Campaign for Liberty, THE anti-war movement siren

[CGeoffrion]

I've always felt being anti-war was one of our, if not our most important positions. If we really believe in liberty then we must believe man inherently does not submit himself to state propagated war. So while the Fed may be the head of the beast, if awakening the people is our cause, then positioning our movement as THE anti-war movement in the country could be our greatest siren.

Remember the protest during the Vietnam/Korean wars? (not advocating the idiots that spit on our troops...) The wars we fight now are only continuations of the morally wrong wars of the past. The only difference nowadays is that the status quo has much more experience in stifling decent. Protest to tyranny is natural, we must revive this spirit. Civil disobedience can not be ignored as a viable option!

The Campaign for Liberty has to expand our focus beyond the audit the fed movement. While HR1207 is an incredibly powerful precision strike to Washington, we must realize we won't see real change until we awaken the masses to the message of liberty and I feel we are undermining an already well established social meme of anti-war.

HR1207 and 2010/2012 candidate money bombs are important, but with Obama's recent acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the now seemingly inevitable escalation of troops in Afghanistan (and potentially the entire middle east region) I feel now is the time to reassert ourselves as the legitimate anti-war movement in America.

Does anyone have any information on any groups working towards a protest against this newly proposed troop surge we can allie with? If not, we should use this thread to start a protest of our own. Brainstorm?

[LittleLightShining]

You're right. Absolutely right.

The Bush->Obama morph pictures are pretty powerful. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of getting a parade permit for the capitol here in VT. Blowing up each image to 4x6 feet and having two people dressed in red, white and blue (or some variation thereof-- or even all black or all white) marching, slowly, down State St. There are other things that can be done... some sort of visual representation of how many people have died since Obama took office... Maybe have representations of coffins or something behind each image to show the losses...

I think whatever we do needs to be creative and have the ability to go viral. Sign waving protests aren't necessarily good watching unless there's some kind of altercation or unless you're somehow involved with it.

We need to change the hearts and minds of the people through education before we will ever have enough support to force the brakes on the military-industrial complex.

[MRoCkEd]

I do think this should be C4L's focus after HR1207. Some people disagree with me. Thoughts?

[pcosmar]

And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin' for?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2294497087_a84b77be8a.jpg

yes, Vietnam era.

[cheapseats]

And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin' for?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2294497087_a84b77be8a.jpg

yes, Vietnam era.

I, for one, am glad you didn't come home in a box.

Thanks, as ever, for Service Extraordinaire.

[cheapseats]

Lemme put it this way. Any Libertarian who is not LOUDLY AND INSISTENTLY sounding the anti-war drums and who is simultaneously donning the Republican mantel, I shall presume to be NOT a peacenik in warmongers clothes, but a CLOSET WARMONGER. Someone who just wants to get into office . . . where the salary, perks and security are.

[pcosmar]

I, for one, am glad you didn't come home in a box.

Thanks, as ever, for Service Extraordinaire.

Era
I joined to go, but we pulled out as I was training.
The ignorance of youth. I have learned much since then.
I still remember the lessons I was taught. ;)

[cheapseats]

Era
I joined to go, but we pulled out as I was training.
The ignorance of youth. I have learned much since then.
I still remember the lessons I was taught. ;)

You bet. The School of Hard Knocks will hit you upside the head til you GET IT. ;)

[ronpaulhawaii]

Some thoughts off the top of my head before I hit the road for the #1 war protester in the r3VOLution (http://www.thisnovember5th.com/AdamKokesh.htm)

I don't know that it should be the prime focus, but do think the issue should be a prime feature on the blog. This way the grassroots can engage in the debate on our own and when people are led to C4L via our actions, they will see that, indeed, we are one of the few remaining anti-[immoral] war activist groups.

I imagine we should frame the debate in new ways to distance ourselves from ultra-pacifists, and from the more unsavory groups who have used wars in the past to further their own agendas. We also need to be careful not to make this out to be simply about Obama's Wars and keep to the issue of non-interventionism in general.

