purchases are considered as campaign contributions....at least if you make a purchase at their stores, you get something in return and you may even get back your money by selling the merchandise.


I'm just curious, if you don't trust Ron Paul with your money, how is he any different from other politicians?

I trust him but not necessarily everyone from the 2008 PCC.

----------


## RCA

> Maybe it's just me but since CFL HQ knew this was blowing up before their day ended, I would THINK they'd get some sort of statement up about this.
> 
> ho hum...nothing to see here...move along....send us a check...problem?  what problem?  send us more money.


Banker hours baby, banker hours.

----------


## purplechoe

I just received an "Important Survey" from Congressman Ron Paul. Is this the same thing the guy in Colorado received $350k for? If so, I'm buying a $#@!load of gold!!!



after I max out on my donations to Medina & Kokesh of course...

----------


## dr. hfn

YouTube - KHAAAAAAN!

----------


## Reason

i've emailed and messaged every C4L contact I can find...

----------


## angelatc

> Maybe it's just me but since CFL HQ knew this was blowing up before their day ended, I would THINK they'd get some sort of statement up about this.
> 
> ho hum...nothing to see here...move along....send us a check...problem?  what problem?  send us more money.



It's like dealing with politicians.  We're obviously too stupid to understand what they're doing, and we should just give them our money without asking all these pesky questions.  I mean, who do we think we are?

Seriously, this is just awful. This could fracture the movement forever.

----------


## KCIndy

> I just received an "Important Survey" from Congressman Ron Paul. Is this the same thing the guy in Colorado received $350k for? If so, I'm buying a $#@!load of gold!!!
> 
> 
> 
> after I max out on my donations to Medina & Kokesh of course...




I wish that $350,000 would have gone to Medina and Kokesh...  

But off topic:  That's one real sweet pile of gold!

----------


## MsDoodahs

> It's like dealing with politicians.  We're obviously too stupid to understand what they're doing, and we should just give them our money without asking all these pesky questions.  I mean, who do we think we are?
> 
> Seriously, this is just awful. This could fracture the movement forever.


It is seriously awful, but the movement isn't uniform anyway.

Who knows, maybe it will improve without a central hub trying to suck money for themselves.

----------


## gls

> Whether or not this is a critical blow to the CFL, we are winning.  Look around you, the seeds have been planted everywhere!


I agree with you to the extent that we are currently in a very fertile environment for a movement like this one, but I wouldn't necessarily say we are winning. It appears as if the electorate is ready to sweep in a bunch of failed big government Republican politicians to replace the failed big government Democratic politicians. Establishment organs like Dick Armey's FreedomWorks (which proudly quotes George W. Bush on their website saying he is an "enormous fan") have taken control of the so-called Tea Party movement and are doing their best to quash any chance for it to bring about any meaningful reform. 

This is where the Campaign for Liberty was supposed to come in. Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations to air commercials in support of some pro-war District Attorney in Colorado, that money should be used to reach out to the millions of people who are just now waking up to what is really going on but can't quite see the whole picture yet. If there is ever to be a Constitutional revolution in this country, we first have to build a large foundation of people who truly understand what it means to be free.

There needs to be a national, _principled_ liberty organization capable of showing Americans the real path to peace and prosperity. Unfortunately it does not look like the CFL is willing or able to play that role.

----------


## Reason

*C4L FORUM THREAD ON THIS ISSUE

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/fo...hp?topic=10584*

----------


## rp08orbust

> *C4L FORUM THREAD ON THIS ISSUE
> 
> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/fo...hp?topic=10584*


Does one have to be a member to read the thread?

I have a "thank you for joining" email sent from C4L to my main email address in June 2008 and have since received hundreds of emails from John Tate, but the C4L website says there is no member with that email address.  Oh well, I'm certainly not going to re-join now.

----------


## rancher89

lls, thanks for digging for info

I hope this turns out OK, but even if it doesn't, we still have a message.  All we can do is deliver it when, where and how WE decide to deliver the message ourselves.  We don't need the C4L to deliver it.

BTW, I refrained from commenting on Rothfeld until after the conf in Atlanta--the guy is a jerk and he does any organization that is liberty minded a disservice by being associated with him.

I know people who are working on this inside the C4L.  For the life of me I cannot understand why it is taking so long to answer.  Someone fubar'd and they better fess up soon--- With only 5 hrs of posting on the C4L forum there's over 300 posts--that NEVER happens...plus a thread calling for the resignation of John Tate and a thread wondering just what IS the purpose of the C4L.

----------


## Promontorium

I'm posting before this becomes the longest thread ever. 


 Also, I agree with the membership threat.

----------


## Mini-Me

> It is seriously awful, but the movement isn't uniform anyway.
> 
> Who knows, maybe it will improve without a central hub trying to suck money for themselves.


I would agree with this.  It would be nice to have a powerful national organization to exert political pressure at the federal level, but experience is showing again just how easily things can get out of control when there's a central point of control.  The CFL's very structure makes it too easy for the establishment to infiltrate and subvert it, and short of that, it still makes it too easy for a few incompetent dweebs at the top to screw everyone over royally.  Although a lot of people were skeptical of the CFL at first, I think LittleLightShining really helped to blow the whistle on this a few months back.

I don't think national level efforts are entirely worthless:  It's still worthwhile to support principled liberty candidates on the national stage for educational purposes (both in debates and while in office), but we cannot hope to actually stack Congress with a majority of pro-liberty people without a more powerful grassroots movement backing them up.  Heck, in order to become more appealing to voters, even Rand and Schiff have had to soften on civil liberties and foreign policy principles, respectively.  I still like them both, but those old controversies are helpful at illustrating just how far we are from sweeping the national stage.  If we keep placing the majority of our hopes in national level "shortcuts," we're only going to continue giving ground on principle to gain a political foothold, and by the time we actually "take over," we'll be incredibly lucky if we haven't turned into the pandering, unprincipled Republican and Democrat insiders we despise.

National level education efforts are useful, but if we really want political activism to succeed at anything more than slowing the beast, we're going to have to stack the party system from the bottom up.  I think we've all been hoping on some level that national level "shortcuts" would let us skimp on that step, but I think GunnyFreedom had it right in his rant supporting local activism.  We need a giant backbone of pro-liberty citizens all over the country before we can effectively dismantle the beast.  This move by the CFL is a huge blow to us, but if we need to be disillusioned about the CFL, and if it can't be salvaged, then it's better we figure it out now than later...that way, we can use it as an opportunity to refocus on the local level before wasting too much time and money on a dead-end.

In other words, this may be a time to quote that cliche Chinese fortune cookie proverb about crisis equaling opportunity...or something to that effect.

----------


## rancher89

> Does one have to be a member to read the thread?
> 
> I have a "thank you for joining" email sent from C4L to my main email address in June 2008 and have since received hundreds of emails from John Tate, but the C4L website says there is no member with that email address.  Oh well, I'm certainly not going to re-join now.


They have all these email addresses, but when they send out requests for money, the don't ask you to go to the website and join and become a paying member or to check to see if your "membership" took (they had a bunch of people sign up before the site was really ready and they all got "lost") or to go to the website to see the latest updates....nothing driving anyone to the site.  

Why bother having a site?

rhetorical question, really.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> I'm just curious, if you don't trust Ron Paul with your money, how is he any different from other politicians?
> 
> I trust him but not necessarily everyone from the 2008 PCC.


Put it this way, I trust him with money he doesn't come in contact with like all the unconstitutional bills that he votes against...but the money he gets his hands on he is not that careful with. I've never heard him talk about how careful he's going to spend donated funds.

----------


## Reason

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...date-video.php

----------


## someperson

Once a group labels itself, or an organization titles itself, it exposes itself to manipulation. Stop representing groups, stop allowing groups to represent you. Represent yourself as an individual. I believe that individuals coordinating for a cause should do so without a collective name. A nameless set of individuals is infinitely more difficult to manipulate. This may come across as idealistic and impractical, but I think it's critical to at least have this concept in the back of your mind.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Watch out for people who want to exploit the C4L problem to cause division in the Liberty movement.


Good point. We can't let this divide or curb our enthusiasm...




> send this thread to all of your C4L friends.


Or wait until tomorrow before panicking others.  




> Maybe it's just me but since CFL HQ knew this was blowing up before their day ended, I would THINK they'd get some sort of statement up about this.


An official statement would be nice.




> [SIZE=2][U][B]C4L FORUM THREAD ON THIS ISSUE


Maybe you can give a little content with that? Best of? Most relevant? 




> I know people who are working on this inside the C4L.  For the life of me I cannot understand why it is taking so long to answer.


You are not the only one waiting on that. And a confirm or deny on the specific amount spent on that candidate would really help.

Let me attempt to "channel" Ron Paul for a moment:

"Let's not panic. Things are complex in politics, alliances are formed, and not everything can be made public. I am personally looking into this, and an official explanation will be coming shortly..." - Not a real Ron Paul quote!

----------


## Mini-Me

> Let me attempt to "channel" Ron Paul for a moment:
> 
> "Let's not panic. Things are complex in politics, alliances are formed, and not everything can be made public. I am personally looking into this, and an official explanation will be coming shortly..." - Not a real Ron Paul quote!


LOL...that sounds a lot more like a slimy PR[ropaganda] guy than Ron Paul.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

This is like the Campaign for Liberty 3:00am Phone call and they are sleeping through it while the town burns and crumbles around them.

----------


## dr. hfn

Rome is burning....

----------


## jmdrake

> Does one have to be a member to read the thread?
> 
> I have a "thank you for joining" email sent from C4L to my main email address in June 2008 and have since received hundreds of emails from John Tate, but the C4L website says there is no member with that email address.  Oh well, I'm certainly not going to re-join now.


Set up a throwaway gmail address if you have to.  We need to put the pressure on and take the C4L back!

----------


## JasonC

> Not to hijack, but I feel the need to remind you all...
> 
> This movement is *a* campaign for liberty, run by individuals as they see fit.  We collaborate in various ways and decide our own grassroots methods.  *The* campaign for liberty is an organization that exists because of YOU.  It is up to YOU to further the cause.
> 
> We never needed a top down organization for success.  I've been out of the liberty loop for a while now, but if I recall correctly our activism flourished right here on RPF.
> 
> Whether or not this is a critical blow to the CFL, we are winning.  Look around you, the seeds have been planted everywhere!


My vote for best post in this thread. Bravo!

----------


## Mike4Freedom

> My vote for best post in this thread. Bravo!


I second it. 

I am still pissed off about this. I would never have sent money to this candidate.

----------


## gls

> Put it this way, I trust him with money he doesn't come in contact with like all the unconstitutional bills that he votes against...but the money he gets his hands on he is not that careful with. I've never heard him talk about how careful he's going to spend donated funds.


Ron Paul is a passionate champion of liberty with many exceptional qualities but IMO he has proven himself a poor executive. That's not very important as a small town doctor or even a Congressman, but during the Presidential campaign and being the focal point of a movement his inadequacy in this area has hurt. I understand and appreciate the need for decentralization, but an organization like Campaign for Liberty could be a very effective compliment to the grassroots. Unfortunately instead it has become a means of employment for various members of Ron Paul's family.

----------


## Liberty Star

> Well is this survey online?  Cause I am sure it would be nice if the CFL "leaked" this survey to the grassroots we'd be able to generate more of a buzz than endorsing "unelectable candidates".  
> 
> I mean hell, I have already looked up this candidate, that's gonna get him PR and more exposure.  That is the ancillary benefit for the candidate and I understand that, but with out more circulation of the idea of these candidate surveys, I see the potential of hooking other pols as being stunted.
> 
> Hell, national money was spent, why not make a national effort?



Can you imagine the media buzz and free coverage it would generate if they nominated and funded son of NY , Rudy Giuliani.

----------


## jmdrake

> I would agree with this.  It would be nice to have a powerful national organization to exert political pressure at the federal level, but experience is showing again just how easily things can get out of control when there's a central point of control.  The CFL's very structure makes it too easy for the establishment to infiltrate and subvert it, and short of that, it still makes it too easy for a few incompetent dweebs at the top to screw everyone over royally.  Although a lot of people were skeptical of the CFL at first, I think LittleLightShining really helped to blow the whistle on this a few months back.
> 
> I don't think national level efforts are entirely worthless:  It's still worthwhile to support principled liberty candidates on the national stage for educational purposes (both in debates and while in office), but we cannot hope to actually stack Congress with a majority of pro-liberty people without a more powerful grassroots movement backing them up.  Heck, in order to become more appealing to voters, even Rand and Schiff have had to soften on civil liberties and foreign policy principles, respectively.  I still like them both, but those old controversies are helpful at illustrating just how far we are from sweeping the national stage.  If we keep placing the majority of our hopes in national level "shortcuts," we're only going to continue giving ground on principle to gain a political foothold, and by the time we actually "take over," we'll be incredibly lucky if we haven't turned into the pandering, unprincipled Republican and Democrat insiders we despise.
> 
> National level education efforts are useful, but if we really want political activism to succeed at anything more than slowing the beast, we're going to have to stack the party system from the bottom up.  I think we've all been hoping on some level that national level "shortcuts" would let us skimp on that step, but I think GunnyFreedom had it right in his rant supporting local activism.  We need a giant backbone of pro-liberty citizens all over the country before we can effectively dismantle the beast.  This move by the CFL is a huge blow to us, but if we need to be disillusioned about the CFL, and if it can't be salvaged, then it's better we figure it out now than later...that way, we can use it as an opportunity to refocus on the local level before wasting too much time and money on a dead-end.
> 
> In other words, this may be a time to quote that cliche Chinese fortune cookie proverb about crisis equaling opportunity...or something to that effect.


What about "Freedom Force International"?  It's structure seems a little less prone to infiltration.  Or the JBS.

YouTube - An Idea Whose Time Has Come - Part 1
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

http://www.jbs.org/

----------


## jmdrake

> Not to hijack, but I feel the need to remind you all...
> 
> This movement is *a* campaign for liberty, run by individuals as they see fit.  We collaborate in various ways and decide our own grassroots methods.  *The* campaign for liberty is an organization that exists because of YOU.  It is up to YOU to further the cause.
> 
> We never needed a top down organization for success.  I've been out of the liberty loop for a while now, but if I recall correctly our activism flourished right here on RPF.
> 
> Whether or not this is a critical blow to the CFL, we are winning.  Look around you, the seeds have been planted everywhere!


Great point!

----------


## Vessol

It's unrealistic, but to put it bluntly. In the modern age, there really is no way to successfully regain our Republic completely as you'll have this "asshattery" regardless. I wish there was someway the United States could be peacefully divided into 50 or so independent nations. One of these would be much easier to manage and create a true Constitutional Republic. Right now it's just..overwhelming sometimes. Sorry, just giving my view.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> LOL...that sounds a lot more like a slimy PR[ropaganda] guy than Ron Paul.


There goes my official spokesman career!

----------


## low preference guy

angelatc, I just saw the thread you started at the Daily Paul.  Great title choice. Now they're going crazy too.

----------


## newbitech

> They have all these email addresses, but when they send out requests for money, the don't ask you to go to the website and join and become a paying member or to check to see if your "membership" took (they had a bunch of people sign up before the site was really ready and they all got "lost") or to go to the website to see the latest updates....nothing driving anyone to the site.  
> 
> Why bother having a site?
> 
> rhetorical question, really.



yeah I had the same problem.  I signed up right in the beggining.  I remember one of the first complaints with the sight was the email validation or lack thereof.  It was a problem that never got resolved.  Also, if you look on the bottom of the Official Campaign for liberty emails you get, you will see a little mailing list disclaimer that says...




> This message was intended for: xxx@msn.com
> You were added to the system October 1, 2009. For more information
> click here.
> Update your preferences | Unsubscribe


I tried to log in with my normal log in, and at one point I was able to log in normally.  They did some upgrade and my log in stopped working.  I sent email but never had the issue resolved.  

Today, I tried to do a password reset, it told my that my email was not a registered user (the email that I get C4L messages.)  I tried an alt email to reset and I got a different message that said the email just wasn't in the system.  So, I suspect the mailing list isn't linked at all to my account.

This tells me that they are spending money on PAYING for email marketing.  

So here is the link to the company that is getting the donations to run the emails for them.  http://www.paramountcommunication.com/

Next interesting note is the following...




> Source Information for your Email Address
> 
> A description of how your email address was obtained: *A list of Campaign for Liberty subscribers imported from Blue Hornet.*


So, again here is the C4L PAYING donation money to outside corps to do something that THEY had TONS of volunteers to do.  Ludicrous.  So further inspection of the the Blue Hornet list.

http://www.bluehornet.com/site/

So there are two companies who have access to all the subscribers and site members that are getting paid on a regular basis to run stuff for C4L.  It would be worth cross referencing the companies with the names of paid staffers.  

I wouldn't put it past C4L at all to be paying their own corps out of donation money to be doing things that volunteers would do for free, or better yet, that they should be doing themselves.

C4L has been an extension of the Ron Paul presidential campaign.  I am saddened to see this type of controversy erupting in these critical times.  350k for an ad to a marginal candidate.  Just disappointing whatever the excuse.  

I would love to set up an S-Corp for profit that will be in the business of political adds.  With an S-Corp, you can have up to 75 shareholders, its quick and easy to set up and relatively painless to operate.  The general accounting standards are quite a bit complex, but with the SCOTUS recent decision allowing corps to donate from general funds, there is no reason now to NOT set up a for profit political corporation with the goal of making money off of sponsoring candidates.  

I think this would be an extremely interesting grassroots initiative.   There are so many great ideas out there and a for profit S-Corp could have the potential to allow the grassroots to run a business out in the open and lead by example.  We could conceivably consolidate ALL of these ideas and actually create a function company that can compete with the big boys for one purpose and one purpose only, making money and accumulating as much political power as possible.  

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

----------


## FrankRep

> What about "Freedom Force International"?  It's structure seems a little less prone to infiltration.  Or the JBS.
> 
> http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/
> 
> http://www.jbs.org/


*G. Edward Griffin:*

I am a Life Member of The John Birch Society and possibly the oldest living member.
...

There is no basis for conflict or competition between Freedom Force and The John Birch Society. It may appear on the surface that they are similar, but they are not. While their mutual objective is the defeat of collectivism, their structures and strategies are entirely different. *It is like having an army and a navy, both with a common enemy.* Each is made more effective by the presence of the other. Their differences do not make them competitive but complimentary. *I am glad The John Birch Society is in the battle and I recommend that members of Freedom Force become members of the Society as well.*

http://www.freedomforceinternational...f/jbschart.pdf


Thank you for the endorsement Mr. Griffin.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

http://www.jbs.org/

----------


## brandon

> they had a bunch of people sign up before the site was really ready and they all got "lost"


Oh, so this is what happened to my account. I was wondering why it didn't seem to exist anymore.

----------


## Original_Intent

That is one thing I like very much about the John Birch Society - you have to literally work for years in a volunteer unpaid capacity and show leadership and commitment to principle to EVER get in a  position of power. You have to earn your credibility. I think the C4L is a good idea on paper, but it seems that when an organization is set up, a lot of care needs to be given regarding who is being put in charge. If this really happened, whoever made the decision needs to be let go, someone needs to be held responsible OR an explanation needs to be forthcoming about why the decision was made.

----------


## Reason

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...date-video.php

"Gary Howard, communications director for the Campaign For Liberty, told TPMDC that the ad is not an endorsement of Buck, but is instead intended to promote their candidate surveys. "It's not a support ad or an endorsement ad, it's just based on our candidate surveys," said Howard. "And we want every candidate to answer our surveys. So as soon as another candidate answers our survey, we'll probably do another ad stating that.""

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Oh, so this is what happened to my account. I was wondering why it didn't seem to exist anymore.


I did this but I thought I signed up again too.

----------


## Vessol

So candidates take a survey and if they "score good" the CFL gives them money?

----------


## Reason

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...date-video.php

"Gary Howard, communications director for the Campaign For Liberty, told TPMDC that the ad is not an endorsement of Buck, but is instead intended to promote their candidate surveys. "It's not a support ad or an endorsement ad, it's just based on our candidate surveys," said Howard. "And we want every candidate to answer our surveys. So as soon as another candidate answers our survey, we'll probably do another ad stating that.""

----------


## newbitech

> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...date-video.php
> 
> "Gary Howard, communications director for the Campaign For Liberty, told TPMDC that the ad is not an endorsement of Buck, but is instead intended to promote their candidate surveys. "It's not a support ad or an endorsement ad, it's just based on our candidate surveys," said Howard. "And we want every candidate to answer our surveys. So as soon as another candidate answers our survey, we'll probably do another ad stating that.""


Civil, that was confirmed on the first page of the original thread on this.  Just a heads up.

----------


## gls

> So candidates take a survey and if they "score good" the CFL gives them money?


It seems obvious that is just a flimsy excuse since they are not legally allowed to give an endorsement (which that advertisement clearly is).

----------


## Reason

> Civil, that was confirmed on the first page of the original thread on this.  Just a heads up.


oy vei

----------


## MsDoodahs

Guys, somewhere in reading stuff in this thread, I think I saw that this candidate that some IDIOT at CFL decided to LAVISH MONEY ONTO had actually DEFEATED a RON PAUL LIBERTY CANDIDATE - would that have been in an primary challenge?

Anyone know?

Thanks.

----------


## FrankRep

> the ad is not an endorsement of Buck


Sounds like an endorsement. 

YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv

----------


## Original_Intent

And it seems freaking ridiculous to me to run a TV ad to promote a candidate survey...I mean isn't that a little bit untargetted? How many other candidates around the country are watching Colorado TV? Couldn't somebody have spent a few grand and mailed each candidate a survey - ok, maybe only 1 in 10 would have filled it out, but how many are going to do it based on a TV ad run in Colorado?

How can they say this doesn't come across as an endorsement of the candidate?

$350,000 - that's a lot of moolah and they have been making their pleas about how tight money is for them and they are worried about needing to shrink staff etc etc, but the have a third of a million dollars for this bull$#@!? I want a $#@!ing explanation or someone's head on a platter.

----------


## tpreitzel

Just after the C4L began, I posted a response to an article on their website which was promptly removed. I inquired via a contact on their website, but I never received a response WHY the inappropriate action was taken in removing my remarks. At that point, I knew the C4L wasn't an organization for me. In fact, NO formal organization other than extremely limited, decentralized government is for me as they ALL become corrupt to various degrees over time. I totally agree with someperson that organizations should be temporal and serve a specific goal while in existence. I haven't been formally associated with the C4L since that unfortunate (or fortunate depending on your viewpoint) event, but I'll ALWAYS support SPECIFIC efforts of organizations if those efforts and candidates rigidly adhere to the US Constitution. 

Actually, it's GOOD that this information is coming to light now. If needed, the grassroots can pick up the worthwhile pieces of the C4L and discard the rest. We have MUCH work to do this year and we're having a positive impact on political events!

----------


## brandon

So the only qualification for receiving $350,000 in media buys form the CFL is to complete a survey? And they will do this for other candidates that complete the survey too?

How is it possible people this incredibly incompetent get into such an important position. I mean really, I seldom even hear congressional democrats saying things that make as little sense as this statement.

----------


## newbitech

> Guys, somewhere in reading stuff in this thread, I think I saw that this candidate that some IDIOT at CFL decided to LAVISH MONEY ONTO had actually DEFEATED a RON PAUL LIBERTY CANDIDATE - would that have been in an primary challenge?
> 
> Anyone know?
> 
> Thanks.



here is the thread link again

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=ken+buck

the source article

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/con...ve-competition

Indeed it does look like we are talking about the same primary

straw poll had the Ron Paul supporter in the mix with Tancredo, Buck and the GOP/McCain backed Lt. Gov. 

So basically this is the same story playing out all over the country.. except this little twist has our Money Bomb leftover money be siphoned off to support NON-liberty supporting candidates. 

SO yeah, big ol' slap in the face.  Reminds me of what went down in FL with the Republican Party of FL and the party chairmen getting backed by CFL state coordinated and the ouster of the biggest Ron Paul supporting leadership we had.

Its gross... really.. 

I had held out hope that the left overs from the Ron Paul campaign, where I donated over 1,000 would go to keep the wheels greased.  Looks like that hope was misplaced and the financing of the movement is hitting the skids..  Damn..

----------


## MsDoodahs

Just THINK of all the MONEY the bloodsuckers at CFL took - it was basically taken OUT OF THE POCKETS OF REAL LIBERTY CANDIDATES.  And handed to a WARMONGER for God's sakes.

This was a REAL *inside job*.  

The only thing we DON'T know is which SNAKES within CFL perpetrated this crime.

----------


## FrankRep

> Just THINK of all the MONEY the bloodsuckers at CFL took - it was basically taken OUT OF THE POCKETS OF REAL LIBERTY CANDIDATES.  And handed to a WARMONGER for God's sakes.
> 
> This was a REAL *inside job*.  
> 
> The only thing we DON'T know is which SNAKES within CFL perpetrated this crime.


I remember seeing a bunch of people complaining how the C4L kept begging them for money all the time. This is a real slap in the face.

----------


## newbitech

> Just THINK of all the MONEY the bloodsuckers at CFL took - it was basically taken OUT OF THE POCKETS OF REAL LIBERTY CANDIDATES.  And handed to a WARMONGER for God's sakes.
> 
> This was a REAL *inside job*.  
> 
> The only thing we DON'T know is which SNAKES within CFL perpetrated this crime.



I'm thinking of the millions of left over campaign money from the r3volution for starters.  I wasn't impressed with how the campaign spent the money then, but I understood the goal of education.  You know with 350,000 we could have sent out copies of a cd with instructions on implementing these surveys in every congressional district in the united states along with printable PDF files etc etc.

That is just one example.  

A friggin' TV ad?  I mean even if this was money that went to Rand or Schiff or Kokesh or Medina etc etc... it still would have been a HORRIBLE way to spend the money if the pretense was to educate people about the surveys.

AND hey here is an idea..  POST THIS SURVEY AND RESULT ON THE C4L SITE!

I mean damn.  The more I think about this.....eeeeeessssshhhh

----------


## squarepusher

haha $350,000 for a survey?  Is this where the grassroots money is going?

wow.  It sounds like this 'survey' crap is a backpedal once they realized their endorsement of this guy didnt' go over well with CFL supporters (maybe they should have done a survey on _that_).

----------


## Vessol

> Just THINK of all the MONEY the bloodsuckers at CFL took - it was basically taken OUT OF THE POCKETS OF REAL LIBERTY CANDIDATES.  And handed to a WARMONGER for God's sakes.
> 
> This was a REAL *inside job*.  
> 
> The only thing we DON'T know is which SNAKES within CFL perpetrated this crime.


Yeah, that's the slap in the face. Tuna to the face Monty Python style. I've given quite a tid bit of money to campaign for liberty and to think they just throw the money around like this and then use it to endorse a war hawk.

----------


## gls

> So the only qualification for receiving $350,000 in media buys form the CFL is to complete a survey? And they will do this for other candidates that complete the survey too?
> 
> How is it possible people this incredibly incompetent get into such an important position. I mean really, I seldom even hear congressional democrats saying things that make as little sense as this statement.


I don't think this particular incident can be attributed to incompetence. There had to be some motive. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the staff got a kickback somewhere along the way. I can't think of any other reasonable explanation and the CFL's silence speaks volumes.

----------


## newbitech

Where is the survey i want to see it and the results.  Now!

----------


## squarepusher

> I don't think this particular incident can be attributed to incompetence. There had to be some motive. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if someone on the staff got a kickback somewhere along the way. I can't think of any other reasonable explanation and the CFL's silence speaks volumes.


clearly

----------


## BlackTerrel

> So the only qualification for receiving $350,000 in media buys form the CFL is to complete a survey? And they will do this for other candidates that complete the survey too?


I am reading it that way too.  But it sounds so unbelievable I was hoping I was wrong.

----------


## JoshLowry

> Oh geez, purplechoe.  *I told you that, because Josh had made the decision* (in fact he posted about it) about keeping the candidate forums positive and helpful.  I can't remember who it was that made the decision about the Brown threads, but as I recall, it was an Admin.  Also as I recall, it was decided to leave them there because so many long-time RP supporters appeared to be behind him and that the election was going to be over in a couple of days.  We're in the process of deciding how best to handle these non-liberty candidate deals in the future.


Scott Brown is a neocon and that's the only comment I've ever made about him.

----------


## angelatc

> Guys, somewhere in reading stuff in this thread, I think I saw that this candidate that some IDIOT at CFL decided to LAVISH MONEY ONTO had actually DEFEATED a RON PAUL LIBERTY CANDIDATE - would that have been in an primary challenge?
> 
> Anyone know?
> 
> Thanks.


I think that was a straw poll type defeat, and not a primary.

----------


## LibertyMage

Surveys like this could be an extremely powerful weapon if used correctly.  The ad is both a promotion of the survey and a "promotional reward" that C4L gave this guy because he did something they liked.  What that something is, I do not know.  It could be as simple as his completion of the form.  If I know Rothfeld, this is his style.

They did not give this guy money.  The add is not about him.  The ad was purchased because C4L wanted to accomplish a goal here.  That everyone here is flipping out because "C4L gave $350,000 to a neocon" is laughable.  What the goal is, I don't know.  Does spending so much on whatever this campaign is seem suspect?  Yes.  Is it a justifiable reason to loose our minds?  No.

If this is a pebble someone threw in the ocean to make waves, you guys are indeed riding the ripples until they become insanity tsunamis.

I am the Chapter Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty Baltimore.  If you think the C4L is a top down organization then you need to spend some time outside this forum.  I just came back from the Ron Paul speaking engagement at Loyola College.  Myself and a score of other C4L members distributed literature and shook hands with the local YAL chapter, the Republican Liberty Caucus, members of Americans for Prosperity, local politicians, local activists, local Republican clubs and hundreds of other interested people.  Some of these people we are already on a first name basis with.

If you really want to become part of the movement you need to get with your local chapter and build the grassroots.  That is where the power is.  If you donate money to the top of an organization you can't loose your mind when they do something you don't initially understand - especially in politics.  Put on your man-pants and dig your heels in because this fight is long term.  If we fracture every time something happens that we don't understand then we are done for.

----------


## Reason

> Surveys like this could be an extremely powerful weapon if used correctly.  The ad is both a promotion of the survey and a "promotional reward" that C4L gave this guy because he did something they liked.  What that something is, I do not know.  It could be as simple as his completion of the form.  If I know Rothfeld, this is his style.
> 
> They did not give this guy money.  The add is not about him.  The ad was purchased because C4L wanted to accomplish a goal here.  That everyone here is flipping out because "C4L gave $350,000 to a neocon" is laughable.  What the goal is, I don't know.  Does spending so much on whatever this campaign is seem suspect?  Yes.  Is it a justifiable reason to loose our minds?  No.
> 
> If this is a pebble someone threw in the ocean to make waves, you guys are indeed riding the ripples until they become insanity tsunamis.
> 
> I am the Chapter Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty Baltimore.  If you think the C4L is a top down organization then you need to spend some time outside this forum.  I just came back from the Ron Paul speaking engagement at Loyola College.  Myself and a score of other C4L members distributed literature and shook hands with the local YAL chapter, the Republican Liberty Caucus, members of Americans for Prosperity, local politicians, local activists, local Republican clubs and hundreds of other interested people.  Some of these people we are already on a first name basis with.
> 
> If you really want to become part of the movement you need to get with your local chapter and build the grassroots.  That is where the power is.  If you donate money to the top of an organization you can't loose your mind when they do something you don't initially understand - especially in politics.  Put on your man-pants and dig your heels in because this fight is long term.  If we fracture every time something happens that we don't understand then we are done for.


Everything you said is probably correct but I think we should still demand transparency for all our donations.

----------


## dr. hfn

> everything you said is probably correct but i think we should still demand transparency for all our donations.


+1776

----------


## Vessol

Campaign for Liberty is slowly in my eyes becoming the Campaign for Republicans.

----------


## Dieseler

So I should hold up on officially joining and endorsing this group CFL?

----------


## Dieseler

Dad was right again.
Never join anything that appears to have the potential to mobilize.

----------


## gls

> Surveys like this could be an extremely powerful weapon if used correctly.  The ad is both a promotion of the survey and a "promotional reward" that C4L gave this guy because he did something they liked.  What that something is, I do not know.  It could be as simple as his completion of the form.  If I know Rothfeld, this is his style.
> 
> They did not give this guy money.  The add is not about him.  The ad was purchased because C4L wanted to accomplish a goal here.  That everyone here is flipping out because "C4L gave $350,000 to a neocon" is laughable.  What the goal is, I don't know.  Does spending so much on whatever this campaign is seem suspect?  Yes.  Is it a justifiable reason to loose our minds?  No.


The fact is that they took $350,000 and wasted it. If blowing over a third of a million dollars - in very tough economic times - on a mediocre candidate because he returned some survey is Rothfeld's "style", then he should be removed from his position. Imagine all of the good Young Americans for Liberty could do with 350 grand. A lot more than a commercial for some run-of-the-mill Republican, and the dividends would pay off long into the future. Instead YAL gets 25 grand in start-up money and sent on their way.

Most people are upset about much more than just this one incident. It is just an exemplifier of the lack of communication and a pattern of unaccountability and non transparency.

----------


## squarepusher

> Dad was right again.
> Never join anything that appears to have the potential to mobilize.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> As an EX- state coordinator for the C4L, I cannot imagine that this 
> ad campaign is what it looks like it is.....
> 
> They are always pounding the "no supporting candidates" drum.  
> 
> Just sayin....we need more info, but if this is true...................


Ya, I'm like WTF?  they could fully fund like 4 state house races like that.  I'm still under $2.5k here and I should be bumping $14k about not JUST TO KEEP UP.  I can't even afford produce lit, venues, or anything right now, and C4L gonna spend $350k promoting a pro-war neocon???  WTF WTF WTF???  After all that nonsense about how they cant endorse me?????

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Ya, I'm like WTF?  they could fully fund like 4 state house races like that.  I'm still under $2.5k here and I should be bumping $14k about not JUST TO KEEP UP.  I can't even afford produce lit, venues, or anything right now, and C4L gonna spend $350k promoting a pro-war neocon???  WTF WTF WTF???  After all that nonsense about how they cant endorse me?????


Gunny, I know - you are one of the people that CFL could have and IMO should have funded.  That they did not and chose instead to fund that )(*&^*&(&&  has me seeing red.

----------


## Vessol

Hey Glen, I did not know about your campaign. I've bookmarked your page for Valentines Day between now and then I'll be getting a paycheck. Off-topic, just wanted to shout out for a fellow North Carolinian and wish you luck, even if you aren't from my district(I'm out near New Bern).

----------


## devil21

If I may inject some perspective into this, after fuming over it for the better part of a day.

DO WE REALLY DEPEND ON CFL FOR THAT MUCH THESE DAYS ANYWAY???

Im not happy about this at all and Im sure most of the rage is about money donated long ago, and recently, being used for this purpose.  But how many of us really depend on CFL for much today?  Not many, Im sure.

Remember that *we are the Campaign*, not some office full of DC area people (I used to live there, can't trust em...period) in a business park somewhere.  This was probably bound to happen at some point, since co-opting and hijacking are par for the course in politics.

Remember what matters!  Ron himself has plenty for his re-election (2.6 million at last check) and there's still work to be done for Rand, Debra, Peter and others.  Do not let the actions of a small group of people distract you from the big picture!

----------


## tpreitzel

Personally, I'd like to see the C4L's organizational mandate end by the elections of 2012 along with many of the salaried positions.  In the interim, the functions currently "managed" by the C4L's staff should be gradually transferred to local chapters with the intention of eliminating the C4L's staff. Then, the local chapters  would coordinate activities within their respective states and with their peers in other states as required. The local chapters would retain nearly ALL of the power for decisions on a state and national level by vote. If needed, the main C4L website could remain as a mechanism for voting, communication among the chapters, coordinating the activities of the chapters on a national scale,  etc, but NOT managing those activities through a centralized staff.

----------


## Baptist

Wow, I just read through this entire thread.  I've not done something like that in quite awhile, but given the severity of this problem, I made myself.


CFL better do the following.
1.)  Tell the truth and not hide anything.  No trying to "make this go away.l"
2.)  Fire everyone who knew about this and everyone who was involved in this.
3.)  Show us where our donations are going.

If CFL fails to do so, I am going to 
1.)  No longer send them money.
2.)  Delete my profile and blog, and cancel my membership.
3.)  Tell all of my family to do the same.  And although I haven't donated much money, my grandparents have.  They have been "big time" Republican donors their entire lives until I turned them onto Ron Paul.  Since, then, they have donated all their money to groups like CFL.  They will be the first people I call.

----------


## LibertyMage

> The fact is that they took $350,000 and wasted it. If blowing over a third of a million dollars - in very tough economic times - on a mediocre candidate because he returned some survey is Rothfeld's "style", then he should be removed from his position. Imagine all of the good Young Americans for Liberty could do with 350 grand. A lot more than a commercial for some run-of-the-mill Republican, and the dividends would pay off long into the future. Instead YAL gets 25 grand in start-up money and sent on their way.
> 
> Most people are upset about much more than just this one incident. It is just an exemplifier of the lack of communication and a pattern of unaccountability and non transparency.


You assume their intent was to fund this candidate.  It was not.  The funds paid for the ad.  And, if you look at the add in terms of marketing, it framed the product (the survey) with the candidate.  It wasn't about the candidate.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Notice what it says here:
> http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/...for-ken-bucks/
> 
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not. I think people here are jumping to conclusions.


I hope you are right.

Is it possible and/or legal to have similar names?

----------


## Vessol

> You assume their intent was to fund this candidate.  It was not.  The funds paid for the ad.  And, if you look at the add in terms of marketing, it framed the product (the survey) with the candidate.  It wasn't about the candidate.


Are you watching the same video I am?

That may have been the intent. But it is not what was conveyed to me when watching it for the first time without any prior knowledge of the situation. I know if I was a voter who saw that advertisement, I would take it as an endorsement of Ken Buck.

----------


## sevin

ugh

----------


## cindy25

another GOP candidate with a son in the military.
its an epidemic

----------


## Chibioz

Disappointing.

----------


## newbitech

> Surveys like this could be an extremely powerful weapon if used correctly.  The ad is both a promotion of the survey and a "promotional reward" that C4L gave this guy because he did something they liked.  What that something is, I do not know.  It could be as simple as his completion of the form.  If I know Rothfeld, this is his style.
> 
> *They did not give this guy money.  The add is not about him.*  The ad was purchased because C4L wanted to accomplish a goal here.  That everyone here is flipping out because "C4L gave $350,000 to a neocon" is laughable.  What the goal is, I don't know.  Does spending so much on whatever this campaign is seem suspect?  Yes.  Is it a justifiable reason to loose our minds?  No.
> 
> If this is a pebble someone threw in the ocean to make waves, you guys are indeed riding the ripples until they become insanity tsunamis.
> 
> I am the Chapter Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty Baltimore.  If you think the C4L is a top down organization then you need to spend some time outside this forum.  I just came back from the Ron Paul speaking engagement at Loyola College.  Myself and a score of other C4L members distributed literature and shook hands with the local YAL chapter, the Republican Liberty Caucus, members of Americans for Prosperity, local politicians, local activists, local Republican clubs and hundreds of other interested people.  Some of these people we are already on a first name basis with.
> 
> If you really want to become part of the movement you need to get with your local chapter and build the grassroots.  That is where the power is.  If you donate money to the top of an organization you can't loose your mind when they do something you don't initially understand - especially in politics.  Put on your man-pants and dig your heels in because this fight is long term.  If we fracture every time something happens that we don't understand then we are done for.


Just a couple of things when reading your response.  I don't want to come of as riding a wave of insanity or flipping out about neocons.  To be quite frank, if this money was spent on say a Rand Paul ad for the same given reason, I'd raise the same question.

