RJ Harris:We Need to Destroy the Leviathan(C4L), Not Remake it... [pre-RJ apology]

[disorderlyvision]

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123481


C4L gives a neo-con $350,000 in campaign assistance while real Liberty Candidates like Jake Towne, Adam Kokesh, Debra Medina and myself (all frequent posters on this site) get nothing from C4L when that much money could win several of these seats for Ron Paul Republicans?! Why is this…because Debra is not connected with the "right" people; Jake is running independent because of the corruption in the PA GOP; Adam is militantly anti-war; and I have the audacity to challenge an incumbent Republican?

Meanwhile the GOP runs a neo-con against Ron every cycle and yet we are to believe that he cannot do what is being done to him? Much has been made about the notion that we should stop drinking the establishment kool-aid and vet/support candidates based on positions actually taken in support of the Constitution, individual Liberty and state Sovereignty.

Are we then to exchange the current establishment for one run by men like John Tate who has now shown that he is willing to give away hard won ground for the cause of Liberty to curry favor with our enemies before our champions can even fully take the field? Fellow patriots the time has come to practice what we preach and to directly support those candidates delivering on their promise to fight for the Republic and give no quarter.

Stop waiting for the John Tates to tell you what to do or to whom to donate. Stop supporting men because of their last name or their fame and instead support candidates because of the consistency and purity of their message and the worthiness of their cause: freedom.

C4L is what it is because we have made it so...because we believed that what was needed was a vehicle with which we could replace the establishment. But my friends, we don’t need to rebuild the leviathan in our own image. WE NEED TO DESTROY IT! We need to vote with our time, money, and votes and we need to get our friends and neighbors to do the same. Our donations and our votes WILL win the day and when they do, these Liberty Candidates will owe their seats to We the People that put them in power, not the parties and not the C4L.

Please stop sending your money to organizations promising you the moon but delivering cheese. Read and vet the candidates yourselves and send them your donations and votes, directly cutting out all the middle men, aka influence peddlers, from the political process. When the office holders fear the people's voting/donating power more than the political influence of disparate political groups, then we shall have our Republic restored.

RJ Harris
Constitutional Conservative Republican
U.S. Congressional Candidate
Oklahoma 4th District
www.rjharris2010.com

[LittleLightShining]

Regardless of where that $350k came from, C4L has been siphoning money from the grassroots. That's a fact. And instead of introducing more people to our ideas they frantically tell us they can't fight it all without more money. But who is doing the fighting? Really?

It's every single person putting in time to teach people about the Constitution and freedom, legislation, how to read it, when to respond to it and last but certainly not least-- run for office-- to give our allies in liberty, old and new, quality, Constitution-minded candidates to vote for, not the same old thing with shiny new rhetoric about the Federal Reserve.

Nice letter, RJ.

[pacelli]

RJ has balls of steel to put that letter out. Then again, he's right, and its not like C4L offered to advertise their survey using his campaign.

[rancher89]

Nice post RJ, thanks

[Nathan Hale]

Posted in response by "underdog":



R.J.,

I'm a big supporter of Liberty candidates, Ron Paul, and still C4L, though more cautious perhaps.

But let me reciprocate and give some advice, if you will allow me:

1) One of the chief reasons why you even have a chance to win is because of Ron Paul, who created C4L.
2) One of the chief reasons Liberty has a chance is because of Ron Paul.
3) One of the chief reasons Ron has been successful is for NOT doing things like you have done, and that is being divisive.

Let me say, you and I are very much cut from the same cloth. We call a spade a spade, are probably less tolerable of enemies of freedom than most.

At least that's my nature. Some of that is well and good, but one thing I admire about Ron Paul, in fact, probably the biggest thing I've learned from him over the years (and I'm 42), is that he is a gentleman, meaning, he does not attack personally, but he does attack ideas. He avoids name-calling like the plague, and instead has laser focus on espousing true principles.

I would say this attribute (the ability to not get "nasty" or personal with those who differ with him) is the #1 reason that explains his rapid ascendancy to prominence nationally and even worldwide. And keep in mind that it has taken almost 40 years of this type of demeanor and strategy to bear fruit.

I mean, for goodness sake, Barney Frank (probably one of the most leftist, evil, perverse men alive) calls Ron a friend. This amazes me. But this shows Ron Paul's love for people, though he disdains the sin.

There is a lesson here, even for you, an intelligent, right-thinking (probably right on 99% of things since you are a student of Liberty and true principles of government). I think it may be wise to not attack personally or rush to judgment, but stick to the principles instead.