We might also do good to protest the treatment and condition of our vets. As well as plan actions to help our vets. The suicide rate is heartbreaking. How many vets are homeless? By framing the debate around "supporting the troops" we can highlight the inhumainty of the war mongers, while endearing us to the majority of people

I've had great success by stating things like:

"I think we should be hunting down rouges who threaten us, but bombing and occupying entire countries is making us less secure and just morally wrong"

or,

"We all agree that a strong national defense is necessary in this world, but why are we going broke subsidizing European towns?"

or,

"I like the idea of a bad ass Navy with a Marine and Air attachment, but we were warned about standing armies and evidence of the wisdom of those warnings is very visible in this day and age"

Food for thought...

[pcosmar]

"I think we should be hunting down rouges who threaten us, but bombing and occupying entire countries is making us less secure and just morally wrong"

or,

"We all agree that a strong national defense is necessary in this world, but why are we going broke subsidizing European towns?"

or,

"I like the idea of a bad ass Navy with a Marine and Air attachment, but we were warned about standing armies and evidence of the wisdom of those warnings is very visible in this day and age"

Food for thought...

I like the taste of your cookin'.
That last one is my favorite. :)

[ronpaulhawaii]

I've split the thread to keep this important issue on topic, to discuss other CFL issues please use this thread

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=214110

or start a new topic

Thanks

[Danke]

Remember the protest during the Vietnam/Korean wars? (not advocating the idiots that spit on our troops...) The wars we fight now are only continuations of the morally wrong wars of the past. The only difference nowadays is that the status quo has much more experience in stifling decent. Protest to tyranny is natural, we must revive this spirit. Civil disobedience can not be ignored as a viable option!


I was in the Military during Desert Storm. One thing that sticks in my mind from that time was thinking, "I thought we learned our lesson already from Vietnam, wtf are we doing?"

But I was and still am a minority (at least to those that stayed in).

[ronpaulhawaii]

bump

[CGeoffrion]

This thread shouldn't have been lost. With the events today in Iraq/Iran we need to rally this cause as our #1 issue. It seems written in the stars that the Fed will end itself, no legislation will do it. On top of that it's now a national issue really, Colbert even did an anti-fed segment recently haha. I wish our movements figures would push the anti-war message a lot more, so lets get the grassroots rollin to fill in the gaps. I need a project for this cold winter, lets brainstorm.

[parocks]

I would vote no. Definitely there's a segment of people here that aren't comfortable with Republicans. This particular thread isn't a manifestation of that, but its nonetheless true. 2 large chunks of Ron Paul supporters are the Conservative Republicans and the antiwar Democrats. The antiwar Democrats really don't seem to be that enthusiastic about much of what interests the Conservative Republicans. The antiwar Democrats should be keeping themselves busy with the sign waving and the protesting and the everything else that they like so much. Has there been an antiwar protest at all, anywhere, since Obama became President? If so, the people here should find out what organization was in charge of that protest, and go spread the overall Liberty message amongst those people. Or, if there hasn't been a protest, get together yourselves and
take an organizational role. Spread the Liberty message to antiwar people.


What are Kuchinich's people doing these days? What is Kuchinich doing about the war? The left more than the right seems to be more antiwar. Kuchinich's people should be doing the antiwar protesting these days. Move Dems away from Obama. So, Kuchinich's organization, or Nader's organization, or some other Democrats people should take the leadership role. If there's any Democrat organization antiwar, join that organization and work the antiwar that way.

I got an email from Campaign for Liberty within the last week. They asked what should be the top priority? The 4 choices were

1) Stop Obama's Healthcare
2) Stop Obama's Cap and Tax
3) Audit The Fed
4) Stop the reauthorization of the Patriot act / Dangerous ID

All 4 on that list are good things for Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul to do.

I personally think that Campaign for Liberty should do #3 Audit The Fed. Ron Paul is the leader on this. He should stay the leader on this.

He isn't the leader on Healthcare or Cap and Tax. There are others taking the lead on that. It's important that all the goals be accomplished, but Ron Paul could be more effective on #3 Audit The Fed.

Audit the Fed should also be broadened to include any of Ron Paul's current ideas about the Fed and Banking. Abolishing Legal Tender Laws, competing money, End the Fed. Ron Paul is the leader on this and should stay the leader on this.