Specifically, you said the ad is not about him (the candidate Buck).  I understand the statement made by Gary Howard is a way of preserving the status of the 501c4 corp in not being allowed to endorse specific candidates.  So, to me, it looks like that little survey qualifier was thrown in there to stay out of trouble with the IRS.  So I think to say that the ad was not about the candidate is a shady excuse at best.

On your reasoning behind the surveys, assuming that is the real reason this money was spent, what evidence do you have that these types of methods are effective?  Why are these survey's not being promoted at the C4L guest or subscriber levels?  Certainly surveying is no secret strategy that needs to be protected.  I get GOP surveys ALL the time.  But, no C4L surveys.  What's up with that?  A search at the C4L website for "candidate survey" turns up one hit.  One.  As a coordinator, will you stipulate to the fact that this particular strategy has not been openly discussed to the point where the leadership at all levels has determined that general funds to the tune of  THREE HUNDRED and FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS should be spent on a survey for ONE primary for ONE district?  You want to add that up?  That's a pretty big carrot on the stick gimmick to get a politician to fill out your form.

Yes it appears that we are establishing as fact that C4L sent 350k to fund a neocon campaign.  One which I might add did have a Ron Paul supporter from the grassroots involved in who happened to tie for 3rd place with Tancredo in an early straw poll.  I don't find that laughable at all.  Why the hell would I want to become more involved with politics when the only organization who would ever get my political donation would go ahead and fund ads for my opponents?  Seems to counter the whole idea of getting involved, no?  

If this spending is raising concerns, what do you find so laughable?  Is it because the guy who benefited from the infusion of liberty cash is being labeled a neocon?
Hey, maybe the guy deserves our support?  BUT, that is not what you are saying.  He is an unknown in the liberty movement, until now.  He has a very suspect agenda.  He could be appropriately labeled a neocon if people want to label, but looking at his issues (and hopefully reading his survey if C4L decides to make them public) should tell us where he stands.  

In the mean time, my donations were supposed to go to candidates with the Ron Paul platform.  I am almost offended by you saying that the reason for the reaction to this news is people being on the forum.  Look, you sure didn't waste your time responding.  How can you judge someone's activity from behind your computer screen lurking the site?  Do you understand that the research that is done openly on this forum is a HUGE contribution to the cause?  Do you understand that its not the politicians that you spend all your time shaking hands with that are going to change our country?  Its the faceless nameless people in the crowd that are doing whatever they can, and whatever they do best?

Maybe some people like me are dog spit ugly and have no social skills (not true I just like to degrade myself to make points sometimes).  Do you want a jackass who can network representing you in public?  OR do you want him on the back end digging up information that you undoubtedly lurk for and then take out to the field with you?

Anyways.  Look I appreciate what you are saying and doing.  All I ask is that my money be spent wisely.  That's it.  I really don't even care so much about transparency as some other folks, but when it comes time to be accountable, like right now, I don't want to get fed the same crap that is going to get fed to the IRS.

"It wasn't and endorsement, we are promoting our surveys".  

BWWWAHHHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!11

----------


## Promontorium

Yes many good points have been made. 

 I'm focusing on the larger issue, not this one guy, but it is an eye opener. 

 We joined Campaign for Liberty because Ron Paul backed it, here is a quote from Ron Paul;


 "Today I am happy to announce the official launch of the *Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty*."

 Which is followed shortly by;   "Over the next few months *I* will be developing a program, assembling a team, and announcing new and exciting projects. We will have a permanent presence on the American political landscape. That I promise you.

Right now, I need your patience and support.  I want the Campaign for Liberty to be a *grassroots campaign*; so your energy, your creativity, your feedback, and your participation are essential." - Ron Paul June 13, 2008 (All bold is mine). 


 What happened to this being the "Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty"? And how is this possibly "grassroots" when it was created by a congressman and then run by his "friends". 

 I'll admit, I haven't been a watchdog on the issue, but has the Campaign for Liberty asked the common man for _any_ input on its agenda? 

 Thinking about it, it's just an organization, on our side only in name. Zero accountability. Zero transparency. Yet it constantly feeds on our limited money. 

 And it's over in Colorado giving out a 1/3rd of a million for some schlub? 

 When I pay the California Rifle and Pistol Association money, I know exactly where it goes, it fights gun laws. 

 I have no idea what the C4L is doing. 


 I support auditing the C4L. We don't know where our money is going, and we need to demand transparency. 

 The movement needs to live in the light, and it needs to thrive on honesty.

----------


## specsaregood

> The add is not about him..


Then you either didn't watch the ad or they hired the worst possible advertising company to create it--entirely possible.

----------


## gls

> You assume their intent was to fund this candidate.  It was not.  The funds paid for the ad.  And, if you look at the add in terms of marketing, it framed the product (the survey) with the candidate.  It wasn't about the candidate.


The commercial may have exploited a loophole, since the CFL cannot legally endorse, but it is an obvious advocacy spot.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

is this bump needed?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> WOW!!  
> 
> Good Catch, angelatc!!
> 
> Apparently there IS a Colorado specific Campaign for Liberty...
> 
> A quick Google search also turned this up:
> 
> http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...or-liberty.asp
> ...


hmmmm, those donors to the Colorado specific Campaign For Liberty are all radical lefties..............  somehow I am brought back to the Dem plan to drive wedges now.......

----------


## FrankRep

> hmmmm, those donors to the Colorado specific Campaign For Liberty are all radical lefties..............  somehow I am brought back to the Dem plan to drive wedges now.......


Group Name:
CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY
Stated Purpose:
TO SUPPORT POLITICAL CANDIDATES IN THE STATE OF COLORADO

Contact Person: JOHN BRITZ


http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...or-liberty.asp

John Britz Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle

Contibuted To:

OBAMA VICTORY FUND - Democrat
PERLMUTTER FOR CONGRESS - Democrat
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - Republican
COLORADO DEMOCRATIC PARTY - Democrat

----------


## purplechoe

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123033

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny, I know - you are one of the people that CFL could have and IMO should have funded.  That they did not and chose instead to fund that )(*&^*&(&&  has me seeing red.


Thanks so much MsDoodahs,

I'm trying not to get frustrated, really I'm not, but stuff like this makes it hard.  Thanks to some help from MelissaWV I have SlimJims ready to produce to canvass with, but I still am not funded to produce them.  I am way behind the donor curve because I am not a politician.  The grassroots by and large is very interested in the big-ticket candidates for Federal offices who can't really do much to restore the Constitutional Order vice the State candidates who actually CAN.

I am following Ron Paul's plan to the letter, but we never covered financing a campaign in class.  I really appreciate it, and I sure hope my worries will be dispelled come February 14th -- but with Vessol's pledge (I have no access to know what it is) we will in all likelihood have just broken $100.  out of $20,000.  That's 17 days away.

Even the JBS mentioned my name in TheNewAmerican recently (without my knowing ahead of time, mind you) stating directly that what I am doing is critical towards restoring the Constitutional order for the whole country.

I will avoid the rant here, but I too want an explanation from the C4L.  Just imagine what 5k if similar radio and TV ads could have done for me in my district!!!!

----------


## Bman

> You assume their intent was to fund this candidate.  It was not.


LOL.  You really think people are that stupid?  If their intent wasn't to promote or seemingly endorse Buck they failed 100%.  You cannot fail any worse.  Well maybe if they had John Tate kissing Buck's ass it would have been a bit more clear, so I'll take it 99.9999%. 

In other words you are telling me that when the CFL hires people they look for 1 in a million, biggest complete f*&king moron they can possibly find and give them access to $350,000.

Nope.  Someone's ass needs to be tossed if the CFL hopes to see a dime from a bucket load of people.  This is bad, unless it comes out that Joe Buck is Jesus Christ.  I'm not holding my breath.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Hey Glen, I did not know about your campaign. I've bookmarked your page for Valentines Day between now and then I'll be getting a paycheck. Off-topic, just wanted to shout out for a fellow North Carolinian and wish you luck, even if you aren't from my district(I'm out near New Bern).


Hey thanks so much Vessol!

Really, this will impact far more than just NC, IMHO, and the JBS seems to agree.  The real power to reassert the Constitutional order is not in the US Congress, but in the State Assemblies. 

It's not as glamorous, it doesn't pay very well, and the moneybombs are in thousands instead of millions.  But it costs less per voter AND overall, and it's where the real source of asserting the 9th and 10th Amendments truly lie.

We have a chance here to change...everything.

The NC State House will oversee redistricting in 2011, and we have a chance to make Mel Watt vulnerable -- IF we get elected.  We all remember Mel Watt right?

Folks, this can't start in the US Congress. I'm sorry, but this has to start in the State Assemblies.  If we really want to restore the Constitutional Order for the entire nation, then we have to start in the States.  It's seriously the only way to make it work.

Thanks again Vessol, I appreciate it more than I can say.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> LOL.  You really think people are that stupid?  If their intent wasn't to promote or seemingly endorse Buck they failed 100%.  You cannot fail any worse.  Well maybe if they had John Tate kissing Buck's ass it would have been a bit more clear, so I'll take it 99.9999%. 
> 
> In other words you are telling me that when the CFL hires people they look for 1 in a million, biggest complete f*&king moron they can possibly find and give them access to $350,000.
> 
> Nope.  Someone's ass needs to be tossed if the CFL hopes to see a dime from a bucket load of people.  This is bad, unless it comes out that Joe Buck is Jesus Christ.  I'm not holding my breath.


What's got me wondering is that the IRS seems to think the money for the ad came from the Colorado liberal-progressive-centered Campaign for Liberty founded in 2006 what gave to Obama, while Gary Howard, comm dir of OUR C4L seems to state that it came from ours.

There is...weirdness...going on here.

Why does the IRS seem to think that the OTHER Campaign for Liberty funded the ad?  Why does Gary Howard state that our C4L funded the ad?

One possible explanation that would make me feel a lot better, is that the OTHER Campaign For Liberty was funded by the radical left to do this on purpose and run the ad, and Gary Howard was bought and paid for to exacerbate the wedge-driving action through the proliferation of confusion.

If that's the case, then Howard needs to be terminated immediately, escorted out by security, and locked out of the building, and a statement of clarification must be made, as well as (at the very least a threat) something about the trademark infringement w the C4L.

In any case, this sure fits for all the world the exact profile of that Dem statement on how to drive wedges between us that came out a day or two ago.

In any case, the C4L needs to address this NOW.

----------


## rp08orbust

> What's got me wondering is that the IRS seems to think the money for the ad came from the Colorado liberal-progressive-centered Campaign for Liberty founded in 2006 what gave to Obama


Where has the IRS indicated which C4L funded the ad?

----------


## Reason

Someone who knows the pres of C4L should go wake his ass up and kick him in the balls for not responding to this before the day was over.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

This thread has 10k+ views.  Would the admins and site owners consider sharing some web traffic statistics on this viral thread?

----------


## Bman

> What's got me wondering is that the IRS seems to think the money for the ad came from the Colorado liberal-progressive-centered Campaign for Liberty founded in 2006 what gave to Obama, while Gary Howard, comm dir of OUR C4L seems to state that it came from ours.


The fact that Gary Howard is saying that it is Ron Pauls CFL makes me believe that it is.  If it is, I sure hope they do the right thing.  By the right thing I mean getting rid of everyone who knew or participated in the add.  If that means clearing the house that is the steps that should be taken.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Where has the IRS indicated which C4L funded the ad?


IIRC, somewhere buried in this thread and linked back to the original source for the article was  something that had been dug up about the Colorado group sourcing the funding.  I could possibly have read it wrong, but that was certainly the impression I got.  I read every one of these some-360 posts and I'm not sure I want to agonize myself over all of it yet again.  At this point I am just trying to suspend judgement and demand a statement from the C4L before I form any conclusions.  If this IS what it looks like, then the C4L just lost a major supporter, no kidding.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Scott Brown is a neocon and that's the only comment I've ever made about him.


Ok.  I said I wasn't sure who it was that made the call about Brown.  Someone did in the Mod Forum.  But, you did post about what you wanted the candidate subforums to be used for, because I quoted your post a couple of times after you made it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The fact that Gary Howard is saying that it is Ron Pauls CFL makes me believe that it is.  If it is, I sure hope they do the right thing.  By the right thing I mean getting rid of everyone who knew or participated in the add.  If that means clearing the house that is the steps that should be taken.


Ya I agree.  But then I don't know this Gary Howard character.  I have no doubt he is actually the comm dir, but what if he was paid $1mil in an offshore account to lie and say that ad was his when it really came from the Colorado group?  I mean, at this stage almost ANYTHING is possible.  In any case, Gary Howard at least needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice no mater what else comes to light.

----------


## gls

It looks to me this is all about supporting the more 'conservative' primary candidate over the NRSC's chosen 'moderate'. I suppose the strategy makes sense but not much good can come from abandoning principles.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010..._democrats.php




> Point two: though Democrats are nervous about a potential primary in Colorado to Sen. Michael Bennet, the Republican Senate primary is already underway. A group associated with Ron Paul is spending $350,000 on a statewide advertising buy to prop up the conservative credentials of Ken Buck, who is challenging Jane Norton, the NRSC's chosen candidate (and a politician labeled by conservatives as Mini-McCain -- not, obviously, meant as a compliment.)  If Democrats move forward on immigration in Congress, this primary will explode. Meanwhile, as I mentioned yesterday, Bennet's potential primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, has been much less active than had originally been supposed. Given the political environment and Bennet's status as an appointee, Colorado's going to be tough for Democrats, but a divisive Republican primary could tilt the balance in the opposite direction.

----------


## Bman

> Ya I agree.  But then I don't know this Gary Howard character.  I have no doubt he is actually the comm dir, but what if he was paid $1mil in an offshore account to lie and say that ad was his when it really came from the Colorado group?  I mean, at this stage almost ANYTHING is possible.  In any case, Gary Howard at least needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice no mater what else comes to light.


You've been hanging out with the truthers a bit to much.

However, if it something that extreme I'd doubt anyone would find out.  The people with that type of cash hide it very well.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You've been hanging out with the truthers a bit to much.
> 
> However, if it something that extreme I'd doubt anyone would find out.  The people with that type of cash hide it very well.


LOL -- except that I can conceive of possible scenarios without automatically assuming that they must be true 

By Friday close of business we had BETTER get a response on this from John Tate or Ron Paul himself.

Ron Paul, at least, I trust cannot be bought at any price.

----------


## revolutionary8

> LOL -- except that I can conceive of possible scenarios without automatically assuming that they must be true 
> 
> By Friday close of business we had BETTER get a response on this from John Tate or Ron Paul himself.
> 
> Ron Paul, at least, I trust cannot be bought at any price.


Ron Paul isn't "in on it". THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT (of a 501c3). Like it or not, that is how it is. That is what is so $#@!ed up. "wE" MADE THE "LAWS"!!!!
WE send our money to RON and he has nothing to do with it because he can't! 

HEADS SHOULD ROLL. 

PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES.

I  MAX MY $#@!, and I get THIS???


*THE BOARD SHOULD BE DISSOLVED. IE. LIQUIDATED.* In that special case, the board should have BYLAWS re; what should happen if the board is dissolved.    

Once the board (ie the heiracrchy) is LIQUIDATED, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, might we  be working for "0ur cause". Until that time, I take it that "we" are working for "THE GREATER GOOD"...
*yikes*
now, that said, "you" (*NOT YOU GUNNY!)* shouldn't be "bitching" about these sorts of, "formaltites", YOU should be working to further the cause of LIBERTY. 

If "WE" refuse to or, neglect to hold our board accountable, WHO WILL TAKE THE FALL? 

I'll give you a hint...
it isn't me, 
it isn't YOU,
it is* RON PAUL.*

I REFUSE to let that happen.

I swear to MY GOD, that not only will I do everything in my power to keep that from happening, I will do everything in my power to EXPOSE (obhhh no NOT ALEX JONES) but the FOOLS who made this "ecothreat".  
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, I UNDSERTAND IT FOR WHAT IT IS... AN ECOTHREAT. 
* COME AND TAKE IT.*

----------


## revolutionary8

> Ron Paul isn't "in on it". THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT (of a 501c3). Like it or not, that is how it is. That is what is so $#@!ed up. 
> WE send our money to RON and he has nothing to do with it because he can't! 
> 
> HEADS SHOULD ROLL. 
> 
> PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES.
> 
> I  MAX MY $#@!, and I get THIS???
> 
> ...

----------


## tremendoustie

This makes me sick. This is my moneybomb money. RIP CFL.

I could have used this money for so many better causes.

----------


## revolutionary8

FTLOG, woodya stop being so dramatic? I can't stand it much longer. DISSOLVE THE BOARD.  GET RID OF EM.*  ELECT*  a new board.
No reason that members of the "old" board don't have a place in the "new" board, but that is for OTHERS, besides the neocon warmongering $#@!s, to decide... right???
it's simple. 
give us a cure rather than a cause, and pretend we didn't tell you about PREVENTION.

ffs





> This makes me sick. This is my moneybomb money. RIP CFL.
> 
> I could have used this money for so many better causes.

----------


## qwerty

YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv



*Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no
responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as
representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]*



http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php

What does that mean ?

----------


## LittleLightShining

I've been through the thread again since last night. I haven't gotten much further with the digging for 990 forms which is totally bugging me. I have a few people I'm gonna call later on who can probably help me out. 

I do not think this Colorodo group has anything to do with this ad. BTW if you watch the ad with no sound it totally looks like an endorsement. 

I quoted a bunch of posts but if I respond to all of them the post will take up a whole page. At any rate, don't give up on your local activists. If you've been sitting back giving money to C4L national and haven't gotten very involved with your local group, now is the time to do it. Get to know everyone involved and try to discern motives. VT C4L hasn't officially become an official affiliate of national-- and for a reason. It's been apparent to our core group since last spring that the two primary goals as far as the national group was concerned were increasing outside donations (above and beyond dues) and gathering new contact info. I have a paper in my hand from Debbie Hopper that says just this.

I've gone on and on here as best I could, wherever I could, to explain the problems I saw with national C4L only to get squelched here and then attacked by Debbie Hopper. I stepped down from my position because I would rather let my little light shine on this shet than have a title. 

I would be willing to give national another chance if they got rid of not just Howard but EVERYONE else, went back to the way it was meant to be-- a bottom up, grassroots organization committed to educating the people about the issues. Each state chapter deciding for itself based on political climate and demographics what will work on the ground. 

I feel like half my job for the last 6 months is separating VT from national. 

I also wanted to share some more information I've come across about Debbie Hopper and Mike Rothfeld.

Apparently Debbie Hopper is known as being a "bad player" in a Constitution Party. From what I understand she is pro-choice and pushed pro-choice candidates on the Constitution Party, eventually being asked to step down from the executive committee of the party. 

Rothfeld is failed Republican hack candidate turned junk-mail fundraiser.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> They did not give this guy money.  The add is not about him.  The ad was purchased because C4L wanted to accomplish a goal here.  That everyone here is flipping out because "C4L gave $350,000 to a neocon" is laughable.  What the goal is, I don't know.  Does spending so much on whatever this campaign is seem suspect?  Yes.  Is it a justifiable reason to loose our minds?  No.


You sure you watched the correct youtube?




> Wow, I just read through this entire thread.  I've not done something like that in quite awhile, but given the severity of this problem, I made myself.
> 
> 
> CFL better do the following.
> 1.)  Tell the truth and not hide anything.  No trying to "make this go away.l"
> 2.)  Fire everyone who knew about this and everyone who was involved in this.
> 3.)  Show us where our donations are going.
> 
> If CFL fails to do so, I am going to 
> ...


I support this +1 It should be the basis of a ultimatum that all members sign onto.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> You assume their intent was to fund this candidate.  It was not.  The funds paid for the ad.  And, if you look at the add in terms of marketing, it framed the product (the survey) with the candidate.  It wasn't about the candidate.


Couldn't they have just said "According to our survey, the guy you just saw in this campaign ad is a pro-war neocon"

?

What the heck is the point of the survey? It costs me a hell of a lot less than $350,000 to listen to a candidate long enough to figure out he's not that great of a choice. No survey necessary.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> So the only qualification for receiving $350,000 in media buys form the CFL is to complete a survey? And they will do this for other candidates that complete the survey too?
> 
> How is it possible people this incredibly incompetent get into such an important position. I mean really, I seldom even hear congressional democrats saying things that make as little sense as this statement.


If that's the case I have a guy who wants out of Afghanistan right now who is challenging Leahy. I've been asked to help out with his campaign and I am totally on board but was waiting until he gets a new website which better explains his positions to announce it here. 

I think this guy can give Leahy a run for his money. $350k would be a huge boost to this guy. 

How do I get this survey for my candidate, Len Britton?

----------


## nobody's_hero

Well, since the Campaign for Liberty can send off $350,000 at a time to get someone to fill out a frivolous survey, I'm going to assume that they aren't hurting for money as bad as they claim to be.

Adam's birthday money bomb is coming up, and I know he's not a pro-war neocon.


(and I didn't even have to get him to fill out a survey!)

----------


## MRoCkEd

Hopefully C4L releases a statement today to clarify this.

----------


## Chieftain1776

I'm still reserving judgment but here's where I am right now:




> The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is also being opposed by Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund. I wonder...quid pro quo? Will we be seeing Rand's face promoted by the Senate Conservatives Fund?


(1) ^This^ is the best case scenario that's realistic. Unfortunately we'll never be able to confirm it unless SCF _doesn't_ endorse Rand Paul as there's probably some rule against this type of blatant horse trading.

(2) My moderate and most realistic theory is that it's Tate and CFL leadership are trying to "be political players" and further themselves (and their careers) by getting involved in high profile races. To be fair they could be thinking it helps C4L in the long run. 

(3) My worst case scenario right now and least realistic is that some hack (or hacks) from a slightly more conservative wing of the GOP saw the money and membership CFL raised and thought "Hey we can take this over and use it for our purposes". Again I think it's the least likely but possible. There are always unemployed political hacks that want to move up in the world may have latched on to the CFL to direct them. 

(4) One other possibility that I thought of could be that it is building a track record of supporting conservative candidates so then when it lines up behind liberty candidates like Rand Paul his opponents can't accuse it of only supporting libertarians. This could have been a move to be more credible to other conservative/Republican organizations.

This guy, Ken Buck, isn't so bad on recent statements but his past is troubling. 

In general I wanted C4L to be educational and lobbying but it's current status allows it to participate in elections. Keep in mind that the Club for Growth has the same 501(c)(4) status that C4L has and C4G is heavily involved in elections.

----------


## erowe1

> Surveys like this could be an extremely powerful weapon if used correctly.  The ad is both a promotion of the survey and a "promotional reward" that C4L gave this guy because he did something they liked.  What that something is, I do not know.  It could be as simple as his completion of the form.  If I know Rothfeld, this is his style.
> 
> They did not give this guy money.  The add is not about him.  The ad was purchased because C4L wanted to accomplish a goal here.  That everyone here is flipping out because "C4L gave $350,000 to a neocon" is laughable.  What the goal is, I don't know.  Does spending so much on whatever this campaign is seem suspect?  Yes.  Is it a justifiable reason to loose our minds?  No.
> 
> If this is a pebble someone threw in the ocean to make waves, you guys are indeed riding the ripples until they become insanity tsunamis.
> 
> I am the Chapter Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty Baltimore.  If you think the C4L is a top down organization then you need to spend some time outside this forum.  I just came back from the Ron Paul speaking engagement at Loyola College.  Myself and a score of other C4L members distributed literature and shook hands with the local YAL chapter, the Republican Liberty Caucus, members of Americans for Prosperity, local politicians, local activists, local Republican clubs and hundreds of other interested people.  Some of these people we are already on a first name basis with.
> 
> If you really want to become part of the movement you need to get with your local chapter and build the grassroots.  That is where the power is.  If you donate money to the top of an organization you can't loose your mind when they do something you don't initially understand - especially in politics.  Put on your man-pants and dig your heels in because this fight is long term.  If we fracture every time something happens that we don't understand then we are done for.


I noticed that you're one of Gary Howard's contacts on his CFL page.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/pr...er=Gary_Howard

Is that why you're resorting to this special pleading to defend this decision that everybody else here has no difficulty seeing as a terrible one?

----------


## smashysmashy

There are updates on the C4L page, but still no word about this... Even if there is a somewhat satisfactory explanation for this, we need to take this opportunity to demand transparency from C4L or no more donations. It's high time they start acting like a model of liberty and this is our opportunity to see that happen. I've read too many disturbing little tidbits on here about the leaders of C4L for me to have anything to do with them until changes are made.

----------


## constituent

Wow!

If only someone had seen this coming...

----------


## ARealConservative

> Wow!
> 
> If only someone had seen this coming...

----------


## constituent

> How do I get this survey for my candidate, Len Britton?


His issues page is a bit scarce for me to make a decision based on it alone, but i'll be watching the show now that you've pointed it out.  thanks.

----------


## rancher89

> Surveys like this could be an extremely powerful weapon if used correctly.  The ad is both a promotion of the survey and a "promotional reward" that C4L gave this guy because he did something they liked.  What that something is, I do not know.  It could be as simple as his completion of the form.  If I know Rothfeld, this is his style.
> 
> They did not give this guy money.  The add is not about him.  The ad was purchased because C4L wanted to accomplish a goal here.  That everyone here is flipping out because "C4L gave $350,000 to a neocon" is laughable.  What the goal is, I don't know.  Does spending so much on whatever this campaign is seem suspect?  Yes.  Is it a justifiable reason to loose our minds?  No.
> 
> If this is a pebble someone threw in the ocean to make waves, you guys are indeed riding the ripples until they become insanity tsunamis.
> 
> I am the Chapter Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty Baltimore.  If you think the C4L is a top down organization then you need to spend some time outside this forum.  I just came back from the Ron Paul speaking engagement at Loyola College.  Myself and a score of other C4L members distributed literature and shook hands with the local YAL chapter, the Republican Liberty Caucus, members of Americans for Prosperity, local politicians, local activists, local Republican clubs and hundreds of other interested people.  Some of these people we are already on a first name basis with.
> 
> If you really want to become part of the movement you need to get with your local chapter and build the grassroots.  That is where the power is.  If you donate money to the top of an organization you can't loose your mind when they do something you don't initially understand - especially in politics.  Put on your man-pants and dig your heels in because this fight is long term.  If we fracture every time something happens that we don't understand then we are done for.


But this isn't using a survey correctly and IT IS an ad for the candidate.  IMHO

----------


## sluggo

C4L won't see another penny from me until they address these issues. 

Downsize DC will get my cash instead.

----------


## LDA

A little disappointing.

Why are they not pouring this money into Peter Schiff or Rand Paul's campaigns? Or any of the other libertarians out there? I know Schiff needs the money badly.

----------


## rancher89

> Hey thanks so much Vessol!
> 
> Really, this will impact far more than just NC, IMHO, and the JBS seems to agree.  The real power to reassert the Constitutional order is not in the US Congress, but in the State Assemblies. 
> 
> It's not as glamorous, it doesn't pay very well, and the moneybombs are in thousands instead of millions.  But it costs less per voter AND overall, and it's where the real source of asserting the 9th and 10th Amendments truly lie.
> 
> We have a chance here to change...everything.
> 
> The NC State House will oversee redistricting in 2011, and we have a chance to make Mel Watt vulnerable -- IF we get elected.  We all remember Mel Watt right?
> ...


I"ll say it again, my money has gone to the candidates, not the organizations, always.  This includes the C4L.  This candidate, and friend will continue to get whatever this unemployed person can spare.  This fight is big in NC and we have the 9th highest unemployment in the US.

----------


## YumYum

> I know Schiff needs the money badly.


True.

----------


## Elwar

My guess is that C4L is starting a survey campaign that was allotted $350,000 for that project. They created a survey, got a few back and made a quick ad for one of the early survey respondents with a message to others to respond. 

At least that's what I hope.

The original article is written by a liberal news writer and the YouTube video is from a liberal who has another video of a top Dem who recently sent out a memo on "How to split the GOP".

I won't pass judgement until the details are revealed from a non-Democrat source.

----------


## revolutionary8

I take it you don't ride the big T.
so sorry

----------


## johnrocks

> My guess is that C4L is starting a survey campaign that was allotted $350,000 for that project. They created a survey, got a few back and made a quick ad for one of the early survey respondents with a message to others to respond. 
> 
> At least that's what I hope.
> 
> The original article is written by a liberal news writer and the YouTube video is from a liberal who has another video of a top Dem who recently sent out a memo on "How to split the GOP".
> 
> I won't pass judgement until the details are revealed from a non-Democrat source.


Probably the wise thing to do although this is truly unsettling to me, as much as liberty candidates could use this money.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I'm still reserving judgment but here's where I am right now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) My moderate and most realistic theory is that it's Tate and CFL leadership are trying to "be political players" and further themselves (and their careers) by getting involved in high profile races. To be fair they could be thinking it helps C4L in the long run. 
> 
> (3) *My worst case scenario right now and least realistic is that some hack (or hacks) from a slightly more conservative wing of the GOP saw the money and membership CFL raised and thought "Hey we can take this over and use it for our purposes". Again I think it's the least likely but possible. There are always unemployed political hacks that want to move up in the world may have latched on to the CFL to direct them.*


This is not the _least likely_ scenario. Based on what I know about Rothfeld this is the _most plausible_ scenario. Also, #3 is extremely relevant here.

In the "Is the C4L being infiltrated?" thread I mentioned some things that are REALLY relevant.




> Wow!
> 
> If only someone had seen this coming...







> His issues page is a bit scarce for me to make a decision based on it alone, but i'll be watching the show now that you've pointed it out.  thanks.


This is why I haven't made a big deal about it here. Len and I had a very long talk about foreign policy and he is right on target with what we believe. I can't go into it much further here yet but I have been asked to help with certain aspects of his campaign

----------


## Chieftain1776

> My guess is that C4L is starting a survey campaign that was allotted $350,000 for that project. They created a survey, got a few back and made a quick ad for one of the early survey respondents with a message to others to respond. 
> 
> At least that's what I hope.
> 
> The original article is written by a liberal news writer and the YouTube video is from a liberal who has another video of a top Dem who recently sent out a memo on "How to split the GOP".
> 
> I won't pass judgement until the details are revealed from a non-Democrat source.


I don't want to hijack the thread but that YouTube user- DemSenClips is obviously part of an effort by the Democrats to drive a wedge between conservatives and the GOP i.e. painting those who believe federal health care is unconstitutional as radicals. Or if they agree with the healthcare being a federal issue then making them lose support amongst conservatives. 

Look at what that user is doing with Buck's opponent, Jane Norton, now. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee admitted this is their plan. Pretty crafty in my opinion. 

YouTube - Jane Norton Agrees: Government Should Play No Role in Health Care

That said it doesn't change the fundamental issue that the C4L used $350,000 to support a candidate many of us wouldn't contribute a dime to.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Well is this survey online?  Cause I am sure it would be nice if the CFL "leaked" this survey to the grassroots we'd be able to generate more of a buzz than endorsing "unelectable candidates".  
> 
> I mean hell, I have already looked up this candidate, that's gonna get him PR and more exposure.  That is the ancillary benefit for the candidate and I understand that, but with out more circulation of the idea of these candidate surveys, I see the potential of hooking other pols as being stunted.
> 
> *Hell, national money was spent, why not make a national effort?*


Good question.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Have you ever gotten kicked in the balls? Well now ladies, and for those fortunate guys, or should I say less fortunate now. You now have the undue privilege of knowing what it feels like to take a 12 inch steel toed boot right in the balls. Feels good, don't it? 

CFL couldn't even last barely _one_ year! Politics is a death sentence. This is why my money goes to candidates themselves who I have a good idea won't betray me the minute they get in office, and most importantly my money goes to the _Ludwig von Mises Institute_. 

While I have memberships with GOA, Oathkeepers (kind of waning on this -- Many only follow what they want (Some of these guys are huge war hawks)), and other liberty affiliated groups, I'm starting to become so disheartened with the utter lack of principles shown in some of the "bigger" organizations in this movement. Seriously, I feel like the only place that I fit in, and where principles actually matter is in the local grassroots, and within the LvMI (Throw in GOA too). That's about it. _Sad, dont'cha think?_

----------


## LittleLightShining

Trying a different tack here. I just called national and asked how I get a survey for Len Britton who is pretty much on board with all the C4L principles. I was directed to *Eric Stall* who is handling the survey project. I left him a voice mail. Let's see what happens.

----------


## Eric21ND

When all else fails...

----------


## erowe1

I just called CFL and the lady who answered the phone transferred me to someone named Andrew (I assume Andrew Ward). He said that he wasn't at liberty to answer my questions because John Tate was going to release a statement about it that I'd be sure to see either today or tomorrow. He also said they were receiving numerous inquiries about it.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> This is not the _least likely_ scenario. Based on what I know about Rothfeld this is the _most plausible_ scenario. Also, #3 is extremely relevant here.
> 
> In the "Is the C4L being infiltrated?" thread I mentioned some things that are REALLY relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I haven't made a big deal about it here. Len and I had a very long talk about foreign policy and he is right on target with what we believe. I can't go into it much further here yet but I have been asked to help with certain aspects of his campaign


I didn't see that thread. Here is the "Is the C4L being infiltrated" thread for those that haven't see it. 

I have a difference in that I don't mind it being used to influence the GOP as much as you do. That said supporting a candidate is beyond simply trying to bring the GOP to our direction and is more like the C4L going the direction of the current GOP. I wouldn't even mind if they decided to run ads against candidates (Lindsey Graham comes to mind). But this is a bridge to far for me. We need to find out the political backgrounds of the C4L leadership.

Regardless ANY ad should be ANNOUNCED on the C4L website or emailed to members. The fact that they aren't is shady on its face.

----------


## constituent

> I just called CFL and the lady who answered the phone transferred me to someone named Andrew (I assume Andrew Ward). He said that he wasn't at liberty to answer my questions because John Tate was going to release a statement about it that I'd be sure to see either today or tomorrow. He also said they were receiving numerous inquiries about it.


Allow me to paraphrase.




> Ahem... Let them eat cake.
> 
> Please donate, for liberty.


(i'm kidding, of course.)

----------


## carbonpenguin

> It's unrealistic, but to put it bluntly. In the modern age, there really is no way to successfully regain our Republic completely as you'll have this "asshattery" regardless. I wish there was someway the United States could be peacefully divided into 50 or so independent nations. One of these would be much easier to manage and create a true Constitutional Republic. Right now it's just..overwhelming sometimes. Sorry, just giving my view.


We're working on that in Vermont... http://www.governorsteele.com

YouTube - Dennis Steele on Vermont Independence

Perhaps the C4L membership should consider a similar platform of secession and refederation.  It always struck me as strange that an organization advocating federalism would be so centralized and top-down...

----------


## Baptist

> Have you ever gotten kicked in the balls? Well now ladies, and for those fortunate guys, or should I say less fortunate now. You now have the undue privilege of knowing what it feels like to take a 12 inch steel toed boot right in the balls. Feels good, don't it? 
> 
> CFL couldn't even last barely _one_ year! Politics is a death sentence. This is why my money goes to candidates themselves who I have a good idea won't betray me the minute they get in office, and most importantly my money goes to the _Ludwig von Mises Institute_. 
> 
> While I have memberships with GOA, Oathkeepers (kind of waning on this -- Many only follow what they want (Some of these guys are huge war hawks)), and other liberty affiliated groups, I'm starting to become so disheartened with the utter lack of principles shown in some of the "bigger" organizations in this movement. Seriously, I feel like the only place that I fit in, and where principles actually matter is in the local grassroots, and within the LvMI (Throw in GOA too). That's about it. _Sad, dont'cha think?_



Over the last few weeks Rand Paul, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul have disappointed me.  Then you had Alex Jones screwing over those folks in Texas.  Now you have CFL pulling this crap.  I'm wondering why I even waste my time with any of this crap anymore.  I'm seriously contemplating ending my political activism and moving down to my favorite preacher so that I can just study the Bible under him.  

Politicians have never been the answer.  Organizations have never been the answer.  The world always has and always will suck.  Think it's time for me to quit wasting my time trying to save this hell hole of a country.

----------


## Mini-Me

> My guess is that C4L is starting a survey campaign that was allotted $350,000 for that project. They created a survey, got a few back and made a quick ad for one of the early survey respondents with a message to others to respond. 
> 
> At least that's what I hope.
> 
> The original article is written by a liberal news writer and the YouTube video is from a liberal who has another video of a top Dem who recently sent out a memo on "How to split the GOP".
> 
> I won't pass judgement until the details are revealed from a non-Democrat source.


I really hope you're right.  Accountability and transparency are needed in any case, but it would at least be a great relief to hear that only, say, a grand was spent on this one guy, and the rest is still invested into an ongoing survey program they're just getting kick-started.  Even in this case though, some heads still need to roll for CFL's horrendous communication and complete lack of interest in checking with the grassroots before committing so much damn money to ANYTHING.  Like angelatc said, their entire attitude is arrogant beyond belief.  It reminds me of Dianne Feinstein's insolence when she supported the bailout despite her constituents' wishes, since her constituents were just too stupid to know what was good for them.   (I think I'm thinking of Feinstein...but maybe I'm thinking Boxer.  Hell if I know.  They're all cookie cutter clones anyway.)

All that said, even that's a best case scenario, and I'm not optimistic.  I fear we're going to hear LibertyMage's weak answer all over again from Tate.

----------


## FreedomRings

What if there's a secret strategy behind this ad buy that we don't understand because we don't have all the facts, and C4L can't reveal them for now because a) doing so would make the strategy pointless, and b) some of us wouldn't agree with the strategy, even if it has a good chance of working?

If C4L's plan is to take over the GOP (rather than educating the grassroots and the masses) then they will have to make some tough strategic decisions that will be unpopular with many of us. I guess we all have to ask ourselves, which issues are non-negotiable and which ones are we willing to compromise on?

Should we really second-guess every strategic decision they make, as long as they make perfectly clear what principles they stand for and what their political goals are?

----------


## jabf2006

> What if there's a secret strategy behind this ad buy that we don't understand because we don't have all the facts, and C4L can't reveal them for now because a) doing so would make the strategy pointless, and b) some of us wouldn't agree with the strategy, even if it has a good chance of working?
> 
> If C4L's plan is to take over the GOP (rather than educating the grassroots and the masses) then they will have to make some tough strategic decisions that will be unpopular with many of us. I guess we all have to ask ourselves, which issues are non-negotiable and which ones are we willing to compromise on?
> 
> Should we really second-guess every strategic decision they make, as long as they make perfectly clear what principles they stand for and what their political goals are?


Every decision? No. A $350,000 decision? Yes.

----------


## Mini-Me

> What if there's a secret strategy behind this ad buy that we don't understand because we don't have all the facts, and C4L can't reveal them for now because a) doing so would make the strategy pointless, and b) some of us wouldn't agree with the strategy, even if it has a good chance of working?
> 
> If C4L's plan is to take over the GOP (rather than educating the grassroots and the masses) then they will have to make some tough strategic decisions that will be unpopular with many of us. I guess we all have to ask ourselves, which issues are non-negotiable and which ones are we willing to compromise on?
> 
> Should we really second-guess every strategic decision they make, as long as they make perfectly clear what principles they stand for and what their political goals are?


CFL wasn't supposed to be run by a secret oligarchy working in strategic opaqueness.

----------


## Keller1967

made new thread

----------


## Mini-Me

EDIT: ...I'll post in Keller's new thread.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> CFL wasn't supposed to be run by a secret oligarchy working in strategic opaqueness.


Yeah, I think it's going after the "Club for Growth" model without announcing that to its membership. It's a decent approach but needs to be discussed and debated with the membership. 

