PDA

View Full Version : Jesse Benton Addresses $350k C4L Colorado Commercial Campaign




LibertyPulse.com
02-01-2010, 08:36 PM
http://libertypulse.com/article/4009

In this interview, with Kurt Wallace of LibertyPulse.com questions Jesse Benton on the Campaign for Liberty, the Events that took place around the $350K Ad Campaign, and a special Ron Paul surprise at the end.

http://libertypulse.com/article/4009

brandon
02-01-2010, 08:53 PM
It seems like the CFL is trying to reduce their position of being against all foreign intervention to just being against undeclared wars.

MRoCkEd
02-01-2010, 08:57 PM
It seems like the CFL is trying to reduce their position of being against all foreign intervention to just being against undeclared wars.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229035
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229021

jmdrake
02-01-2010, 09:38 PM
It seems like the CFL is trying to reduce their position of being against all foreign intervention to just being against undeclared wars.

Jesse Benton did say that Buck was "not where we'd like him" on Afghanistan but he was at least "regretful about Iraq". That said the survey seems to have wiggle room and doesn't have enough foreign policy questions. A simple "Would you agree to pull out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later" would have cleared a lot of this up.

Danke
02-01-2010, 09:47 PM
Jesse Benton did not impress me during the Rally for the Republic. In fact he gave me much angst. But he is in RP's family. I hope he has changed.

rancher89
02-01-2010, 09:53 PM
On a scale of 1-10 (scores are mostly based on timeliness and believability)

Jesse Benton 5

Ronnie Paul 3

John Tate 0

tpreitzel
02-01-2010, 09:54 PM
Jesse Benton did not impress me during the Rally for the Republic. In fact he gave me much angst. But he is in RP's family. I hope he has changed.

I'm stepping out on a limb here because I don't know Jesse, but I'm beginning to think Ron needs to broaden the distance between himself and some of his closer relationships or reign in the political power of some of those relationships.

dr. hfn
02-01-2010, 09:55 PM
Ok great, but are we going to see any kind of transparency or change?

Danke
02-01-2010, 10:02 PM
"C4L will not be electing board members from the grassroots." Jesse Benton answering RPH's suggestion.

bobbyw24
02-02-2010, 05:50 AM
Thanks for the interview, Kurt.

Very informative and enlightening

LibertyPulse.com
02-02-2010, 09:40 AM
Thanks for the interview, Kurt.

Very informative and enlightening

Thanks Bobby means alot!

fisharmor
02-02-2010, 10:20 AM
Yes, thank you for doing the interview. It clears up a lot.

I think he is incredibly dismissive of the internet crowd.
I also think that of all the energy they spent on the senate cloture vote, they could have spared two minutes to put something on the front page of campaignforliberty.org that said simply "we're in the middle of X right now. We want to address this with you but we are prioritizing X."

That would have been sufficient.

Also, if he had said something beyond "we didn't communicate well", that would have helped.

Bruno
02-02-2010, 10:27 AM
"C4L will not be electing board members from the grassroots." Jesse Benton answering RPH's suggestion.

that's encouraging! :rolleyes:

LibertyPulse.com
02-02-2010, 12:35 PM
Yes, thank you for doing the interview. It clears up a lot.

I think he is incredibly dismissive of the internet crowd.
I also think that of all the energy they spent on the senate cloture vote, they could have spared two minutes to put something on the front page of campaignforliberty.org that said simply "we're in the middle of X right now. We want to address this with you but we are prioritizing X."

That would have been sufficient.

Also, if he had said something beyond "we didn't communicate well", that would have helped.

Interesting points, lots to be learned as C4L and our movement grows...

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 01:21 PM
"C4L will not be electing board members from the grassroots." Jesse Benton answering RPH's suggestion.

This may be one of the silver linings to come out of the whole cloud. At least we know now that they have no intention of creating what we were sold at the end of the campaign.

The biggest problem with CfL-HQ is the festering wounds they have never addressed. Simple, unqualified apologies are what was needed the whole time. Clear statements of plans, responsiveness to inquiries. All these would have helped.

Instead, we see we have been duped with a bait and switch.

Instead we have a national organization that is a great disappointment to those of us who made it possible.

I remain disturbed at the apparent retreat from the non-interventionist plank.