After #3, next I would say #4 Patriot Act. I don't think that anyone has clearly taken the lead on this. Ron Paul should get out in front.



This thread shouldn't have been lost. With the events today in Iraq/Iran we need to rally this cause as our #1 issue. It seems written in the stars that the Fed will end itself, no legislation will do it. On top of that it's now a national issue really, Colbert even did an anti-fed segment recently haha. I wish our movements figures would push the anti-war message a lot more, so lets get the grassroots rollin to fill in the gaps. I need a project for this cold winter, lets brainstorm.

[Ethek]

I believe cannot be 'anti war' you have to be pro personal liberty here, pro balanced budget and pro limited government that stays out of the church and state issue altogether. This makes more room for christian doctrine and talk about the virtues of natural law. Show the intent of the founding fathers behind the constitution, then you might prevail on an argument of the detriment of war with a neocon or statist.

[thechitowncubs]

http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bush-obama.jpg

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I've always felt being anti-war was one of our, if not our most important positions. If we really believe in liberty then we must believe man inherently does not submit himself to state propagated war. So while the Fed may be the head of the beast, if awakening the people is our cause, then positioning our movement as THE anti-war movement in the country could be our greatest siren.

Remember the protest during the Vietnam/Korean wars? (not advocating the idiots that spit on our troops...) The wars we fight now are only continuations of the morally wrong wars of the past. The only difference nowadays is that the status quo has much more experience in stifling decent. Protest to tyranny is natural, we must revive this spirit. Civil disobedience can not be ignored as a viable option!

The Campaign for Liberty has to expand our focus beyond the audit the fed movement. While HR1207 is an incredibly powerful precision strike to Washington, we must realize we won't see real change until we awaken the masses to the message of liberty and I feel we are undermining an already well established social meme of anti-war.

HR1207 and 2010/2012 candidate money bombs are important, but with Obama's recent acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the now seemingly inevitable escalation of troops in Afghanistan (and potentially the entire middle east region) I feel now is the time to reassert ourselves as the legitimate anti-war movement in America.

Does anyone have any information on any groups working towards a protest against this newly proposed troop surge we can allie with? If not, we should use this thread to start a protest of our own. Brainstorm?

Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery; equality for the sake of equality is no better than inequality; the U.S. Constitution for the sake of the U.S. Constitution is no better than no U.S. Constitution; responsibility for the sake of responsibility is no better than irresponsibility; and, finally, management for the sake of management is no better than chaos.
In other words, this nation does have a greater social agenda. That social agenda was established by natural law. That natural law established a Truth. That Truth is self evident and unalienable in that it reduces down like DnA not to be understood by the mind, for this becomes politically bipartisan, but to be known in the heart of the human soul. This means it cannot be misconstrued by tyrants, debated by scholars, challenged by lawyers, or questioned by philosophers.
And, once again, what is that Civil Purpose? This Civil Purpose becomes our Formal Cutlure in that we allow it to control our inferior, informal (minor) cultures.
To be envisioned and empowered as to what our American Civil Purpose is, we need to understand the significance of our Founding Fathers message to the government they created over us as a necessary tyranny: that all men were created equal whether they be that of the greatest king (tyrant) on the throne or that of the lowest prostitute (slave) trespassing within his territory; and that both of them were born with the same exact business agenda to fulfill!
To understand how a young man can rule in this cruel world they have inherited today, they have to understand how a shepherd rules over his flock. He has to rule from the middle of it as he will be burdened with the well being of those strong ones who lead the flock as well as those weak ones who lag behind it. So, for the sake of the lost sheep, I am submissive to the authority of those who lead the flock. But I rule!
Something which has always helped me along the way is knowing as a man that no matter how bad or difficult the circumstances are in my life there is always someone out there far weaker than I am living and working on the street under the rule of a brutal tyrant.
The Truth is God meaning that I have God on my side. If I have the Almighty on my side, then why would I desire to politically manipulate events out of fear of evil?

[RevolutionSD]

Lemme put it this way. Any Libertarian who is not LOUDLY AND INSISTENTLY sounding the anti-war drums and who is simultaneously donning the Republican mantel, I shall presume to be NOT a peacenik in warmongers clothes, but a CLOSET WARMONGER. Someone who just wants to get into office . . . where the salary, perks and security are.