Plus "Growth" at C4G means certain policies a candidate must endorse. C4L has to have a set criteria and a candidate with a credible record of standing up for that criteria before endorsing them. MAKE NO MISTAKE THIS *WAS* AN ENDORSEMENT of Ken Buck.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> What if there's a secret strategy behind this ad buy that we don't understand because we don't have all the facts, and C4L can't reveal them for now because a) doing so would make the strategy pointless, and b) some of us wouldn't agree with the strategy, even if it has a good chance of working?
> 
> If C4L's plan is to take over the GOP (rather than educating the grassroots and the masses) then they will have to make some tough strategic decisions that will be unpopular with many of us. I guess we all have to ask ourselves, which issues are non-negotiable and which ones are we willing to compromise on?
> 
> Should we really second-guess every strategic decision they make, as long as they make perfectly clear what principles they stand for and what their political goals are?


They suck at strategy. They should have pushed for a discharge petition for 1207.

----------


## angelatc

> My guess is that C4L is starting a survey campaign that was allotted $350,000 for that project. They created a survey, got a few back and made a quick ad for one of the early survey respondents with a message to others to respond. 
> 
> At least that's what I hope.
> 
> The original article is written by a liberal news writer and the YouTube video is from a liberal who has another video of a top Dem who recently sent out a memo on "How to split the GOP".
> 
> I won't pass judgement until the details are revealed from a non-Democrat source.


That's still not OK.  There are a ton of liberty candidates out there that could have benefited from the same ad.  Name recognition is important.

----------


## Meatwasp

If they don't have a damned good excuse they have tangled themselves in a big hair ball that will be hard to get out of.

----------


## angelatc

> What if there's a secret strategy behind this ad buy that we don't understand because we don't have all the facts,


You mean like all the secret strategies to win elections they had during the primaries? The strategies we were continuously told we didn't understand, because we didn't have all the facts?

The strategy that ended up being, "We didn't really want to win. We wanted to get a message out, and use all that leftover money to start a new group so we could have jobs fighting bureaucracy with bureaucracy?"

You're right. What if?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

I told you all CFL was not a liberty organization and that one should be wary of it.

Many of you here laughed at me and said I was crazy. Well, where's the apology?

Oh, and not to me, to the pro liberty cause, because those of you supporting CFL just supported the establishment. You've been had. Bravo.

----------


## Cowlesy

geez i don't read posts for 13hrs and this thing balloons to 400+ posts <relegates to after-work posts>

----------


## angelatc

> I told you all CFL was not a liberty organization and that one should be wary of it.
> 
> Many of you here laughed at me and said I was crazy. Well, where's the apology?
> 
> Oh, and not to me, to the pro liberty cause, because those of you supporting CFL just supported the establishment. You've been had. Bravo.


You're not helping anything. It's not about you.

----------


## brandon

> geez i don't read posts for 13hrs and this thing balloons to 400+ posts <relegates to after-work posts>


You didn't miss too much.

Basically, the CFL is responsible for this, they have been completely silent on the issue, and John Tate is expected to put out a statement today or tomorrow.

95% of us are pissed and 5% of us think they might have some super secret strategy that will justify this.

----------


## Chieftain1776

Okay here's my slightly revised theory. C4L is trying to be "part of the team" which means that they are trying to contribute to the greater conservative movement in the hopes that our candidates are accepted and not fought against. i.e. opposing the criticism that we need to be "part of the solution". 

I think the fact that Erick Erickson--editor-in-chief of the formerly anti-Paul RedState--endorsing Rand Paul for Senate is a sign that this is happening. I think the conservative movement (libertarians and all) are trying to unite against the GOP establishment which is beholden to special interests rather than to any principles.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Okay here's my slightly revised theory. C4L is trying to be "part of the team" which means that they are trying to contribute to the greater conservative movement in the hopes that our candidates are accepted and not fought against. i.e. opposing the criticism that we need to be "part of the solution". 
> 
> I think the fact that Erick Erickson--editor-in-chief of the formerly anti-Paul RedState--endorsing Rand Paul for Senate is a sign that this is happening. I think the conservative movement (libertarians and all) are trying to unite against the GOP establishment which is beholden to special interests rather than to any principles.


We shouldn't have to compromise our principles.

----------


## klamath

> Okay here's my slightly revised theory. C4L is trying to be "part of the team" which means that they are trying to contribute to the greater conservative movement in the hopes that our candidates are accepted and not fought against. i.e. opposing the criticism that we need to be "part of the solution". 
> 
> I think the fact that Erick Erickson--editor-in-chief of the formerly anti-Paul RedState--endorsing Rand Paul for Senate is a sign that this is happening. I think the conservative movement (libertarians and all) are trying to unite against the GOP establishment which is beholden to special interests rather than to any principles.


I could buy this if it wasn't the 350 grand number.  That is either a complete sellout or one stupid assed strategy.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> We shouldn't have to compromise our principles.


Yeah I hope the C4L explains their approach because the only thing we know for sure is that Buck is not an adamant non-interventionist although recent statements at least demand a declaration of war. It's still a political compromise even if there is some sort of overall beneficial horsetrading going on.

----------


## Chieftain1776

If I'm right I'd would rather have SCF's endorsement in Kentucky than C4L's.

----------


## Reason

> I know C4L hasn't given him any money, we did do a television ad promoting C4L and mentioning he had responded to our candidate survey favorably.
> 
> Do you know of any other candidates whom have returned our survey favorably and we should look into?


My response was,

I guess the question now is how much was spent on this TV ad, hopefully not 350k....

I don't know of any other candidates whom have returned the survey.

I can tell you that the main reason for the outrage is that we have legit liberty candidates like Schiff, Rand, Glen etc that desperately need all the help they can get, so hearing that 350k was dropped on this is going to stir up a lot of emotion.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> I could buy this if it wasn't the 350 grand number.  That is either a complete sellout or one stupid assed strategy.


Yeah, I doubt SCF or even Club for Growth has spent that much for Rubio thus far.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> My response was,
> 
> I guess the question now is how much was spent on this TV ad, hopefully not 350k....
> 
> I don't know of any other candidates whom have returned the survey.
> 
> I can tell you that the main reason for the outrage is that we have legit liberty candidates like Schiff, Rand, Glen etc that desperately need all the help they can get, so hearing that 350k was dropped on this is going to stir up a lot of emotion.


Where'd you get this? I want an ad like that for Len Britton who is running against Pat Leahy-- who is definitely more in line with our positions than this yahoo.

Why didn't Kokesh get a survey? Did Schiff? Did Rand? Did anyone else?

----------


## Cowlesy

> You didn't miss too much.
> 
> Basically, the CFL is responsible for this, they have been completely silent on the issue, and John Tate is expected to put out a statement today or tomorrow.
> 
> 95% of us are pissed and 5% of us think they might have some super secret strategy that will justify this.


Roger that - thanks!

----------


## specsaregood

> 95% of us are pissed and 5% of us think they might have some super secret strategy that will justify this.


There is also a minority % that thinks the information that has been reported is incorrect.  I'm desperately clinging onto that thread of hope.

----------


## Romulus

> we shouldn't have to compromise our principles.


+1776

----------


## SWATH

Audit the CFL!

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Okay here's my slightly revised theory. C4L is trying to be "part of the team" which means that they are trying to contribute to the greater conservative movement in the hopes that our candidates are accepted and not fought against. i.e. opposing the criticism that we need to be "part of the solution". 
> 
> I think the fact that Erick Erickson--editor-in-chief of the formerly anti-Paul RedState--endorsing Rand Paul for Senate is a sign that this is happening. I think the conservative movement (libertarians and all) are trying to unite against the GOP establishment which is beholden to special interests rather than to any principles.


*Contract on America 2.0*. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Sorry, got duped before, woke up from my cognitive dissonance. Never again. The establishment $#@!s (which now, sadly, appears to include C4L) will never understand the complete and total loathing people in this country have for them. Most Voters are Independent and a large section of what is GOP and Democrat are beginning to flee the ranks. 

$#@! C4L.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> There is also a minority % that thinks the information that has been reported is incorrect.  I'm desperately clinging onto that thread of hope.


Look, _it is_ _OUR_ C4L. It is correct information. Besides everything that was posted here before I called the office this morning and asked how do I get a survey and ad like the one they did for Ken Buck in Colorado and I was put through to Eric Stall who does the survey project. If the info we're reading is incorrect why would the person answering the phone not correct me?

----------


## FrankRep

> *Contract on America 2.0*. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.


Contract _on_ America. I love that. lol.

----------


## rancher89

The longer it takes for them to respond, the less credible the response will seem.  It's going to get harder and harder for those who are skeptical of the goals of the C4L to get past this, the longer it takes for the C4L to respond.

Compare it to a forest fire, something I know a fair amount about.

It is much better to catch it as early as possible than to have to fight a huge blaze.

Whatever the reason, whatever the rational behind the ad happening, the ad happened and Howard is quoted early on in this thread that the ad is not in support of the candidate but in support of the survey.  The ad, however, to most who watch it, it looks like the C4L is supporting the neocon.  And then there is the matter of the $350K.

So, somebody screwed up in the C4L or this is an infiltration of the C4L and somebody screwed up as a supervisor or coordinator--because the C4L has been hammering on the "do not support candidates" drum for months.  In Atlanta Rothfeld went so far as to say "support no candidates at all."  "Easier to hold their feet to the fire." "Less chance of support for a candidate coming back to bite us."  etc etc  

Even if nobody checked their phone messages or email until 9:00AM EST, there's been plenty of time to make some sort of statement....it's now 11:30 AM EST and no word from the C4L.  

"Fess up on the mess up" and let's move on.....

----------


## rancher89

> audit the cfl!:d


lol  :d

----------


## specsaregood

> If the info we're reading is incorrect why would the person answering the phone not correct me?


I was thinking more that perhaps the $ amount reported is incorrect.  Maybe the guy had the ad produced himself and was given permission to use the CFL logo etc.   Let's see what they have to say. The people in this "movement" have many differing views; but the one thing I thought almost everybody agreed upon was ending these occupations and nomore wars of aggression.
If they actually spent that much money on a prowar neocon, well then the CFL is dead to me in its current incarnation --AND perhaps that was the reason for it....

----------


## Chieftain1776

> Look, _it is_ _OUR_ C4L. It is correct information. Besides everything that was posted here before I called the office this morning and asked how do I get a survey and ad like the one they did for Ken Buck in Colorado and I was put through to Eric Stall who does the survey project. If the info we're reading is incorrect why would the person answering the phone not correct me?


Even if it's somehow not an endorsement of Ken Buck and merely a reward for filing out the survey that would be a COLOSSAL waste of money. Really promoting --in two seconds of the ad--a survey for $350,000???

That excuse by that spokesman is b.s.-- they endorsed Buck. What we don't know is why.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> You're not helping anything. It's not about you.


I'm simply stating you should all be a little more skeptical, particularly of criticism coming from people and members you know within the freedom community.

Had you done your research, you'd realize the CFL was not worthy of money contributions. 

You're right, it's not about me, but it is about freedom and liberty, and I'm DAMN pissed at those of you that funded the monstrosity that is the CFL.

Many of you here preach personal responsibility; well, take responsibility for your direct influence in the support and election of neo-conservative candidates.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I was thinking more that perhaps the $ amount reported is incorrect.  Maybe the guy had the ad produced himself and was given permission to use the CFL logo etc.   Let's see what they have to say. The people in this "movement" have many differing views; but *the one thing I thought almost everybody agreed upon was ending these occupations and nomore wars of aggression.*
> If they actually spent that much money on a prowar neocon, well then the CFL is dead to me in its current incarnation --AND perhaps that was the reason for it....


That remains to be seen. If it wasn't $350k you'd think somewhere someone would at least let the correct number leak out. 

The bolded is the straw that broke the camel's back for me and why I ended up stepping down as county coordinator. When Debbie Hopper kept telling me that it didn't matter whether the guy sending out the fundraising letters and training people DOES NOT AGREE WITH OUR FOREIGN POLICY PETITION I had a FIT. 




> Even if it's somehow not an endorsement of Ken Buck and merely a reward for filing out the survey that would be a COLOSSAL waste of money. Really promoting --in two seconds of the ad--a survey for $350,000???
> 
> That excuse by that spokesman is b.s.-- they endorsed Buck. What we don't know is why.


I'll say. They could have gotten a lot more mileage out of that $ if they'd have just sent all the state coordinators copies of the survey and t-shirts for the LC's.

----------


## angelatc

> Had you done your research, you'd realize the CFL was not worthy of money contributions. 
> 
> You're right, it's not about me, but it is about freedom and liberty, and I'm DAMN pissed at those of you that funded the monstrosity that is the CFL.


Again, all you're saying here is "YOU were wrong. I was right!" 

You really not helping anything. In case you hadn't noticed, we are actually the most cynical, critical group out there.

What do you expect will happen as a result of your posts?   Are you seriously here hoping somebody will tell you were right all along?   

Ok - you were right. Other people were wrong.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> So, somebody screwed up in the C4L or this is an infiltration of the C4L and somebody screwed up as a supervisor or coordinator--because the C4L has been hammering on the "do not support candidates" drum for months.  In Atlanta Rothfeld went so far as to say "support no candidates at all."  "Easier to hold their feet to the fire." "Less chance of support for a candidate coming back to bite us."  etc etc


Wow this is a deal breaker. I think I was wrong about the strategical aspect. I'm starting to believe this is just some way for political hacks-- like this Rothfeld guy-- to further their career and fatten their pocketbook. 

Unless I see the rest of the conservative movement magically line up behind Rand Paul, I can only assume that C4L is an employment program for those involved. 

"Do not support candidates" any chance there's video out there??

----------


## MsDoodahs

> That excuse by that spokesman is b.s.-- they endorsed Buck. What we don't know is why.


Does someone at CFL know Buck?  Has someone at CFL worked with or been affiliated with Buck in the past?

What about this:  does someone at CFL have a grudge against one of Buck's opponents?

Something is very VERY smelly - based on CFL's lack of response.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> I just called CFL and the lady who answered the phone transferred me to someone named Andrew (I assume Andrew Ward). He said that he wasn't at liberty to answer my questions because John Tate was going to release a statement about it that I'd be sure to see either today or tomorrow. He also said they were receiving numerous inquiries about it.


I'll be anxiously waiting for this statement before I say anything else about it...

----------


## Mini-Me

> I'm simply stating you should all be a little more skeptical, particularly of criticism coming from people and members you know within the freedom community.
> 
> Had you done your research, you'd realize the CFL was not worthy of money contributions. 
> 
> You're right, it's not about me, but it is about freedom and liberty, and I'm DAMN pissed at those of you that funded the monstrosity that is the CFL.
> 
> Many of you here preach personal responsibility; well, take responsibility for your direct influence in the support and election of neo-conservative candidates.


Are you so sure you didn't inadvertently donate to the CFL as well?  If you donated to the Ron Paul campaign, you might want to rethink that, and maybe you should face a mirror before addressing the crowd with your fiscal responsibility lecture.  A lot of people were pissed when the campaign handed over the money to start the CFL, but I think most of us crossed our fingers and hoped for the best, realizing there was nothing we could do about it.  I never donated to the CFL directly, but I'm still among those betrayed by it.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> Again, all you're saying here is "YOU were wrong. I was right!"
> 
> You really not helping anything. 
> 
> What do you expect will happen as a result of your posts?   Are you seriously here hoping somebody will tell you were right all along?   
> 
> Ok - you were right. Other people were wrong.


I'm sorry but even if C4L was pure as the driven snow there would be some crank proclaiming "It's a scam..COINTELPRO" so I think most people (rightfully) ignore those who don't have any proof to back it up.

----------


## Badger Paul

You see here the folly of "national" Washington-based organization in control of resources directing it with its Beltway mentality.

The tea partiers did fine in Massachusetts without some national group telling them what they had to do. Stay organized locally and on the state level, regionally and through forums like this. But nationally? If we are decentralists, why do we need "national" organizations? 

Let's be a community, not just another special interest group.

----------


## brandon

> I'm simply stating you should all be a little more skeptical, particularly of criticism coming from people and members you know within the freedom community.
> 
> Had you done your research, you'd realize the CFL was not worthy of money contributions. 
> 
> You're right, it's not about me, but it is about freedom and liberty, and I'm DAMN pissed at those of you that funded the monstrosity that is the CFL.
> 
> Many of you here preach personal responsibility; well, take responsibility for your direct influence in the support and election of neo-conservative candidates.


If you donated even a dollar to Ron Paul's campaign, then you were tricked into funding this "monstrosity" too.

----------


## rancher89

> Wow this is a deal breaker. I think I was wrong about the strategical aspect. I'm starting to believe this is just some way for political hacks-- like this Rothfeld guy-- to further their career and fatten their pocketbook. 
> 
> Unless I see the rest of the conservative movement magically line up behind Rand Paul, I can only assume that C4L is an employment program for those involved. 
> 
> "Do not support candidates" any chance there's video out there??


If one has paid and gone to one of the seminars, they have access to all the videos from all the conferences on their dashboard at the C4L site.  There's a big notice that the videos are not to be shared......

----------


## Mini-Me

> If one has paid and gone to one of the seminars, they have access to all the videos from all the conferences on their dashboard at the C4L site.  There's a big notice that the videos are not to be shared......


...which, of course, is the stupidest idea ever, because it wouldn't cost the establishment jack to find out what the CFL is teaching, yet secrecy leaves genuine grassroots activists out in the cold.  That is, it's the stupidest idea if your aim is to affect political change.  It's a great idea if you're running a racket.

Sorry, I'm just ranting.

----------


## rancher89

> If one has paid and gone to one of the seminars, they have access to all the videos from all the conferences on their dashboard at the C4L site.  There's a big notice that the videos are not to be shared......


I just looked, they still have not uploaded the Atlanta Conference, I have no idea if Rothfeld said these same sort of things at earlier conferences.

----------


## Meatwasp

> You see here the folly of "national" Washington-based organization in control of resources directing it with its Beltway mentality.
> 
> The tea partiers did fine in Massachusetts without some national group telling them what they had to do. Stay organized locally and on the state level, regionally and through forums like this. But nationally? If we are decentralists, why do we need "national" organizations? 
> 
> Let's be a community, not just another special interest group.


You nailed it Badger. Right on

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> If you donated even a dollar to Ron Paul's campaign, then you were tricked into funding this "monstrosity" too.


The fact of the matter is I've *never* willingly donated money to CFL. 

Frankly, what the Paul campaign did with the money was downright dirty and illegal and I had no say in it. If you want to say I'm somehow associated for something that was basically theft of my money, then you're out of your mind.

   But here's a giant thank you to all of the people that blindly funneled money to CFL. Thanks, by the way, for the mindless trolling and bashing of me when I implored you guys to check who was actually running CFL.

Now I wonder how many of you will wander back after Tate releases a sob statement.....

I'm on the same page as Badger Paul. We never needed a national group.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I am going to say this....

I am not at all happy about the ad AT ALL and want to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone.

But, in my opinion, this has turned into a witch hunt.  

I am giving them the day to straighten this out.  You do as you please.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> There's a big notice that the videos are not to be shared......


lol...

----------


## ItsTime

> I am going to say this....
> 
> I am not at all happy about the ad AT ALL and want to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone.
> 
> But, in my opinion, this has turned into a witch hunt.  
> 
> I am giving them the day to straighten this out.  You do as you please.


A lot of posters that havent been around for awhile coming in to bash the C4L is making me wonder...

----------


## LittleLightShining

I have a document that a got early last year. This document is titled "The Campaign For Liberty Partner Relationship". This document details what the state partners need to do to be affiliated with national and what national will do for the state partners. It ties the hands of the states quite nicely. as I've said before VT has not affiliated.

I want to quote part of this document, the section entitled "State Partner Goals".




> Each state partner is encouraged to sek the following goals:
> 
> 1. A clear growth in membership;
> 2. development of significant financial support above and beyond membership dues;
> 3. a program of public outreach;
> 4. periodic contact with State Partner members through a newsletter or other form of correspondence;
> 5a State Partner office with a listed telephone number, through which the public can learn about the work of the C4L; and
> 5. regular contact with elected officials to inform them about the work of the C4L.


Notice how they ordered the goals?

In exchange for states fulfilling these goals they get




> * a 20% discount on Campaign For Liberty promotional materials
> * Appropriate headquarters services (see below)
> * A seat on the Campaign For Liberty Partner Advisory Committee


(***There is nothing "below" to "see" that explains exactly what's meant by this unless what they are getting at is what's in the last quote)

But wait, if you act now there's more! Including:



> * Information on ways that Campaign For Liberty (National) and particular State Partners are working together
> * Joint membership, marketing and advocacy efforts
> *On-going communication between C4L and State Partners
> * Forums for interaction and discussion of State Partner leaders throughout the country
> * State Partner pages on C4L website
> * Campaign For Liberty name and logo, adapted for each State Partner organization
> * Opportunities or continued education through Campaign For Liberty conferences and Training Programs


But that's not all! If you act now




> Campaign For Liberty (National) has a number of other offices that provide resources to Partners in such areas as:
> 
> *Public Relations efforts
> * Information Technology
> *Legislative Advocacy
> *Organizational and administrative support
> * Fundraising and financial support; including possible direct contributions from C4L national to State Partners for specific projects and programs

----------


## AlterEgo

> i just called cfl and the lady who answered the phone transferred me to someone named andrew (i assume andrew ward). He said that he wasn't at liberty to answer my questions because john tate was going to release a statement about it that i'd be sure to see either today or tomorrow. He also said they were receiving numerous inquiries about it.


thanks for posting this. It needs to be repeated

----------


## AlterEgo

> What if there's a secret strategy behind this ad buy that we don't understand because we don't have all the facts, and C4L can't reveal them for now because a) doing so would make the strategy pointless, and b) some of us wouldn't agree with the strategy, even if it has a good chance of working?
> 
> If C4L's plan is to take over the GOP (rather than educating the grassroots and the masses) then they will have to make some tough strategic decisions that will be unpopular with many of us. I guess we all have to ask ourselves, which issues are non-negotiable and which ones are we willing to compromise on?
> 
> Should we really second-guess every strategic decision they make, as long as they make perfectly clear what principles they stand for and what their political goals are?


But the CFL should not compromise there principals for political gain. Conservatives have done this for decades to achieve isolated victories (Scott Brown anyone?) and government has only gotten bigger in the long run.

----------


## Mini-Me

> A lot of posters that havent been around for awhile coming in to bash the C4L is making me wonder...


To be fair, people who were critical of the CFL in the beginning were kind of marginalized.  It makes sense that they would have sat on the sidelines and waited for everyone else to come around to their position.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I am going to say this....
> 
> I am not at all happy about the ad AT ALL and want to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone.
> 
> But, in my opinion, this has turned into a witch hunt.  
> 
> I am giving them the day to straighten this out.  You do as you please.


Well, thanks, LE. It's lovely that you're giving us permission to finally be able to talk about this in the open and do some investigating. Really, thank you so much for allowing us to do this. I know it's hard, but you're really putting yourself out for us and I am deeply appreciative.

----------


## AlterEgo

> audit the cfl!:d


+11111

qft!!!!!


Blimp!

----------


## Meatwasp

> I am going to say this....
> 
> I am not at all happy about the ad AT ALL and want to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone.
> 
> But, in my opinion, this has turned into a witch hunt.  
> 
> I am giving them the day to straighten this out.  You do as you please.


Yep, you are right. I am guilty also. Will wait for the verdict.

----------


## ItsTime

> To be fair, people who were critical of the CFL in the beginning were kind of marginalized.  It makes sense that they would have sat on the sidelines and waited for everyone else to come around to their position.


So everyone is going to $#@! on them before they release a statement, got it. 

If people remember I was pretty critical of C4L and never sat on the sidelines about it. 

But having lived in Colorado I know how much an ad like this, helping someone who has no chance to win, will get the attention of many neo-cons and make them wonder what the C4L is about.

----------


## Original_Intent

> Well, thanks, LE. It's lovely that you're giving us permission to finally be able to talk about this in the open and do some investigating. Really, thank you so much for allowing us to do this. I know it's hard, but you're really putting yourself out for us and I am deeply appreciative.


Why don't you put your claws away LLS?

I am as pissed as anyone but I am looking forward to what kind of spin C4L puts on this. LE is simply stating that she is taking a 'wait and see" position, anyone else can do what they want. And somehow you found a way to take umbrage at such a common phrase, and twist it that LE is "granting permission" to others to do what they want? It's a common phrase and anyone with half a brain knows it is not equated with "giving permission." Why so hostile?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

"Reduce taxes, control government spending." ---Buck Campaign Ad

The above represents the reason why third parties emphasize their principled platforms to a fault. This 'controlling spending' cant is not the Paul agenda platform of 2007-2008, or that of the Revolution, the liberty movement, the (original pronouncements of) CFL, the Tea Parties, or anything else we thought we agreed on. It is the language of milquetoast GOP hacks everywhere. It's the mantra Monica Crowley used on the McLaughlin Group to describe the basic agenda of the Tea Party movement. It is deliberate misdescription designed to co-opt us. This is why we should keep the old Ron Paul 2008 palm cards handy, to remind us of what the real platform is about**:

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Why don't you put your claws away LLS?
> 
> I am as pissed as anyone but I am looking forward to what kind of spin C4L puts on this. LE is simply stating that she is taking a 'wait and see" position, anyone else can do what they want. And somehow you found a way to take umbrage at such a common phrase, and twist it that LE is "granting permission" to others to do what they want? It's a common phrase and anyone with half a brain knows it is not equated with "giving permission." Why so hostile?


YOU HAVE NO IDEA what the back story is here and out of a spirit of reconciliation I am NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT it, but trust me, IF YOU KNEW you would not say that to me. MYOB.

----------


## BenIsForRon

Ok, if we don't get a response by tomorrow we're going to have to take some organized action.  This is shocking.

----------


## Mini-Me

> So everyone is going to $#@! on them before they release a statement, got it.


Honestly, I think the whole way the CFL went about this without grassroots input or communication - regardless of their reasons - justifies $#@!ting on them and demanding that heads roll, all by itself.  It's the same secrecy and oligarchical practices that bothered the grassroots about the campaign, and it's also reminiscent of Washington's arrogance.  If you read LittleLightShining's post on the other page, their complete disconnect from the grassroots (and possible ulterior motives / complete co-opting) should be readily apparent.  Combine the sleaziness she posted about with what seems like almost daily emails begging for money.  To me, the real question isn't whether we should be mad, but whether the national CFL is worth salvaging at all.




> If people remember I was pretty critical of C4L and never sat on the sidelines about it.


Can you blame the people who did though?  (I'm not defending rockandrollsouls though...he's just being, uh...himself, again.)




> But having lived in Colorado I know how much an ad like this, helping someone who has no chance to win, will get the attention of many neo-cons and make them wonder what the C4L is about.


It's making non-neocons wonder what the CFL is about too though.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> YOU HAVE NO IDEA what the back story is here and out of a spirit of reconciliation I am NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT it, but trust me, IF YOU KNEW you would not say that to me. MYOB.


Yes, I think he would.

You have ALREADY GIVEN the "back story", on the open board.  Or have you forgotten that?   Feel free to go pull that thread up again and go after it, if you so choose.  I've linked to it on several occasions, as you recall.  You have a personal vendetta against C4L and you have been looking for blood for quite awhile.

Ah, there is nothing like a good lynch mob in the morning....

----------


## Mini-Me

> Ah, there is nothing like a good lynch mob in the morning....


I can't help that indignant outrage is one of my favorite emotions...

----------


## Liberty Star

Two days is a long time in a campaign's life,  leaving a claim like this unanswered can do a lot of damage if not dealt with promptly :




> News | January 26, 2010, 2:34 am
> 
> Big bucks – and lots of praise – for Senate candidate Ken Buck
> By Lynn Bartels Denver Post Staff Writer 
> 
> Ken Buck, U.S. Senate candidate
> A group called Campaign for Liberty is spending almost $350,000 on ads touting Ken Buck’s GOP Senate campaign.


If it's not true,  it just takes two minutes to deny it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I can't help that indignant outrage is one of my favorite emotions...

----------


## rancher89

> I am going to say this....
> 
> I am not at all happy about the ad AT ALL and want to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone.
> 
> But, in my opinion, this has turned into a witch hunt.  
> 
> I am giving them the day to straighten this out.  You do as you please.


I hear you, it's just so hard to understand why it is taking so long for them to respond--I mean really??  I don't feel that this is a witch hunt, I'm just concerned that the longer this goes on, the worse the statement is going to be.  Will we believe the statement from Tate or whomever when it comes out?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> the longer it takes for them to respond, the less credible the response will seem.  It's going to get harder and harder for those who are skeptical of the goals of the c4l to get past this, the longer it takes for the c4l to respond.
> 
> Compare it to a forest fire, something i know a fair amount about.
> 
> It is much better to catch it as early as possible than to have to fight a huge blaze.
> 
> Whatever the reason, whatever the rational behind the ad happening, the ad happened and howard is quoted early on in this thread that the ad is not in support of the candidate but in support of the survey.  The ad, however, to most who watch it, it looks like the c4l is supporting the neocon.  And then there is the matter of the $350k.
> 
> So, somebody screwed up in the c4l or this is an infiltration of the c4l and somebody screwed up as a supervisor or coordinator--because the c4l has been hammering on the "do not support candidates" drum for months.  In atlanta rothfeld went so far as to say "support no candidates at all."  "easier to hold their feet to the fire." "less chance of support for a candidate coming back to bite us."  etc etc  
> ...


+1776

----------


## MsDoodahs

> i can't help that indignant outrage is one of my favorite emotions...


righteous anger!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> A lot of posters that havent been around for awhile coming in to bash the C4L is making me wonder...


I hope you're not referring to me. I've been around.....and, if it's any consolation, I've been bashing C4L since day one

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I have a document that a got early last year. This document is titled "The Campaign For Liberty Partner Relationship". This document details what the state partners need to do to be affiliated with national and what national will do for the state partners. It ties the hands of the states quite nicely. as I've said before VT has not affiliated.
> 
> I want to quote part of this document, the section entitled "State Partner Goals".
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how they ordered the goals?
> 
> In exchange for states fulfilling these goals they get
> ...


And the funny thing is that information was available to everyone BEFORE they donated to and support C4L. Anyone could have seen that it was a recipe for disaster....if they only read

----------


## LittleLightShining

> And the funny thing is that information was available to everyone BEFORE they donated to and support C4L. Anyone could have seen that it was a recipe for disaster....if they only read


No, this wasn't available to everyone. This was given to interim state coordinators to "share this information with other members of your state organization (especially those who prepare newsletters, stationary, etc)."

----------


## Chieftain1776

In addition to why they endorsed Buck I want to know what the process was. If I was a big donor I'd demand to know the names of from who suggested the idea all the way to who signed off on it.

----------


## ItsTime

> In addition to why they endorsed Buck I want to know what the process was. If I was a big donor I'd demand to know the names of from who suggested the idea all the way to who signed off on it.


They did not endorse him. Get your facts right before you bitch.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I hear you, it's just so hard to understand why it is taking so long for them to respond--I mean really??  I don't feel that this is a witch hunt, I'm just concerned that the longer this goes on, the worse the statement is going to be.  Will we believe the statement from Tate or whomever when it comes out?


I have no idea, rancher and I agree with you that the longer they wait, the worse they are making the situation.

I'm not happy, either.

----------


## Chieftain1776

I just thought of something... could it have been a new set of donations from some of Buck's supporters and C4L just allowed themselves to be used as a front for Buck? This really could be it and it would make sense as 501(4) groups don't have to disclose their donors and can recieve unlimited amounts of donations from a single donor. This is what many suspect Mitt Romney did to Mike Huckabee in '08. Really I think this could be it:




> In an interesting twist, many donors to the Club for Growth have also donated to the campaign of Mitt Romney, who has been attacking Huckabee with his own ads (For his part, Huckabee, in a now controversial press briefing, announced that he was pulling an attack ad of his own designed to respond to Romney, and then showed the ad to the press).
> 
> Houston home-builder Bob J. Perry of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" fame, has donated $2,300 to Romney - and two weeks ago gave $200,000 to the Club for Growth, the Times reports. The paper also discovered that Boston investor John Childs, who donated $2,100 to Romney in 2007, has given $100,000 to the Club for Growth.
> 
> The Times' analysis of over 400 other donors to the Club for Growth in 2007 shows they also have given $60,000 to Romney, $65,000 to Giuliani, but less than $4,000 to Huckabee.
> 
> Romney's aides told the Times he has no connection to the Club for Growth's ads.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> in addition to why they endorsed buck i want to know what the process was. If i was a big donor i'd demand to know the names of from who suggested the idea all the way to who signed off on it.


yes.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> They did not endorse him. Get your facts right before you bitch.


I'm sorry but if you make an ad like that...it's an endorsement. If C4L made the same ad for Obama it'd be an endorsement and people would be right to call C4L out on it.

----------


## brandon

> "Reduce taxes, control government spending." ---Howard Campaign Ad
> 
> The above represents the reason why third parties emphasize their principled platforms to a fault. This 'controlling spending' cant is not the Paul agenda platform of 2007-2008, or that of the Revolution, the liberty movement, the (original pronouncements of) CFL, the Tea Parties, or anything else we thought we agreed on. It is the language of milquetoast GOP hacks everywhere. It's the mantra Monica Crowley used on the McLaughlin Group to describe the basic agenda of the Tea Party movement. It is deliberate misdescription designed to co-opt us. This is why we should keep the old Ron Paul 2008 palm cards handy, to remind us of what the real platform is about**:


Excellent post.

----------


## LibertyMage

496 comments and 15,593 views.  Where is this sort of energy when we need to get things done?

----------


## ItsTime

> 496 comments and 15,593 views.  Where is this sort of energy when we need to get things done?


Exactly!

----------


## specsaregood

> I just thought of something... could it have been a new set of donations from some of Buck's supporters and C4L just allowed themselves to be used as a front for Buck? This really could be it and it would make sense as 501(4) groups don't have to disclose their donors and can recieve unlimited amounts of donations from a single donor.


This occurred to me as well.  If it is the case, I sure hope the C4L got paid the going rate of a high-class escort and not the wages of a street-walker.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> This occurred to me as well.  If it is the case, I sure hope the C4L got paid the going rate of a high-class escort and not the wages of a street-walker.


C4L should not be engaged in this, regardless. Doesn't exactly make the whole situation any better.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 496 comments and 15,593 views.  Where is this sort of energy when we need to get things done?


Yeah, if I got $40 for every post, my 1st quarter would be totally funded ;-)

(if I got $7 for every view, my whole campaign would be funded through November)

----------


## ItsTime

> Yeah, if I got $40 for every post, my 1st quarter would be totally funded ;-)
> 
> (if I got $7 for every view, my whole campaign would be funded through November)


Want me to make a thread slandering you? Sadly thats about the only type of threads that get attention here.

----------


## specsaregood

> C4L should not be engaged in this, regardless. Doesn't exactly make the whole situation any better.


No argument there.  Just saying if they did allow themselves to be _used_ as some sort of intermediary they better have gotten well paid for it and not just some backroom-friend deal.  Because they just tarnished their reputation..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Want me to make a thread slandering you? Sadly thats about the only type of threads that get attention here.


LOL!  can't be any worse than the.... three?  people who have signed up to take part in the moneybomb ;-)

----------


## ItsTime

> LOL!  can't be any worse than the.... three?  people who have signed up to take part in the moneybomb ;-)


Youll get something from me, I never sign up for money bombs I just donate

----------


## LittleLightShining

> LOL!  can't be any worse than the.... three?  people who have signed up to take part in the moneybomb ;-)


I'm gonna give (I promise) but I can't say I will til I have the money in my hand, Gunny.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, if I got $40 for every post, my 1st quarter would be totally funded ;-)
> 
> (if I got $7 for every view, my whole campaign would be funded through November)


Just fill out your survey and get your $350,000 already.

----------


## brandon

> Just fill out your survey and get your $350,000 already.


lmao

----------


## Adam Kokesh

Gunny, I got your back and I'm in for your bomb with what little I have for personal funds. I still haven't gotten a C4L survey either. I'm reserving any judgment until I hear from Tate, but it had better be good!

----------


## ItsTime

> Gunny, I got your back and I'm in for your bomb with what little I have for personal funds. I still haven't gotten a C4L survey either. I'm reserving any judgment until I hear from Tate, but it had better be good!


More money coming your way too man. GIVE THEM HELL!

----------


## constituent

> 496 comments and 15,593 views.  Where is this sort of energy when we need to get things done?


evidence of a credibility gap that plays out in terms of level of activism ("get[ting] things done")?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

It's mad appreciated guys!  I am trying not to turn into a complainer on this issue, I just wish y'all knew how frustrating it is -- and 75% of what I've gotten so far has come from right here on the forums.  I already know from hearing people that my locals will pick up even more when they know I'm a "serious" candidate, and the regional big guy has told me outright that as a first timer the Ron Paul network is the only chance in hell I have of getting enough funding to win the race.

I know I should be bringing in somewhere around $350 a day right now to be competitive, and when I do the math I'm not sure whether I should laugh or I should cry.  As far as being a legislator goes, I have that skill in spades, if the stunning progress I was able to make in the conventions is any indication.  raising money for a campaign?  not so much.  The local Paulers just look baffled when I ask for help on fundraising, like it's supposed to magically fall out of the sky lol.

Even the establishment GOP has pretty much told me if I can raise the money the race is almost a given.  But that's one hell of a big IF.

I have the funds for filing, so that won't be a problem.  I don't yet have them for bumper stickers and slimjims, which are what all my volunteers are crying for right now.  We just need to demonstrate to these people that I am a serious candidate, and that will give me a bargaining chip when I go in to the streets and ask people to open their wallets and help get the message out.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Just fill out your survey and get your $350,000 already.


ROFL that's awesome!

----------


## jmdrake

> ROFL that's awesome!


  On a serious tip, I just pledged.  I hope you have a snail mail address set up for this.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny, I got your back and I'm in for your bomb with what little I have for personal funds. I still haven't gotten a C4L survey either. I'm reserving any judgment until I hear from Tate, but it had better be good!


Hey Adam, thanks a millon!  I'm in on yours with what I can spare as well -- which isn't as much as I'd like given the last 2 years of giving up work for activism.

When you get to Congress, you will absolutely need the pressure coming from the State Assemblies in order to have the stick for your carrot of Constitutionalist reform.

I'm not gonna give up, and I know you aren't either.  Come hell or high water we're going to make this thing happen.  We have to -- America itself depends on it.

And I agree, I am suspending judgement on this until I hear something from John Tate, and yes, it had certainly better be good.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> On a serious tip, I just pledged.  I hope you have a snail mail address set up for this.


Snail mail is on my donations page.  just click on "Donations" and it's the first three lines that are in bold.  And a million thanks to you also!

----------


## Tina Richards

> LOL!  can't be any worse than the.... three?  people who have signed up to take part in the moneybomb ;-)


As a Marine Mom, I am pledging right now.   Good Luck!  I'll be spreading the word among other Marines I know that would love to support you.

----------


## rancher89

Gunny knows I'll help do what I can, when I can.  If Adam has his back, I've got the right side...LOL


Seriously folks, it's the message not the man or the organization.  

Support the candidates you support DIRECTLY.


That being said, Tate's got some 'splaining to do...

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Just got home from work.....

E-Mail from C4L....ASKING FOR DONATIONS!!~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


i AM MORE FURIOUS NOW THEN EVEN LAST NIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO ANSWERS JUST THE $#@!ING DAILY UPDATE AND IN IT ANOTHER PLEAS FOR FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!@@!!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!

i HAVE UNSUBSCRIBED FROM ALL; THE EMAIL LISTS AND WILL BE DROPPING MY MEMBERSHIP SHORTLY.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Those are automatic emails.


Let's just wait for the statement people...

----------


## Paulitical Correctness

This _still_ aint resolved?