First Tate ommitted mention of it while reciting the planks at the 9/12 march.

Then, this... commercial

And out of this I hear that the mailers have retreated from the position, as well.

If they are not abandoning the principle, then they are pandering

:mad:

Hamer
02-02-2010, 01:29 PM
This may be one of the silver linings to come out of the whole cloud. At least we know now that they have no intention of creating what we were sold at the end of the campaign.

The biggest problem with CfL-HQ is the festering wounds they have never addressed. Simple, unqualified apologies are what was needed the whole time. Clear statements of plans, responsiveness to inquiries. All these would have helped.

Instead, we see we have been duped with a bait and switch.

Instead we have a national organization that is a great disappointment to those of us who made it possible.

I remain disturbed at the apparent retreat from the non-interventionist plank.

First Tate ommitted mention of it while reciting the planks at the 9/12 march.

Then, this... commercial

And out of this I hear that the mailers have retreated from the position, as well.

If they are not abandoning the principle, then they are pandering

:mad:

We have never agreed on much in the past, for that I am sorry. I have to agree with you on 98% of your comments here. Sad day for sure.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 01:30 PM
Each successive "message" from the C4L board/staffers etc, reinforces that we did the right thing calling them on the ad.

The bottom line is we managed to get them to pull the ad and agree not to run ads like that again. Of that, I am proud of my part. And I'll do it again if need be. I remain a member and I remain concerned that the C4L stays on target. No apology from me.

It's plain they have no interest in changing anything about how the C4L is set up or managed.

IMHO, we will either have to deal with it and move on--doing what's best for our state in regards to our affiliation with national, or (as many already have) work independently with no affiliation at all.


End of subject on this for me until they do something else off the reservation. I've got more important things to do.

NerveShocker
02-02-2010, 01:30 PM
When will the CFL address the fact that their "Survey" is a terrible survey that is completely Yes and No questions? How about an explanation of why we can't have a survey that actually asks sophisticated questions or at least questions requiring more than a yes or no response.

How do they expect to differentiate between candidates with such a childish survey? They are setting up an candidate survey system which is actually in my opinion a very great idea based on a seriously flawed survey.. this is a shame. :/ I think they should re-due the survey.. or they can have us do it for them if it's too much for them to handle.

Matt Collins
02-02-2010, 01:31 PM
I remain disturbed at the apparent retreat from the non-interventionist plank.I keep hearing about this. Can anyone cite where the idea of non-interventionism has actually been removed from the CFL? :confused:



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

With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 01:32 PM
This may be one of the silver linings to come out of the whole cloud. At least we know now that they have no intention of creating what we were sold at the end of the campaign.

The biggest problem with CfL-HQ is the festering wounds they have never addressed. Simple, unqualified apologies are what was needed the whole time. Clear statements of plans, responsiveness to inquiries. All these would have helped.

Instead, we see we have been duped with a bait and switch.

Instead we have a national organization that is a great disappointment to those of us who made it possible.

I remain disturbed at the apparent retreat from the non-interventionist plank.

First Tate ommitted mention of it while reciting the planks at the 9/12 march.

Then, this... commercial

And out of this I hear that the mailers have retreated from the position, as well.

If they are not abandoning the principle, then they are pandering

:mad:

qft amen to this, the position on war was where we stood out from the crowd IMHO

rancher89
02-02-2010, 01:33 PM
I keep hearing about this. Can anyone cite where the idea of non-interventionism has actually been removed from the CFL? :confused:

Look at your latest mailer asking for money where Tate lists the objectives they may have to drop if you don't give money NOW.

rancher89
02-02-2010, 01:34 PM
In fact my latest one is going back with edits and comments and two pennies.

Matt Collins
02-02-2010, 01:47 PM
Look at your latest mailer asking for money where Tate lists the objectives they may have to drop if you don't give money NOW.
I don't read those things, they insult my intelligence. :rolleyes:




.

Free Moral Agent
02-02-2010, 02:49 PM
I think its a step in the right direction that C4L realizes the MISTAKE IN AIRING THE KEN BUCK AD and the error of not notifying its members of the candidate survey. However, I am still unsatisfied with C4L's excuses and reaction to the justified outrage of the grassroots.

Who was responsible for authorizing this grave mistake and why have they not been fired?