Agreed, which is why Schiff and his pro-interventionism is an important topic.

[dr. hfn]

The C4L should organize massive anti war rallies that shut down cities, it will bring so much attention to us!

[CGeoffrion]

I would vote no. Definitely there's a segment of people here that aren't comfortable with Republicans. This particular thread isn't a manifestation of that, but its nonetheless true. 2 large chunks of Ron Paul supporters are the Conservative Republicans and the antiwar Democrats. The antiwar Democrats really don't seem to be that enthusiastic about much of what interests the Conservative Republicans. The antiwar Democrats should be keeping themselves busy with the sign waving and the protesting and the everything else that they like so much. Has there been an antiwar protest at all, anywhere, since Obama became President? If so, the people here should find out what organization was in charge of that protest, and go spread the overall Liberty message amongst those people. Or, if there hasn't been a protest, get together yourselves and
take an organizational role. Spread the Liberty message to antiwar people.


What are Kuchinich's people doing these days? What is Kuchinich doing about the war? The left more than the right seems to be more antiwar. Kuchinich's people should be doing the antiwar protesting these days. Move Dems away from Obama. So, Kuchinich's organization, or Nader's organization, or some other Democrats people should take the leadership role. If there's any Democrat organization antiwar, join that organization and work the antiwar that way.

I got an email from Campaign for Liberty within the last week. They asked what should be the top priority? The 4 choices were

1) Stop Obama's Healthcare
2) Stop Obama's Cap and Tax
3) Audit The Fed
4) Stop the reauthorization of the Patriot act / Dangerous ID

All 4 on that list are good things for Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul to do.

I personally think that Campaign for Liberty should do #3 Audit The Fed. Ron Paul is the leader on this. He should stay the leader on this.

He isn't the leader on Healthcare or Cap and Tax. There are others taking the lead on that. It's important that all the goals be accomplished, but Ron Paul could be more effective on #3 Audit The Fed.

Audit the Fed should also be broadened to include any of Ron Paul's current ideas about the Fed and Banking. Abolishing Legal Tender Laws, competing money, End the Fed. Ron Paul is the leader on this and should stay the leader on this.

After #3, next I would say #4 Patriot Act. I don't think that anyone has clearly taken the lead on this. Ron Paul should get out in front.

While I completely agree with what your saying, I think we are doing a great disservice to the goal of expanding our ranks. I origianlly got involved with this movment because of the war issue. That was back in 2007. Yet since then I've spent well over 200 federal reserve notes at mises.org buying books and educating myself in the trade cycle, sound money, and the history of the fed.

I dont know, I guess my point here is that we can use the non-interventiolist, anti-iraq/afganistan war posistion almost as "bait" to draw the apathetic and disilusioned to our message.

THIS is whats going to drag the masses to our movement:
YouTube - Ron Paul's best You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHTCG3gGJKQ)

[LittleLightShining]

While I completely agree with what your saying, I think we are doing a great disservice to the goal of expanding our ranks. I origianlly got involved with this movment because of the war issue. That was back in 2007. Yet since then I've spent well over 200 federal reserve notes at mises.org buying books and educating myself in the trade cycle, sound money, and the history of the fed.

I dont know, I guess my point here is that we can use the non-interventiolist, anti-iraq/afganistan war posistion almost as "bait" to draw the apathetic and disilusioned to our message.

THIS is whats going to drag the masses to our movement:
YouTube - Ron Paul's best You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHTCG3gGJKQ)
Totally Agree.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

While I completely agree with what your saying, I think we are doing a great disservice to the goal of expanding our ranks. I origianlly got involved with this movment because of the war issue. That was back in 2007. Yet since then I've spent well over 200 federal reserve notes at mises.org buying books and educating myself in the trade cycle, sound money, and the history of the fed.

I dont know, I guess my point here is that we can use the non-interventiolist, anti-iraq/afganistan war posistion almost as "bait" to draw the apathetic and disilusioned to our message.