----------


## rancher89

nope

----------


## ItsTime

> Those are automatic emails.
> 
> 
> Let's just wait for the statement people...


Same with the phone calls, Im sure.

----------


## JoshLowry

> 496 comments and 15,593 views.  Where is this sort of energy when we need to get things done?


Some people can donate time, other money.  Not everyone can contribute both.

I think that when you start spending said money in questionable ways then those donors can get quite upset.  It's not too tough to understand why this is a big issue.

----------


## Paulitical Correctness

I loathe negativity.

Therefore, + $15.00 to Gunny.

Matchmeplz.

----------


## johnrocks

I just talked to a man named Andrew at C4L and he said that a local group of C4L supporters paid for this ad and that it did not come out of the national general fund, he said that it was not an endorsement by the national organization and that hopefully an announcement is forthcoming, he sounded sincere and frustrated at the same time.

----------


## ItsTime

> I just talked to a man named Andred at C4L and he said that a local group of C4L supporters paid for this ad and that it did not come out of the national general fund, he said that it was not an endorsement by the national organization and that hopefully an announcement is forthcoming, he sounded sincere and frustrated at the same time.


If true, all Im going to say is told ya so... lol

----------


## johnrocks

> If true, all Im going to say is told ya so... lol


I don't know what you mean by that

----------


## JoshLowry

> I just talked to a man named Andrew at C4L and he said that a local group of C4L supporters paid for this ad and that it did not come out of the national general fund, he said that it was not an endorsement by the national organization and that hopefully an announcement is forthcoming, he sounded sincere and frustrated at the same time.


So now we have an unofficial statement to speculate over.



Is it too much to ask for a quick five sentence response from Tate?

----------


## MRoCkEd

> I just talked to a man named Andrew at C4L and he said that a local group of C4L supporters paid for this ad and that it did not come out of the national general fund, he said that it was not an endorsement by the national organization and that hopefully an announcement is forthcoming, he sounded sincere and frustrated at the same time.


Sounds like good news... I hope this is true.
It just seems like a lot of money for a "local group of C4L supporters"

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> As a Marine Mom, I am pledging right now.   Good Luck!  I'll be spreading the word among other Marines I know that would love to support you.


Thank you Tina -- Marines, in my experience, bear the highest fidelity with the Constitution of any branch.  As Rancher said right below your post, it's about the message, not the man or the group.  The message is that our Republic is in dire straits and grave danger, and radical action must be taken to preserve the blessing of liberty to our posterity.  

We can restore the Constitutional order, and with the help of people like you, Rancher, Adam Kokesh and so many others on this forum and elsewhere, by God we will.

----------


## LittleLightShining

I want the 990's. Doesn't ANYONE else have some time and research skills to help me find them? I don't understand WHY they are not available.

----------


## pacelli

> *Is it too much to ask for a quick five sentence response from Tate?*


Quite frankly I don't care what Tate says anymore.  The lack of attention to his own organization is telling in and of itself.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Sounds like good news... I hope this is true.
> It just seems like a lot of money for a "local group of C4L supporters"


Good news and they best name every single one of them.

----------


## ItsTime

> I want the 990's. Doesn't ANYONE else have some time and research skills to help me find them? I don't understand WHY they are not available.


I have found that government online documents are rarely updated properly. Good luck in you quest.

----------


## dr. hfn

something smells fishy

----------


## LibertyMage

> Just a couple of things when reading your response.  I don't want to come of as riding a wave of insanity or flipping out about neocons.  To be quite frank, if this money was spent on say a Rand Paul ad for the same given reason, I'd raise the same question.


The money would be wasted or Rand at this point in the game and frankly it may backfire if Rand were associated with us right now.  He is in the lead.  When that happens you keep your mouth closed and let the machine that is working continue to work unmolested.




> Specifically, you said the ad is not about him (the candidate Buck).  I understand the statement made by Gary Howard is a way of preserving the status of the 501c4 corp in not being allowed to endorse specific candidates.  So, to me, it looks like that little survey qualifier was thrown in there to stay out of trouble with the IRS.  So I think to say that the ad was not about the candidate is a shady excuse at best.
> 
> On your reasoning behind the surveys, assuming that is the real reason this money was spent, what evidence do you have that these types of methods are effective?  Why are these survey's not being promoted at the C4L guest or subscriber levels?  Certainly surveying is no secret strategy that needs to be protected.  I get GOP surveys ALL the time.  But, no C4L surveys.  What's up with that?  A search at the C4L website for "candidate survey" turns up one hit.  One.  As a coordinator, will you stipulate to the fact that this particular strategy has not been openly discussed to the point where the leadership at all levels has determined that general funds to the tune of  THREE HUNDRED and FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS should be spent on a survey for ONE primary for ONE district?  You want to add that up?  That's a pretty big carrot on the stick gimmick to get a politician to fill out your form.


When you combine political candidates surveys and the voting histories of candidates in office, you create what is called a "scorecard".  You print this out and put it in the hands of voters.  *This is a great way to leverage organization in order to educate people as to who the liberty candidates are*.  For those of you that can't decipher that statement I'll say it bluntly - it is one of the best ways to influence voting toward our candidates.  All activist organizations use this tactic.  You can see for yourself.  At the March on Annapolis, which the Baltimore Campaign for Liberty helped organize a few weeks ago, people went rabid for these scorecards.

This way of promoting the scorecards may sound iffy and the cost certainly sounds like a bit much to me.  However, it is necessary in activist politics to praise someone when they do what you want and club them when they don't.  I know this is Rothfeld's style because I heard him say it first hand at Valley Forge.  And why would C4L promote this at a subscriber level?  That is a great way for a Socialist or Neocon plant to get one step ahead of our initiative.




> *Yes it appears that we are establishing as fact that C4L sent 350k to fund a neocon campaign*.  One which I might add did have a Ron Paul supporter from the grassroots involved in who happened to tie for 3rd place with Tancredo in an early straw poll.  I don't find that laughable at all.  Why the hell would I want to become more involved with politics when the only organization who would ever get my political donation would go ahead and fund ads for my opponents?  Seems to counter the whole idea of getting involved, no?


While I am sympathetic to your questions, I really don't know the details of this.  I am giving John Tate the benefit of the doubt because I have been to meetings with this guy and I know he is faithful to the cause.  My problem with all of this is comments like yours above.  No, we do not know for a fact "that C4L sent 350k to fund a neocon campaign".  As I have said before, you have to club people when they don't do what you want and praise them when you do.  You have to rub shoulders with people you don't totally agree with in this game.  That may bother some of you, but if you are committed to playing the game it is a reality you will have to come to understand.

Again, I don't know much about this initiative.  The cost does sound suspect.  My point is that you can't call for the guillotine when something happens that you don't understand or disagree with.  Falling into this trap provides the "other side" easy ways to incite chaos within the movement.  And just because we don't have all the facts doesn't mean Tate is in the wrong.




> If this spending is raising concerns, what do you find so laughable?  Is it because the guy who benefited from the infusion of liberty cash is being labeled a neocon?
> Hey, maybe the guy deserves our support?  BUT, that is not what you are saying.  He is an unknown in the liberty movement, until now.  He has a very suspect agenda.  He could be appropriately labeled a neocon if people want to label, but looking at his issues (and hopefully reading his survey if C4L decides to make them public) should tell us where he stands.  
> 
> In the mean time, my donations were supposed to go to candidates with the Ron Paul platform.  I am almost offended by you saying that the reason for the reaction to this news is people being on the forum.  Look, you sure didn't waste your time responding.  How can you judge someone's activity from behind your computer screen lurking the site?  Do you understand that the research that is done openly on this forum is a HUGE contribution to the cause?  Do you understand that its not the politicians that you spend all your time shaking hands with that are going to change our country?  Its the faceless nameless people in the crowd that are doing whatever they can, and whatever they do best?


My problem here is that there are quite a large number of people who are willing to dump all over candidates, organizations or initiatives without thinking twice.  We are working our asses off in Baltimore to build a powerful group and a powerful brand.  This is the hard, dirty work that requires time and money that is hard to come by.  Last night at the Ron Paul speaking event in Baltimore, we put some serious work in.  When an article is put out, here is what we get:




> spongessuck
> Glen Mills, PA
> 
> C4L:
> 
> Please answer the question about alleged C4L contributions to Ken Buck's campaign.


*

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE $#@!ING KIDDING ME.*  $#@! like this is a quick way to $#@! on the efforts other people are putting forth.  If my memory serves correct, I have seen spongessuck quite a bit around this forum and haven't seen much of him at all at campaignforliberty.com.  That is not to say that he isn't putting in work in PA, but I would more then likely see him organize there or at events that other PA members are at.  The point is, there is a large disconnect with the "online" supporters and the people working in the trenches for hours every day.

A real movement does not happen on the internet.  It happens in the districts.  In the restaurants, political meetings, churches.  It happens shaking hands and sharing ideas.  It happens sharing a coffee or a burger or a beer.  There are a lot of people that need to understand this.  If you are truly devoted to the cause you need to elevate yourself beyond internet forum drama.




> Maybe some people like me are dog spit ugly and have no social skills (not true I just like to degrade myself to make points sometimes).  Do you want a jackass who can network representing you in public?  OR do you want him on the back end digging up information that you undoubtedly lurk for and then take out to the field with you?
> 
> Anyways.  Look I appreciate what you are saying and doing.  All I ask is that my money be spent wisely.  That's it.  I really don't even care so much about transparency as some other folks, but when it comes time to be accountable, like right now, I don't want to get fed the same crap that is going to get fed to the IRS.
> 
> "It wasn't and endorsement, we are promoting our surveys".  
> 
> BWWWAHHHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!11


I said it before and I will say it again - this isn't productive.  If you are really concerned about this issue, here is what you need to do:

Organize a resolution by:

1. Someone writing a resolution
2. Having people print it, sign it and mail it to someone.
3. Find a way to put it in the hands of John Tate.

If everyone here is sincere about pressing this issue, then you need to organize this.  I have contacts within the national C4L and I would be willing to try to speak with John personally and deliver the signatures to him next month at CPAC.

You are correct - everyone's contribution does count.  However, if you aren't "in the trenches" the only thing you all have accomplished so far is discouraging the people who are.  If you are sincere about pushing this issue send me a message and I will volunteer to make items 2 and 3 happen.

----------


## constituent

> I want the 990's. Doesn't ANYONE else have some time and research skills to help me find them? I don't understand WHY they are not available.


join guidestar

----------


## Todd

> Gunny, I got your back and I'm in for your bomb with what little I have for personal funds. I still haven't gotten a C4L survey either. I'm reserving any judgment until I hear from Tate, but it had better be good!





> As a Marine Mom, I am pledging right now.   Good Luck!  I'll be spreading the word among other Marines I know that would love to support you.






> I loathe negativity.
> 
> Therefore, + $15.00 to Gunny.
> 
> Matchmeplz.


I see a nice little trend here.   

What say we take a negative and turn it into a positive for guys like Gunny.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I just talked to a man named Andrew at C4L and he said that a local group of C4L supporters paid for this ad and that it did not come out of the national general fund, he said that it was not an endorsement by the national organization and that hopefully an announcement is forthcoming, he sounded sincere and frustrated at the same time.


Local group of neocon supporters co-opting C4L may explain the 350k but it does not excuse the using of the Campaign for Liberty name ion support of as neocon. And I highly doubt that some magical group of Liberty Supporters in Colorado would come up with that kind of money out of left field. I also don't believe they would put it to support a guy that BEAT a C4L member in a straw poll.  Sounds like C4L is taking time to perfect their bull$#@! spin of this.

----------


## LibertyMage

> Sounds like good news... I hope this is true.
> It just seems like a lot of money for a "local group of C4L supporters"


There was a post within the last several months on this very forum about this.  It went something like "we are going to be doing something very big within the next few months in Colorado".  Maybe this is it.  Someone needs to find this post.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I loathe negativity.
> 
> Therefore, + $15.00 to Gunny.
> 
> Matchmeplz.


You are awesome Paulitical Correctness! 

When the rubber meets the road, nobody comes through like the people that populate these forums.  While often reactionary we have a deep seated drive to get at the meat and truth of a story, and aside from a few outliers at the end of the day we all only want what's right and just.

The reason I get so frustrated about what I am unable to do, is precisely because I am so passionate about what must be done.  I have come to understand that the people we will elect to Congress, like Ron Paul, Adam Kokesh, and to the Senate like Rand Paul and Peter Schiff, will not be able to do the things that we need them to do to restore the Constitutional Order, without significant pressure from their peers in the State Assemblies.

I am awe-inspired by the energy and the passion that is being fed into the US Congress races for 2010, while I am also concerned that if we as a group fail to see the need for populating the State Legislatures they will languish on Capitol Hill without the necessary pressure from the States that will enable them to enact the kind of legislation that will be needed to restore the Constitution.

Folks like you will help to make this happen.  Thank you sir!

----------


## libertarian4321

As a supporter of the CFL and someone who traveled all the way to MN to help kick off the CFL, I find this very disturbing. 

I can't imagine the rationale behind this expenditure, and the long delay while the CFL conjures up a response is very suspicious.

The only good thing is that I haven't contributed to the CFL for a while as I've been supporting other candidates and self financing my own race for the Texas House of Representatives.

I eagerly await a reply from the CFL.  It better be good, or they won't be getting any more of my money.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I have found that government online documents are rarely updated properly. Good luck in you quest.


Thanks, that's helpful. 

I can find information on just about every other non-profit who has filed 990's.

----------


## johnrocks

> Local group of neocon supporters co-opting C4L may explain the 350k but it does not excuse the using of the Campaign for Liberty name ion support of as neocon. And I highly doubt that some magical group of Liberty Supporters in Colorado would come up with that kind of money out of left field. I also don't believe they would put it to support a guy that BEAT a C4L member in a straw poll.  Sounds like C4L is taking time to perfect their bull$#@! spin of this.


Your right, that is an awful lot of money from just local contributors, I think they know this is a major concern; I can't be the only one that he talked to about this today.

----------


## Reason

> I know C4L hasn't given him any money, we did do a television ad promoting C4L and mentioning he had responded to our candidate survey favorably.
> 
> Do you know of any other candidates whom have returned our survey favorably and we should look into?


My response was,

I guess the question now is how much was spent on this TV ad, hopefully not 350k....

I don't know of any other candidates whom have returned the survey.

I can tell you that the main reason for the outrage is that we have legit liberty candidates like Schiff, Rand, Glen etc that desperately need all the help they can get, so hearing that 350k was dropped on this is going to stir up a lot of emotion.

----------


## lx43

Thankfully, I have never given money to this organzation due to their constant phone calling and emails pimping for money--I have always thought that is what C4L primarly cares about is raising more money.   Not to mention, I have never seen an annual report to see what percentage  is spent on its mission versus what it spends on fundraising and administration cost.  I like to know what, where, and how my money is being spent before I will give to anyone.

----------


## eOs

350,000 dollars. a local coloradian c4l group. over a quarter million dollars. a local coloradian c4l group. hmmmmmmm

----------


## JoshLowry

> Originally Posted by Steve Bierfeldt in email
> 
> I know C4L hasn't given him any money, *we did do a television ad promoting C4L and mentioning he had responded to our candidate survey favorably.*
> 
> Do you know of any other candidates whom have returned our survey favorably and we should look into?
> 
> 
> My response was,
> 
> ...


That "TV ad" is exactly what everyone is talking about.  It might as well be an endorsement.

Of course they didn't directly give him money.    Sounds like major spin to me...

----------


## ItsTime

> Thanks, that's helpful. 
> 
> I can find information on *just about every other non-profit* who has filed 990's.


Ive never looked up tax info. But as you see they are not updated properly.

I wasnt trying to be an ass, just stating my experience with government websites, which you are finding to be true as well.

----------


## ItsTime

> 350,000 dollars. a local coloradian c4l group. over a quarter million dollars. a local coloradian c4l group. hmmmmmmm


Do you find that fishy? I dont.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Ive never looked up tax info. But as you see they are not updated properly.
> 
> I wasnt trying to be an ass, just stating my experience with government websites, which you are finding to be true as well.


There are a number of websites which can be used to research non-profits. I have exhausted all of the resources I know about.

----------


## dr. hfn

> There are a number of websites which can be used to research non-profits. I have exhausted all of the resources I know about.


seriosuly? what the hell!

----------


## LittleLightShining

> seriosuly? what the hell!


It's why I've been asking for help since last night

----------


## newbitech

> There are a number of websites which can be used to research non-profits. I have exhausted all of the resources I know about.


do you have C4L's EIN?

----------


## Danke

> 350,000 dollars. a local coloradian c4l group. over a quarter million dollars. a local coloradian c4l group. hmmmmmmm


That'll buy an awful lot of Rocky Mountain oysters.

----------


## Dreamofunity

> That "TV ad" is exactly what everyone is talking about.  It might as well be an endorsement.


This. 

Anyone who watches that ad and says it's not an endorsement (even if indirectly) is blind or a shill.

----------


## RCA

Whether or not we know all the details of THIS problem, more light has definitely been shown on the other KNOWN issues with C4L, which up until now, probably have been swept under the rug by most of us out of good faith.

----------


## ItsTime

Really puts a damper on states rights huh?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Do you find that fishy? I dont.


why? could you explain in 50,000 words or less?

----------


## angelatc

> I want the 990's. Doesn't ANYONE else have some time and research skills to help me find them? I don't understand WHY they are not available.


I already looked. They definitely aren't where they should be.

----------


## ItsTime

> why? could you explain in 50,000 words or less?


Why your group cant raise a measly 350k? Doesnt mean people that know what their doing cant. Colorado is a pretty rich state.  Its only 350 people giving a grand each.

----------


## angelatc

> do you have C4L's EIN?


You don't need it.  You can search by name on the IRS site.  In fact, you can look up a non-profit's EIN on the IRS site.

----------


## Reason

@ 1800RONPAUL which goes to C4L the woman who answered had no idea wtf I was talking about...

----------


## newbitech

> You don't need it.  You can search by name on the IRS site.  In fact, you can look up a non-profit's EIN on the IRS site.



was just curious, because without the filing, do we actually know the name filed?  For instance is it Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty or just Campaign for Liberty? 

I remember looking for the filings back in Jan 09 didnt find anything then either.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> do you have C4L's EIN?


There is no EIN for "Campaign For Liberty" that I can find.




> I already looked. They definitely aren't where they should be.


Makes you wonder...




> was just curious, because without the filing, do we actually know the name filed?  For instance is it Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty or just Campaign for Liberty? 
> 
> I remember looking for the filings back in Jan 09 didnt find anything then either.


Not finding EIN's or 990's for "Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty", either.

----------


## johnrocks

I hope this doesn't derail our entire movement though.

----------


## ItsTime

> There is no EIN for "Campaign For Liberty" that I can find.
> 
> Makes you wonder...
> 
> Not finding EIN's or 990's for "Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty", either.


campaignforliberty.com? I did a whois on the domain but the domain info is private.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I hope this doesn't derail our entire movement though.


If anything I think it will make people realize that they need to contribute directly to candidates and get more involved locally. At least that's what I hope.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> Why your group cant raise a measly 350k? Doesnt mean people that know what their doing cant. Colorado is a pretty rich state.  Its only 350 people giving a grand each.


As I've said elsewhere...the mountain west is where the liberty movement has a good chance. It's definitely possible... although I still think it's pro-Buck millionaires just giving the money to C4L to run ads. If this is the case I don't even mind so much, Buck looks like the better and more viable of the bunch and it may be a good thing for the C4L in Colorado. Others might have more of a problem with the use of the name.

----------


## newbitech

> There is no EIN for "Campaign For Liberty" that I can find.
> 
> Makes you wonder...
> 
> Not finding EIN's or 990's for "Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty", either.


so I tried a search for 




> 5211 Port Royal Road, Suite 310


the address in google.  

Try plugging in 2010 Campaign for Liberty in your resources.

Edit: and also 2009 Campaign for Liberty

----------


## ItsTime

> As I've said elsewhere...the mountain west is where the liberty movement has a good chance. It's definitely possible... although I still think it's pro-Buck millionaires just giving the money to C4L to run ads. If this is the case I don't even mind so much, Buck looks like the better and more viable of the bunch and it may be a good thing for the C4L in Colorado. Others might have more of a problem with the use of the name.


plausible.

----------


## RCA

> If anything I think it will make people realize that they need to contribute directly to candidates and get more involved locally. At least that's what I hope.


I second this! While a "national" organization may be more flashy, it has way, way more unknowns like we've clearly seen.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> I second this! While a "national" organization may be more flashy, it has way, way more unknowns like we've clearly seen.


Well I know with Club for Growth they allow you to direct your funds to a specific race/candidate. If C4L is going to be involved in this type of activity it needs to come up with a transparent process.

----------


## pacelli

The plot thickens...




> Buck earned his undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1981, and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Wyoming School of Law in 1985. *In 1986, he was hired by then-congressman Dick Cheney to work on the Iran-Contra Investigation.* Following that assignment, he worked as a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C. In 1990, Buck joined the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado where he became Chief of the Criminal Division. In 2004, he was elected the District Attorney for Weld County, Colorado. Throughout his years in Colorado, Buck has served as an instructor at the University of Denver Law School and for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy.


and....... lets fight those terrorists over there!

YouTube - Question 2 Ken Buck Response U S Senate Candidate Forum 9 25 09


YouTube - Closing Statement Ken Buck U S Senate Candidate Forum 9 25 09

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> The plot thickens...
> 
> 
> 
> and....... lets fight those terrorists over there!
> 
> YouTube - Question 2 Ken Buck Response U S Senate Candidate Forum 9 25 09
> 
> 
> YouTube - Closing Statement Ken Buck U S Senate Candidate Forum 9 25 09


Thank you for researching. To me its not even the $350k that could have supported Liberty Candidates as the blatant selling out of principles. I would not feel any less pissed off had the C4L spent $1 on this chump neocon

----------


## MRoCkEd

From what I'm hearing, C4L didn't spend anything on this. A group with money wanted to run ads for Ken, and they asked if C4L was willing to do it and get free publicity for their survey.

----------


## dr. hfn

> From what I'm hearing, C4L didn't spend anything on this. A group with money wanted to run ads for Ken, and they asked if C4L was willing to do it and get free publicity for their survey.


that was not supposed to come out yet, nothing is confirmed

----------


## RCA

> From what I'm hearing, C4L didn't spend anything on this. A group with money wanted to run ads for Ken, and they asked if C4L was willing to do it and get free publicity for their survey.


Even IF the money came from somewhere else, there is still the endorsement folly.

----------


## angelatc

> From what I'm hearing, C4L didn't spend anything on this. A group with money wanted to run ads for Ken, and they asked if C4L was willing to do it and get free publicity for their survey.


That makes no sense.  Nobody in politics is that friendly.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> From what I'm hearing, C4L didn't spend anything on this. A group with money wanted to run ads for Ken, and they asked if C4L was willing to do it and get free publicity for their survey.


Would not change the fact they they supported a neocon. I don't care if the god damn billionaire finally came through.

You would sell your soul for $350,000,?

----------


## specsaregood

> Others might have more of a problem with the use of the name.


If a random group can raise money and run an ad for their candidate and stick the CFL logo on it, well just wait until some "progressives" do the same thing for one of their candidates.  Or even some "White nationalists".

----------


## MsDoodahs

> From what I'm hearing, C4L didn't spend anything on this. A group with money wanted to run ads for Ken, and they asked if C4L was willing to do it and get free publicity for their survey.


So in other words....CFL is a whore?

Gee....THAT will sure make everyone feel loads better...

----------


## newbitech

> Even IF the money came from somewhere else, there is still the endorsement folly.


and the promise for more.




> * So as soon as another candidate answers our survey, we'll probably do another ad stating that*

----------


## klamath

> If anything I think it will make people realize that they need to contribute directly to candidates and get more involved locally. At least that's what I hope.


No. I don't think you realize how bad this will be. If CFL comes down as a Ron Paul sponsered crooky organization with RP's knowledge and or participation the thought of sending money to any of these other candidate makes me want to puke. If RP can't be trusted I sure as hell am not going to be donating to people like Medina, Schiff, Kokesh. I have had thirty years to watch and double check RP, so if he is running a fly by night organization then you can't even begin to sell me on any other candidate I have only heard bits and pieces of for the last few years. 

*This RP liberty movement will come to one big assed screaching halt without a doubt.*

It is not just about getting even with some top down organization called CFL it will be bringing down RP.
If I can't trust RP there isn't anyone on this forum or in the movement I will ever trust.

----------


## eOs

barack obama fill out dat survay!

----------


## Bruno

> Would not change the fact they they supported a neocon. I don't care if the god damn billionaire finally came through.
> 
> *You would sell your soul for $350,000*,?


in gold or FRN's?  jk.

----------


## pacelli

> So in other words....CFL is a whore?
> 
> Gee....THAT will sure make everyone feel loads better...


As tkubic said, that wasn't supposed to come out yet... LOL.  Gotta wait until this week's phone bank is full of cash.



To me, it is the principle of it.  Helping a former Cheney employee who wants to kill the terrorists "over there" discolors every candidate associated with the CFL.

----------


## angelatc

> As I've said elsewhere...the mountain west is where the liberty movement has a good chance. It's definitely possible... although I still think it's pro-Buck millionaires just giving the money to C4L to run ads. If this is the case I don't even mind so much, Buck looks like the better and more viable of the bunch and it may be a good thing for the C4L in Colorado. Others might have more of a problem with the use of the name.


Taking money from war mongers in exchange for services isn't the way some of us had hoped the movement would grow.

----------


## rancher89

> Taking money from war mongers in exchange for services isn't the way some of us had hoped the movement would grow.


qft

----------


## JoshLowry

> *This RP liberty movement will come to one big assed screaching halt without a doubt.*
> 
> It is not just about getting even with some top down organization called CFL it will be bringing down RP.
> If I can't trust RP there isn't anyone on this forum or in the movement I will ever trust.


You can trust Bryan and I.  We have nothing to do with Mossad.



Who am I kidding?  Trust no one!

----------


## angelatc

It just seems that Ron Paul has a habit of surrounding himself with opportunists.  It's not that I don't trust Ron Paul, or his philosophy.

----------


## rancher89

Too trusting?

----------


## klamath

> You can trust Bryan and I.  We have nothing to do with Mossad.
> 
> 
> 
> Who am I kidding?  Trust no one!


Everyone knows Bryan is Mossad

Were you counting on that white text to show up on quotation/

----------


## newbitech

> Everyone knows Bryan is Mossad



hide the truth in plain site !

----------


## johnrocks

> If anything I think it will make people realize that they need to contribute directly to candidates and get more involved locally. At least that's what I hope.


That is hopefully what will happen , I seriously think  that is the only route for me going forward.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> Taking money from war mongers in exchange for services isn't the way some of us had hoped the movement would grow.


The C4L is only a part of the movement. C4L's endorsements an even smaller part. If they banked some extra money and recognition while giving the endorsement then it's not so offensive to me. 

I guess my "rule" would be for C4L to support the most pro-liberty candidate that has a chance as long as it's not non-interventionist money.

----------


## Mini-Me

> No. I don't think you realize how bad this will be. If CFL comes down as a Ron Paul sponsered crooky organization with RP's knowledge and or participation the thought of sending money to any of these other candidate makes me want to puke. If RP can't be trusted I sure as hell am not going to be donating to people like Medina, Schiff, Kokesh. I have had thirty years to watch and double check RP, so if he is running a fly by night organization then you can't even begin to sell me on any other candidate I have only heard bits and pieces of for the last few years. 
> 
> *This RP liberty movement will come to one big assed screaching halt without a doubt.*
> 
> It is not just about getting even with some top down organization called CFL it will be bringing down RP.
> If I can't trust RP there isn't anyone on this forum or in the movement I will ever trust.


Ugh, I'm just as upset as anyone about the CFL's ivory tower methodology and complete disrespect for the grassroots, but I think it's way too soon to assume the absolute worst, that the CFL as a whole is a "crooky, fly-by-night" organization.  Even if that's the case, the liberty movement will still survive, but you're right that Ron Paul's credibility would be lost forever, and it would cost all of us dearly.  I truly hope nothing like this is the case, but if it turns out this way, we can pretty much rest assured that someone deliberately engineered the whole thing for the express purpose of ruining Paul's reputation and crushing us.  We've all known for a long time that Paul is too trusting of other people, so the stage was already set for someone to create a true scandal in his name.  I just hope that it hasn't happened, and that it never will.  In any case, it's way too early to assume this of all things.

----------


## phill4paul

> I see a nice little trend here.   
> 
> What say we take a negative and turn it into a positive for guys like Gunny.


QFT! I am starting to see some traffic on Gunnys Money Bomb page now and will be updating the thermometer soon!

Thanks so much for everyone that is chipping in. Adam and Tina thanks so much for your spoken support of Gunny! We truly need guys like him in the State assembly.




> I loathe negativity.
> 
> Therefore, + $15.00 to Gunny.
> 
> Matchmeplz.


I've pledged to match BrandonYates and I'll take you up on yours also Paulitical Correctness! Now get over to the pledge site and fill in the info!

And to everyone else that has pledged their support here I ask that you, please, take the time to also fill out the pledge info. It is important in that it helps give Gunny a way of seeing if the goals are being met and where he is standing. Additionally nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd. 

The thermometer has to be updated manually by the developer. I let Gunny know that I will update it in $100 increments. We are currently standing at $200 dollars and I will update that as soon as possible.

Thanks everyone. As Todd mentioned let's turn this negative into a positive. When it comes to donations you know Glen will use each and every dollar in a positive way.

Thanks.

----------


## Todd

> I second this! While a "national" organization may be more flashy, it has way, way more unknowns like we've clearly seen.


That's one of the reasons I liked the meetup concept during the primaries.  All that was required was using the internet for communications in the region and more people actually became involved.  It's always been more than about how much money people could give.   No need to give it all to a mega organization.  Keep the money local or give directly to the candidate is the best advice I've heard lately.

----------


## rancher89

Kudos!!!

----------


## devil21

> No. I don't think you realize how bad this will be. If CFL comes down as a Ron Paul sponsered crooky organization with RP's knowledge and or participation the thought of sending money to any of these other candidate makes me want to puke. If RP can't be trusted I sure as hell am not going to be donating to people like Medina, Schiff, Kokesh. I have had thirty years to watch and double check RP, so if he is running a fly by night organization then you can't even begin to sell me on any other candidate I have only heard bits and pieces of for the last few years. 
> 
> *This RP liberty movement will come to one big assed screaching halt without a doubt.*
> 
> It is not just about getting even with some top down organization called CFL it will be bringing down RP.
> If I can't trust RP there isn't anyone on this forum or in the movement I will ever trust.


I swear, do you ever have anything positive to post?  This is about as absurd a post as Ive seen.  The CFL being infiltrated by a few people of questionable goals has little to do with RP himself, or other Liberty candidates.  Are you suggesting Ron hired these people himself with input from Rand, Schiff, Adam, etc?  Get a grip dude.

----------


## Austin

Meanwhile, YAL spends money in Kentucky...

http://www.yaliberty.org/kentucky

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Hope those of you that contributed learned your lesson; Do your research, follow the money, and know how the organization operates. 

I did my research, came to the conclusion CFL wasn't as great as everyone was proclaiming, railed against it, and received a mountain of posts and messages against me.

Honestly, I'm not all that upset. CFL wasn't doing great work and this could have been seen from miles away. I, and some others here, saw it and warned you.

All I can say is that's what you get. Practice what you preach now....personal responsibility and accountability. 

Now if the bulk of you are done throwing money at a corrupt organization, proclaiming it furthers the cause of liberty to clear your conscience, I'd suggest working locally and taking over the party from the ground up (mayor of your town, council members, etc.)

It's not difficult to change the minds of a significant portion of people in your community, and you don't need a centralized national organization to do it. It's completely counter productive. Perhaps we need some modern thinking in regard to accomplishing goals; The Pareto principle, maybe? 80% of the results come from 20% of the work? 80% of our success will come from 20% of our work...so try to work that how you will. Maybe focus nearly all of our efforts in 20% of the country, rather than the whole? Maybe focus 80% of our efforts in small communities or towns (20% of the whole picture), which could bring us 80% of our results?

The idea now should be to isolate what "20%" creates "80%" of our results.

Fact of the matter is we really don't have a game plan. Giving money to an organization so they can redistribute it to various places is not a game plan. However, if one were to discover 20% of goverment (ie, taking over small communities, much more achievable) would create an uprising leading to 80% of our results, that would be great. I'm not saying this is it, but it's time we start targeting what actually works instead of trusting idiots like CFL.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Followup:

Or, perhaps, focus 80% of our effort in 20% of the primaries....save your money, promote a liberty candidate in the primaries. Doug Wead suggested this, if I recall. It's not that hard...we don't need CFL.

----------


## klamath

> Ugh, I'm just as upset as anyone about the CFL's ivory tower methodology and complete disrespect for the grassroots, but I think it's way too soon to assume the absolute worst, that the CFL as a whole is a "crooky, fly-by-night" organization.  Even if that's the case, the liberty movement will still survive, but you're right that Ron Paul's credibility would be lost forever, and it would cost all of us dearly.  I truly hope nothing like this is the case, but if it turns out this way, we can pretty much rest assured that someone deliberately engineered the whole thing for the express purpose of ruining Paul's reputation and crushing us.  We've all known for a long time that Paul is too trusting of other people, so the stage was already set for someone to create a true scandal in his name.  I just hope that it hasn't happened, and that it never will.  In any case, it's way too early to assume this of all things.


This isn't the first time people have accused RP of working with crooks. There are a lot of insinuations poping up in these threads and yes the liberty movement will be over for me. My wallet will be snapping shut to never open again for any liberty organization *or* candidate.
It is one thing to suspect this organizatiion of incompetence and getting off track on ideology but once people start implying there is illegalities  they better hope they are wrong

----------


## vegaspilot03

Word.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The plot thickens...
> 
> and....... lets fight those terrorists over there!


Wasn't his Cheney connection already out? (Cheney hired him as a lawyer during Iran/Contra affair). I thought I saw that posted already.

In his video he calls for declarations of war, which his Primary opponents probably haven't said. Lesser of 3 evils again.  Just sayin'. 

Did you see his other opponent's (Tom Wiens) stands?:




> http://www.tomwiens.com/issues/details.asp?Issue_Id=11
> 
> Foreign policy
> 
> Nothing threatens the stability of the world more than the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. And make no mistake; Iran's nuclear program is aimed at one thing: developing nuclear weapons. Iran's leader has said that Israel must be wiped off the map. A nuclear armed Iran with aggressive intentions against one of the most faithful and staunch of U.S. allies should be a matter of grave concern. The U.S. should consider sanctions, and other means, including military means to stop Iran from threatening its neighbors, especially our ally Israel.
> 
> http://www.tomwiens.com/issues/details.asp?Issue_Id=10
> 
> War in Iraq and Afghanistan
> ...

----------


## AuH2O

> Did you see his other opponent's (Tom Wiens) stands?:


Operation Somali Freedom!

----------


## eOs



----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Operation Somali Freedom!


Yeah, you gotta love that. Tom Wiens is keeping his positions up to date with the latest terrist States!

----------


## specsaregood

> I loathe negativity.
> Therefore, + $15.00 to Gunny.
> Matchmeplz.


Done
$25 sent to Gunny.

----------


## klamath

> I swear, do you ever have anything positive to post?  This is about as absurd a post as Ive seen.  The CFL being infiltrated by a few people of questionable goals has little to do with RP himself, or other Liberty candidates.  *Are you suggesting Ron hired these people himself* with input from Rand, Schiff, Adam, etc?  Get a grip dude.


Wow man all these threads are such positive threads. No I am not implying it but others are. They need to know the difference between incompetence,, different ideology or strategy and insinuation of wrong doing. When people start accusing CFL of crookery it will bring RP down because he selected and picked all the leaders of CFL.

----------


## phill4paul

> Done
> $25 sent to Gunny.

----------


## Mini-Me

> This isn't the first time people have accused RP of working with crooks. There are a lot of insinuations poping up in these threads and yes the liberty movement will be over for me. My wallet will be snapping shut to never open again for any liberty organization *or* candidate.


klamath, the liberty movement is not about shelling out money.  It never really was, and I think focusing so much on that has hurt us anyway.  At its core, the liberty movement is about an idea, and activism is about educating people and taking back control at the local, grassroots level, to build a foundation for taking back the country.  This whole thing has been going on a lot longer than the Ron Paul campaign, a lot longer than money bombs, and even a lot longer than any of us have been alive.  As long as the ideals of liberty live in at least one person, the liberty movement will never die.  Even the worst debacles are only setbacks...even if they're big ones.




> It is one thing to suspect this organizatiion of incompetence and getting off track on ideology but once people start implying there is illegalities  they better hope they are wrong


I'm with you here.

----------


## klamath

> klamath, the liberty movement is not about shelling out money.  It never really was, and I think focusing so much on that has hurt us anyway.  At its core, the liberty movement is about an idea, and activism is about educating people and taking back control at the local, grassroots level, to build a foundation for taking back the country.  This whole thing has been going on a lot longer than the Ron Paul campaign, a lot longer than money bombs, and even a lot longer than any of us have been alive.  As long as the ideals of liberty live in at least one person, the liberty movement will never die.  Even the worst debacles are only setbacks...even if they're big ones.
> 
> 
> I'm with you here.


The wallet comment is in reference to donating to other candidates. If I can't trust RP I don't know why I should trust the others.
And yes the liberty movement will go on as it has been going on since the magna carta but the RP liberty movement will die if CFL is stacked with crooks by RP.

----------


## Civilradiant_palm_pre

talked to a high up @ CFL,

He said a statement will be out by the end of the day.

The money did not come from the gen. Fund aka individual donations, it came from a group in co and was earmarked to be used for this candidate who apparently passed with a very high score their survey.

I gotta go, class starting now, I will add that he was very sincere and apologetic and I trust him.

BBL

----------


## rancher89

> talked to a high up @ CFL,
> 
> He said a statement will be out by the end of the day.
> 
> The money did not come from the gen. Fund aka individual donations, it came from a group in co and was earmarked to be used for this candidate who apparently passed with a very high score their survey.
> 
> I gotta go, class starting now, I will add that he was very sincere and apologetic and I trust him.
> 
> BBL


WTF???
You are better off posting NOTHING than posting stuff like this and then running off!!

----------


## MsDoodahs

Um...is it the end of the day yet?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Um...is it the end of the day yet?


Maybe they forgot it's Thirsty Thursday until they realized they had to run out the door, and they'll get back to us around 3:45 in the afternoon tomorrow.

----------


## catdd

Ron Paul wouldn't endorse McCain even when he was being pressured by the GOP, so I know he wouldn't donate money to a pro war politician.
No way.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Um...is it the end of the day yet?


couple more minutes...

tick tock...

if i miss american idol waiting for this i'm gonna get really really mad...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Done
> $25 sent to Gunny.


thanks specs!

No, the liberty movement is not about money, but money is indeed a means of communication.  I don't mean in the sense that if you get a 6 million dollar moneybomb you will make the news, but in the sense that money enables the production of handbills, flyers, slimjims, radio and television spots.

There are more people at the ground level who respons to this message than we can scarcely believe -- people who may be easily led by the nose from a controlled media because they were too busy with work or hobbies.

But because of the current economic crisis, that work and those hobbies are being stripped away and leaving angry confused people searching for explanations.

This is where it becomes more critical than ever that we all step in and provide not only  the explanation they seek, but positive and proactive solutions to escape from the problems we have become immersed in.

Mini, Klamath, I get it, I really do.  giving money is hard.  I know -- I gave my very last dime to Ron Paul 4 times, twice in 2007, and twice in 2008.  It's hard, and when it doesn't bear fruit it's even harder.