Also, if Ron Paul was able to uphold the banner of a non-interventionist foreign policy during the presidency - how come a survey vetting candidates for the senate can't contain the same language?

What bothers me most is how Benton promised the continued use of the survey, but made no mention of modifying the survey or an attempt to receive feedback from its members. Personally the survey is much too easy for a candidate to adhere to. The survey should be worded as to elicit correct YES and NO answers and questions should also be weighted.

Until C4L addresses these concerns, I will be withholding any financial support. THE C4L MUST BE MORE THAN A VEHICLE TO ADVANCE WELL FUNDED CANDIDATES.

fedup100
02-02-2010, 03:00 PM
This may be one of the silver linings to come out of the whole cloud. At least we know now that they have no intention of creating what we were sold at the end of the campaign.

The biggest problem with CfL-HQ is the festering wounds they have never addressed. Simple, unqualified apologies are what was needed the whole time. Clear statements of plans, responsiveness to inquiries. All these would have helped.

Instead, we see we have been duped with a bait and switch.

Instead we have a national organization that is a great disappointment to those of us who made it possible.

I remain disturbed at the apparent retreat from the non-interventionist plank.

First Tate ommitted mention of it while reciting the planks at the 9/12 march.

Then, this... commercial

And out of this I hear that the mailers have retreated from the position, as well.

If they are not abandoning the principle, then they are pandering

:mad:

Well, the "dumpers" were right after all. It appears that Paul is moving closer to the middle now that he is respected and well funded, thanks to those of us that had already dumped the GOP. What a sad turn of events. C4L is finished.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 03:17 PM
Look at your latest mailer asking for money where Tate lists the objectives they may have to drop if you don't give money NOW.

Would you mind posting what you are referring to?

Thanks.

Hamer
02-02-2010, 03:23 PM
Would you mind posting what you are referring to?

Thanks.

C4L Email | From John Tate | Sent Dec 14, 2009

.

Deleted Name :

I’ve just finished a series of long and difficult planning meetings with my staff.

You see, right now, you and I are at a key stage in many of our current battles – and I’m faced with some decisions unlike any others I’ve ever had to make.

And I’m writing you today because it’s vital that as Campaign for Liberty goes forward, we receive your advice on C4L’s Confidential Member’s Directive.

The good news is, thanks to your help, we’ve really made an impact in Washington.

Today, AUDIT THE FED is up to 317 House cosponsors and 30 Senate cosponsors. Campaign for Liberty has grown like no other Liberty organization in history, both in number of supporters and in our impact across the country. All thanks to Patriots like you!

We’re helping keep back many of the big government power grabs many thought would already be law – like Cap and Tax and nationalized health care.

Though many of the battles still rage on, we’ve proven to the statists in Washington, D.C. we won’t just roll over and play dead for their radical freedom-robbing agenda. If they want to continue to try to take our liberty, well – now they’ve got a fight on their hands like never before.

But the truth is, there are so many battles to fight right now, we’re being stretched thin at the most crucial time.

So today, I regret to inform you -- with all the critical battles we’re facing right now -- without an IMMEDIATE influx of funds, I’m going to have to start cutting some of our most vital programs.

You see, unlike our overlords in the Federal government, I can’t just print money when the bills come due!

Nor would I want to.

But the battles we are fighting don’t come cheap. The fact is, I hope you’ll help Campaign for Liberty fight ALL of our battles. But if we are faced with hard choices, I’d rather quit some fights (even though we could win!) than risk losing everything.

But before I cut anything, I want to be sure to receive your advice.

I’m sure you’ll agree: the idea that we may have to cut some of our vital programs is not welcome news. And it couldn’t have come at a worse time considering everything we’re facing right now.

And any of these battles could be won or lost depending on the resources Campaign for Liberty can spend fighting them, including:
*** Socialized, Government-run Medicine that would not only include astronomical tax hikes, but would give big government bureaucrats decision-making power over virtually EVERY medical decision;

*** The Cap and Tax scheme that would drive already sky-high energy costs through the roof, massively hike taxes on hardworking Americans and give the Federal Government unprecedented control over the economy;

*** Audit the Fed, so the American people can finally see the corruption and economic devastation caused by a handful of bankster bureaucrats;

*** PATRIOT Act renewal, and the new, even more DANGEROUS ID Bill that would not only allow the government to listen to phone calls and monitor internet accounts, but would mandate Americans get a federally-approved ID card complete with an RFID tracking device.