THIS is whats going to drag the masses to our movement:
YouTube - Ron Paul's best You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHTCG3gGJKQ)

According to our Founding Fathers, beyond the cruel reality we are born into, there exists a Truth so self evident and unalienable that it is bipartisan to the conscience of all Americans great and small. God is the Truth; therefore, we stand with God. So, why are we so burdened with politically manipulating the evil that disagrees with us? This isn't a sport of two equally apposing teams, after all, but a pimp (tyrant) versus a trespassing prostitute (we the people). No man save the Almighty has ever set us free; rather, the Truth set us free while great men led us to that Truth.

[ghengis86]

Some thoughts off the top of my head before I hit the road for the #1 war protester in the r3VOLution (http://www.thisnovember5th.com/AdamKokesh.htm)

I don't know that it should be the prime focus, but do think the issue should be a prime feature on the blog. This way the grassroots can engage in the debate on our own and when people are led to C4L via our actions, they will see that, indeed, we are one of the few remaining anti-[immoral] war activist groups.

I imagine we should frame the debate in new ways to distance ourselves from ultra-pacifists, and from the more unsavory groups who have used wars in the past to further their own agendas. We also need to be careful not to make this out to be simply about Obama's Wars and keep to the issue of non-interventionism in general.

We might also do good to protest the treatment and condition of our vets. As well as plan actions to help our vets. The suicide rate is heartbreaking. How many vets are homeless? By framing the debate around "supporting the troops" we can highlight the inhumainty of the war mongers, while endearing us to the majority of people

I've had great success by stating things like:

"I think we should be hunting down rouges who threaten us, but bombing and occupying entire countries is making us less secure and just morally wrong"

or,

"We all agree that a strong national defense is necessary in this world, but why are we going broke subsidizing European towns?"

or,

"I like the idea of a bad ass Navy with a Marine and Air attachment, but we were warned about standing armies and evidence of the wisdom of those warnings is very visible in this day and age"

Food for thought...

i like this approach. I usually use the "we need a strong military to protect and deter invasions of the homeland, but don't need to do the invading ourselves or on behalf of another nation"
when they ask, 'well, what about the genocide in _____; it's our job as a stong nation to protect them', I reply, "nothing is topping you from flying to _____ and joining the fight."

finding a thrid way/common ground is a good approach; neither pacifist, nor interventionist. more like, don't mess with us and we won't mess with you-ist.

[parocks]

Expanding our ranks: our new people should be found amongst tea partiers.

Tea Partiers are typically Conservatives / Republicans who want smaller government. They are disappointed with the Democrats (obviously) but also most Republicans, for being too big government.

Ron Paul is a Conservative Republican who wants smaller government.

Tea Partiers would like Ron Paul, and many do. The largest area of disagreement between Tea Partiers and Ron Paul is on Foreign Policy.

There are a lot of Tea Partiers. Recent polls indicate that if there was a "tea party" party, that party would get over 20% of the vote, and outpoll the Republicans. That's where Ron Paul should go, that's where people here should go, etc etc.

Ron Paul should be the leader of the Tea Partiers. He isn't. What happened?

If there was a meeting of elites in early 2007 about how to stop and/or marginalize Ron Paul, what has happened would be what they suggested.

They would have recognized that 90% of what Ron Paul wants to do is supported by a large segment of Conservative Republicans. They would have recognized that
the Republican party has not been doing what the Conservative Republicans want.
They would have admitted that they do not want the Republicans to do what the Conservative Republicans want. They would have seen Ron Paul, in 2007, as a potential threat.

So, what would they do to stop/marginalize Ron Paul. They would identify those issues that did not resonate with the Conservate Republicans and do what they could to see that that 10% was what people saw Ron Paul as. That 10% that Conservative Republicans do not want is antiwar. So, in the debates, in all the areas they had some control, they did what they could to paint Ron Paul as the "antiwar" Republican. Not the "end the federal income tax" Republican. Not the "end the Federal Reserve" Republican. Not "the Republican who truly wants to shrink the Federal Government and has consistently voted that way". Conservatives, Republicans agree with Ron Paul on those issues. And now, as we're seeing with the Tea Parties, there are a lot of people who believe that way. Nope, Ron Paul was the "antiwar" Republican. And most antiwar are Democrats. And most Democrats are for big government.