But please remember that without money, people like Rand Paul, Adam Kokesh, Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul will not have the opportunity to represent us.  The fact of it makes me sick to my soul, but the bottom line is that if we are going to restore the Constitutional Order, we have to elect Constitutionalists to public office, and to elect anybody to public office, sadly, requires money.  At this point there is no way to get around that.

Perhaps term limits will significantly reduce the opportunity for lobbyist corruption, and therefore reduce the cash profile needed to run for office.  In TRUTH, if you remove all the lobbyist influence, US Congress should only need about $200k and State House should only need about $20k.  Enough for the materials your volunteers will use during the campaign, period.

But until we plug that hole, this is the world we live in, and if we want to change it, we have to put our people in the position to do that.  I have learned, first hand, that we just can't do that without money.  I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.

----------


## Mini-Me

> thanks specs!
> 
> No, the liberty movement is not about money, but money is indeed a means of communication.  I don't mean in the sense that if you get a 6 million dollar moneybomb you will make the news, but in the sense that money enables the production of handbills, flyers, slimjims, radio and television spots.
> 
> There are more people at the ground level who respons to this message than we can scarcely believe -- people who may be easily led by the nose from a controlled media because they were too busy with work or hobbies.
> 
> But because of the current economic crisis, that work and those hobbies are being stripped away and leaving angry confused people searching for explanations.
> 
> This is where it becomes more critical than ever that we all step in and provide not only  the explanation they seek, but positive and proactive solutions to escape from the problems we have become immersed in.
> ...


I think you misread my intent, Gunny.  I know that money helps, and when it's spent in the right places, it translates into slim-jims and such.  I was just trying to be uplifting and everything and basically say that none of this is the end of the world, even if our national fundraising schtick died out.   (Well, I was also making the point that focusing so much on money has made us lose sight of some things, but I was mostly referring to the CFL anyway and their constant nagging emails...)

----------


## dannno

> Ron Paul wouldn't endorse McCain even when he was being pressured by the GOP, so I know he wouldn't donate money to a pro war politician.
> No way.


Well the organization used some sort of test and scored them.

Listening to this guy's speech, he believes that ALL of these wars we are fighting should be declared... where he disagrees with Ron Paul is that we should be going out and killing these people.. So he probably got some points on the test for the declaration of war issue, and past the fiscal positions with flying colors.

----------


## catdd

A neo-constitutionalist is  better than a neocon but just as crazy. Seems that nearly every politician has accepted the fact that they must be pro war if they want elected.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think you misread my intent, Gunny.  I know that money helps, and when it's spent in the right places, it translates into slim-jims and such.  I was just trying to be uplifting and everything and basically say that none of this is the end of the world, even if our national fundraising schtick died out.   (Well, I was also making the point that focusing so much on money has made us lose sight of some things, but I was mostly referring to the CFL anyway and their constant nagging emails...)


It was really more from Klamath than you from whom I was getting the "don't ever give money, to anybody" vibe -- I'm trying to avoid being too specific.  I also truly understand Klamath's frustration here.  Setbacks are inevitable in life, and especially in a war...and this is a war, a war for the soul of our nation.

Our soldiers and militia had many many more setbacks than victories in the Revolution, but they pressed on.  Had they given up then we would still be on our knees before the British Crown today, probably with outright gun bans and CCTV on every corner in America.

They did not give up, and neither can we.  Sometimes we want to, Lord knows that sometimes I wonder if it's really even possible for me to face a rich country club Dem when I'm at $2200 at a point when I should be at $12,000.  I feel the edge of panic creeping in and then I remember those cold soldiers at Valley Forge enduring far worse than I can even imagine on the eve of one of their finest victories in the entire war.

It is when things are the darkest that the brightest light is able to shine.  The indomitable American spirit lives on -- through US -- as we sweat blood and tears to wake the sheeple from their coma.

We can and we will win this war, simply because we must.

----------


## klamath

> thanks specs!
> 
> No, the liberty movement is not about money, but money is indeed a means of communication.  I don't mean in the sense that if you get a 6 million dollar moneybomb you will make the news, but in the sense that money enables the production of handbills, flyers, slimjims, radio and television spots.
> 
> There are more people at the ground level who respons to this message than we can scarcely believe -- people who may be easily led by the nose from a controlled media because they were too busy with work or hobbies.
> 
> But because of the current economic crisis, that work and those hobbies are being stripped away and leaving angry confused people searching for explanations.
> 
> This is where it becomes more critical than ever that we all step in and provide not only  the explanation they seek, but positive and proactive solutions to escape from the problems we have become immersed in.
> ...


You are right Gunny, money can spread the message.  I have always been a donater to individual candidates as that is the only way you can somewhat have control of the issues it is being spent on. I am not a member nor have I donated to CFL for that reason.  I can fully understand the frustration of those members that have donated to an organization that supports what appears to be a candidate that is in pretty bad conflict with RP's ideals. If the ideals of CFL have drifted that far from RP's then the donor base will dry up rightfully so.
But when people start implying that it is embezellment and crookery in their feeding frenzy they better realize that if they are right they will find it a pretty sad day of gloating how right they were,  when the stories about RP in the MSN are about the embezlement trial of RP's CFL.

----------


## gls

http://coloradoindependent.com/46727...nd-speculation

Ken Buck campaign ad stirs up supporters and speculation

By JOHN TOMASIC 1/28/10 2:40 PM

The U.S. Senate campaign for Weld County D.A. Ken Buck reportedly knew nothing of the ad before it aired and even now isn’t sure where the ad is running. “I heard it’s playing on the networks. I think I found that out from the [Denver] Post,” Spokesperson Owen Loftus told the Colorado Independent. “It was made by that 527, so we had no contact before it ran, and we can’t have any contact with them now.”

Loftus said the appearance of the ad was a pleasant surprise in that it dovetailed with a tour Buck has taken around the state recently. “I think it has helped getting Ken’s name out,” he said, adding that it may have also helped fuel the bump in contributions the campaign has seen in the last couple of weeks. The ad has definitely fueled speculation that powerful forces are lining up behind Buck to defeat GOP frontrunner Jane Norton.

The organization behind the ad, Campaign For Liberty, told TPM that the ad is not a strict candidate endorsement, which would violate the law. The ad is intended instead to promote the libertarian/conservative group’s candidate issues surveys.

“We want every candidate to answer our surveys. So as soon as another candidate answers our survey, we’ll probably do another ad stating that,” said spokesperson Gary Howard.

At conservative website Rocky Mountain Right, speculation is that the ad may have come out of a national strategizing conference call hosted in November by the Senate Conservatives Fund, founded by RedState’s Erick Erickson and Sen. Jim DeMint. The main point was to decide which U.S. Senate primaries were the most important ones to watch. “The Colorado race was near the top of the list,” writes the RMR blogger.

Soon the Buck campaign was encouraging supporters to send messages to the fund making the case for Buck. Is the Senate Conservatives Fund behind the new Buck ad?

That’s not the only theory. In the comments thread of a Colorado Independent story this week, a Norton supporter offered a preview of the kind of whispering attacks that Buck might come under as his grassroots candidacy builds steam. The commenter suggests the ad was the work of wealthy Colorado gay-rights activist Tim Gill who, the theory goes, is supporting Buck because last year Buck chose to prosecute the murder of transgender Greeley resident Angie Zapata as a hate crime. The prosecution was a victory for the Zapata family and the gay community that rallied around the trial.

Compared to the speculation it’s generating, the campaign ad itself is pretty vanilla. It features a montage of photos running behind a low-tone voiceover that hits on predictably vague strongly worded talking points:

“Career politicians are stealing our liberty and bankrupting our country.”

“[Buck’s] a tough prosecutor who will take on the D.C. insiders.”

----------


## wwwresearcher

Buck says we need to be in Afghanistan for another 10 years.  We've already been there 8 years.  Why does he think we should believe when he says we're going to leave in 10yrs.  Seems to me, we'll never leave.




> "We are told this effort will take at least 10 years."

----------


## specsaregood

> The commenter suggests the ad was the work of wealthy Colorado gay-rights activist Tim Gill who, the theory goes, is supporting Buck because last year Buck chose to prosecute the murder of transgender Greeley resident Angie Zapata as a hate crime. The prosecution was a victory for the Zapata family and the gay community that rallied around the trial.


That guy is mentioned in 2 threads on rpfs:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2083848



> A recent Blade report raised questions about the extent of influence that Tim Gill, a wealthy gay Democratic donor, has over the organization. Sources said Gill Action Fund contributed $250,000 annually to the organization in 2007 and 2008 — about one-third of the group’s budget — and that Gill Action was involved in decision-making at Log Cabin.


And evidently he is a huge political donor.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=549750

----------


## Meatwasp

what does Dr. paul  say about it all? Anyone heard?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> But when people start implying that it is embezellment and crookery in their feeding frenzy they better realize that if they are right they will find it a pretty sad day of gloating how right they were,  when the stories about RP in the MSN are about the embezlement trial of RP's CFL.


Well, we shall see. There is a board of directors and if they care about him AT ALL they were thinking of him and kept him out of this debacle.

I don't want Dr. Paul to be dragged through the mud but I REALLY don't trust this group of people running C4L. I don't think they give a rat's ass about wht kind of damage they're doing with this whole thing. I don't think they care because they don't care about the principles of the organization they are working for. Debbie Hopper busted up the CP over abortion and she could care less whether Rothfeld agrees with us on foreign policy. Foreign Policy is the one plank of our platform that should never be compromised. It is what binds all of us. left and right, together in our support of Ron Paul. 

If Debbie is quick to dismiss my concerns and try to shut me down-- little old me-- what makes anyone think she gives a rat's ass about what any of us think? They weren't making any money til Rothfeld came on board. The people who were there before they made money was _us_. apparently it wasn't enough to have a motivated group of fired up activists ready to go. They needed money. And when Rothfeld proved he could get the money without the activists that was the end of that.

----------


## nobody's_hero

I still want to know what kind of survey is worth $350,000.

Survey: "Question 1: Are you a neocon?"

Buck: "Answer: Yes"

CFL: "Wow, cool. Here's three-hundred and fifty thousand dollars."


I mean, really, what the hell?

----------


## wwwresearcher

deleted

----------


## LittleLightShining

> That guy is mentioned in 2 threads on rpfs:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2083848
> 
> 
> And evidently he is a huge political donor.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=549750


Holy crap! Tim Gill poured money into all kinds of organizations in VT before the gay marriage vote. This is part of how I know where to look for non-profit organizations. This is insane.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You are right Gunny, money can spread the message.  I have always been a donater to individual candidates as that is the only way you can somewhat have control of the issues it is being spent on. I am not a member nor have I donated to CFL for that reason.  I can fully understand the frustration of those members that have donated to an organization that supports what appears to be a candidate that is in pretty bad conflict with RP's ideals. If the ideals of CFL have drifted that far from RP's then the donor base will dry up rightfully so.
> But when people start implying that it is embezellment and crookery in their feeding frenzy they better realize that if they are right they will find it a pretty sad day of gloating how right they were,  when the stories about RP in the MSN are about the embezlement trial of RP's CFL.


I misunderstood then and I apologize.

I think there is a lot of frustration to go around right now, and it is my sincere hope that we all can recognize that frustration -- for whatever reason -- can cloud judgement, and therefore we do not allow any hard feelings to persist after the controversy at the heart of this thread is finally resolved.

----------


## AuH2O

> Holy crap! Tim Gill poured money into all kinds of organizations in VT before the gay marriage vote. This is part of how I know where to look for non-profit organizations. This is insane.


Gill is also famous for knocking out a slew of conservative state legislators in Iowa to install a pro-homosexual marriage backstop to protect their supreme court's gay marriage ruling.  Plus he pretty much single-handedly took out Marilyn Musgrave in 2008.

----------


## Meatwasp

> Well, we shall see. There is a board of directors and if they care about him AT ALL they were thinking of him and kept him out of this debacle.
> 
> I don't want Dr. Paul to be dragged through the mud but I REALLY don't trust this group of people running C4L. I don't think they give a rat's ass about wht kind of damage they're doing with this whole thing. I don't think they care because they don't care about the principles of the organization they are working for. Debbie Hopper busted up the CP over abortion and she could care less whether Rothfeld agrees with us on foreign policy. Foreign Policy is the one plank of our platform that should never be compromised. It is what binds all of us. left and right, together in our support of Ron Paul. 
> 
> If Debbie is quick to dismiss my concerns and try to shut me down-- little old me-- what makes anyone think she gives a rat's ass about what any of us think? They weren't making any money til Rothfeld came on board. The people who were there before they made money was _us_. apparently it wasn't enough to have a motivated group of fired up activists ready to go. They needed money. And when Rothfeld proved he could get the money without the activists that was the end of that.


 The whole thing is sad. There is always a loud mouth rotten egg in every organization. I hope Rothfelt gets kicked out.
My old saying goes here again "Once deceived never assured."

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Thats not the only theory. In the comments thread of a Colorado Independent story this week, a Norton supporter offered a preview of the kind of whispering attacks that Buck might come under as his grassroots candidacy builds steam. The commenter suggests the ad was the work of wealthy Colorado gay-rights activist Tim Gill who, the theory goes, is supporting Buck because last year Buck chose to prosecute the murder of transgender Greeley resident Angie Zapata as a hate crime.


There we go. It's the mystery billionaire!

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Gill is also famous for knocking out a slew of conservative state legislators in Iowa to install a pro-homosexual marriage backstop to protect their supreme court's gay marriage ruling.  Plus he pretty much single-handedly took out Marilyn Musgrave in 2008.


Wow, if C4L is taking money from this guy they've just totally lost any credibility they might have had with the social conservatives. Where are my muckboots.  Hoooooly crap.

----------


## gls

> That guy is mentioned in 2 threads on rpfs:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2083848
> 
> 
> And evidently he is a huge political donor.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=549750


The fact that Buck supports "hate crime" legislation is one of the biggest points against him in my book. Otherwise he doesn't seem half bad. At least I'm sure he's much better than his McCain/McConnell hand-picked primary opponent. Some excerpts from an interview:




> http://www.businessword.com/index.ph...tamp_not_a_le/
> 
> QUESTION;
> Under Bush, Democrats attacked his Iraq war strategy. Now, some Republicans and Democrats are attacking Obamas review of his Afghanistan war strategy. How far should senators and congressmen go in questioning a presidents foreign policy and war strategies?
> 
> ANSWER;
> I think it is absolutely wrong to engage in war without the declaration of war by Congress. I would be a very strong advocate for following the Constitution. Senators and Congress have a role in determining military spending. The Congress plays a role in foreign policy."
> 
> "I would fight very hard for a federal balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We would have to fight over budget items rather than continue to increase the budget. There is no way to rein in the greed of Congress.
> ...

----------


## Chieftain1776

> There we go. It's the mystery billionaire!

----------


## dannno

Transaction ID: 9YU1739756945492G
Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

You sent a payment of $15.00 USD to Committee to Elect Glen Bradley (treasurer@glenbradley.net)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You can trust Bryan and I.  We have nothing to do with Mossad.
> 
> 
> 
> Who am I kidding?  Trust no one!

----------


## Anti Federalist

Now ya'll know why I quit the NRA years ago.

:-/

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Gill is also famous for knocking out a slew of conservative state legislators in Iowa to install a pro-homosexual marriage backstop to protect their supreme court's gay marriage ruling.  Plus he pretty much single-handedly took out Marilyn Musgrave in 2008.


Musgrave....Musgrave....I saw that name somewhere today.

Oh yeah.  Here it is:

http://saberinc.net/saber/about/mir.pdf

Past or current clients of SABER and Mr. Rothfeld include: Campaign for
Liberty, The National Right to Work Committee and Legal Defense Foundation,
Public Advocate of the U.S., Free Enterprise Fund, U.S. Congressman Marilyn
Musgrave (R-CO), U.S. Congressman Doug Lamborn for Congress (R-CO), Del. Mark Cole (VA), Del. Clay Athey, Del. Lee Ware (VA), Mike Farris for Lt. Governor,
the Republican Party of Virginia, Gun Owners of America, Oliver North for U.S.
Senate Committee and multiple state-level pro-life and pro-gun citizens organizations.
***

Apparently the fundraiser/educator guy for CFL, Michael Rothfeld, has some ties to Colorado politics.  Hmmm.  

Interesting.

----------


## Reason

> I still want to know what kind of survey is worth $350,000.
> 
> Survey: "Question 1: Are you a neocon?"
> 
> Buck: "Answer: Yes"
> 
> CFL: "Wow, cool. Here's three-hundred and fifty thousand dollars."
> 
> 
> I mean, really, what the hell?


My understanding is that the money was given under conditions on what it could be used for and these conditions were that it be used for that candidate in CO.

C4L Said that Buck scored very high on their positions survey.

The explanation for the delay in the release of a statement is that they need to be careful with the legalities concerned in releasing information about donors, money, etc..

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> My understanding is that the money was given under conditions on what it could be used for and these conditions were that it be used for that candidate in CO.
> 
> C4L Said that Buck scored very high on their positions survey.
> 
> The explanation for the delay in the release of a statement is that they need to be careful with the legalities concerned in releasing information about donors, money, etc..


I don't care if the billionaire dropped in on C4L offering everything we need ever paid off in exchange for this ad. You DO NOT sell you soul to the devil!! This guy is a neocon and it is inexcusable

----------


## AuH2O

> Musgrave....Musgrave....I saw that name somewhere today.
> 
> Oh yeah.  Here it is:
> 
> http://saberinc.net/saber/about/mir.pdf
> 
> Past or current clients of SABER and Mr. Rothfeld include: Campaign for
> Liberty, The National Right to Work Committee and Legal Defense Foundation,
> Public Advocate of the U.S., Free Enterprise Fund, U.S. Congressman Marilyn
> ...


So you're saying that this Colorado millionaire has teamed up with someone who worked for a Congresswoman he spent millions to defeat?

----------


## Reason

> I don't care if the billionaire dropped in on C4L offering everything we need ever paid off in exchange for this ad. You DO NOT sell you soul to the devil!! This guy is a neocon and it is inexcusable


We do not know where the money came from at this point.

That was not disclosed during my phone convo with CFL admin.

----------


## MelissaWV

$11,666.67 per second to post up some stock footage of Lady Liberty and blah blah blah some basic facts that sound like leftovers from a Palin speech (those darned Washington insiders!)...

Woof.

I hadn't been able to view the ad until now, but I find myself wondering why they needed the spokesperson if the surveys were the point.  I don't know anything about the survey from watching it.  I "know" about Buck and his "stand" on issues (not really, but I know what the ad says about him).  

Someone messed up... really, really bigtime.

----------


## Reason

> $11,666.67 per second to post up some stock footage of Lady Liberty and blah blah blah some basic facts that sound like leftovers from a Palin speech (those darned Washington insiders!)...
> 
> Woof.
> 
> I hadn't been able to view the ad until now, but I find myself wondering why they needed the spokesperson if the surveys were the point.  I don't know anything about the survey from watching it.  I "know" about Buck and his "stand" on issues (not really, but I know what the ad says about him).  
> 
> Someone messed up... really, really bigtime.


My understanding is that the cost was irrelevant because the money would not have been able to be used for anything else anyway.

----------


## rancher89

> Transaction ID: 9YU1739756945492G
> Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> 
> You sent a payment of $15.00 USD to Committee to Elect Glen Bradley (treasurer@glenbradley.net)


Thank you danno!

----------


## specsaregood

> So you're saying that this Colorado millionaire has teamed up with someone who worked for a Congresswoman he spent millions to defeat?


If you can't beat em, join em?  Just because he worked for a candidate doesn't mean they are attached to them, its just business for many.

----------


## rancher89

> Musgrave....Musgrave....I saw that name somewhere today.
> 
> Oh yeah.  Here it is:
> 
> http://saberinc.net/saber/about/mir.pdf
> 
> Past or current clients of SABER and Mr. Rothfeld include: Campaign for
> Liberty, The National Right to Work Committee and Legal Defense Foundation,
> Public Advocate of the U.S., Free Enterprise Fund, U.S. Congressman Marilyn
> ...


Agreed.  

To be perfectly clear here, I am not on a witch hunt, I'm a parent, and as a parent I taught my child to own up to his mistakes quickly.  It is polite and proper to do so and expected from all my friends and family.  Forgiveness is easier when admittance is quick.  

A simple "we have a problem here that we haven't gotten to the root of, and we are working hard to track it down as fast as possible" would have worked for me this morning, say at 10 or 11 AM.   It might have kept me chilled til Monday, we'll never know now.

C4L is acting like a passive agressive little child who didn't expect to get caught.   Shame on them.  They held a State Coordinators conf call today to discuss this, I wonder how many were on this conf. call and what was said.  "Don't tell the members, but......"  Shame.

My last post til Monday on this subject.  Donate to candidates folks, specially Glen!  Keep it positive and if all in-house till we know the skinny.  Off to drink some home brew....and bottle wine!  WOOT!

----------


## LittleLightShining

I'm having a really hard time accepting that this money needed to be used in a very specific way for a specific candidate. This ad reeeeally pushes the envelope as far as the line between advertising a survey and endorsing a candidate goes.

And I do find it interesting that Saber has been involved recently with Colorado politics. I smell a favor.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Agreed.  
> 
> To be perfectly clear here, I am not on a witch hunt, I'm a parent, and as a parent I taught my child to own up to his mistakes quickly.  It is polite and proper to do so and expected from all my friends and family.  Forgiveness is easier when admittance is quick.  
> 
> A simple "we have a problem here that we haven't gotten to the root of, and we are working hard to track it down as fast as possible" would have worked for me this morning, say at 10 or 11 AM.   It might have kept me chilled til Monday, we'll never know now.
> 
> C4L is acting like a passive agressive little child who didn't expect to get caught.   Shame on them. * They held a State Coordinators conf call today to discuss this, I wonder how many were on this conf. call and what was said.  "Don't tell the members, but......"  Shame.*
> 
> My last post til Monday on this subject.  Donate to candidates folks, specially Glen!  Keep it positive and if all in-house till we know the skinny.  Off to drink some home brew....and bottle wine!  WOOT!


You hit the hammer on the nail. I would love for someone to break the silence.

----------


## Chieftain1776

> Musgrave....Musgrave....I saw that name somewhere today.
> 
> Oh yeah.  Here it is:
> 
> http://saberinc.net/saber/about/mir.pdf
> 
> Past or current clients of SABER and Mr. Rothfeld include: Campaign for
> Liberty, The National Right to Work Committee and Legal Defense Foundation,
> Public Advocate of the U.S., Free Enterprise Fund, U.S. Congressman Marilyn
> ...


Very interesting indeed! Excellent find! 

I'm updating my theory yet again: I think Rothfeld was looking for some way to be a player in CO politics and figured out a loop hole on how to support Buck. He sought out the the money from the billionaire and offered to provide C4L as a front. He probably thought it was a clear win-win-win situation. And for him and his foreign policy views it was as LittleLightShining told us:




> *Hopper told me that he is a "cold warrior" and not supportive of the C4L's foreign policy position. I was told that he doesn't set political agenda or policy for C4L (just sends out frantic GOP talking point solicitations and directs strategy-- taking over the GOP). I was told that it shouldn't matter if he agrees with our principles. At which point my jaw dropped and I was ready to bang my head against the wall. In a nutshell I was told that there is no one out there who can fundraise or strategize that agrees with all of the guiding principles of C4L.*


Yup this is troubling as the direction of organizations is about the Golden Rule: Those who bring in the gold make the rules. If Rothfeld is bringing in the fund-raising he will have a disproportionate influence on the message. LittleLightShining has been proven right about this Rothfeld character. 

As for C4L itself we have to decide if it's foriegn policy views have been compromised. If the C4L website is any indicator then that is NOT the case as it's been consistently anti-war. BUT the website could be one thing for "stupid Paultards" like us and where the money _actually_ goes could be another. Remember we have an eyewitness of Rothfeld saying "Don't donate to the candidates" and now seems like he's the primary mover SUPPORTING his pro-war (not necessarily neocon) candidate. 

I'm sorry but at this point this is just a money maker for political hacks that couldn't make it anywhere else. I'm awaiting the statement but I don't trust the C4L to keep these pro-war people in line. Again this is just an early indicator we don't have any proof that liberty donors were bilked. It's just an indicator of where the C4L will go if Ron Paul departs from the scene. C4L imo should be a barebones organization at the national level.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Transaction ID: 9YU1739756945492G
> Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> 
> You sent a payment of $15.00 USD to Committee to Elect Glen Bradley (treasurer@glenbradley.net)


Huzzah!

Thanks Dannno!  Between this and what's brewing for the 14th, I may well be able to get the campaign's whole supply of slimjims and bumper stickers.  You have always been consistent and principled for as long as I have known you to post.  I have so much more to say, but have been awake now for about 36 hours, and am starting to get befuddled  

I posted today's totals plus the overal campaign totals in the minibomb thread, and you are a big part of helping me get there.

I'll be up at oh crack o dawn early with more updates, and assuredly more to say.

Thanks dannno, and thanks guys!

----------


## JK/SEA

Oh well..remember Lew Moore?

I sat about 20 yards away from Lew while he gave a little speech at the Washington State Republican Convention, and as a delegate i heard Lew tell everyone there that he supports the 'ticket' from top to bottom. 

My heart sank.

 I guess i'm just too idealistic, and always want to believe that people who are 'supposdly' on board, are also supportive of the 'principal' that Ron Paul talks of in relation to issues, and truly cares about the supporters who actually are on board, and not in it for self gain, as opposed to being in it for the Country, and the U.S. Constitution.

----------


## KCIndy

> Today: $297.16
> Total Donations: $2,122.19
> Gift In Kind: $265.25
> Total Receipts: $2,387.51



Hey, let's end the day on a positive note!  Three dollars gets Gunny over the $300 mark for today's impromptu "money grenade" fund raiser!!

$3.00 !!!  


Anyone?

Anyone???

----------


## Bruno

Hello Brian xxxxxx, 
You sent a payment of $25.00 USD to Committee to Elect Glen Bradley.
This charge will appear on your credit card statement as payment to PAYPAL *COMMITTEEEL.

Insurance: ----
Total: $25.00 USD


Receipt No: 3633-8325-xxxx-xxxx
Please keep this receipt number for future reference. You'll need it if you contact customer service at Committee to Elect Glen Bradley or PayPal.

----------


## KCIndy

> Hello Brian xxxxxx, 
> You sent a payment of $25.00 USD to Committee to Elect Glen Bradley.
> This charge will appear on your credit card statement as payment to PAYPAL *COMMITTEEEL.
> 
> Insurance: ----
> Total: $25.00 USD
> 
> 
> Receipt No: 3633-8325-xxxx-xxxx
> Please keep this receipt number for future reference. You'll need it if you contact customer service at Committee to Elect Glen Bradley or PayPal.





Woo-Hoooo!!!

Go Bruno!!

----------


## ItsTime

Bunch of followers.











































Jk. Glad this turned out to be a good day for Gunny, now he can get some slim jims or signs or something.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Hello Brian xxxxxx, 
> You sent a payment of $25.00 USD to Committee to Elect Glen Bradley.
> This charge will appear on your credit card statement as payment to PAYPAL *COMMITTEEEL.
> 
> Insurance: ----
> Total: $25.00 USD
> 
> 
> Receipt No: 3633-8325-xxxx-xxxx
> Please keep this receipt number for future reference. You'll need it if you contact customer service at Committee to Elect Glen Bradley or PayPal.


Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

Thanks Bruno, I'm barely here right now, too long awake -- I'll have more to say tomorrow when I'm actually awake,  but thank you.

Today: $322.16
Total Donations: $2,147.19
Gifts In Kind: $265.25
Total Receipts: $2,412.51

----------


## Bruno

You're welcome, Gunny!

----------


## Todd

The way I see it is that if we are going to learn from our mistakes then we've got to take some action to get us focused.  Is an early money bomb too much to ask for a friend in need?

Sorry it took so long, but it's been a busy day and I just got round to this....but here you go Gunny! 





> Hello Todd
> 
> You sent a payment of $20.00 USD to Committee to Elect Glen Bradley

----------


## Anti Federalist

What a pro war candidate will get for you.

YouTube - Ron Paul Our Power Our Responsibility

----------


## dr. hfn

Tate/Rothfeld 2012!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

No offense, but this isn't a "donate to gunny" thread. If you wish to discuss that, please start a new topic.

  I'm not so sure one should be using that as a way to take the focus of of CFL. This is a very big issue....and it seems like you guys are just glazing over it.

----------


## MsDoodahs

AntiFed, that is my all time favorite RP video.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> AntiFed, that is my all time favorite RP video.


I just dug it back up for another thread and couldn't resist posting it here, what with all the traffic and apropos to what a war candidate will get you.

Glad to have brought it back for you.

----------


## Promontorium

Still nothing from C4L? They don't even have the decency to communicate with their people? This is beyond insulting, this is disregard. 

 I'm ending my ties with C4L. I was there for you Ron Paul, 3 days after C4L's inception, I joined up. Now it ends 

 >

----------


## manystrom

Thank you to the RP Forums community for breaking this story.  It is now on the front page of the Daily Paul, where it will stay, until we get some answers.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123033

But let me be clear: I stand with Ron Paul.

He's not the quirky little Congressman from Texas who can say and do what he wants and no one cares any more.  

This is high stakes politics.  This is the big show.  Dr. Paul is under tremendous pressure.  In this game, anything goes.  

I will reserve judgment until I hear from the C4L on the matter at hand.

I still support Ron Paul.  I understand the C4L and Ron Paul are separate entities.  Ron Paul is a Congressman.  He has a job to do.  He is a visionary.  The amount of time he can devote to overseeing this political entity is limited.  I understand that.  

People came down on Dr. P. because of that thing about supporting Texas incumbents.  Well, I know the pressure he is under, simply because I have a good imagination, and I know what I have experienced running this site.  His popularity means that everyone is grabbing and clawing at him.  Everyone wants something from him.

I am only able to image this because of the microcosm I have experienced in running this website.

Maybe I'm stupid.  Maybe I'm naive.  Maybe I'm going to get my heart broken like it has never been broken before.  Maybe I'll piss Dr. Paul off and be estranged from him forever.  

It doesn't matter.  Let the chips fall where they may.

The only thing I have is my self respect.  In the end, it is the only thing any of us have.  

I want some information from the C4L about what they're doing with our money.  If it is not our money, then why are they selling their name, and by association, our name.

Someone on the RP Forums said it best:  Foreign Policy is an area that WE DON'T COMPROMISE.  It is what unites us all.  It even unites us with the lefty peaceniks.  It is what unites us with other AMERICANS.

I'm not going to sell that out.  

I've kept my tongue tied over the C4L for long enough out of respect for Dr. Paul.  But there is no point in valuing his self respect over my own for any longer. Dr. Paul is, and always will be, forever in my mind, the greatest hero I have ever known in my generation.  

I have never respected an American president.  The first one I can remember is Nixon.  You can go through the list:  Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Johnson was president when I was born.

Who among these men can I respect?  None.

Ron Paul is my only hero in the political realm.  I realize he is in a difficult position.  So am I.  Welcome to politics.

I'm not a playah.  I want answers.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Michael, if you read through this whole thread you will realize they did not give $350,000 to him.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

My State Coordinator called and spoke to me in length tonight. They had a major phone call today with John Tate and the State Coordinators due to my thread on the C4L forums, and the phone calls they had received. From what I gathered NONE of the State leadership (including Colorado) were aware of this at all and are all equally upset. Mr. Tate told them that he should have a response to everyone's concerns tomorrow. The State Coordinator sounded genuinely upset with the situation. I let him know that I may still get involved in local things, or even State level but my support for C4L on a National level will take much explaining, some actual actions and not just words, and many changes before the wounds can even begin to heal. 

So now we wait and see what tomorrow will bring.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> My State Coordinator called and spoke to me in length tonight. They had a major phone call today with John Tate and the State Coordinators due to my thread on the C4L forums, and the phone calls they had received. From what i gathered NONE of the State leadership (including Colorado) were aware of this at all and are all equally upset. Mr. Tate told them that he should have a response to everyone's concerns tomorrow. The State Coordinator sounded genuinely upset with the situation. I let him know that I may still get involved in local things, or even State level but my support for C4L level will take much explaining, some actual actions and not just words, and many changes before the wounds can even begin to heal. 
> 
> So now we wait and see what tomorrow will bring.


Well done!

----------


## Baptist

Even if they didn't spend $350,000 on this one guy, they still wasted $350,000 on  a stupid survey.  Seriously, us here at RPFs could have done a silly survey for a few thousand dollars.

It's time to open the books and show how the money is being spent.  If anything, it will help prevent situations like this from arising in the future.

----------


## AuH2O

> Even if they didn't spend $350,000 on this one guy, they still wasted $350,000 on  a stupid survey.  Seriously, us here at RPFs could have done a silly survey for a few thousand dollars.
> 
> It's time to open the books and show how the money is being spent.  If anything, it will help prevent situations like this from arising in the future.


I'm not sure you understand everything that goes into a federal and state candidate survey program.

----------


## reardenstone

> My State Coordinator called and spoke to me in length tonight. They had a major phone call today with John Tate and the State Coordinators due to my thread on the C4L forums, and the phone calls they had received. From what I gathered NONE of the State leadership (including Colorado) were aware of this at all and are all equally upset. Mr. Tate told them that he should have a response to everyone's concerns tomorrow. The State Coordinator sounded genuinely upset with the situation. I let him know that I may still get involved in local things, or even State level but my support for C4L on a National level will take much explaining, some actual actions and not just words, and many changes before the wounds can even begin to heal. 
> 
> So now we wait and see what tomorrow will bring.


So if no one knows where the money came from is it possible that locals merely co-opted C4L and pushed someone of their choice that would also serve the purpose of castrating C4L?

----------


## dr. hfn

http://coloradoindependent.com/46727...nd-speculation

MORE NEWS!

----------


## Knightskye

This is from the CFL forums, from the 'interim state coordinator' in Michigan:




> I would ask that you have patience.  A statement is being prepared and will be released soon.  Myself and many other good people have been working for 1 to 2 years for our cause with no pay at all.  Completely volunteer work.  I know myself and many others have given up most comforts in life and dedicated almost every waking moment for the liberty we all crave.  I've spent my own savings and sacrafice much.  I do it because I love our country and I love our liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, don't throw us under the bus just yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Tony DeMott
> ...

----------


## RonPaulCult

It really does appear that CFL has whored itself.  And while I will wait for a statement before I judge, the fact that it has taken THIS LONG for one to be released shows that the people in charge don't know what the hell they are doing.  

They should step down.  Heads should roll.  

Just my opinion.  I really don't have anything to do with CFL but it makes us all look bad.

----------


## Promontorium

Despite what's being said as "leaks" from C4L, the facts are still right in front of us. 

 C4L has already claimed to have spent this money. If they didn't, then they lied. C4L explained that it was spent to promote a survey. 

 These facts have been disputed, but not by *CFL because they are the ones that made those claims.* 

 Trusting C4L, I think they need to explain why so much was spent for so little a purpose as some election in Colorado, or does C4L plan on running these kinds of ads across the nation? 

Again C4L has already repeatedly claimed they paid for the ads. IF they didn't, then they lied, but they have never denied this. 

 We have seen absolutely no official response from C4L since this issue came up. *None*. Not even a "stand by".

 Sure some people have come along and said "I work for C4L and..."

 We _all_ pretty much work for C4L. I'm not impressed.

 The thread on the C4L website set a 24 hour window. I supported that, and have since dropped myself completely from C4L. 

 I know many have been very angry about this issue, and I know many have tried to come up with answers, but only an *official statement* could begin to resolve this, and until then, I support keeping this issue alive. Keep it alive until there's no one left in the Campaign for Liberty (formerly the "Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty") to put out a statement.

----------


## akforme

> This is from the CFL forums, from the 'interim state coordinator' in Michigan:


That's a CYA poor me letter.  I think some people worked a lot more house than just 2 to come up with the money that was spent.

----------


## akforme

This is why I'm a libertarian.  $#@! any other party would not only not care, they'd promote buck just to "win"

Principal over power is why I support Ron Paul, and why I trust his judgment.

Thanks everyone for speaking out.  This is how it's done.

----------


## dr. hfn

the money was from "new donors" and was earmarked by these "new donors" to only be spent on this candidate/ad...the money did not come from the general pool of donations...the "new donors" is apparently this guy: http://coloradoindependent.com/46727...nd-speculation (Tim Gill)

----------


## qwerty

Why don´t you wait and see what C4L says about this ? 

BTW, C4L doesn´t lose much if it looses few trolls from this board who probably wasn´t even activists at all (Don´t mean all of you, just few dramaqueens).

----------


## purplechoe



----------


## runningdiz

> Why don´t you wait and see what C4L says about this ? 
> 
> BTW, C4L doesn´t lose much if it looses few trolls from this board who probably wasn´t even activists at all (Don´t mean all of you, just few dramaqueens).


yeah good point... I hope people also realize this thread is being viewed heavily by outsiders (over 24,000 views) so I hope people can keep that in mind before they speak. People are obviously linking into the thread from somewhere.

I vaguely get what is going on but I don't have the time to read an entire 70 page thread. Hope the rumor is true that C4L is going to address the issue soon and clarify things.

----------


## purplechoe

"Have you seen this man?" - how about we start a chip in to put adds on milk cartons...

----------


## purplechoe



----------


## akforme

> yeah good point... I hope people also realize this thread is being viewed heavily by outsiders (over 24,000 views) so I hope people can keep that in mind before they speak. People are obviously linking into the thread from somewhere.
> 
> I vaguely get what is going on but I don't have the time to read an entire 70 page thread. Hope the rumor is true that C4L is going to address the issue soon and clarify things.


I think that's good tho.  It means we don't stand for it for a second and it's what make me proud to be a Ron Paul supporter.

This thread is just another example as to why I trust this movement.

----------


## rancher89

> AntiFed, that is my all time favorite RP video.


Mine too!  Thanks A-F <3

----------


## jmdrake

> the money was from "new donors" and was earmarked by these "new donors" to only be spent on this candidate/ad...the money did not come from the general pool of donations...the "new donors" is apparently this guy: http://coloradoindependent.com/46727...nd-speculation (Tim Gill)


This is a good news / bad news thing.  From the article Tim Gill supposedly donated the money as thanks for Buck making use of "hate crimes" laws.  Last time I checked Paul was on record against hate crimes legislation.  

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-02/ro...dom-of-speech/

Of course the crime in question should be prosecuted, but why not just treat it as a murder?  And as senator would Buck support expansion of such legislation in the future?  And imagine how this could be spun against the CFL?

----------


## werdd

CFL - You are not getting a dime from me until this is cleared up, or your senior staff is fired. 350K on a survey?

----------


## smashysmashy

> This is from the CFL forums, from the 'interim state coordinator' in Michigan:


How long does it really take to prepare a statement? C4L keeps on ignoring my (our) pleas and questions. They are speaking more to the media than to us. 

C4L is about as transparent as the Obomba administration. I am a disgusted and disenfranchised almost-ex-member. I say almost-ex because I will hold out for their explanation, but their failure to produce it in an extremely timely fashion speaks wonders about their lack of transparency. 

Even if they have a reasonable and satisfactory explanation, I have learned far too much about the inner workings of C4L to be very comfortable with them. No more support and no more contributions from me until they take a serious look at their lack of transparency and come up with a good model we can be proud of. 

I am just absolutely heartbroken and I feel duped. Thanks guys and gals for bringing this to our attention and keeping up this awesome homegrown investigation.

----------


## qwerty

Jihaaa, we have new trolls here!

----------


## constituent

> If anything I think it will make people realize that they need to contribute directly to candidates and get more involved locally. At least that's what I hope.


That's most likely what will happen.  

If it does, will it then be time (as in, will people finally be comfortable enough) to start questioning "standard methods" of organization?