To me, all of these fights are so foundational to our freedoms it’s almost like asking which amendment in the Bill of Rights I would like to keep.

That’s why I need your advice.

You see, the Big Government crowd isn’t hurting for funds. The statists inside government just tax, borrow or print money when they need it.

Those outside are happy to ride the taxpayer gravy train with their bailouts, their welfare checks, and their bloated government contracts.

I’ll tell you up front: I don’t want to quit fighting anywhere.

Honestly, I’d rather meet the barrel of a loaded shotgun than to see Big Government politicians ham it up for the news cameras after they ram one of their statist schemes into law.

I’m sure you feel the same way.

I also know that without your financial support, there would be no Campaign for Liberty.

That’s why I need YOU to tell me WHICH FIGHT to focus on.

But, believe me, there’s no easy choice. Let me lay out the options.

Should I concentrate on efforts to stop government’s total takeover of medicine?

Even besides the massive costs that could literally bankrupt our country, this dangerous scheme strikes at the heart of everything you and I hold dear.

Under their Big Government Health Care power grab, American citizens will be nothing more than a dehumanized statistic -- a number on a piece of paper.

So those federal bureaucrats won’t be making their decisions on what health care you and your family receive based on what you and your doctor decide is best -- they will decide what is “best” for you.

I don’t know about you, but that sends shivers up my spine.

So if stopping Big Government’s takeover of medicine is your number one priority, please mark “OPTION 1” on your Member’s Directive.

But before you do, please consider what’s at stake with the dangerous “Cap and Tax” Bill.

Of course, you and I both know this bill has nothing to do with the environment.

It’s really about raw government POWER.

Government POWER to tax.

Government POWER to enter your home to “check for compliance.”

And government POWER to control the economy, our lives and our freedom.

If passed, Cap and Tax would give the federal government UNPRECEDENTED control over the private sector -- and our very lives.

And it will virtually guarantee our economy grinds to an IMMEDIATE halt.

I’m sure you can see why I’m torn.

If this is where you believe we should concentrate our resources, please mark “OPTION #2” on your Member’s Directive.

And, of course, I haven’t even mentioned AUDIT THE FED yet.

Thanks to the help of folks like you, we’re at a truly historic crossroads in our fight.

Of course, from here on out, our battle will only get more difficult because the Fed banksters and their cronies in Congress are going to do everything they can to stop us.

But if you and I can somehow pass AUDIT THE FED, the American people will finally see it’s the Federal Reserve that’s the cause of inflation, our constant economic crises and the destruction of the middle class . . .

. . . and we’ll be well on our way to finally ENDING the Fed once and for all.

If you believe we should concentrate solely on the AUDIT THE FED Bill, please mark “OPTION #3” on your Member's Directive.

But please remember, that’s not all.

You see, I know you weren’t fooled by Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric . . . his empty promises to “protect” civil liberties.

The truth is, the assaults are continuing and only getting worse.

Today, the PATRIOT Act is up for “reauthorization,” and Obama Administration officials “support its provisions.”

You know, the “provisions” that allow government goons to wiretap American citizens and search everything from banking to library to medical records.

Just as bad, they’re pushing a new DANGEROUS ID bill.

If passed, DANGEROUS ID would allow Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to establish virtually any standards she wants.

Retinal scans. Fingerprints. DNA information.

RFID tracking chips so anti-gun government goons can watch your every movement.

And after reading all those Homeland Security “memos” and “directives” calling patriotic Americans like you and me “terrorists,” I can’t imagine sitting idly by while police state cheerleaders in Congress continue their assault on our civil liberties.

If you believe Campaign for Liberty should focus on this fight, please mark “OPTION #4” on your Member’s Directive.

Of course, there is one more option.

I’ve hesitated until now to bring it up because it’s absolutely critical you understand the situation we’re in.

Without an IMMEDIATE and massive influx of funds, I will be FORCED to make cuts to our programs.

In fact, without an immediate contribution of at least $100 or $50, I may have to make cuts across the board.

“OPTION #5” is “FIGHT ALL OF THE ABOVE.”

Don’t back down. Don’t leave anything to chance. FIGHT.