So, now you got a big tea party with Ron Paul not playing a major role, and antiwar people in the Ron Paul camp pushing his organization toward the one area where the big number of Conservative Republicans don't agree with Ron Paul.

For those of you who are interested in antiwar - take a look at this, it happened
today - http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1209/689050.html

"The trouble began when some anti-war protesters crashed a snowball fight that had been organized through Twitter at 14th and U streets in the heart of D.C. at 3 p.m.

ABC 7's John Gonzalez reports people suddenly appeared at the appointed time and began a little snowball fight. But some protesters also showed up. They were carrying signs that read "No Iraq (web | news) War; Snowball War Instead."

People -- it's unclear if they were protesters or snowball fighters -- began throwing snowballs at a Hummer that had a plainclothes police officer inside. It's unclear if it was the detective's personal vehicle or an unmarked police vehicle."

C'mon people - anti-war protesters!!! snowball fights!!! sounds like fun. Right up your alley.


While I completely agree with what your saying, I think we are doing a great disservice to the goal of expanding our ranks. I origianlly got involved with this movment because of the war issue. That was back in 2007. Yet since then I've spent well over 200 federal reserve notes at mises.org buying books and educating myself in the trade cycle, sound money, and the history of the fed.

I dont know, I guess my point here is that we can use the non-interventiolist, anti-iraq/afganistan war posistion almost as "bait" to draw the apathetic and disilusioned to our message.

THIS is whats going to drag the masses to our movement:
YouTube - Ron Paul's best You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHTCG3gGJKQ)

[AuH20]

I think we should solely focus our energies towards the dissolution of the Fed. It is the fulcrum of power in this country. If the Fed crumbles, they cannot wage these wars of imperialism. War is an activity wholly dependent on central bank tactics of currency inflation.

[Liberty Star]

Expanding our ranks: our new people should be found amongst tea partiers.

...

Tea Partiers would like Ron Paul, and many do. The largest area of disagreement between Tea Partiers and Ron Paul is on Foreign Policy.



Since pro foreign reconstruction spending, interventions folks like Palin, McCain, Beck etc praise these TPs, is it safe to assume most people in these TPs have similar interventionist and pro more foreign spending stances on Foreign Policy?


There is also very large pool of Obama suporters who share some of the views on Foreign Policy and domestic liberties as RP supporters, do you think we should tap into that pool to expand our ranks likewise?

[AuH20]

Expanding our ranks: our new people should be found amongst tea partiers.

Tea Partiers are typically Conservatives / Republicans who want smaller government. They are disappointed with the Democrats (obviously) but also most Republicans, for being too big government.

Ron Paul is a Conservative Republican who wants smaller government.

Tea Partiers would like Ron Paul, and many do. The largest area of disagreement between Tea Partiers and Ron Paul is on Foreign Policy.

There are a lot of Tea Partiers. Recent polls indicate that if there was a "tea party" party, that party would get over 20% of the vote, and outpoll the Republicans. That's where Ron Paul should go, that's where people here should go, etc etc.

Ron Paul should be the leader of the Tea Partiers. He isn't. What happened?

If there was a meeting of elites in early 2007 about how to stop and/or marginalize Ron Paul, what has happened would be what they suggested.

They would have recognized that 90% of what Ron Paul wants to do is supported by a large segment of Conservative Republicans. They would have recognized that
the Republican party has not been doing what the Conservative Republicans want.
They would have admitted that they do not want the Republicans to do what the Conservative Republicans want. They would have seen Ron Paul, in 2007, as a potential threat.

So, what would they do to stop/marginalize Ron Paul. They would identify those issues that did not resonate with the Conservate Republicans and do what they could to see that that 10% was what people saw Ron Paul as. That 10% that Conservative Republicans do not want is antiwar. So, in the debates, in all the areas they had some control, they did what they could to paint Ron Paul as the "antiwar" Republican. Not the "end the federal income tax" Republican. Not the "end the Federal Reserve" Republican. Not "the Republican who truly wants to shrink the Federal Government and has consistently voted that way". Conservatives, Republicans agree with Ron Paul on those issues. And now, as we're seeing with the Tea Parties, there are a lot of people who believe that way. Nope, Ron Paul was the "antiwar" Republican. And most antiwar are Democrats. And most Democrats are for big government.