----------


## klamath

> Well, we shall see. There is a board of directors and if they care about him AT ALL they were thinking of him and kept him out of this debacle.
> 
> I don't want Dr. Paul to be dragged through the mud but I REALLY don't trust this group of people running C4L. I don't think they give a rat's ass about wht kind of damage they're doing with this whole thing. I don't think they care because they don't care about the principles of the organization they are working for. Debbie Hopper busted up the CP over abortion and she could care less whether Rothfeld agrees with us on foreign policy. Foreign Policy is the one plank of our platform that should never be compromised. It is what binds all of us. left and right, together in our support of Ron Paul. 
> 
> If Debbie is quick to dismiss my concerns and try to shut me down-- little old me-- what makes anyone think she gives a rat's ass about what any of us think? They weren't making any money til Rothfeld came on board. The people who were there before they made money was _us_. apparently it wasn't enough to have a motivated group of fired up activists ready to go. They needed money. And when Rothfeld proved he could get the money without the activists that was the end of that.


I am not sure what "CP" is but if it is CFL then I hope the heck that someone wasn't trying to put a proabortion plank in the platform. If they were they should have caught as much hell as this whole thing.  
There is no "we" or "our" platform as I pointed out before, in this movement. There is only your personal opinion of what  plank  should never be compromised. I have my own personal opinions on what "is" the non compromisable planks.

----------


## klamath

> How long does it really take to prepare a statement? C4L keeps on ignoring my (our) pleas and questions. They are speaking more to the media than to us. 
> 
> C4L is about as transparent as the Obomba administration. I am a disgusted and disenfranchised almost-ex-member. I say almost-ex because I will hold out for their explanation, but their failure to produce it in an extremely timely fashion speaks wonders about their lack of transparency. 
> 
> Even if they have a reasonable and satisfactory explanation, I have learned far too much about the inner workings of C4L to be very comfortable with them. No more support and no more contributions from me until they take a serious look at their lack of transparency and come up with a good model we can be proud of. 
> 
> I am just absolutely heartbroken and I feel duped. Thanks guys and gals for bringing this to our attention and keeping up this awesome homegrown investigation.




Another guy that just signed up to bash the CFL. What a great contrabution

----------


## pacelli

> Perhaps we need some modern thinking in regard to accomplishing goals; The Pareto principle, maybe? 80% of the results come from 20% of the work? 80% of our success will come from 20% of our work...so try to work that how you will. Maybe focus nearly all of our efforts in 20% of the country, rather than the whole? Maybe focus 80% of our efforts in small communities or towns (20% of the whole picture), which could bring us 80% of our results?
> *
> The idea now should be to isolate what "20%" creates "80%" of our results.*
> 
> *Fact of the matter is we really don't have a game plan. Giving money to an organization so they can redistribute it to various places is not a game plan. However, if one were to discover 20% of goverment (ie, taking over small communities, much more achievable) would create an uprising leading to 80% of our results, that would be great. I'm not saying this is it, but it's time we start targeting what actually works instead of trusting idiots like CFL.*


I just wanted to quote a good, productive idea, since usually good ideas tend to become completely lost in these long threads.

----------


## rancher89

> I am not sure what "CP" is but if it is CFL then I hope the heck that someone wasn't trying to put a proabortion plank in the platform. If they were they should have caught as much hell as this whole thing.  
> There is no "we" or "our" platform as I pointed out before, in this movement. There is only your personal opinion of what  plank  should never be compromised. I have my own personal opinions on what "is" the non compromisable planks.


LLS meant Constitution Party

----------


## LittleLightShining

> My understanding is that the money was given under conditions on what it could be used for and these conditions were that it be used for that candidate in CO.
> 
> C4L Said that Buck scored very high on their positions survey.
> 
> The explanation for the delay in the release of a statement is that they need to be careful with the legalities concerned in releasing information about donors, money, etc..


Excuses excuses. No one in Colorado knew about the survey except national, the candidate and the donor. 

Tell me how it makes any kind of fiscal sense to have these surveys generating from national without the assistance of the boots on the ground in the states.

If there's a survey being sent to candidates from national, and one of the expectations national has from state partners is to have "regular contact with elected officials to inform them about the work of the C4L" (from The Campaign For Liberty Partner Relationship agreement), WHY not give this excellent tool (the survey) to the state coordinators to use to build these relationships with candidates???




> Thank you to the RP Forums community for breaking this story.  It is now on the front page of the Daily Paul, where it will stay, until we get some answers.
> 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123033
> 
> But let me be clear: I stand with Ron Paul.
> 
> He's not the quirky little Congressman from Texas who can say and do what he wants and no one cares any more.  
> 
> This is high stakes politics.  This is the big show.  Dr. Paul is under tremendous pressure.  In this game, anything goes.  
> ...


Me, too. Thanks for being a bold voice for the grassroots.




> My State Coordinator called and spoke to me in length tonight. They had a major phone call today with John Tate and the State Coordinators due to my thread on the C4L forums, and the phone calls they had received. From what I gathered NONE of the State leadership (including Colorado) were aware of this at all and are all equally upset. Mr. Tate told them that he should have a response to everyone's concerns tomorrow. The State Coordinator sounded genuinely upset with the situation. I let him know that I may still get involved in local things, or even State level but my support for C4L on a National level will take much explaining, some actual actions and not just words, and many changes before the wounds can even begin to heal. 
> 
> So now we wait and see what tomorrow will bring.


Bears repeating. We're gonna get nothing but spin. And I have a feeling they're going to stick Ron Paul in the middle of this. So who's this going to hurt? And they're going to stick us out and blame the fall of Dr. Paul on us when this was part of the plan from the beginning. I honestly believe this.




> Even if they didn't spend $350,000 on this one guy, they still wasted $350,000 on  a stupid survey.  Seriously, us here at RPFs could have done a silly survey for a few thousand dollars.
> 
> It's time to open the books and show how the money is being spent.  If anything, it will help prevent situations like this from arising in the future.


OPEN THE BOOKS!




> the money was from "new donors" and was earmarked by these "new donors" to only be spent on this candidate/ad...the money did not come from the general pool of donations...the "new donors" is apparently this guy: http://coloradoindependent.com/46727...nd-speculation (Tim Gill)


So they are willing to compromise on the most important plank of the C4L principles statement to the highest bidder. Nice. 



> That's most likely what will happen.  
> 
> If it does, will it then be time (as in, will people finally be comfortable enough) to start questioning "standard methods" of organization?


I certainly hope so. I've been wondering for quite some time why this organization is so centralized and secret about everything when this is exactly what we're fighting against.

----------


## constituent

> I certainly hope so. I've been wondering for quite some time why this organization is so centralized and secret about everything when this is exactly what we're fighting against.


TruthWarrior had a quote in his sig. that would appropriate.

If I wasn't so lazy, this would be a placeholder...

----------


## constituent

> the money was from "new donors" and was earmarked by these "new donors" to only be spent on this candidate/ad...the money did not come from the general pool of donations...the "new donors" is apparently this guy: http://coloradoindependent.com/46727...nd-speculation (Tim Gill)


controlled leaks, lmao.

next we'll be hearing about this episode proving CFL as a bottom-up, grassroots organization...

----------


## MsDoodahs

> This is a good news / bad news thing.  From the article Tim Gill supposedly donated the money as thanks for Buck making use of "hate crimes" laws.  Last time I checked Paul was on record against hate crimes legislation.  
> 
> http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-02/ro...dom-of-speech/
> 
> Of course the crime in question should be prosecuted, but why not just treat it as a murder?  And as senator would Buck support expansion of such legislation in the future?  And imagine how this could be spun against the CFL?


Bill and I were discussing this last night and this is where our speculation led us....it has the feel of a PAYOFF to candidate Buck.

Perhaps Gill is the reason Buck chose to prosecute as a hate crime - Gill may have guaranteed money for the senatorial campaign IF Buck would prosecute as a hate crime.

Buck did - Gill is happy - now time to complete the payoff.

Gill needs an org that will keep his identity on the down low because Buck has that pesky R beside his name.

Top staff at CFL has some who have been active in CO politics in the past - phone calls are made - the scheme is hatched....

The reason CFL couldn't make a statement right away is because they needed time to figure out how to COVER THEIR ASSES.  

Is it illegal for money to influence a prosecution?

Or are all prosecutors for sale in this kind of sleazy way?

----------


## pcosmar

Is it "Tomorrow" yet?
I am scanning, looking for the announcement/explanation. Not seeing anything,

/saddened,

----------


## catdd

It's "tomorrow".

----------


## Elwar

I wouldn't expect too much from any announcement. The 501c4b(32)uj requires that they not say the wrong thing. 

What it sounds like is some gay dude gave them $350k to run an ad, so they used the survey spin to get it through.

They can't say that though...they'll probably say something like "We do not endorse candidates, we are promoting our survey. The $350k toward our survey campaign came from a very generous donor."

The announcement will be worded in a way that it stays within the law and drops hints to us what really happened.

----------


## pcosmar

> It's "tomorrow".


Nothing in my E-mails. 


_yes, I'm on the list._

----------


## purplechoe

*YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!*

YouTube - Flashback: Treasonous Clinton puppet tells us "There is no Freedom"

----------


## pcosmar

> I wouldn't expect too much from any announcement. The 501c4b(32)uj requires that they not say the wrong thing. 
> 
> What it sounds like is some gay dude gave them $350k to run an ad, so they used the survey spin to get it through.
> 
> They can't say that though...they'll probably say something like "We do not endorse candidates, we are promoting our survey. The $350k toward our survey campaign came from a very generous donor."
> 
> The announcement will be to stay within the law and drop hints to us what really happened.


Perhaps.
*That $#@! ain't gonna get it !*

----------


## pacelli

> My State Coordinator called and spoke to me in length tonight. They had a major phone call today with John Tate and the State Coordinators due to my thread on the C4L forums, and the phone calls they had received. From what I gathered *NONE of the State leadership (including Colorado) were aware of this at all* and are all equally upset. Mr. Tate told them that he should have a response to everyone's concerns tomorrow. The State Coordinator sounded genuinely upset with the situation. I let him know that I may still get involved in local things, or even State level but my support for C4L on a National level will take much explaining, some actual actions and not just words, and many changes before the wounds can even begin to heal. 
> 
> So now we wait and see what tomorrow will bring.


If that is true, then a lawsuit initiated by C4L against the party engaging in fraud should be forthcoming.  Anything less than that, and I consider the entire story a cover-up.

----------


## catdd

> Nothing in my E-mails. 
> 
> 
> _yes, I'm on the list._



Nothing in mine either, and usually there are a couple in the mornings. That's not a good sign.

----------


## smashysmashy

> Another guy that just signed up to bash the CFL. What a great contrabution


Wow. I cam to these boards  thanks to you all for bringing this to our attention. Don't you want C4L members who are $#@!ING RON PAUL SUPPORTERS to understand what is wrong with C4L? Wouldn't you want more supporters to come here an join the cause? I never thought I would be ostracized for my previous comment. I was just trying to say thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sorry I didn't realize these boards were so pretentious and skeptical of newcomers who are supporters. I'll gladly delete my account and not contribute if this is how you feel about newcomers. I was just really upset with C4L (something that has been building up even before this) and I was really glad you guys and gals on this board brought it to our attention. But if I am being told I am a troll, then fine, no need to be treated this way.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Wow. I cam to these boards  thanks to you all for bringing this to our attention. Don't you want C4L members who are $#@!ING RON PAUL SUPPORTERS to understand what is wrong with C4L? Wouldn't you want more supporters to come here an join the cause? I never thought I would be ostracized for my previous comment. I was just trying to say thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sorry I didn't realize these boards were so pretentious and skeptical of newcomers who are supporters. I'll gladly delete my account and not contribute if this is how you feel about newcomers. I was just really upset with C4L (something that has been building up even before this) and I was really glad you guys and gals on this board brought it to our attention. But if I am being told I am a troll, then fine, no need to be treated this way.


I don't think you're a troll, if that's any consolation. Your handle looks familiar. Do I recognize it from C4L?

----------


## MsDoodahs

Stop calling new members trolls, people.

They may be and they may not be.

That we will sort out later after this mess with CFL is over.

For now, I'm taking the view that a WHOLE lot of people who were members and supporters of CFL are coming here to join us and express their outrage.

----------


## YumYum

Does anybody on this forum have direct contact with Dr. Paul?

----------


## RCA

> Stop calling new members trolls, people.
> 
> They may be and they may not be.
> 
> That we will sort out later after this mess with CFL is over.
> 
> For now, I'm taking the view that a WHOLE lot of people who were members and supporters of CFL are coming here to join us and express their outrage.


Seconded.

----------


## rancher89

third, motion carried

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Stop calling new members trolls, people.
> 
> They may be and they may not be.
> 
> That we will sort out later after this mess with CFL is over.
> 
> For now, I'm taking the view that a WHOLE lot of people who were members and supporters of CFL are coming here to join us and express their outrage.


Yeah yeah, that^^

----------


## JoshLowry

> Wow. I cam to these boards  thanks to you all for bringing this to our attention. Don't you want C4L members who are $#@!ING RON PAUL SUPPORTERS to understand what is wrong with C4L? Wouldn't you want more supporters to come here an join the cause? I never thought I would be ostracized for my previous comment. I was just trying to say thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sorry I didn't realize these boards were so pretentious and skeptical of newcomers who are supporters. I'll gladly delete my account and not contribute if this is how you feel about newcomers. I was just really upset with C4L (something that has been building up even before this) and I was really glad you guys and gals on this board brought it to our attention. But if I am being told I am a troll, then fine, no need to be treated this way.


Relax.  No one speaks for anyone here.  It's every man, woman, and child for him/herself.

BTW, welcome.

----------


## pacelli

> Wow. I cam to these boards  thanks to you all for bringing this to our attention. Don't you want C4L members who are $#@!ING RON PAUL SUPPORTERS to understand what is wrong with C4L? Wouldn't you want more supporters to come here an join the cause? I never thought I would be ostracized for my previous comment. I was just trying to say thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sorry I didn't realize these boards were so pretentious and skeptical of newcomers who are supporters. I'll gladly delete my account and not contribute if this is how you feel about newcomers. I was just really upset with C4L (something that has been building up even before this) and I was really glad you guys and gals on this board brought it to our attention. But if I am being told I am a troll, then fine, no need to be treated this way.


Tensions are at an all time high right now on RPF, as they are on DP as well.  When threatened by an outside force, all cohesive groups go through a period of taking their angst out on each other, rather than directing it to the appropriate party (the outside force).  

Glad to see you spread your wings.  

Incidentally, if any CFL members are $#@!ing Ron Paul supporters, this thread wouldn't be complete without pictures

----------


## purplechoe

> 


Ohh the irony...  ...I will be seeing Testament next week with Megadeth and Slayer!

----------


## smashysmashy

> I don't think you're a troll, if that's any consolation. Your handle looks familiar. Do I recognize it from C4L?


Hey thanks! I contribute(d) quite often over there under the same handle since the beginning. Yes, I know this marks my whopping 6th comment over here, but I am just making the switch over now. I am just a little taken back by two rude replies I go when I am just trying to give you guys my support and say thanks. I am not "bashing" C4L. It's high time they change policy and become more transparent, despite what is revealed from this 350k debacle. I withhold judgment until we get something from C4L, but there are certainly a plethora of reasons to be upset with C4L. Bashing, no. Trying to use my time in the best way possible to support liberty, surely.

----------


## Elwar

Most of the new folks are probably coming over from dailypaul.com

They have a thread over there and instead of repeating everything that's been said here they're told to read this thread.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Hey thanks! I contribute(d) quite often over there under the same handle since the beginning. Yes, I know this marks my whopping 6th comment over here, but I am just making the switch over now. I am just a little taken back by two rude replies I go when I am just trying to give you guys my support and say thanks. I am not "bashing" C4L. It's high time they change policy and become more transparent, despite what is revealed from this 350k debacle. I withhold judgment until we get something from C4L, but there are certainly a plethora of reasons to be upset with C4L. Bashing, no. Trying to use my time in the best way possible to support liberty, surely.


Unfortunately "bashing" is a word that's bandied about here recklessly. I've been accused of it more than several times myself. When looking for the truth always be prepared to fend off attacks from people who either don't want to believe it or don't want you to find it.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Everyone that is pointing out that it's now "tomorrow" please remember its still only 10:00am on the east coast. I am sure any statement will first go to all the state coordinators and wont be until this afternoon when people are awake. 

If we don't have a response by tonight though, or if its a fluff piece insulting or values, principles, and concerns then I will be first to lead a charge with pitchforks, tar and feathers to burn the place down figuratively. 

If the announcement comes out on a Friday night at closing time with the expectation that those responsible can go home for the weekend and let things calm and settle they will come back Monday to find nothing left of Campaign for Liberty. I personally will post blogs, digg blogs, post on every political forum I can think of, on facebook, and everything in my power to bring them down if this is not fixed today.

----------


## smashysmashy

Alright... now I've derailed this board from the real issue(s) at hand. Thanks for the kind words. 

I'll prove my worth with future commenting. You can see my contributions over at C4L under the same handle, but of course I know that that isn't proof because anyone can copy a handle...

Anyways. Still no word from C4L with any explanation. I am friends on facebook with one of the senior members who seems quite upset by this whole situation. I look forward to some sort of explanation.

----------


## Baptist

10:08..................

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Everyone that is pointing out that it's now "tomorrow" please remember its still only 10:00am on the east coast. I am sure any statement will first go to all the state coordinators and wont be until this afternoon when people are awake. 
> 
> If we don't have a response by tonight though, or if its a fluff piece insulting or values, principles, and concerns then I will be first to lead a charge with pitchforks, tar and feathers to burn the place down figuratively. 
> 
> If the announcement comes out on a Friday night at closing time with the expectation that those responsible can go home for the weekend and let things calm and settle they will come back Monday to find nothing left of Campaign for Liberty. I personally will post blogs, digg blogs, post on every political forum I can think of, on facebook, and everything in my power to bring them down if this is not fixed today.


We do have to be really careful about how we frame our disgust. It's absolutely going to come back to bite Dr. Paul. We should keep a focus on acting locally, knowing who our support is going to, where and how our dollars are spent. We should remain positive about supporting individual candidates and projects at the same time rejecting the centralized model. 

WE made Dr. Paul a household name-- NOT the PCC (Hopper, Tate and Benton). We've already proven we can do this. Let's continue on in that spirit.

----------


## JoshLowry

> Everyone that is pointing out that it's now "tomorrow" please remember its still only 10:00am on the east coast. I am sure any statement will first go to all the state coordinators and wont be until this afternoon when people are awake. 
> 
> If we don't have a response by tonight though, or if its a fluff piece insulting or values, principles, and concerns then I will be first to lead a charge with pitchforks, tar and feathers to burn the place down figuratively. 
> 
> If the announcement comes out on a Friday night at closing time with the expectation that those responsible can go home for the weekend and let things calm and settle they will come back Monday to find nothing left of Campaign for Liberty. I personally will post blogs, digg blogs, post on every political forum I can think of, on facebook, and everything in my power to bring them down if this is not fixed today.


Take it down a notch keyboard commando.  

They can take themselves down with their own actions.  No need to push them over if they have a good explanation. (Not looking pretty at the moment.)

----------


## purplechoe

> Relax.  No one speaks for anyone here.  It's every man, woman, and child for him/herself.
> 
> BTW, welcome.


..the good ol' days...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Take it down a notch keyboard commando.


Ah, there's no fun in that.

YouTube - Predator - Slack Jawed ******s

----------


## purplechoe

I'm just curious, do the people at CFL are aware of this new invention called the "internet"?

...information superhighway..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Take it down a notch keyboard commando.  
> 
> They can take themselves down with their own actions.  No need to push them over if they have a good explanation. (Not looking pretty at the moment.)

----------


## TruthisTreason



----------


## YumYum

Looks like C4L needs a Public Relations expert. Anybody here want the job?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I'm just curious, do the people at CFL are aware of this new invention called the "internet"?
> 
> ...information superhighway..


They do, but they only know how to use it when they want money. Maybe they're trying to figure out how to turn the announcement into a fund raising letter.

----------


## catdd

> They do, but they only know how to use it when they want money. Maybe they're trying to figure out how to turn the announcement into a fund raising letter.


There's an old saying...
YouTube - Bush "Fool Me Once..."

----------


## purplechoe

> There's an old saying...
> YouTube - Bush "Fool Me Once..."


YouTube - bush harm

----------


## KCIndy

> They do, but they only know how to use it when they want money. Maybe they're trying to figure out how to turn the announcement into a fund raising letter.



Ha!! 

LLS, I was thinking the same thing!    I just didn't want to say anything here because people are so fired up and PO'ed already....  But I really *can* imagine getting some sort of emailed statement along the lines of:

_"Innocent mistakes were made, blah blah blah... now we are under vicious attack by outsiders who hate our cause.  Don't let this happen!  Please donate generously because we are privately funded and we need money to defend our good name!"_

Ooooohhh....  Let's wait and see!

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Ha!! 
> 
> LLS, I was thinking the same thing!    I just didn't want to say anything here because people are so fired up and PO'ed already....  But I really *can* imagine getting some sort of emailed statement along the lines of:
> 
> *"Innocent mistakes were made, blah blah blah... now we are under vicious attack by outsiders who hate our cause.  Don't let this happen!  Please donate generously because we are privately funded and we need money to defend our good name!"*
> 
> Ooooohhh....  Let's wait and see!


HILARIOUS! I can so see that, too!

----------


## aclove

Christ, the more I think about it, the more I can see that happening.  Kind of reminds me of that, "They're turning their guns on me, please send money now!" email that Ron _supposedly_ wrote a few weeks ago for his congressional campaign.

----------


## RCA

What gets to me the most about all this, is that of all the small little changes I requested to CFL like adding a "remember me" checkbox, updating the store with more choices, etc. and their typical response was they only have limited resources/funds. Ugh.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Even though this is quite a serious matter, some of the posts have been good for a laugh.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> What gets to me the most about all this, is that of all the small little changes I requested to CFL like adding a "remember me" checkbox, updating the store with more choices, etc. and their typical response was they only have limited resources/funds. Ugh.


Well, it costs money to pay the salaries of the super competent top level staff.

----------


## catdd

I don't remember the poster, but someone said that "this is what happens when they stop depending on our donations and begin looking for alternative means for acquiring money."

Looks like we are experiencing growing pains.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, it costs money to pay the salaries of the super competent top level staff.


Not to mention Adam DeAngelis and the rest of the failed campaign leeches.

----------


## pcosmar

> Not to mention Adam DeAngelis and the rest of the failed campaign leeches.


I was trying NOT to mention.

_but you are familiar with the Michigan "campaign"._ 

I was hopeful of C4L when it started,
I am unimpressed.

----------


## pacelli

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228831

----------


## newbitech

> There's an old saying...
> YouTube - Bush "Fool Me Once..."



YouTube - The Who Won't Get Fooled Again Lyrics

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Not to mention Adam DeAngelis and the rest of the failed campaign leeches.


Back when I lived in Mich, I did a lot of campaigning with him. I even introduced him to RP and his staff and told them how great of a computer guy he is. Then he eventually made it on the team and ever since I saw him at the R4R, not a word from him. So, I can see where you're coming from.

----------


## hotbrownsauce

Straight from C4L website.




> The Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization. A "501(c)(4)" is an organization not organized for profit and operated "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." It is essentially a tax designation. *There are many different tax categories for political organizations, each with its own pros and cons. In our case, the pros include having no limit on the amount that individuals may donate, while cons include a restriction from endorsing political candidates. Those who would like to donate to an organization that can support political candidates should donate to a Poltical Action Committee (PAC) such as the Liberty PAC. Donations to 501(c)(4)'s are NOT tax deductible.*

----------


## pcosmar

> Back when I lived in Mich, I did a lot of campaigning with him.* I even introduced him to RP and his staff and told them how great of a computer guy he is*. Then he eventually made it on the team and ever since I saw him at the R4R, not a word from him. So, I can see where you're coming from.



phfffttt

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Back when I lived in Mich, I did a lot of campaigning with him. I even introduced him to RP and his staff and told them how great of a computer guy he is. Then he eventually made it on the team and ever since I saw him at the R4R, not a word from him. So, I can see where you're coming from.





> phfffttt


Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> phfffttt


Yeah, I know.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah, I know.


At the risk of a derail, (though possibly related)
There was a vibrant bunch of folks in Michigan at the Mackinac Conference. Paul Garfield was the state coordinator when they were trying to exclude Dr Paul. We flooded Saul Anuzis, we got Ron to Mackinac and had a lot of folks there. (the media ignored that)
Suddenly and without any explanation Garfield was out, 
Adam DeAngelis and Debbie Hooper were in, and $#@! went downhill.
Go figure.

----------


## johnrocks

> 


 I came on here to see if we had learned anything yet and this post told me all I needed to know

----------


## Free Moral Agent

delete

----------


## RonPaulCult

Statement Concerning C4L's Issue Discussion Program


Posted by John Tate on 01/29/10
Last updated 01/29/10

Throughout 2010, Campaign for Liberty will be running an issue discussion program through our candidate surveys in every state to promote our issues and agenda and to lobby candidates for federal office and to get them on the record in support or opposition on our issues.

Since our inception, we have had many requests from our members for such an effort to help in their work to educate those around them.

As part of this program, mail, radio and TV ads, banner ads, and other forms of communication may be run to encourage candidates to go on record in support of our Liberty agenda, to highlight the responses of the candidates on our issues, and to hold those candidates who ignore our cause accountable.

There have been some questions as to why certain candidates have received surveys while others haven't. This is simply a matter of putting in place a systematic approach based on candidate filing deadlines and clear survey response deadlines in order to send out surveys in an organized fashion.

For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site.

As we launch this new undertaking, I also want to take a moment to address your inquires about one of our first public survey ads in Colorado.

First, I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate. In our survey program, we seek only to report where candidates stand in regard to the specific questions to which they have responded.

In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program. Your invaluable feedback will help us correct this in the future and, as a result, strengthen the effectiveness of our program. This is C4L's first foray into launching this kind of national initiative, and we are convinced it has the potential to make a tremendous impact.

The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.

We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.

That being said, there is an even more important fact: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.

So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon, and second, we did NOT use any money raised generally by Campaign for Liberty to run these ads in Colorado.

In order to both launch the Colorado effort and test our survey program, C4L did not use existing donor funds but built new support and donations, especially within Colorado, specifically for this project. This is the approach we hope to take as we seek funding for many other special projects this year in other states.

I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people.

This movement has a unique window of opportunity to change politics in our country and restore our lost liberties. But to accomplish this, it will take our unified effort and focus. I see great things for us in 2010 and beyond if we can do that. I hope I'll have your support as we continue our campaign for liberty.

----------


## Baptist

I will refrain from becoming belligerent.  

However, I deleted all my info on the CFL site and unsubscribed from their emails.  Just not comfortable being a member of that organization anymore.   If they ever decide to shed some sunlight on themselves, I may rethink joining.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

I am no longer a member of C4L.  Deleted my account minutes ago.  The political ad for Ken Buck was bad.  Tate telling me I'm stupid is worse.

I use to love that site.  I smell special interests now.  I'm very disappointed.

----------


## Bman

> I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people.


No.  The critical question is whether or not you will take money to advance the objectives or non-liberty candidates.

Principle before party.  You should know your base and support.  Either admit your mistake, make the right changes or fund yourself.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> No.  The critical question is whether or not you will take money to advance the objectives or non-liberty candidates.
> 
> Principle before party.  You should know your base and support.  Either admit your mistake, make the right changes or fund yourself.


No no no... don't you see, we have to work with the GOP. Forget education. It's all about party politics and the GOP is the place for us 

Seriously, though, I agree with you.

----------


## greenspj

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Edito...m?Info=0086331

----------


## greenspj

We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked. 

My first question to you are: 
1) Are you from CO? 
2) Are you a Local Coordinator? 
3) Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp? 
4) As a Local Coordinator who has completed the Local Coordinator online bootcamp, have you put the knowledge you've gained into action? 

If you've answered "No" to any of the questions above, can you please explain why you are concerned about this issue? 

Thanks.

----------


## specsaregood

> If you've answered "No" to any of the questions above, can you please explain why you are concerned about this issue? 
> 
> Thanks.


Because they have succeeded in proving that the non-interventionism principle is not a make it or break it issue for the _"Campaign for Liberty"_ NATIONALLY.

----------


## angelatc

> We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked. 
> .


Then maybe you don't belong in politics. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.  This certainly wouldn't be the first time that an objectionable group tried to make an end run around FEC reporting requirements using a naive third party .

----------


## greenspj

> Then maybe you don't belong in politics. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.  This certainly wouldn't be the first time that an objectionable group tried to make an end run around FEC reporting requirements using a naive third party .


It's ironic that you want the C4L to divulge it's private donor lists, but you wont answer the 4 questions above.

----------


## smashysmashy

> I am no longer a member of C4L.  Deleted my account minutes ago.  The political ad for Ken Buck was bad.  Tate telling me I'm stupid is worse.
> 
> I use to love that site.  I smell special interests now.  I'm very disappointed.


 Hey Dean! I am in the same boat as you. Used to love C4L... but I think this is a better place for me to mobilize my support for liberty. 

This one particular issue isn't even my biggest quarrel but it is certainly the nail in the coffin. If C4L decides to be a leading model in transparency and liberty then I will gladly contribute, no grudges held... but over 48 hours for that explanation is very telling and extremely opaque.

----------


## manystrom

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123275

Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 16:57
in    * Daily Paul Liberty Forum

John Tate's statement can be read on the C4L's site via this link.

The numerous comments on the linked article, as well as comment threads on Ron Paul Forums and the Daily Paul indicate overwhelming dissatisfaction with the vaguely worded explanation, and call for more answers.

Questions that come to my mind when reading the statement include:

Tate: _The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey_

We have seen the questions. Where are Buck's answers?

Regardless of how he answered, it is clear from his own website that he is a pro-war, pro-interventionist candidate:

    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.

Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with grassroots supporters knows that, while we are a diverse bunch, there are a few issues upon which we are in total agreement. One of these uniting issues is the principle of NON-INTERVENTIONISM. The fact that Buck answered 19 questions "correctly" is irrelevant.

THIS IS AN ISSUE ON WHICH WE NEVER COMPROMISE.

Tate: _We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us._

How sweet. If these are "personal promises," how exactly do you intend to hold these candidates responsible once they become elected officials, and view themselves as above the law? Do you intend to bring lawsuits against the individuals should they break them? What is the plan here? I'm curious, since breaking campaign promises is a routine event in American politics.

If you are making a "guarantee," how will those of us who trusted your judgement be compensated for being duped?

Tate: _The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.
_
This sounds like a side pool of money. Who is this "small number of Colorado activists?" Does the group have a name, or formal organization? Is the group's mission consistent with that of C4L? What other type of influence, if any, have they purchased within the C4L with this money?

Furthermore, what is the criteria for other groups who wish to channel side pools through the C4L? Did any of the money go to the C4L, or was it all used to fund the ad? Did any members of the C4L personally benefit from this transaction?

Tate: _So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon_

Really? When? Because 2010 primaries are coming up very, very quick. We've got a slew of REAL liberty candidates who have emerged from the grassroots movement started by Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. So far there has been no action on the part of the C4L to support these candidates. Candidates like: Rand Paul, RJ Harris Jake Towne, John Dennis, Adam Kokesh, and Debra Medina. As far as I understand, none of these candidates have heard a peep for C4L.

If your answer is: _I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate,_

I'm afraid that just answer doesn't cut it - not after the Buck ad. While the ad may be consistent with the letter of the law, it is not consistent with its spirit.

Among the local grassroots, asking for help from the C4L has become a running joke. Such a suggestion is met with the roll of eyes and a sarcastic scoff: "Right, like that is ever going to happen."

In the end, this event has been very disappointing to everyone in the community who has steadfastly supported Ron Paul. My understanding of the C4L is that it was to work with the grassroots community toward common goals. That hasn't happened.

This response did very little to satisfy the growing dissatisfaction within C4L membership and grassroots Ron Paul supporters. We got no new information - nothing we hadn't already figured out on our own via the Forums.

We do not appreciate being treated like ignorant jackasses.

----------


## greenspj

> Because they have succeeded in proving that the non-interventionism is not a make it or break it issue for the _"Campaign for Liberty"_ NATIONALLY.


Why are you so worried about the splinter in your neighbors eye?  Is your answer to the 4 questions above "No"?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked. 
> 
> My first question to you are: 
> 1) Are you from CO? 
> 2) Are you a Local Coordinator? 
> 3) Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp? 
> 4) As a Local Coordinator who has completed the Local Coordinator online bootcamp, have you put the knowledge you've gained into action? 
> 
> If you've answered "No" to any of the questions above, can you please explain why you are concerned about this issue? 
> ...


1) No
2) No, but I was until a couple hours ago
3) Yes
4) Yes

Before I answer your question, who are you and what's your motive?

----------


## brandon

> We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked. 
> 
> My first question to you are: 
> 1) Are you from CO? 
> 2) Are you a Local Coordinator? 
> 3) Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp? 
> 4) As a Local Coordinator who has completed the Local Coordinator online bootcamp, have you put the knowledge you've gained into action? 
> 
> If you've answered "No" to any of the questions above, can you please explain why you are concerned about this issue? 
> ...


No I'm not from Colorado,  but I am a local coordinator.

Regardless, there are many reasons for one to be concerned that don't have anything to do with your questions. A lot of us have spent time and money growing this organization, and it is now working against one of our primary goals.

----------


## angelatc

> At the risk of a derail, (though possibly related)
> There was a vibrant bunch of folks in Michigan at the Mackinac Conference. Paul Garfield was the state coordinator when they were trying to exclude Dr Paul. We flooded Saul Anuzis, we got Ron to Mackinac and had a lot of folks there. (the media ignored that)
> Suddenly and without any explanation Garfield was out, 
> Adam DeAngelis and Debbie Hooper were in, and $#@! went downhill.
> Go figure.


They didn't ignore the ferry ride. 

Chicago can tell a similiar story.  We had a guy who put together a huge coalition. He works for a mainstream conservative / libertarian organization there. Remember the PBS piece on The Revolution? He orchestrated that.

When it came time to hire a state coordinator, we got a guy from the city that nobody had heard of.  He was flipping useless.

----------


## newbitech

> We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked. 
> 
> My first question to you are: 
> 1) Are you from CO? 
> 2) Are you a Local Coordinator? 
> 3) Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp? 
> 4) As a Local Coordinator who has completed the Local Coordinator online bootcamp, have you put the knowledge you've gained into action? 
> 
> If you've answered "No" to any of the questions above, can you please explain why you are concerned about this issue? 
> ...


so are you the one who dropped 350k, or happen to know the source of the funds?

I've seen national in action to ruin grassroots efforts here in FL.  Similar pattern here in CO.  I am concerned because maybe I can help others in states that are not FL or CO make sure they don't waste their time trying to follow the C4L model. 

No, No, No, No..  

Your answer please

----------


## rancher89

> We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked. 
> 
> My first question to you are: 
> 1) Are you from CO? 
> 2) Are you a Local Coordinator? 
> 3) Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp? 
> 4) As a Local Coordinator who has completed the Local Coordinator online bootcamp, have you put the knowledge you've gained into action? 
> 
> If you've answered "No" to any of the questions above, can you please explain why you are concerned about this issue? 
> ...


Done all of them except #1 (don't know why that's even a question??) and was a state coordinator and I'm working on being a GOP District Chair (Mel Watt's district)  OK???  and I want answers too, better than what we got, more like what we deserve.

That ad should have never had the C4L logo on it, at all. period.

----------


## greenspj

> 1) No
> 2) No, but I was until a couple hours ago
> 3) Yes
> 4) Yes
> 
> Before I answer your question, who are you and what's your motive?


Sure....  My answers...

1) No
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes

I'm not from CO and I don't give a ****.

There's way too much to do in my state and me and others are busy here DOING THE WORK, not bitching.

That's my motive: There's work to do.

----------


## greenspj

> so are you the one who dropped 350k, or happen to know the source of the funds?
> 
> I've seen national in action to ruin grassroots efforts here in FL.  Similar pattern here in CO.  I am concerned because maybe I can help others in states that are not FL or CO make sure they don't waste their time trying to follow the C4L model. 
> 
> No, No, No, No..  
> 
> Your answer please


4 Nos.  If you're not doing anything, then what's your concern?

----------


## specsaregood

> Why are you so worried about the splinter in your neighbors eye?  Is your answer to the 4 questions above "No"?


I'm a CFL donor and dues-paying member and active in my area.    If non-interventionism is not a principle that is make it or break it for them anymore, then they no longer represent me.  I don't want to cancel my membership; but I refuse to support yet another organization that thinks interventionism is ok.  That's why I care.

----------


## newbitech

> Sure....  My answers...
> 
> 1) No
> 2) Yes
> 3) Yes
> 4) Yes
> 
> I'm not from CO and I don't give a ****.
> 
> ...


So part of that work is defending C4L and Colorado anonymous activist?  Nice job..

----------


## LittleLightShining

> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123275
> 
> Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 16:57
> in    * Daily Paul Liberty Forum
> 
> John Tate's statement can be read on the C4L's site via this link.
> 
> The numerous comments on the linked article, as well as comment threads on Ron Paul Forums and the Daily Paul indicate overwhelming dissatisfaction with the vaguely worded explanation, and call for more answers.
> 
> ...


Fantastic! I couldn't agree more.

----------


## newbitech

> 4 Nos.  If you're not doing anything, then what's your concern?


Not doing anything with C4L doesn't equal not doing anything.  So if you aren't going to get past that, you will never see my concern.

I have already expressed it.  What is your concern?

----------


## MsDoodahs

So are you that guy that works for CFL, greenspj?

----------


## angelatc

> It's ironic that you want the C4L to divulge it's private donor lists, but you wont answer the 4 questions above.


It's absurd to think that you should decide the questions that I am allowed to ask, and it's rather amusing that you really don't understand the meaning of the word "irony." _the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend._ 

You also might want to look up the correct way to use 's after "it" while you're brushing up on English.

And where did you get the idea that 501(c)4  contributions were private?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Before I answer your question, who are you and what's your motive?



Search function is disabled at the moment, but if memory serves me correctly, this entity was here during the campaign...defending some action that the grassroots disagreed with back then...and I was puzzled because he used some of the exact same phrases that had been used by Debbie Hopper.  

Once search is re-established I will review and let y'all know if memory is serving correctly.

----------


## The Patriot

As long as no C4L money was used, I do not mind if a couple individuals in C4L used their own money for a candidate they like. As long as my money isn't going to such things I don't care. I don't see why people are so angry and blowing this out of proportion. It is as though they always want to be on the underdog end and fighting against the system, even their own system. We shouldn't undo all the progress we have made with C4L by leaving it.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> As long as no C4L money was used, I do not mind if a couple individuals in C4L used their own money for a candidate they like. As long as my money isn't going to such things I don't care. I don't see why people are so angry and blowing this out of proportion. It is as though they always want to be on the underdog end and fighting against the system, even their own system. We shouldn't undo all the progress we have made with C4L by leaving it.


The used the logo, the name, and the reputation of Campaign for Liberty on a fucling pro-war neocon scumbag piece of $#@!.

----------


## AuH2O

> And where did you get the idea that 501(c)4  contributions were private?


The Internal Revenue Code.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> As long as no C4L money was used, I do not mind if a couple individuals in C4L used their own money for a candidate they like. As long as my money isn't going to such things I don't care. I don't see why people are so angry and blowing this out of proportion. It is as though they always want to be on the underdog end and fighting against the system, even their own system. We shouldn't undo all the progress we have made with C4L by leaving it.



Because the non interventionism plank is CRITICAL to ALL OTHERS.

CFL SOLD OUT.

----------


## MsDoodahs

..

----------


## The Patriot

> Because the non interventionism plank is CRITICAL to ALL OTHERS.
> 
> CFL SOLD OUT.