And I do not see why you would engage in a veiled attack on the man who shares the same last name as his father, Rand I assume you're speaking of. I don't think you can expect every Liberty candidate to be exactly alike. And the thing is, you and Rand may be pretty much exactly alike, but may differ in strategy or approach. There is a role for "politics" even if you're Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. That doesn't mean you've sacrificed principle.

[Nathan Hale]

Another great response to RJ's letter, from "bgodley":



In reading your comments I certainly can appreciate your intentions. It is obvious that you are not happy with the status quo. It is also obvious that you take pride in your ideals and are actually doing something to bring effective change.

However...

Having run businesses of my own and working with employees taught me a valuable lesson. And that lesson is - look don't listen.

This means that when your hear something, especially what appears to be alarming, you must restrain the compulsion to jump and react. You often may find that what you first heard is not the complete story or often altered.

I have read a lot of the posts and reactions and I find that not enough data was presented to warrant a trashing of C4L or it's leadership.

I am not professing that mistakes weren't made either. But this internal divisive commentary being left here can be more destructive than the actual action complained about in the first place.

You have to investigate, bring all facts to hand, then act accordingly. In my opinion good leaders not only set sites on worthwhile goals but contain the resulting confusions that occur on the way to that goal. Certainly in a task as large are re-republicing (my own-term) the United States, there will be confusions that arise, not only externally but very often internally. To expect anything else would be naive.

One of my attractions to Dr. Paul as a candidate is that he has the uncanny ability of spending time attacking thought and philosophy without unnecessarily setting his targets on the individual. If we support the concept of individuals and individual liberty then we support the concept of justice where a person is innocent until proven guilty and we dispense of witch hunts and group think and group anger.

As one voice - appeal to my reason not my anger.

[K466]

C4L gives a neo-con $350,000 in campaign

Which campaign is that?

Good points Nathan Hale. Ron Paul has set a great example: focus on ideas, not personal issues.

[MRoCkEd]

RJ apologized for this letter

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123662

[LittleLightShining]

C4L gives a neo-con $350,000 in campaign

Which campaign is that?

Good points Nathan Hale. Ron Paul has set a great example: focus on ideas, not personal issues.

Ken Buck, Colorado.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228504

[LittleLightShining]

RJ apologized for this letter

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123662

He shouldn't have.

[dannno]

RJ apologized for this letter

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123662

Good, cause the OP is rife with errors.

[LibertyEagle]

RJ apologized for this letter

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123662

Yes, he did. The comments are good too.

[dannno]

Regardless of where that $350k came from, C4L has been siphoning money from the grassroots. That's a fact.

Can we address this without addressing the $350k which did NOT come from C4L donors? This seems like a separate issue.

Personally, I think the survey program is genius, it is going to help us so much in the future I would really hate to throw it away.

[dannno]

If the C4L's primary function was to take the money from donors and fund campaigns like Debra and Rand, then I'd be pretty upset. What good is that going to do? Seems like a waste of money when I can just donate to these individuals myself.

The C4L should be creating metrics, like the survey program, that will eventually help members decide who they can support themselves, and which individuals the organization can support through their educational effors. If you support C4L directly, then you are supporting activists who will educate people about particular issues and candidates.

[LittleLightShining]

Can we address this without addressing the $350k which did NOT come from C4L donors? This seems like a separate issue.

Personally, I think the survey program is genius, it is going to help us so much in the future I would really hate to throw it away.Please don't take my comment as meaning that the $350k came from C4L donors per se. Benton DID say the money came from C4L members, but qualified it by saying the money came from "new, special donors".


If the C4L's primary function was to take the money from donors and fund campaigns like Debra and Rand, then I'd be pretty upset. What good is that going to do? Seems like a waste of money when I can just donate to these individuals myself.

The C4L should be creating metrics, like the survey program, that will eventually help members decide who they can support themselves, and which individuals the organization can support through their educational effors. If you support C4L directly, then you are supporting activists who will educate people about particular issues and candidates.

When I made the statement you reference I was not directly talking about the $350k but all of the OTHER money they siphon from the grassroots via membership dues and additional junk mail revenue.

Having been a very active member of C4L, I NEVER saw any money from national coming to help activists in any way shape or form. Apparently this is not the case everywhere as there are a few state coordinators who do receive salaries from C4L national, in addition to certain groups (such as Louisiana) who apparently did benefit from C4L donations via printed materials from national. As has been mentioned before most C4L state groups have to buy their materials from the C4L store.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the questionnaire in concept. It is the application which baffles me as there has been no explanation whatsoever as to how exactly "pain" would be applied to candidates who go back on their answers-- or to put it as Benton so eloquently did, how exactly do we use it to "beat them up"?