So, now you got a big tea party with Ron Paul not playing a major role, and antiwar people in the Ron Paul camp pushing his organization toward the one area where the big number of Conservative Republicans don't agree with Ron Paul.

For those of you who are interested in antiwar - take a look at this, it happened
today - http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1209/689050.html

"The trouble began when some anti-war protesters crashed a snowball fight that had been organized through Twitter at 14th and U streets in the heart of D.C. at 3 p.m.

ABC 7's John Gonzalez reports people suddenly appeared at the appointed time and began a little snowball fight. But some protesters also showed up. They were carrying signs that read "No Iraq (web | news) War; Snowball War Instead."

People -- it's unclear if they were protesters or snowball fighters -- began throwing snowballs at a Hummer that had a plainclothes police officer inside. It's unclear if it was the detective's personal vehicle or an unmarked police vehicle."

C'mon people - anti-war protesters!!! snowball fights!!! sounds like fun. Right up your alley.

If you take away the irrationality and paranoia that accompanied the shocking events of 9/11, I'd venture to say that 2/3 of tea partiers would be strong Paul supporters by now. 9/11 was a colossal blow for the conservative movement as a whole. These tea partiers probably agree with Dr. Paul on 80% of the issues.

[CGeoffrion]

According to our Founding Fathers, beyond the cruel reality we are born into, there exists a Truth so self evident and unalienable that it is bipartisan to the conscience of all Americans great and small. God is the Truth; therefore, we stand with God. So, why are we so burdened with politically manipulating the evil that disagrees with us? This isn't a sport of two equally apposing teams, after all, but a pimp (tyrant) versus a trespassing prostitute (we the people). No man save the Almighty has ever set us free; rather, the Truth set us free while great men led us to that Truth.

Your right. All I'm saying is I think we can still expand our ranks much more efficiently with the apathetic and those who are not particularly politically active. Waking more people up is more important than trying to convert neo-cons or socialists to our cause. Not because those efforts are futile, but because the neo-cons and socialists are still a small minority of the overall population. We need to awaken the sleeping masses.



Since pro foreign reconstruction spending, interventions folks like Palin, McCain, Beck etc praise these TPs, is it safe to assume most people in these TPs have similar interventionist and pro more foreign spending stances on Foreign Policy?

I think this is where we are losing. The bi-partisan media manipulation machine realizes this untapped potential. The tea party movement is the establishment anti-establishment movement if that makes any sense. They are controlled opposition. We should embrace these people but just make sure their discust with government leads them someplace other than Beck/Palin 2012...


As to expanding, there is very large pool of Obama supporters who share some of the views on Foreign Policy and domestic liberties, do you we should tap into that pool to expand our ranks likewise?

Yes yes yes. This may be the easiest way to convert a group already embedded in the politcal midframe. Right now I have a feeling many Obama supporters are upset about Obama's continued escalation in the middle east. As time goes on it will be easier and easier to make these people understand they were manipulated and lied to by "hope" and "change". Direct them to Dr. Paul and light the spark that will hopefully lead to a flaming heart of liberty.

[Chester Copperpot]

lemme put it this way. any libertarian who is not loudly and insistently sounding the anti-war drums and who is simultaneously donning the republican mantel, i shall presume to be not a peacenik in warmongers clothes, but a closet warmonger. someone who just wants to get into office . . . Where the salary, perks and security are.

right on

[Liberty Star]

I think this is where we are losing. The bi-partisan media manipulation machine realizes this untapped potential. The tea party movement is the establishment anti-establishment movement if that makes any sense. They are controlled opposition. We should embrace these people but just make sure their discust with government leads them someplace other than Beck/Palin 2012...



Yes yes yes. This may be the easiest way to convert a group already embedded in the politcal midframe. Right now I have a feeling many Obama supporters are upset about Obama's continued escalation in the middle east. As time goes on it will be easier and easier to make these people understand they were manipulated and lied to by "hope" and "change". Direct them to Dr. Paul and light the spark that will hopefully lead to a flaming heart of liberty.