CFL did not sell out, the spent no money on this ad. However I think it is legitimate to question the motives of this group of members who put forward the money. I think infiltration is something to worry about. However, to leave the organization when it is filled overwhelmingly with our people and none of our donations were spent is absurd, we can't just leave the organization we started because a couple neo con infiltrators put up their own money to push a pro war candidate. We need C4L for as a financial and organizational arm of the liberty movement if we are going to get anywhere. IF you want to undermine the liberty movement by getting in a hissy fit and handing it over to a minority of neo conservative infiltrators than go ahead, by I won't. Non-Interventionism is a plank of the C4L and it is crucial those of us who believe in this stay in the organization.

----------


## greenspj

> Not doing anything with C4L doesn't equal not doing anything.  So if you aren't going to get past that, you will never see my concern.
> 
> I have already expressed it.  What is your concern?



Wait, if you're not doing anything with the C4L, then what's your beef?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> As long as no C4L money was used, I do not mind if a couple individuals in C4L used their own money for a candidate they like. As long as my money isn't going to such things I don't care. I don't see why people are so angry and blowing this out of proportion. It is as though they always want to be on the underdog end and fighting against the system, even their own system. We shouldn't undo all the progress we have made with C4L by leaving it.


I was gonna answer you but these are great:



> The used the logo, the name, and the reputation of Campaign for Liberty on a fucling pro-war neocon scumbag piece of $#@!.





> Because the non interventionism plank is CRITICAL to ALL OTHERS.
> 
> CFL SOLD OUT.


Let's not forget him prosecuting a hate crime and violating the 4th amendment.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Wait, if you're not doing anything with the C4L, then what's your beef?





How much are they paying you?

----------


## angelatc

> I'm confident that the slithering ones (sent here by the CFL staff?) can be defanged by the good and wise members of this forum.
> 
> So, I decline the banhammer at present, but I most assuredly DO appreciate your suggestion.


Good times in the Doodah house tonight!

----------


## greenspj

> It's absurd to think that you should decide the questions that I am allowed to ask


And yet, that's PRECISELY what you are doing to everyone else! 

That's IRONY.

----------


## greenspj

> How much are they paying you?


Same as what they are paying you.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Same as what they are paying you.


What are you in this for, then?

----------


## newbitech

> The Internal Revenue Code.



so this is a lie then? 




> The Form 990 redesign did not change the reporting requirements regarding contributors. Section 501(c)(4) organizations will continue to report the names and addresses of donors *who contributed at least $5,000 during the year* on the Schedule B of the Form 990. These are all contributors, not just those who gave money for the organizations political activities.


where does the privacy come in for these donors?  I hate to invoke the IRS, but really if the campaign for liberty and the candidate are going to try so hard to hide this endorsement for tax purposes, then the obvious question becomes WHO sent the money?

----------


## angelatc

> And yet, that's PRECISELY what you are doing to everyone else! 
> 
> That's IRONY.


Actually, it isn't.  And I certainly didn't appear out of nowhere to berate a bunch of strangers for asking questions about an organization they're involved with, either.  

You can ask any questions you want.  No questionnaire required. 

Anybody who can't stand scrutiny doesn't belong in the liberty movement.  We are an incredibly paranoid bunch. 

Jeff, is it?

----------


## RileyE104

> *CFL did not sell out, the spent no money on this ad*. However I think it is legitimate to question the motives of this group of members who put forward the money. I think infiltration is something to worry about. However, *to leave the organization when it is filled overwhelmingly with our people and none of our donations were spent is absurd*, we can't just leave the organization we started because a couple neo con infiltrators put up their own money to push a pro war candidate. We need C4L for as a financial and organizational arm of the liberty movement if we are going to get anywhere. IF you want to undermine the liberty movement by getting in a hissy fit and handing it over to a minority of neo conservative infiltrators than go ahead, by I won't. Non-Interventionism is a plank of the C4L and it is crucial those of us who believe in this stay in the organization.


I agree with this.  

Is there not some way to expel these members or something? I know LEAP kicked some cop out last week because he said he wouldn't arrest people for things involving drugs or something. LEAP has a policy that cops do their job while on duty but while off duty they can protest. They don't want cops not "upholding the law" while on duty because it gives the organization "a bad reputation".

Is that not what these members of the CO C4L have done by using the logo and reputation of our movement for their own means, as UtahApocalypse suggested?




> The used the logo, the name, and the reputation of Campaign for Liberty on a fucling pro-war neocon scumbag piece of $#@!.

----------


## angelatc

> so this is a lie then? 
> 
> 
> 
> where does the privacy come in for these donors?  I hate to invoke the IRS, but really if the campaign for liberty and the candidate are going to try so hard to hide this endorsement for tax purposes, then the obvious question becomes WHO sent the money?


Thanks  - the IRS site was my next stop, so you saved me a trip.

----------


## greenspj

> Actually, it isn't.  And I certainly didn't appear out of nowhere to berate a bunch of strangers for asking questions about an organization they're involved with, either.
> 
> Jeff, is it?


Are you involved?  You "hid" the answers to those questions.

If not, then what's your beef?

----------


## newbitech

> Wait, if you're not doing anything with the C4L, then what's your beef?



I don't work for the Fed Res, do you have a problem with me holding them accountable as well?

I hope you see it that way as well.  I am sorry you don't like the $#@! storm that the C4L has caused, but it's here and for whatever reason you have decided to single me out as one of many probably 100's or even 1000's of people who don't meat your "what's your beef" criteria.  

So if you are asking me to speak for all those people, I decline.  I will let them speak for themselves.

As for me, I already told you my beef.  My beef was back when C4L did some shady $#@! in my state, back when I was sign up for all of this and participated and then got shuffled around.  etc etc.. Our already fragile grassroots was devastated in a large part because National HQ blundering, intervention, and outright rejection of local grassroots leaders.  To TOP it off, they endorsed the enemy of Ron Paul in the presidential republican primary.  

So my beef you ask?  They are doing it again, and now with a $#@! ton of "special interest" money.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> CFL did not sell out


They absolutely 100% DID sell out.  




> We need C4L for as a financial and organizational arm of the liberty movement if we are going to get anywhere.


*HOLD ON A DAMNED MINUTE THERE.*

THIS FORUM was the birthplace of the very first MONEY BOMB.

BEFORE CFL existed.

How DARE you tell the members of THIS FORUM that WE need YOU and yours at CFL.

*CFL BETTER GET THIS STRAIGHT RIGHT QUICK.

CFL NEEDS US.*


Not the other way around.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123275
> 
> Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 16:57
> in    * Daily Paul Liberty Forum
> 
> John Tate's statement can be read on the C4L's site via this link.
> 
> The numerous comments on the linked article, as well as comment threads on Ron Paul Forums and the Daily Paul indicate overwhelming dissatisfaction with the vaguely worded explanation, and call for more answers.
> 
> ...


truth x100000000000

I am running for office.  I am a former C4L District/Regional coordinator, who resigned ONLY because John Tate told me i gad to in order to run for office.  C4L doesn't seem to give a damn about me.  As far as they are concerned, I could fall into a ditch and die.  I accepted it in good faith until I saw this endorsement for a pro-war neocon.  Even then I waited for an explanation.  And waited.  And waited.  And waited.  And waited.

And when a statement finally came out it was nothing but spin, and an attempt to dodge responsibility.

I love the C4L.

but I cannot associate myself with them until John Tate is gone.  Who picked this guy anyway?  I sure didn't.  Did anybody vote for this character?  I don't remember a ballot of any kind.  

Mr chairman, I move that we proceed with elections for a national chairman of the C4L.

----------


## specsaregood

> Are you involved?  You "hid" the answers to those questions.


May I ask you a question?
Where are you on the issue of foreign interventionism?  Do you agree with Dr. Paul?

Edit: I ask, because indications are that the guy (fundraiser) that made this happen disagrees with Dr. Paul on the issue and the CFL on the issue.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I agree with this.  
> 
> Is there not some way to expel these members or something? I know LEAP kicked some cop out last week because he said he wouldn't arrest people for things involving drugs or something. LEAP has a policy that cops do their job while on duty but while off duty they can protest. They don't want cops not "upholding the law" while on duty because it gives the organization "a bad reputation".
> 
> Is that not what these members of the CO C4L have done by using the logo and reputation of our movement for their own means, as UtahApocalypse suggested?


NO. It was not the CO C4L that used the logo . CO C4L did NONE of this. They couldn't because they are not organized. They are not officially affiliated yet. The $350k went straight from donor(s) to national. National approved all of this.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> CFL did not sell out, the spent no money on this ad. However I think it is legitimate to question the motives of this group of members who put forward the money. I think infiltration is something to worry about. However, to leave the organization when it is filled overwhelmingly with our people and none of our donations were spent is absurd, we can't just leave the organization we started because a couple neo con infiltrators put up their own money to push a pro war candidate. *We need C4L for as a financial and organizational arm of the liberty movement if we are going to get anywhere.* IF you want to undermine the liberty movement by getting in a hissy fit and handing it over to a minority of neo conservative infiltrators than go ahead, by I won't. Non-Interventionism is a plank of the C4L and it is crucial those of us who believe in this stay in the organization.


Financial arm _to do what_ exactly?  I sure as heck haven't seen anything helpful to the grassroots or candidates in my neck of the woods.  I've given blood sweat and tears to the C4L and when I ran for office all I got was a "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."

It's not the C4L I'm angry with.  It's John Tate.

The C4L needs to stay, and we, if anything, need to become MORE involved with it.

John Tate has to GO.  Immediately.

----------


## greenspj

> May I ask you a question?
> Where are you on the issue of foreign interventionism?  Do you agree with Dr. Paul?
> 
> Edit: I ask, because indications are that the guy (fundraiser) that made this happen disagrees with Dr. Paul on the issue and the CFL on the issue.


100% in agreement with Dr. Paul.  Disagree with neocons and whatever that candidate's name was who C4L supported in CO.

But I'm not from CO and my state's money didn't go to that ad, so I really couldn't care less.  There's enough to do here.   I'm just laid up at the moment and can't do it.  As soon as I'm back on my feet, you wont see me online.  I'll be in the streets.

----------


## angelatc

> Are you involved?  You "hid" the answers to those questions.
> 
> If not, then what's your beef?


The way I see it, my RP cred isn't often disputed around these parts.  I'll leave it at that.

My beef right now is you.  After all these years, why did you decide to pop into the forums and demand we all see things your way?

----------


## greenspj

> The way I see it, my RP cred isn't often disputed around these parts.  I'll leave it at that.
> 
> My beef right now is you.  After all these years, why did you decide to pop into the forums and demand we all see things your way?


It's a public forum.  Are you Staats Sicherheit?  If so, you already know what I do and who I am.  And because you don't agree with me, I'm sure you'll use that info politically since your first reaction is to make things personal.

I tried to stick with the facts....

Are you from CO?
Are you a Local Coordinator?
Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp?
If so, have you applied that knowledge and training?

Y or N.

If N, then why do you care so much?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> My beef right now is you.  After all these years, why did you decide to pop into the forums and demand we all see things your way?


My guess is he's on the payroll.  After all, CERTAIN people are.  Not ALL the folks in the various states are, but CERTAIN people* are.*

----------


## specsaregood

> 100% in agreement with Dr. Paul.  Disagree with neocons and whatever that candidate's name was who C4L supported in CO.


Glad to hear it.




> But I'm not from CO and my state's money didn't go to that ad, so I really couldn't care less.


So you don't have any problem with other people in states use the CFL as an intermediary to run ads for candidates that are against the principles of the CFL and attach the CFL logo to them?   So in theory you wouldn't mind if they ran a pro-obama ad and put the CFL logo on it, as long as it isn't your money?

----------


## greenspj

> 100% in agreement with Dr. Paul.  Disagree with neocons and whatever that candidate's name was who C4L supported in CO.
> 
> But I'm not from CO and my state's money didn't go to that ad, so I really couldn't care less.  There's enough to do here.   I'm just laid up at the moment and can't do it.  As soon as I'm back on my feet, you wont see me online.  I'll be in the streets.


My answer above here ^ obviously does not satisfy the self-proclaimed "leaders" on this forum.

Hence, the People's Revolutionary Committee of Purity of RPforum Posts have decided that I am to be relentlessly continuously attacked until I leave since they are emotionally upset with anything I say.

There goes the claim that they work with people with whom you share the same principles.

The hypocracy and irony is thick.

----------


## greenspj

> Glad to hear it.
> 
> 
> So you don't have any problem with other people in states use the CFL as an intermediary to run ads for candidates that are against the principles of the CFL and attach the CFL logo to them?   So in theory you wouldn't mind if they ran a pro-obama ad and put the CFL logo on it, as long as it isn't your money?


I would if it's in my state.  You bet!

----------


## specsaregood

> I would if it's in my state.  You bet!


With the advent of the internet, of which more and more people are turning to for information, what the CFL does in a different state will quickly reflect back on the CFL in your state.   While you may say that doesn't matter -- only my actions matter -- it will matter to new recruits or new donors or new allies.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> It's a public forum.  Are you Staats Sicherheit?  If so, you already know what I do and who I am.  And because you don't agree with me, I'm sure you'll use that info politically since your first reaction is to make things personal.
> 
> I tried to stick with the facts....
> 
> Are you from CO?
> Are you a Local Coordinator?
> Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp?
> If so, have you applied that knowledge and training?
> 
> ...


In other words, unless you meet Jeff's qualifications, you can SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP because YOUR OPINION DOES NOT COUNT.  

Face it, folks, this is the attitude CFL has towards the membership.  We're all simply too stupid to understand any of this and we should just SEND MORE MONEY and let our elite chosen ones handle everything.

----------


## greenspj

> With the advent of the internet, of which more and more people are turning to for information, what the CFL does in a different state will quickly reflect back on the CFL in your state.   While you may say that doesn't matter -- only my actions matter -- it will matter to new recruits or new donors or new allies.


Are you recruiting people, getting donors or making allies for the C4L?

----------


## MsDoodahs

So do ALL state coordinators get paid, Jeff, or is it only the few chosen ones?

----------


## greenspj

> In other words, unless you meet Jeff's qualifications, you can SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP because YOUR OPINION DOES NOT COUNT.  
> 
> Face it, folks, this is the attitude CFL has towards the membership.  We're all simply too stupid to understand any of this and we should just SEND MORE MONEY and let our elite chosen ones handle everything.


I am not THE C4L.

Members of the C4L are the C4L.

Local Coordinators are doing the work of the C4L.

Are you signed up on the email list?  Are you a Local Coordinator?

Why did you make this personal, Doodah?  I didn't.  I just asked some questions.  You instantly assumed the worst and responded with the worst intention.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Are you recruiting people, getting donors or making allies for the C4L?


Not anymore!

lol....

And good Lord, did you even notice what your statement demonstrates that you're interest is?  

NOT THE MESSAGE AT ALL - but the MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.

Jesus H. Christ Jeff, are you here to try and defend CFL or make them look even WORSE?

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Are you recruiting people, getting donors or making allies for the C4L?


Care to try questioning my credentials in that regard? Or will you continue with your smarmy BS?

A friggin "Thought Crime Warrior" for gods sake.

CfL is fast becoming the CATO of the r3VOLution

----------


## LittleLightShining

> My answer above here ^ obviously does not satisfy the self-proclaimed "leaders" on this forum.
> 
> Hence, the People's Revolutionary Committee of Purity of RPforum Posts have decided that I am to be relentlessly continuously attacked until I leave since they are emotionally upset with anything I say.
> 
> There goes the claim that they work with people with whom you share the same principles.
> 
> The hypocracy and irony is thick.


No, what's thick is the bull$#@! and our bull$#@! detectors are running on high speed right now. And here comes Mr. Greenspan making strawman arguments for his old buddies from the PCC 




> Are you recruiting people, getting donors or making allies for the C4L?


Since when are these the primary objectives of liberty activists? See, here's the thing, you can take this back to your friends-- we're LIBERTY ACTIVISTS not CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY STAFF FUNDERS.

----------


## specsaregood

> Are you recruiting people, getting donors or making allies for the C4L?


Yes, I have.  




> Face it, folks, this is the attitude CFL has towards the membership.  We're all simply too stupid to understand any of this and we should just SEND MORE MONEY and let our elite chosen ones handle everything.


I gotta say, I chose to becoming a dues paying member of the CFL instead of the JBS because I thought it was more aligned with my interests.   I am regretting that now.  No way would the JBS have let something like this happen.  Unless some serious changes take place up there, I will rectify that mistake in the near future.

----------


## greenspj

> Not anymore!
> 
> lol....
> 
> And good Lord, did you even notice what your statement demonstrates that you're interest is?  
> 
> NOT THE MESSAGE AT ALL - but the MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ Jeff, are you here to try and defend CFL or make them look even WORSE?


Now, you're just lying.  See post #826 and the question that was asked which I responded to.

----------


## Daamien

> I am not THE C4L.
> 
> Members of the C4L are the C4L.
> 
> Local Coordinators are doing the work of the C4L.
> 
> Are you signed up on the email list?  Are you a Local Coordinator?
> 
> Why did you make this personal, Doodah?  I didn't.  I just asked some questions.  You instantly assumed the worst and responded with the worst intention.


I was a C4L Local Coordinator.  I left the organization today after what happened with the ad in Colorado and after months of trying to get Tate to provide direction and stop sending wasteful mailers with scare tactics.  I have met your arbitrary criteria, so now you can sit down.

----------


## greenspj

> No, what's thick is the bull$#@! and our bull$#@! detectors are running on high speed right now. And here comes Mr. Greenspan making strawman arguments for his old buddies from the PCC 
> 
> Since when are these the primary objectives of liberty activists? See, here's the thing, you can take this back to your friends-- we're LIBERTY ACTIVISTS not CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY STAFF FUNDERS.


Off topic.

The question posed was...

"With the advent of the internet, of which more and more people are turning to for information, what the CFL does in a different state will quickly reflect back on the CFL in your state. While you may say that doesn't matter -- only my actions matter -- it will matter to new recruits or new donors or new allies."

The question asked back was:

"Are you recruiting new C4L members, donors or allies."

The response was pertinent.  

Your response of "Since when are these the primary objectives of liberty activists? " didn't have anything to do with the post or original question.

----------


## greenspj

> I was a C4L Local Coordinator.  I left the organization today after what happened with the ad in Colorado and after months of trying to get Tate to provide direction and stop sending wasteful mailers with scare tactics.  I have met your arbitrary criteria, so now you can sit down.


What direction did you provide as LC?

----------


## MsDoodahs

I'm done reading this CFL pimp coming in here and pushing their bull$#@!.

He's gone.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It's a public forum.  Are you Staats Sicherheit?  If so, you already know what I do and who I am.  And because you don't agree with me, I'm sure you'll use that info politically since your first reaction is to make things personal.
> 
> I tried to stick with the facts....
> 
> Are you from CO?
> Are you a Local Coordinator?
> Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp?
> If so, have you applied that knowledge and training?
> 
> ...


LOL -- so ppl who have invested years of their lives into helping to form the C4L brand should not care when the C4L brand is used to trash their most fundamentally held beliefs -- simply because they are not local to the epicenter of damage?

People who have shed blood sweat and tears to make the C4L work should simply not give a damn when the chairman of the org turns out to be an unprincipled spinmeister?

I love the C4L and everything it stands for.  I camped in the cabins of St Paul and have given everything I could into the C4L only to be $#@! on for my effort.

And your response is that it's not my place to care because I am not local to the corruption in Colorado?

If you represent the kind of leadership we have at national, then it's no wonder the org is starting to implode.

There is one solution to restore the C4L to the grassroots network it should have been from the beginning:  John Tate should resign immediately.

Even as a district coordinator I had no vote in seating this character, and he has been nothing but poison from day one.

The C4L failed to take advantage of the rising tea party movement.

The C4L hangs all of our real candidates out to dry but is happy to have the brand associated with neocon thought crimes interventionists.

But the difference is that I *WANT* THE C4L TO SUCCEDE.

And that is why John Tate _MUST GO._  He is unelected, and had been poison from day one.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Off topic.
> 
> The question posed was...
> 
> "With the advent of the internet, of which more and more people are turning to for information, what the CFL does in a different state will quickly reflect back on the CFL in your state. While you may say that doesn't matter -- only my actions matter -- it will matter to new recruits or new donors or new allies."
> 
> The question asked back was:
> 
> "Are you recruiting new C4L members, donors or allies."
> ...


Where's your response to my first point?

----------


## fj45lvr

sounds like if C4L doesn't fire somebody then just leave them behind.

How do you stop getting announcements from them??  anybody?


Too bad that they screwed up, fiscal responsibility is one of the main reasons I like Dr. Paul., this large amount of cash spent really goes against that.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'm done reading this CFL pimp coming in here and pushing their bull$#@!.
> He's gone.


Don't do that.

Edit: I see its already done.  I hope you rethink your decision.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> And that is why John Tate _MUST GO._  He is unelected, and had been poison from day one.


I think it has to go further than that, Gunny. Tate has to go, yes. But it was Hopper who brought her LI buddy Tate to the PCC. Hopper and Tate and $5million dollars ended up at C4L. Then they brought in their buddy Rothfeld from the Leadership Institute who decided we needed to ingratiate ourselves with the GOP. This debacle is a prime example of the extremely poor judgment of not just Tate but Hopper and Rothfeld as well.

----------


## newbitech

> Off topic.
> 
> The question posed was...
> 
> "With the advent of the internet, of which more and more people are turning to for information, what the CFL does in a different state will quickly reflect back on the CFL in your state. While you may say that doesn't matter -- only my actions matter -- it will matter to new recruits or new donors or new allies."
> 
> The question asked back was:
> 
> "Are you recruiting new C4L members, donors or allies."
> ...


is C4l recruiting members or career politicians?  I can SEE what you are saying, but this is what I HEAR in my mind.

http://www.qwizx.com/gssfx/usa/tpirhorns.wav

btw, I vote to have the price is right fail horns added to the sound effects in chat.

----------


## Daamien

> What direction did you provide as LC?


I completed all of the LC training, organized local meetups, attended town party committee meetings to meet other voters and share my views in hopes of spreading liberty, and even helped host a C4L booth at a local fair.  What the hell do you care?  The national organization was a blight and I can continue my efforts without them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not anymore!
> 
> lol....
> 
> And good Lord, did you even notice what your statement demonstrates that you're interest is?  
> 
> NOT THE MESSAGE AT ALL - but the MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ Jeff, are you here to try and defend CFL or make them look even WORSE?


He is clearly making the C4L look worse.  There is no question.  He seems to be attacking the very base which built the organization, with the intent to kill it.  he is not listening to our concerns, but trashing our right to even have concerns.  

From reading this character's posts I am more concerned than ever that the C4L is moving in the wrong direction.

This is one of the reasons why I am concerned about the current leadership.  How does the C4L happily tolerate it's own people trashing it's brand -- the brand that WE, you and I helped to build?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

The Hamiltonians have taken over the C4L. Unless they are expelled and replaced with Jeffersonians you can expect a dead and dying carcass and good $#@!ing riddance.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Don't do that.
> 
> Edit: I see its already done.  I hope you rethink your decision.


Mr. Greenspan chose to come to THIS FORUM and tell OUR MEMBERS that we have not done ENOUGH for CFL.

He refused to answer my question regarding whether or not he is paid by CFL.

Were the search function available, I would be able to confirm that he was BANNED BEFORE.  

I will not - repeat WILL NOT - tolerate CFL hacks coming in here to attack our membership for not putting up with the CFL sellout.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> I completed all of the LC training, organized local meetups, attended town party committee meetings to meet other voters and share my views in hopes of spreading liberty, and even helped host a C4L booth at a local fair.  What the hell do you care?  The national organization was a blight and I can continue my efforts without them.


I found that, too, actually. When I got involved with the GOP they looked at my involvement with C4L with suspicion.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm done reading this CFL pimp coming in here and pushing their bull$#@!.
> 
> He's gone.


Yeah, this green person may have been doing everything in his power to make the C4L look bad and kill it's base, but I think this was a bad idea.  It certainly won't help.

----------


## brandon

> CfL is fast becoming the CATO of the r3VOLution


Yep, that about sums it up. 

I'm eagerly waiting to hear Lew Rockwell's opinion on this mess.

----------


## specsaregood

> Mr. Greenspan chose to come to THIS FORUM and tell OUR MEMBERS that we have not done ENOUGH for CFL.
> I will not - repeat WILL NOT - tolerate CFL hacks coming in here to attack our membership for not putting up with the CFL sellout.


Fair enough, and I'm pretty sure you are correct about him being banned previously.  Which if true, shows he has no respect for private property rights.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

C4L membership needs to rise up and demand a member-wide election for national chairman.  NOW.

----------


## angelatc

> My guess is he's on the payroll.  After all, CERTAIN people are.  Not ALL the folks in the various states are, but CERTAIN people* are.*


I am absolutely well aware of that.  It's years of working with payroll in the private sector that enables the ability to keep mum about such things.

----------


## LittleLightShining

From what I understand there is another state coordinator call tonight. Folks need to call their state coordinators and let them know what they think.

----------


## angelatc

> From what I understand there is another state coordinator call tonight. Folks need to call their state coordinators and let them know what they think.


You're right about that.

After Jeff's appearance here, I think I am going cancel my CFL account after all.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> ...
> In the end, this event has been very disappointing to everyone in the community who has steadfastly supported Ron Paul. My understanding of the C4L is that it was to work with the grassroots community toward common goals. That hasn't happened.
> 
> This response did very little to satisfy the growing dissatisfaction within C4L membership and grassroots Ron Paul supporters. We got no new information - nothing we hadn't already figured out on our own via the Forums.
> 
> We do not appreciate being treated like ignorant jackasses.


+a gazzillion




> C4L membership needs to rise up and demand a member-wide election for national chairman.  NOW.


Many orgs. elect entire boards. I suspect that is the only model that will satisfy such a diverse group. 

While I do not blame anyone for cancelling their membership, I hope all who do are faxing an explanation as well, with a note on what it would take for you to rejoin. For those who stay, I think we need to ratchet up the pressure and demand that CfL become a leader in transparency, accountability, and true grssroots representation.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> While I do not blame anyone for cancelling their membership, I hope all who do are faxing an explanation as well, with a note on what it would take for you to rejoin. For those who stay, I think we need to ratchet up the pressure and demand that CfL become a leader in transparency, accountability, and true grssroots representation.


I know, but it's been a long time coming for me. They know who I am and why I left. Frankly I think they must be relieved.

----------


## specsaregood

> Many orgs. elect entire boards. I suspect that is the only model that will satisfy such a diverse group. 
> 
> While I do not blame anyone for cancelling their membership, I hope all who do are faxing an explanation as well, with a note on what it would take for you to rejoin. For those who stay, I think we need to ratchet up the pressure and demand that CfL become a leader in transparency, accountability, and true grssroots representation.


Unfortunately, if we do by some miracle get a elected board -- I think this is an EXCELLENT suggestion -- it will most likely be limited to dues paying members only.  so if the good people leave, they won't have a say in it.   I'm staying for the time being but unless something drastic changes I won't be for long.

----------


## RileyE104

> NO. It was not the CO C4L that used the logo . CO C4L did NONE of this. They couldn't because they are not organized. They are not officially affiliated yet. The $350k went straight from donor(s) to national. National approved all of this.


Then why don't we all demand that whoever authorized this crap is fired, instead of US leaving... Looks like this "revolution" is falling into the same abyss that the French Revolution did... Only we don't have a guillotine to use on whoever allowed this disaster to happen... I would hate to see C4L ruined because of this. I really thought we were on our way to get lots of good things done this year and in 2012.

I think the best thing to do is just fire whoever allowed that ad to be aired with C4L's logo, which put our reputation on the line to back this guy. It would have been better to use Adam Kokesh, Rand, Peter, John Dennis.. Hell, even RP himself. Why do we need freaking candidates to fill the damn forms out anyways? That's what their websites are for. And more than likely, we already know where true liberty-candidates stand anyways. 

Plus I was outraged when I heard Kokesh was never even offered one of the forms. That's just plain $#@!ing ridiculous.

I'm not giving up on C4L though. It's better we expel whoever committed this $#@! up.

----------


## brandon

There's zero possibility they will allow an elected board. You should have seen the way they treated us at the CFLs founding meeting. The CFL leaders are typical power-hungry control freaks.

If anything, a new organization should be formed. But really, we have no need for any national organization.

----------


## brandon

> Then why don't we all demand that whoever authorized this crap is fired,


I already demanded that in an email I sent out to the paid staff and board members. It ain't gonna happen though. It's like trying to fire your boss.

----------


## RileyE104

> I already demanded that in an email I sent out to the paid staff and board members. It ain't gonna happen though. It's like trying to fire your boss.


Does RP not have any influence dealing with this situation??

----------


## rancher89

He may not even know what's going on.

The people involved in this may not have told him..

Or if they have, the sweet man may not get the whole story...

Or they tell him the truth and he just really doesn't want to face it tonight and needs to compose himself.....


whatever, we can't depend on RP we have to depend on ourselves.

----------


## Winslow Wind

This makes me so sad that we have so much in fighting within the Liberty movement. We are destroying our selves from within. Please don't give up yet on C4L. This is a new organization and they made a mistake, hopefully this will never happen again. We must hold C4L and ourselves accountable and continue the momentum. 
We have seen the country fall apart from within, we are all awake now, let's not destroy what we have accomplished. We need to all stay involved and not allow one bad apple or mistake like this ruin the organization. Go replace the RINO's, let's watch while the Commie Democrat's is destroyed from within the Democrat party, start a Libertarian party, but please not C4L. I don't want to give up on the GOP yet and if I do change parties it would be Libertarian, but I want C4L to be successful regardless of my party affiliation. We are leaders in our own community's and C4L, we can still control C4L locally by becoming PC's, continue to do rally's, write letters, email, and vote.

----------


## fedup100

This forum should have formed their own group.  We should have not given that away.  It isn't too late.   The grassroots that started it all and financed it needs to step up and take it back, control it and keep it on the strait and narrow.

Call it:  Grassroots For liberty  (G4L)

----------


## tpreitzel

> This makes me so sad that we have so much in fighting within the Liberty movement. We are destroying our selves from within. Please don't give up yet on C4L. This is a new organization and they made a mistake, hopefully this will never happen again. We must hold C4L and ourselves accountable and continue the momentum. 
> We have seen the country fall apart from within, we are all awake now, let's not destroy what we have accomplished. We need to all stay involved and not allow one bad apple or mistake like this ruin the organization. Go replace the RINO's, let's watch while the Commie Democrat's is destroyed from within the Democrat party, start a Libertarian party, but please not C4L. I don't want to give up on the GOP yet and if I do change parties it would be Libertarian, but I want C4L to be successful regardless of my party affiliation. We are leaders in our own community's and C4L, we can still control C4L locally by becoming PC's, continue to do rally's, write letters, email, and vote.


As far as the movement to restore constitutional liberty, it's alive and well. Don't worry. However, the C4L has been long overdue for close examination. In the end, this internal process will only strengthen us as incompetence and organizational bloat is purged.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This makes me so sad that we have so much in fighting within the Liberty movement. We are destroying our selves from within. Please don't give up yet on C4L. This is a new organization and they made a mistake, hopefully this will never happen again. We must hold C4L and ourselves accountable and continue the momentum. 
> We have seen the country fall apart from within, we are all awake now, let's not destroy what we have accomplished. We need to all stay involved and not allow one bad apple or mistake like this ruin the organization. Go replace the RINO's, let's watch while the Commie Democrat's is destroyed from within the Democrat party, start a Libertarian party, but please not C4L. I don't want to give up on the GOP yet and if I do change parties it would be Libertarian, but I want C4L to be successful regardless of my party affiliation. We are leaders in our own community's and C4L, we can still control C4L locally by becoming PC's, continue to do rally's, write letters, email, and vote.


I want the C4L to be successful too -- but John Tate isn't helping.  His response to our outrage, once you strip off the spin-doctoring, was akin to "we don't really care what you think, but we will try and piss fewer of you off by adjusting out rhetoric so that we don't publicly embarrass ourselves."

I've sat by for two years wondering just who this John Tate guy was.  On day 1 of the C4L when we met to officially form the org, we were promised a vote for chairman that never took place.  It still hasn't taken place.  It's now time for that vote to take place -- almost a year and a half late.  Better late than never.

It's not "everybody else" that's fracturing us, it's John Tate.  When you have thousands of pissed off people, and one guy, it's usually the one guy.

----------


## rancher89

Rest assured that none of the dedicated people that I know will falter one step.

----------


## erowe1

> Or if they have, the sweet man may not get the whole story...


If you think RP is some innocent, naive, old man who thinks people in politics must be honest because he grew up in a neighborhood where people didn't lock their doors, then I've got a bridge to sell you. He may be soft spoken, but he's shrewd, politically savvy, and very familiar with the corruption and dishonesty that's endemic to politics. If he keeps his own hands clean from problems like this by way of ignorance on his part, it's as likely as not that keeps his distance from certain things at the operational level of groups he's involved in for that purpose by design.

----------


## rancher89

> If you think RP is some innocent, naive, old man who thinks people in politics must be honest because he grew up in a neighborhood where people didn't lock their doors, then I've got a bridge to sell you. He may be soft spoken, but he's shrewd, politically savvy, and very familiar with the corruption and dishonesty that's endemic to politics. If he keeps his own hands clean from problems like this by way of ignorance on his part, it's as likely as not that keeps his distance from certain things at the operational level of groups he's involved in for that purpose by design.


I understand, but tey control what he's hearing

----------


## hugolp

So anyone knows or are there any credible theory on why C4L did this? The real reason I mean.

----------


## brandon

> So anyone knows or are there any credible theory on why C4L did this? The real reason I mean.


Likely money. I'm guessing the big CO donor probably gave them more than $350,000, with the understanding that the extra was the CFLs cut.

----------


## RCA

Is this the same guy (greenspj)?

YouTube - Jeff Greenspan at the Reno Ron Paul Rally

----------


## brandon

> Is this the same guy (greenspj)?
> 
> YouTube - Jeff Greenspan at the Reno Ron Paul Rally


Yea that's him. He tried to make backroom deals with the NV establishment about RNC delegate selection. Basically he's just a political hack that happens to be on our side.

----------


## Met Income

Have we learned yet that politics and freedom doesn't work?

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

off topic: why are you still in here? get in chat or the Medina subforum!  It's a party!

----------


## MsDoodahs

> This forum should have formed their own group.  We should have not given that away.  It isn't too late.   The grassroots that started it all and financed it needs to step up and take it back, control it and keep it on the strait and narrow.
> 
> Call it:  Grassroots For liberty  (G4L)


I like it.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

I agree with fedup.  Seems like we need to drop CFL and get the ball rolling.  Time to do some weeding!

----------


## mollymae

It's times like this when I feel like no one is listening to our message.

----------


## rancher89

Quote:
Originally Posted by fedup100  
This forum should have formed their own group. We should have not given that away. It isn't too late. The grassroots that started it all and financed it needs to step up and take it back, control it and keep it on the strait and narrow.

Call it: Grassroots For liberty (G4L) 





> I like it.


I called it, form a pac, corporation, whatever, elect a board with term limits and the skys the limit.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

I, personally, don't think we need to make a new organization as much as unite the ones we have. CfL still has good people in it who are doing good work, and they will have my support. We can and should be forming PAC, Corps, etc, but that is a side issue to building a platform that unites all of the groups. Like we talked of here 

Grassroots Portal Project

----------


## heath.whiteaker

I knew it was a matter of time before they hung themselves.  This only proves of the sub par leadership of national.  With the money that has been raised by this organization you would think they could hire better help than the jack asses that are running the show.

----------


## SaratogaForRonPaul

Hey folks,

My name is Steve Vasquez, I am the NY State Interim Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty.  Just to clear some things up.  No, we are not paid, we are normal grassroots activist like the rest of you. We did not know about this ahead of time, but we now have a good understanding of what is going on, so let me try to explain.

First off, the ad is being pulled from CO.  Second, the staff at HQ know they made a mistake, and they are sorry.  The plan was not a bad one, the implementation was.  

The overall plan is to go to key states in order of filing dates (which is why KY/Rand and NM/Kokesh was not done yet) and get as many candidate surveys complete as possible so we have it on record of whether or not a candidate stands for Constitution principles.  Here is an example of the responses from Illinois: 

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ca...y.php?state=IL 

If a candidate is voted in and breaks these promises, we hold them accountable.  Straight forward so far.  The issue that comes up is the ad in CO.  The concept of the ad was to show political strength by showing ads to encourage every candidate that did not take the survey from those "Ron Paul" folks.  It worked, the CO crew got tons of calls, and they are now politically feared/respected and take those Constitutional folks seriously now.  Of course where things went wrong was rather than a negative ad to the ones who did not take the survey, this ad was just a little too glowing for this candidate, Buck (while still not an endorsement) who did fill out the survey.  That was a mistake, and CFL knows it and is sorry.  

Our philosophy is that if you don't have anything bad to say about a politician, then you don't say anything at all.  Obviously this rule was broken, we know, and we'll take our lumps for it.  So feel free to express your thoughts and anger on us, the implementation was wrong.  We have learned an important lesson here, one that will not be repeated.  

Remember, the CFL does have a goal to promote and educate Constitutional values of limited government, sound money, individual civil liberties, and a non-interventionalist foreign policy (I know your responses with Buck and his website, so go ahead and do so, again a known mistake).  We are working to instill these values in candidates and show them that we will hold them accountable to those values. 

 As you know over the course of the past year, with your help both in and out of the CFL, we have changed the political discourse when it comes to the Fed, where in the first real time since 1913, the Fed is being openly challenged, discussed negatively on major media outlets, open opposition to the Fed Chairmen's nomination, and open investigations on the going ons of its illegal operations with AIG and Giethner. This is monumental, and these are the kind of victories we are achieving, where only a year ago, all thought it was impossible and the Fed was invulnerable.  

Our battle is far from done, and its not going to be an easy one.  It was not easy for our founders to survive the rough winter in Valley Forge, holding up and preparing to fight the largest known army and force in the world.  But it was their conviction and dedication to continue forth even in the worse of time that overthrew tyranny and formed the republic, the free-est nation in the world.  That nation is now threatened by the same kind of tyranny that threatens our liberties and freedoms, and it is up to us, the awaken loud minority to cause the rumblings that will shake this nation and tumble the walls of oppression.  

So give us our lumps, we will take it in humility. We are human, and we make our fair share of mistakes.

But then, let's come together and go out there to inflict the maximum amount of pain to the statist incumbents and expose the Fed to the world so we see the creature for what it really is.   

For freedom,
Steven Vasquez
Interim NY State Cooridinator

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Hey folks,
> 
> My name is Steve Vasquez, I am the NY State Interim Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty.  Just to clear some things up.  No, we are not paid, we are normal grassroots activist like the rest of you. We did not know about this ahead of time, but we now have a good understanding of what is going on, so let me try to explain.
> 
> First off, the ad is being pulled from CO.  Second, the staff at HQ know they made a mistake, and they are sorry.  The plan was not a bad one, the implementation was.  
> 
> The overall plan is to go to key states in order of filing dates (which is why KY/Rand and NM/Kokesh was not done yet) and get as many candidate surveys complete as possible so we have it on record of whether or not a candidate stands for Constitution principles.  Here is an example of the responses from Illinois: 
> 
> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ca...y.php?state=IL 
> ...



when can we expect to see some resignations, including John Tate. Until then I (and many others I have talked with) will not be back or supporting the Campaign for Liberty.

----------


## tpreitzel

Steven,

Help me out here. Precisely HOW is the C4L going to hold them accountable if they break their promises once elected? Does the C4L hold enough political clout to do so once these candidates are elected? Personally, the best approach lies in vetting candidates as THOROUGHLY as possible BEFORE formally associating with them. Obviously, the C4L failed miserably in properly vetting Buck with a survey. 

IMO, the advertisement wasn't simply too glowing, it was wrong to associate the C4L with a candidate who prosecutes "victims" of unconstitutional "hate crime" legislation among other objectionable things.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Steven,
> 
> Help me out here. Precisely HOW is the C4L going to hold them accountable if they break their promises once elected? Does the C4L hold enough political clout to do so once these candidates are elected? Personally, the best approach lies in vetting candidates as THOROUGHLY as possible BEFORE formally associating with them. Obviously, the C4L failed miserably in properly vetting Buck with a survey. 
> 
> IMO, the advertisement wasn't simply too glowing, it was wrong to associate the C4L with a candidate who prosecutes "victims" of unconstitutional "hate crime" legislation among other objectionable things.


Agreed.  And in my opinion, the survey is lacking.  It is not enough to believe in a declaration of war.  They also need to not believe in attacking countries who have not attacked us, or are not an imminent threat.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Steven,

Can we see Buck's answers?

----------


## AuH2O

> when can we expect to see some resignations, including John Tate. Until then I (and many others I have talked with) will not be back or supporting the Campaign for Liberty.


Just out of curiosity, who would you like to see replace John Tate, and what specifically would you have them do differently?  I'm not talking "Don't endorse neocons," I'm asking about legit strategic and tactical choices.

----------


## southerntrendkill

> when can we expect to see some resignations, including John Tate. Until then I (and many others I have talked with) will not be back or supporting the Campaign for Liberty.


Ron Paul needs to fire the entire "National Central Leadership" of C4L.  As far as I have seen they have undermined everything Ron Paul stands for.

I have put up with alot of C4L crap and I'm about done.

Heads need to be cut.

If I hired people to undermine the C4L, I don't think they could have done as good a job as the people currently working for Ron Paul destroying everything he stands for.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Just out of curiosity, who would you like to see replace John Tate, and what specifically would you have them do differently?  I'm not talking "Don't endorse neocons," I'm asking about legit strategic and tactical choices.


Well to start with they need to finally fulfill the original goals of C4L as being bottom-up and led by the Grassroots. It need to have leadership that is voted upon yearly by the members and held accountable for the actions they make. Its time to throw out the "paid for career leadership." That is not saying that the elected leader should not get compensation for the time the spend, but it should be someon doing it for the values they believe and not the money.

----------


## AuH2O

> Well to start with they need to finally fulfill the original goals of C4L as being bottom-up and led by the Grassroots. It need to have leadership that is voted upon yearly by the members and held accountable for the actions they make. Its time to throw out the "paid for career leadership." That is not saying that the elected leader should not get compensation for the time the spend, but it should be someon doing it for the values they believe and not the money.


So to confirm, the only thing keeping grassroots activists from making this "bottom-up" org a reality is a loyalty to C4L and the absence of the RPPCC seed money?  Because as I see it, there's nothing else from stopping folks from going there.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> So to confirm, the only thing keeping grassroots activists from making this "bottom-up" org a reality is a loyalty to C4L and the absence of the RPPCC seed money?  Because as I see it, there's nothing else from stopping folks from going there.


I dont have a clue how you construed that from what I said. Since aparently you just want to spin $#@! im done with answering.

----------


## SaratogaForRonPaul

> Steven,
> 
> Can we see Buck's answers?



Sorry, I'm not sure.  He answered 19 of the 20 correctly.  Maybe it was the UN Withdrawal question which is the one most candidates will have an issue with (lack of education).  

Again, it was a mistake.  I'm not going to justify it, as many of us with solid principles will not cross the line when it comes to the issue of war.  But I will give a little of what I know of Buck in perspective.  Buck's competitor is the Pelosi equivalent of RINO NEOCON, the worst of the worst.  Over the course of the year, Buck has done a complete 180 when it comes to the Fed, from supporting it to completely against it, and rebuking the renomination of Bernanke.  He is now against the concept of unconstitutional wars, against the Patriot Act, etc.  As we know, his website talks about his stance on the Afghanistan war.   A interesting comparison would be a Senator like Jim DeMint.  A very good conservative on many issues, but not a Ron Paul Republican.  Heck there is no Ron Paul Republican, except for Ron Paul.  Not even Rand Paul or Peter Schiff.  

But that is all irrelevant.  The mistake was, again, if you don't have something bad to say about a politician, don't say anything.  Its a mistake that won't happen again.

So, yes, stick to your principles.  It is what makes you who you are and it is what keeps bad policy in check.

----------


## AuH2O

> I dont have a clue how you construed that from what I said. Since aparently you just want to spin $#@! im done with answering.


All I meant was this: besides the name and the start-up money, what is there that C4L has that the grassroots cannot replace?

----------


## tpreitzel

I STILL don't see a concrete course of change. I hear promises and assurances that Buck's our man. Are the surveys now history or will the surveys become much more comprehensive? Instead of the C4L attempting to hold a mistake accountable once elected, maybe C4L's membership should NOW hold the leadership accountable before a mistake gets elected. A test of good faith would be for John Tate to simply resign and accept responsibility for this fiasco.

----------


## KCIndy

Steven,

Apart from anything else on this issue - thanks for stepping up to the plate on this.  To the best of my knowledge, you're the first person associated with C4L who has even remotely addressed this issue on these forums.  For you to do so while being fully aware of the manure storm you're about to step into speaks of real class... and a pretty solid level of guts.  I certainly can't say I'm happy with the situation or C4L's explanation, but I truly appreciate your willingness face the fire on this.

Kudos and thanks.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> If you think RP is some innocent, naive, old man who thinks people in politics must be honest because he grew up in a neighborhood where people didn't lock their doors, then I've got a bridge to sell you. He may be soft spoken, but he's shrewd, politically savvy, and very familiar with the corruption and dishonesty that's endemic to politics. If he keeps his own hands clean from problems like this by way of ignorance on his part, it's as likely as not that keeps his distance from certain things at the operational level of groups he's involved in for that purpose by design.


I should be sleeping but I am so worried that these "innocent mistake makers" are intentionally going to drag Ron Paul into this, put a camera in front of him after he's only heard the crap these leeches are telling him and make him look REALLY bad. 





> Hey folks,
> 
> My name is Steve Vasquez, I am the NY State Interim Coordinator for Campaign for Liberty.  Just to clear some things up.  No, we are not paid, we are normal grassroots activist like the rest of you. We did not know about this ahead of time, but we now have a good understanding of what is going on, so let me try to explain.


 Hey, Steve, nice of you to show up. Have you read all the way through any of the many threads here or at dailypaul? Because I get the feeling you're eating the crap they're putting on your plate without realizing it's a buffet and you get to pick your own food. 

I don't think you understand squat here.




> First off, the ad is being pulled from CO.  Second, the staff at HQ know they made a mistake, and they are sorry.  The plan was not a bad one, the implementation was.


 Oh, the ad is being pulled? Why?

They made a mistake and they're sorry? What the hell kind of bs is that? Why are you here saying that instead of Debbie Hopper who also has an account here? Why didn't Tate say he was sorry? This is so pathetic it's almost kinda funny. 




> The overall plan is to go to key states in order of filing dates (which is why KY/Rand and NM/Kokesh was not done yet) and get as many candidate surveys complete as possible so we have it on record of whether or not a candidate stands for Constitution principles.  Here is an example of the responses from Illinois: 
> 
> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ca...y.php?state=IL


 Ohhhh, okaaaay. So when it comes time for Rand and Kokesh to get their surveys they're also going to get slick candidate endorsements survey commercials? Or was that something special because these mysteriously deep-pocketed new "members" in CO wanted this for Buck?




> If a candidate is voted in and breaks these promises, we hold them accountable.  Straight forward so far.  The issue that comes up is the ad in CO.  The concept of the ad was to show political strength by showing ads to encourage every candidate that did not take the survey from those "Ron Paul" folks.  It worked, the CO crew got tons of calls, and they are now politically feared/respected and take those Constitutional folks seriously now.


 Who came up with this brilliant concept?

You know, I find it INSULTING that we we worked so hard to put together a 10th resolution in VT and have been working on trying to get this going here and got nothing but grief from national because of it. Based on the logic you're using to justify this stupid survey a 10th resolution would be even better than a survey because it would be an actual recorded vote that shows where an individual candidate/incumbent stands on the Constitution."Oh," I heard, "but 10th resolutions have no teeth, you should work on a firearms freedom act instead." I also heard that we shouldn't be wasting valuable time and "resources" doing this from Debbie Hopper. "Oh really," I asked her, "What resources do you think we're spending?" This was after we'd gotten our entire delegation on board for 1207/604 and got no recognition for it whatsoever.

And again, I'll raise another point-- what REPUBLICAN candidate in his or her right mind isn't gonna scramble to get their hands on one of these survey/endorsement commercial packages? Steve, I know you're a smart guy, think about what you're saying.


> Of course where things went wrong was rather than a negative ad to the ones who did not take the survey, this ad was just a little too glowing for this candidate, Buck (while still not an endorsement) who did fill out the survey.  That was a mistake, and CFL knows it and is sorry.


Just a little? You think? WHY THE HELL IS C4L MAKING COMMERCIALS ABOUT THE SURVEY IN THE FIRST PLACE????

Explain to me how it makes any kind of sense whatsoever for C4L to be paying a guy full time to sit in the office and do data entry into spread sheets to figure out when each state should get the survey. Tell me how it makes sense to do this without the help and cooperation from the coordinators (local, county, district, state)? 




> Our philosophy is that if you don't have anything bad to say about a politician, then you don't say anything at all.  Obviously this rule was broken, we know, and we'll take our lumps for it.  So feel free to express your thoughts and anger on us, the implementation was wrong.  We have learned an important lesson here, one that will not be repeated.


 Well, let's be realistic. Why should we expect any adherence to philosophy from the people you're eating this garbage from? You do, however, do yourself a huge disservice when you lump yourself in with them. Unless things have drastically changed with you in the last 2 years I've read enough of what you've written on our meetup to know you're better than this. I'm really quite disappointed that you're allowing yourself to be used like this.


> Remember, the CFL does have a goal to promote and educate Constitutional values of limited government, sound money, individual civil liberties, and a non-interventionalist foreign policy (I know your responses with Buck and his website, so go ahead and do so, again a known mistake).  We are working to instill these values in candidates and show them that we will hold them accountable to those values.


 When did you all decide that you were gonna be theguy who came here to take the whipping for them?




> As you know over the course of the past year, with your help both in and out of the CFL, we have changed the political discourse when it comes to the Fed, where in the first real time since 1913, the Fed is being openly challenged, discussed negatively on major media outlets, open opposition to the Fed Chairmen's nomination, and open investigations on the going ons of its illegal operations with AIG and Giethner. This is monumental, and these are the kind of victories we are achieving, where only a year ago, all thought it was impossible and the Fed was invulnerable.


 Now's when you talk about all the great work that the activists have done that the con-artists at national are taking credit for so they can send out another mailer asking for money...




> Our battle is far from done, and its not going to be an easy one.  It was not easy for our founders to survive the rough winter in Valley Forge, holding up and preparing to fight the largest known army and force in the world.  But it was their conviction and dedication to continue forth even in the worse of time that overthrew tyranny and formed the republic, the free-est nation in the world.  That nation is now threatened by the same kind of tyranny that threatens our liberties and freedoms, and it is up to us, the awaken loud minority to cause the rumblings that will shake this nation and tumble the walls of oppression.


 That's good, did you recycle that from your tea party speech or are you really all swept up in a patriotic frenzy over C4L?




> So give us our lumps, we will take it in humility. We are human, and we make our fair share of mistakes.
> 
> But then, let's come together and go out there to inflict the maximum amount of pain to the statist incumbents and expose the Fed to the world so we see the creature for what it really is.   
> 
> For freedom,
> Steven Vasquez
> Interim NY State Cooridinator


Steve, I am really so disappointed with you. You bought it hook, line and sinker 




> So to confirm, the only thing keeping grassroots activists from making this "bottom-up" org a reality is a loyalty to C4L and the absence of the RPPCC seed money?  Because as I see it, there's nothing else from stopping folks from going there.


There isn't. But it's obviously something you guys were given with a certain intention for use and you don't seem to care to remeber what that intention was.

BTW, I'm sure you've noticed I'm extremely suspicious of just who you are. I have an idea,  unfortunately it will have to wait until the search feature is fixed.




> Sorry, I'm not sure.  He answered 19 of the 20 correctly.  Maybe it was the UN Withdrawal question which is the one most candidates will have an issue with (lack of education).  
> 
> Again, it was a mistake.  I'm not going to justify it, as many of us with solid principles will not cross the line when it comes to the issue of war.  But I will give a little of what I know of Buck in perspective.  Buck's competitor is the Pelosi equivalent of RINO NEOCON, the worst of the worst.  Over the course of the year, Buck has done a complete 180 when it comes to the Fed, from supporting it to completely against it, and rebuking the renomination of Bernanke.  He is now against the concept of unconstitutional wars, against the Patriot Act, etc.  As we know, his website talks about his stance on the Afghanistan war.   A interesting comparison would be a Senator like Jim DeMint.  A very good conservative on many issues, but not a Ron Paul Republican.  Heck there is no Ron Paul Republican, except for Ron Paul.  Not even Rand Paul or Peter Schiff.  
> 
> *But that is all irrelevant. * The mistake was, again, if you don't have something bad to say about a politician, don't say anything.  Its a mistake that won't happen again.
> 
> So, yes, stick to your principles.  It is what makes you who you are and it is what keeps bad policy in check.


NO, it IS NOT irrelevant. Open your eyes and read! You're right there is no Ron Paul Republican except for Ron Paul. But we are going to bend on one of the CORE PRINCIPLES of the C4L and then say, "Oops, my bad?" With no one except YOU coming in here claiming any kind of responsibility for this? Steve, seriously? You're willing to take responsibility for this?



You know, according to Hopper, Tate and Rothfeld we're the ones who don't know anything about politics, that's why we need to spend all kinds of money to go to these damn seminars and hear Rothfeld pontificate about how education is a waste of time and it's all about the GOP... I love how they didn't realize it was a mistake until us lowly peons got all bent out of shape.




> All I meant was this: besides the name and the start-up money, what is there that C4L has that the grassroots cannot replace?


My personal opinion? The name. Every boot on the ground helped build that brand. In areas where C4L is active on the ground, those local people have built a reputation and a brand that national coudn't buy if they tried. We have given them so much more than they have given us and yet they get to take the brand while we start over. 

You know, but that's fine, too. When you're really active people don't just associate the work you do with a faceless organization-- they know who the activists are and what they do.

----------


## LibertyMage

> Steven,
> 
> Help me out here. Precisely HOW is the C4L going to hold them accountable if they break their promises once elected? Does the C4L hold enough political clout to do so once these candidates are elected? Personally, the best approach lies in vetting candidates as THOROUGHLY as possible BEFORE formally associating with them. Obviously, the C4L failed miserably in properly vetting Buck with a survey. 
> 
> IMO, the advertisement wasn't simply too glowing, it was wrong to associate the C4L with a candidate who prosecutes "victims" of unconstitutional "hate crime" legislation among other objectionable things.


You basically get candidates to commit to principles.  Then they hang themselves if they don't follow the principles they signed onto, creating opportunity to run ads against them and such.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> You basically get candidates to commit to principles.  Then they hang themselves if they don't follow the principles they signed onto, creating opportunity to run ads against them and such.


Yeah, ok. Let's get a neo-con, hate-crime prosecuting, 4th Amendment violating candidate for US Senate to fill out this birthday cake survey and make a glowing endorsement survey commercial featuring said candidate. Then, if he gets elected and he changes his mind about something he said on the survey we'll put out another commercial attacking the guy!

Come ONNNN, seriously? That's effective politics? Are the mystery donors gonna be there with another $350k check for us to hold his feet to the fire with? HEEELLLLL NO.

I know I need sleep, but you are cracking me up, Mage.

----------


## tpreitzel

> You basically get candidates to commit to principles.  Then they hang themselves if they don't follow the principles they signed onto, creating opportunity to run ads against them and such.


Fair enough, but will advertisements be enough to oust a sitting representative if he violates a commitment? Personally, I'd rather prevent a mistake in the first place and I'm fairly sure that you'd agree. IMO, the vetting process of Buck failed, i.e. two very important issues were missed or overlooked on some hope that he'd be kept in line with an incomplete survey of principles. IMO, this process is flawed even if other groups are using it.

----------


## Knightskye

Why do we need some giant group?

Isn't money best dealt with locally?

Why send it all to Campaign for Liberty and get all pissed when it gets divided up for political reasons?

o_o

----------


## fj45lvr

> As you know over the course of the past year, with your help both in and out of the CFL, we have changed the political discourse when it comes to the Fed, where in the first real time since 1913, the Fed is being openly challenged, discussed negatively on major media outlets, open opposition to the Fed Chairmen's nomination, and open investigations on the going ons of its illegal operations with AIG and Giethner. This is monumental, and these are the kind of victories we are achieving, where only a year ago, all thought it was impossible and the Fed was invulnerable.


 
I doubt anyone is disappointed that the FED is getting more scrutiny right now but I wouldn't attribute that to C4L....just look at the economic crisis.  they did it to themselves and luckily the press is willing to advertise the crimes by members of the FED to a degree (as they need fall guys).  

I'd hardly say that they are "vulnerable"....

----------


## qwerty

> Why do we need some giant group?
> 
> Isn't money best dealt with locally?
> 
> Why send it all to Campaign for Liberty and get all pissed when it gets divided up for political reasons?
> 
> o_o


Why C4l would need you ? 

Stop your bull$#@!. Please.

----------


## Vessol

> Why C4l would need you ? 
> 
> Stop your bull$#@!. Please.


Way to go.

Play the elitist card.

----------


## qwerty

> Way to go.
> 
> Play the elitist card.


He asked why we need C4L, i just give him the same question back to think about.  

It´s pretty obvious why we need C4L, to get to know each other and work together...

----------


## Vessol

> He asked why we need C4L, i just give him the same question back to think about.  
> 
> It´s pretty obvious why we need C4L, to get to know each other and work together...


This is true. But why do we need a top down organization? It seems too structured at the top which in my opinion has always caused problems.

Local groups > national groups.

This is what I've been realizing. We have to change locally before we change anything nationally.

----------


## fj45lvr

> This is true. But why do we need a top down organization? It seems too structured at the top which in my opinion has always caused problems.
> 
> Local groups > national groups.
> 
> This is what I've been realizing. We have to change locally before we change anything nationally.



you must of read Gary North's mind.....check out his recent commentary (which could be a play book for C4L):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north806.html

----------


## qwerty

> This is true. But why do we need a top down organization? It seems too structured at the top which in my opinion has always caused problems.
> 
> Local groups > national groups.
> 
> This is what I've been realizing. We have to change locally before we change anything nationally.


I think that in politics it´s all about the numbers.

You know if C4L would have trillion members, politicians would be very interested what they have to say! 



And you can allways donate your money only to the local projects.

----------


## angelatc

> I, personally, don't think we need to make a new organization as much as unite the ones we have. CfL still has good people in it who are doing good work, and they will have my support. We can and should be forming PAC, Corps, etc, but that is a side issue to building a platform that unites all of the groups. Like we talked of here 
> 
> Grassroots Portal Project


Maybe what needs to happen is that the groups need to officially organize on a state level, giving them the power to raise their own funds and spend their own money.    I know at least one state has already done this. 

The United Way is organized like that. I remember when national had a funds scandal, their local groups were insisting that they had nothing to do with national.

National needs to also decide who is going to be allowed to run these groups.  We now have 4 interim state coordinators. That's beyond ridiculous.

----------


## angelatc

> Why do we need some giant group?
> 
> Isn't money best dealt with locally?
> 
> Why send it all to Campaign for Liberty and get all pissed when it gets divided up for political reasons?
> 
> o_o


I agree with this.  Funds need to be allocated as appropriated - either the local chapters have to be responsible for paying a certain amount to national periodically, or national has to send an honest cut of their intake back to the districts it originated in.

----------


## sevin

> Why C4l would need you ? 
> 
> Stop your bull$#@!. Please.





> Way to go.
> 
> Play the elitist card.


wow, the effect this controversy is having on us just makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> It´s pretty obvious why we need C4L, to get to know each other and work together...


Nope, sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.

We met and got to know each other HERE and thru the meetup groups.  

CFL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

WE do not need CFL.

CFL needs US.  Or at least they DID in order to get off the ground.  

Now that they've managed that, the LIBERTY activists are no longer needed. 

Liberty activists are being thrown overboard, along with the non intervention plank.

CFL has dogs at the top who are trained to smell money and then go after it.  I say this because Tate and the trainer Rothfeld are touted for their FUNDRAISING ABILITY.  

The GOP base has more money than the Liberty activists, so CFL is doing what those money sniffers were hired to do:  bring in the money.

Principles don't matter - just money.

----------


## YumYum

> Nope, sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.
> 
> We met and got to know each other HERE and thru the meetup groups.  
> 
> CFL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
> 
> WE do not need CFL.
> 
> CFL needs US.  Or at least they DID in order to get off the ground.  
> ...


I couldn't have said it better, MsDoodahs, and it's a tough, bitter pill to swallow.

----------


## MsDoodahs

It is, Yum, it really really is.

----------


## LibertyEagle

C4L made a huge mistake.

Changes need to be made.

To throw out the entire organization over this would be akin to biting off our noses to spite our faces.

----------


## ARealConservative

Dear Eric,

Your contribution of $25.00 was received. Thank you for your support!

Sincerely,
Kokesh for Congress Staff

Confirmation code:
R4709J2X41PC


------------------------


Just a reminder that Adam has a money bomb on the 1st (2 days)

----------


## MsDoodahs

> C4L made a huge mistake.
> 
> Changes need to be made.
> 
> To throw out the entire organization over this would be akin to biting off our noses to spite our faces.



Changes needed to be made LONG BEFORE THIS and CFL did NOT make any changes.  

Why would anyone believe that changes will be made NOW?

It is not worth salvaging.

CFL has asked us to give them time, they were going to roll out this FANTASTIC grassroots tool.

Pfft.

NEVER HAPPENED.

We kept waiting...and waiting....and waiting.....

And LOOK AT WHAT THEY'VE DONE! 

They've damaged/destroyed the very brand that they asked LIBERTY ACTIVISTS to work their asses off to establish as THE premier brand for the liberty movement!

DONE IN ONE FELL SWOOP at the hand of their TOP LEVEL PEOPLE.

Then rather than TELL THE TRUTH IMMEDIATELY, they LEAVE THE GRASSROOTS HANGING FOR TWO DAYS.

Then - they come out with that pathetic NON EXPLANATION.

Cutting off our nose to spite our face is the wrong analogy.

We're removing a cancer before it kills us.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I think that in politics it´s all about the numbers.
> 
> You know if C4L would have trillion members, politicians would be very interested what they have to say! 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can allways donate your money only to the local projects.


If CFL had a trillion members, there'd be some serious explaining to do.




> As of 30 January 2010, the Earth's population is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6,799,500,000.


You asked earlier why the C4L "needs" anyone in particular.  They certainly did seem needy when asking for money.  On the flipside, people have had success, and continue to do so, without the C4L.  A larger voice might well be necessary, but just because one is necessary does not mean that C4L is best-suited to the task.  You are very right that people can donate to the smaller projects if they wish.  That is what a lot of us have been doing for quite some time.  It does not invalidate the anger that people feel over their money being accepted with one stated purpose, and then used for another purpose entirely.  Being the victim of fraud always stings.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Changes needed to be made LONG BEFORE THIS and CFL did NOT make any changes.  
> 
> Why would anyone believe that changes will be made NOW?
> 
> It is not worth salvaging.
> 
> CFL has asked us to give them time, they were going to roll out this FANTASTIC grassroots tool.
> 
> Pfft.
> ...


Much better analogy.

----------


## angelatc

But the fact remains that unless we learn how to raise money, we can't be much of a factor.    Our real candidates are awesome, and all of them are starving financially.

It isn't fair that Tate can build a viable model and we can't, but it is our current reality.

----------


## cjm

I'd like to thank MRoCkEd for posting the link to this thread over on the C4L site.  I deleted my C4L account last Wednesday night and applied for an account here on RPFs last night (Friday).  I'm glad to see so many people thinking for themselves and not simply accepting the "explanation" given by the C4L staff.  I canceled my C4L account after the insult that I might believe that the ad was not an endorsement.  I watched the ad, and it's an endorsement.  I don't care if it cost $35, it shouldn't have been done.  And anyone who *really* believes in the principals that C4L advertises wouldn't have done it either.  It wasn't a mistake.

The G4L concept sounds great to me.  Just as free markets and competition increase wealth in society, a splintered free market liberty movement with competing web sites, organizations, and tools will increase our effectiveness and success.  C4L was hoping to be a centrally planned movement, but that only works for collectivism.  C4L's downfall will be a good thing in time.  We'll have 10, 50, or 100 organizations that we can each support -- perhaps concentrating on one or two while others stagnate, and moving on when the current ones disappoint.  I'm very optimistic about the future of the liberty movement, it's stronger now than it's been in the last couple decades (I've been voting LP since 1992).  Shaking off C4L now is good.  Don't get attached to any particular organization or site, diversify your outreach and work, and we'll get there eventually.

I thank the RPF mods for approving my account.

Cheers,

CJM

----------


## RCA

> I'd like to thank MRoCkEd for posting the link to this thread over on the C4L site.  I deleted my C4L account last Wednesday night and applied for an account here on RPFs last night (Friday).  I'm glad to see so many people thinking for themselves and not simply accepting the "explanation" given by the C4L staff.  I canceled my C4L account after the insult that I might believe that the ad was not an endorsement.  I watched the ad, and it's an endorsement.  I don't care if it cost $35, it shouldn't have been done.  And anyone who *really* believes in the principals that C4L advertises wouldn't have done it either.  It wasn't a mistake.
> 
> The G4L concept sounds great to me.  Just as free markets and competition increase wealth in society, a splintered free market liberty movement with competing web sites, organizations, and tools will increase our effectiveness and success.  C4L was hoping to be a centrally planned movement, but that only works for collectivism.  C4L's downfall will be a good thing in time.  We'll have 10, 50, or 100 organizations that we can each support -- perhaps concentrating on one or two while others stagnate, and moving on when the current ones disappoint.  I'm very optimistic about the future of the liberty movement, it's stronger now than it's been in the last couple decades (I've been voting LP since 1992).  Shaking off C4L now is good.  Don't get attached to any particular organization or site, diversify your outreach and work, and we'll get there eventually.
> 
> I thank the RPF mods for approving my account.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> CJM


Welcome aboard!

----------


## newbitech

> I'd like to thank MRoCkEd for posting the link to this thread over on the C4L site.  I deleted my C4L account last Wednesday night and applied for an account here on RPFs last night (Friday).  I'm glad to see so many people thinking for themselves and not simply accepting the "explanation" given by the C4L staff.  I canceled my C4L account after the insult that I might believe that the ad was not an endorsement.  I watched the ad, and it's an endorsement.  I don't care if it cost $35, it shouldn't have been done.  And anyone who *really* believes in the principals that C4L advertises wouldn't have done it either.  It wasn't a mistake.
> 
> The G4L concept sounds great to me.  Just as free markets and competition increase wealth in society, a splintered free market liberty movement with competing web sites, organizations, and tools will increase our effectiveness and success.  C4L was hoping to be a centrally planned movement, but that only works for collectivism.  C4L's downfall will be a good thing in time.  We'll have 10, 50, or 100 organizations that we can each support -- perhaps concentrating on one or two while others stagnate, and moving on when the current ones disappoint.  I'm very optimistic about the future of the liberty movement, it's stronger now than it's been in the last couple decades (I've been voting LP since 1992).  Shaking off C4L now is good.  Don't get attached to any particular organization or site, diversify your outreach and work, and we'll get there eventually.
> 
> I thank the RPF mods for approving my account.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> CJM


Just out of curiosity, what websites did you participate in before you joined up with C4L last year?  I'd like to know because I wonder how many other C4L members come in without knowledge of forums like this and dailypaul.com.

and welcome, here is your fireproof suit, your tinfoil hat, and your bullhorn.

----------


## LittleLightShining

> But the fact remains that unless we learn how to raise money, we can't be much of a factor.    Our real candidates are awesome, and all of them are starving financially.
> 
> It isn't fair that Tate can build a viable model and we can't, but it is our current reality.


Remind me who came up with the moneybomb again 




> I'd like to thank MRoCkEd for posting the link to this thread over on the C4L site.  I deleted my C4L account last Wednesday night and applied for an account here on RPFs last night (Friday).  I'm glad to see so many people thinking for themselves and not simply accepting the "explanation" given by the C4L staff.  I canceled my C4L account after the insult that I might believe that the ad was not an endorsement.  I watched the ad, and it's an endorsement.  I don't care if it cost $35, it shouldn't have been done.  And anyone who *really* believes in the principals that C4L advertises wouldn't have done it either.  It wasn't a mistake.
> 
> The G4L concept sounds great to me.  Just as free markets and competition increase wealth in society, a splintered free market liberty movement with competing web sites, organizations, and tools will increase our effectiveness and success.  C4L was hoping to be a centrally planned movement, but that only works for collectivism.  C4L's downfall will be a good thing in time.  We'll have 10, 50, or 100 organizations that we can each support -- perhaps concentrating on one or two while others stagnate, and moving on when the current ones disappoint.  I'm very optimistic about the future of the liberty movement, it's stronger now than it's been in the last couple decades (I've been voting LP since 1992).  Shaking off C4L now is good.  Don't get attached to any particular organization or site, diversify your outreach and work, and we'll get there eventually.
> 
> I thank the RPF mods for approving my account.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> CJM


So true! Welcome to rpf

----------


## catdd

" here is your fireproof suit, your tinfoil hat, and your bullhorn."

You can have that tin foil hat shaped any way you like too. My Spartan helmet looks so authentic that you would never guess that it's made completely from tin foil.

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

> " here is your fireproof suit, your tinfoil hat, and your bullhorn."
> 
> You can have that tin foil hat shaped any way you like too. My Spartan helmet looks so authentic that you would never guess that it's made completely from tin foil.


so true, and there are other parts of my anatomy that I need to protect. So in addition to my tin foil hat to the north, I've fashioned a tin foil athletic supporter to the south. 

.....I wear it on the outside.

----------


## catdd

Don't go overboard like this guy

YouTube - If i Only had a Heart-The Wizard of Oz-Lyrics

----------


## Jeros

> The G4L concept sounds great to me.  Just as free markets and competition increase wealth in society, a splintered free market liberty movement with competing web sites, organizations, and tools will increase our effectiveness and success.  C4L was hoping to be a centrally planned movement, but that only works for collectivism.  C4L's downfall will be a good thing in time.  We'll have 10, 50, or 100 organizations that we can each support -- perhaps concentrating on one or two while others stagnate, and moving on when the current ones disappoint.  I'm very optimistic about the future of the liberty movement, it's stronger now than it's been in the last couple decades (I've been voting LP since 1992).  Shaking off C4L now is good.  Don't get attached to any particular organization or site, diversify your outreach and work, and we'll get there eventually.
> 
> I thank the RPF mods for approving my account.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> CJM


Alright, I just finished reading through this entire thread  I'm not sure of who to credit for the G4L concept, but I think its a great idea. It seems more natural as well. "Campaign's" are generally centrally managed, whereas a genuine environment of liberty must be decentralized. Maybe the C4L concept was doomed from the beginning. I would like to see them pull through though and implement some sort of restructuring that shifts some of the decision making and candidate selection to the grassroots. If Tate and company continue on their current path, I do not see it regaining the trust of grassroots. I see a dangerous, somewhat elitist, attitude emanating from C4L executives and apologists, which is more or less declaring that grassroots is becoming irrelevant. Sort of an overlying question "what have you done for the central collective lately." They believe if you don't directly support national, its none of your business what they do. Thankfully, this movement is naturally decentralized and growing. Until they take away our internet connections that is! 

Glad to see the overwhelming majority of Ron Paul grassroots are still on the right side of the issues. Not that there was ever very much of a doubt. I amazed at how much attention this is getting. I cant wait to see how many other self governing non-interventionists coalesce around the 2012 election season. I don't think this hurt the movement one iota. If anything, it will help weed out those intent on usurpation. Non intervention is a standard. It cannot be negotiated away. It is not up for debate. It is a defining principle that differentiates between tyranny and freedom. Any attempt to ignore the issue is a pretty accurate indicator of fishy behavior.

----------


## dr. hfn

*for anyone new to the thread, read the first half to get the story.*

----------


## RCA

> Alright, I just finished reading through this entire thread  I'm not sure of who to credit for the G4L concept, but I think its a great idea. It seems more natural as well. "Campaign's" are generally centrally managed, whereas a genuine environment of liberty must be decentralized. Maybe the C4L concept was doomed from the beginning. I would like to see them pull through though and implement some sort of restructuring that shifts some of the decision making and candidate selection to the grassroots. If Tate and company continue on their current path, I do not see it regaining the trust of grassroots. I see a dangerous, somewhat elitist, attitude emanating from C4L executives and apologists, which is more or less declaring that grassroots is becoming irrelevant. Sort of an overlying question "what have you done for the central collective lately." They believe if you don't directly support national, its none of your business what they do. Thankfully, this movement is naturally decentralized and growing. Until they take away our internet connections that is! 
> 
> Glad to see the overwhelming majority of Ron Paul grassroots are still on the right side of the issues. Not that there was ever very much of a doubt. I amazed at how much attention this is getting. I cant wait to see how many other self governing non-interventionists coalesce around the 2012 election season. I don't think this hurt the movement one iota. If anything, it will help weed out those intent on usurpation. Non intervention is a standard. It cannot be negotiated away. It is not up for debate. It is a defining principle that differentiates between tyranny and freedom. Any attempt to ignore the issue is a pretty accurate indicator of fishy behavior.


Welcome to the forums, you've come to the right place!

----------


## RCA

Ugh.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31973

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Ugh.
> 
> http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31973


I think this has its own thread here. Response from CO coordinator or something like that. Pretty pathetic.

----------


## cjm

> Just out of curiosity, what websites did you participate in before you joined up with C4L last year?  I'd like to know because I wonder how many other C4L members come in without knowledge of forums like this and dailypaul.com.


I haven't been an especially active participant in the sense of posting materials, essays, or comments.  I tend to lurk more and just keep up with other peoples' goings-on.  If I write something, it will usually be an email or paper letter to one of my representatives.

Of the liberty-oriented organizations out there, I have active memberships or have recently given money to:

mises.org
acton.org
vcdl.org
nra.org
lp.org

I have been aware of RPFs, dailypaul.com, ronpaul.com, and other sites out there because I tend to follow links when posted in whatever I happen to be reading at the time.   But it's usually a case of "read-the-linked-post-and-never-go-back" unless the linked post is especially interesting (like the link to this thread).  I would wager that most C4L members who use the site are also aware of the other sites, but like me, used C4L as the primary site since it was endorsed by Dr. Paul himself.

Anyway, to complete the answer, I will hit the following sites with some regularity (could be monthly or quarterly, but I tend to come back):

lewrockwell.com
nolanchart.com
depression2.tv (seems to be dead now)
theinternationalforcaster.com
infowars.com
and probably a few others that I'm not thinking of now or that are not strictly speaking, liberty-oriented sites (like marketwatch.com).

I also have bookmarks for the US Senate and House vote results, thomas.loc.gov, and the Virginia General Assembly schedules and vote results.  I like primary sources.




> and welcome, here is your fireproof suit, your tinfoil hat, and your bullhorn.


Thank you for the new wardrobe, it's just my size.

----------


## RCA

> I haven't been an especially active participant in the sense of posting materials, essays, or comments.  I tend to lurk more and just keep up with other peoples' goings-on.  If I write something, it will usually be an email or paper letter to one of my representatives.
> 
> Of the liberty-oriented organizations out there, I have active memberships or have recently given money to:
> 
> mises.org
> acton.org
> vcdl.org
> nra.org
> lp.org
> ...


Please see the link in my signature called "Websites for Liberty." Try not to get lost. ;-)

----------


## Knightskye

Remember when CFL started?  All the Meetups were named "Ron Paul for President" and they changed their names.

----------


## inibo

> Folks like you will help to make this happen.  Thank you sir!


Folks like *you* will make this happen.



> Transaction ID: 7WY73001HL849592W 	Placed on Jan 31, 2010
> Payment For 	Quantity 	Price
> Donation for: Committee to Elect Glen Bradley for NC House 49 	1 	$25.00 USD
> Subtotal: 	$25.00 USD
> Sales Tax: 	$0.00 USD
> Total Amount: 	$25.00 USD

----------


## inibo

> You can trust Bryan and I.  We have nothing to do with Mossad.


Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Folks like *you* will make this happen.


Thank you inibo --

I know that right now more than ever it is extremely tough to donate money to a political campaign.  It is tough in the best of times, but right now the times are anything but "best."  This is the one part of a political campaign that I wish were different.  I am used to making every penny I get through hard work (not that a political campaign isn't hard work mind you) but no matter how hard I work, I can not by myself make the money needed to defeat Lucy Allen.  Therefore it's donors like you that allow me to run in the first place.

I appreciate it more than I can express.  This is the one part of a political campaign that I have a good bit of trouble with.  The rest of it is most natural to me, the canvassing, the speaking, the activism -- even the legislating.  What you guys are doing here will very much help me make the kind of impact to demonstrate I am real, and a real force to be reckoned with.  That in turn will release more donors locally to give.

I have already seen it that the more my thermometer climbs (I have to do it manually in Photoshop by the way) the more the locals are willing to give.

You guys are giving me my start, and that will take me all the way.

This is where it starts, in the States, to restore the Constitutional order.  We can do this, and you are helping to make it happen.  Thank you!

----------


## constituent

> We" don't need to know who the donors were because it's none of "we"'s business! I certainly would not want my name and donations release to whomever asked. 
> 
> My first question to you are: 
> 1) Are you from CO? 
> 2) Are you a Local Coordinator? 
> 3) Have you completed the online Local Coordinator bootcamp? 
> 4) As a Local Coordinator who has completed the Local Coordinator online bootcamp, have you put the knowledge you've gained into action?


Oh $#@!, you really came back for more?  Sorry I missed it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229350

----------


## rp08orbust

Here is why we need C4L:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=236568

----------


## Nate-ForLiberty

that was the worst thread bump in the histroy of thread bumps. jesus $#@!ing christ.

----------


## Don't Tread on Mike

Isn't CFL a product/ continuation of Ron Pauls 2008 presidential run? I am curious to his thoughts on the matter? and why isnt this money being spent on our liberty candidates (schiff, rand, lawson...and heck Medina could have used it? CFaiL is damn right

----------


## rp08orbust

> that was the worst thread bump in the histroy of thread bumps. jesus $#@!ing christ.


How so?  It is directly relevant to the discussion of C4L's merits and flaws.  As one of the most read threads in the forum's history, it likely has a ton of subscribers, meaning the bump will get the word out about SRLC to a lot of people.

----------


## rp08orbust

> Isn't CFL a product/ continuation of Ron Pauls 2008 presidential run? I am curious to his thoughts on the matter? and why isnt this money being spent on our liberty candidates (schiff, rand, lawson...and heck Medina could have used it? CFaiL is damn right


You don't think Ron Paul Republican candidates benefited from a week of Ron Paul dominating the political headlines after CPAC?  The benefits to the entire liberty movement will only grow exponentially with each successive straw poll that Ron Paul wins.

----------


## amy31416

Holy... WTF happened? I missed this whole thread entirely.

Is there anywhere I can read a synopsis?

Edit: NM, I have as much of the story as I need.

----------


## constituent

with hindsight, this $#@! is just funny.  

what's changed?  anything?

----------