Hard to disagree with that, very well put.

[parocks]

Since pro foreign reconstruction spending, interventions folks like Palin, McCain, Beck etc praise these TPs, is it safe to assume most people in these TPs have similar interventionist and pro more foreign spending stances on Foreign Policy?

I don't know if you can say where most tea partiers stand on those issues.
I think you can say that

1) There are a lot of Tea Partiers. More people say they'd vote for a "tea party" party than voted for Ron Paul.
2) Foreign policy is the largest, if not only, area of disagreement with many tea partiers.
3) Tea Partiers agree with Ron Paul on most things.
4) Ron Paul is a Conservative Republican, most Tea Partiers are Conservative, many if not most are Republican.



There is also very large pool of Obama suporters who share some of the views on Foreign Policy and domestic liberties as RP supporters, do you think we should tap into that pool to expand our ranks likewise?

I would say not as a coordinated strategy.

Most Obama supporters are in favor of bigger goverment. Ron Paul is in favor of smaller government. There a handful of points of similarity, but that's about it.

Ron Pauls core message is a much smaller much more limited constitutional federal government. Obama's supporters don't come from that understanding of the role of the federal government. Ron Paul's antiwar position is derived from the limited goverment position.

I'm not saying that individual Ron Paul supporters shouldn't try to sing the praises of Liberty to individual Obama supporters.

[parocks]

If you take away the irrationality and paranoia that accompanied the shocking events of 9/11, I'd venture to say that 2/3 of tea partiers would be strong Paul supporters by now. 9/11 was a colossal blow for the conservative movement as a whole. These tea partiers probably agree with Dr. Paul on 80% of the issues.

80% or more. Agree on 9/11. Ron's problem in the debates wasn't Iraq as much as it was 9/11. A lot of people didn't understand "blowback" or didn't want to understand it.

[someperson]

As unfortunate as it is to say, I believe a significant number of individuals in this country have no solid ideological foundation behind their positions, regardless of which personality they supported in 2008. These individuals I speak of are pigeonholed by peers or place themselves onto some arbitrary political philosophy graph (conservative <-> liberal) with a very superficial understanding of the truly important issues. For that reason, I believe the message of this movement can easily become their foundation, but, as others have mentioned, an accessible entrypoint is required. The anti-war message can be that entrypoint.

I believe it would be advantageous to become the premiere anti-war movement in this country. However, the reasons for being anti-war must be clear and multi-faceted in order to convince those individuals who are irrationally and emotionally invested in these wars due to allegiance to party or personality. The common reasons for being anti-war are important to emphasize, but are insufficient when discussing the issue with someone who believes in neoconservative foreign policy. To break their commonly held "beliefs," approaching the issue as a fiscal conservative is key. I believe emphasizing the financial aspect of being anti-war is absolutely critical, if the message is to reach those individuals. Dr. Paul presents the case magnificently in the following video; it should be a template for how to argue for the anti-war position:

YouTube - 12/2/09 Ron Paul on Fox Business: Obama Preparing for Perpetual War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tFvvjgMjQ)

[The Deacon]

I got an email from Campaign for Liberty within the last week. They asked what should be the top priority? The 4 choices were

1) Stop Obama's Healthcare
2) Stop Obama's Cap and Tax
3) Audit The Fed
4) Stop the reauthorization of the Patriot act / Dangerous ID

All 4 on that list are good things for Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul to do.

If we can stop Obamacare (or repeal it after it's passed), then we'll have to push our own liberty-minded health reform fix soon thereafter. As long as the system is broken like it is now, politicians will be pushing for greater intervention and socialization. Either we get health freedom, or we'll continue spiraling towards a messy government-run dystopia.

[CGeoffrion]

If we can stop Obamacare (or repeal it after it's passed), then we'll have to push our own liberty-minded health reform fix soon thereafter. As long as the system is broken like it is now, politicians will be pushing for greater intervention and socialization. Either we get health freedom, or we'll continue spiraling towards a messy government-run dystopia.

Well it passed the senate tonight. I think we need to stop trying to play politics with the bi-partisan crowd, it's a distraction from a larger picture. Remember the revolution will not be televised.