If you choose this option, please make a contribution to Campaign for Liberty of $500 or at least $250.

I know that’s a tremendous amount to ask.

If our backs weren’t against the wall, I wouldn’t even consider it.

But if we don’t fight back, who will?

I know we can count on Ron Paul in Congress. Can he count on us?

Please click here to fill out your Member's Directive and make your most generous contribution today. Your advice and your support will make all the difference.

Sincerely,

John Tate
President

P.S. The tough economic times are affecting us all -- and Campaign for Liberty isn’t immune.

Without an influx of funds, your Campaign for Liberty is going to be forced to make devastating cuts.

So I need your IMMEDIATE advice.

Please click here to fill out your Member’s Directive and make your most generous contribution of $500, $250, $100 or at least $50.

constituent
02-02-2010, 03:46 PM
C4L Email | From John Tate | Sent Dec 14, 2009

.

Deleted Name :

I’ve just finished a series of long and difficult planning meetings with my staff.

You see, right now, you and I are at a key stage in many of our current battles – and I’m faced with some decisions unlike any others I’ve ever had to make.

And I’m writing you today because it’s vital that as Campaign for Liberty goes forward, we receive your advice on C4L’s Confidential Member’s Directive.

The good news is, thanks to your help, we’ve really made an impact in Washington.

Today, AUDIT THE FED is up to 317 House cosponsors and 30 Senate cosponsors. Campaign for Liberty has grown like no other Liberty organization in history, both in number of supporters and in our impact across the country. All thanks to Patriots like you!

We’re helping keep back many of the big government power grabs many thought would already be law – like Cap and Tax and nationalized health care.

Though many of the battles still rage on, we’ve proven to the statists in Washington, D.C. we won’t just roll over and play dead for their radical freedom-robbing agenda. If they want to continue to try to take our liberty, well – now they’ve got a fight on their hands like never before.

But the truth is, there are so many battles to fight right now, we’re being stretched thin at the most crucial time.

So today, I regret to inform you -- with all the critical battles we’re facing right now -- without an IMMEDIATE influx of funds, I’m going to have to start cutting some of our most vital programs.

You see, unlike our overlords in the Federal government, I can’t just print money when the bills come due!

Nor would I want to.

But the battles we are fighting don’t come cheap. The fact is, I hope you’ll help Campaign for Liberty fight ALL of our battles. But if we are faced with hard choices, I’d rather quit some fights (even though we could win!) than risk losing everything.

But before I cut anything, I want to be sure to receive your advice.

I’m sure you’ll agree: the idea that we may have to cut some of our vital programs is not welcome news. And it couldn’t have come at a worse time considering everything we’re facing right now.

And any of these battles could be won or lost depending on the resources Campaign for Liberty can spend fighting them, including:
*** Socialized, Government-run Medicine that would not only include astronomical tax hikes, but would give big government bureaucrats decision-making power over virtually EVERY medical decision;

*** The Cap and Tax scheme that would drive already sky-high energy costs through the roof, massively hike taxes on hardworking Americans and give the Federal Government unprecedented control over the economy;

*** Audit the Fed, so the American people can finally see the corruption and economic devastation caused by a handful of bankster bureaucrats;

*** PATRIOT Act renewal, and the new, even more DANGEROUS ID Bill that would not only allow the government to listen to phone calls and monitor internet accounts, but would mandate Americans get a federally-approved ID card complete with an RFID tracking device.

To me, all of these fights are so foundational to our freedoms it’s almost like asking which amendment in the Bill of Rights I would like to keep.

That’s why I need your advice.

You see, the Big Government crowd isn’t hurting for funds. The statists inside government just tax, borrow or print money when they need it.

Those outside are happy to ride the taxpayer gravy train with their bailouts, their welfare checks, and their bloated government contracts.

I’ll tell you up front: I don’t want to quit fighting anywhere.

Honestly, I’d rather meet the barrel of a loaded shotgun than to see Big Government politicians ham it up for the news cameras after they ram one of their statist schemes into law.

I’m sure you feel the same way.

I also know that without your financial support, there would be no Campaign for Liberty.

That’s why I need YOU to tell me WHICH FIGHT to focus on.

But, believe me, there’s no easy choice. Let me lay out the options.

Should I concentrate on efforts to stop government’s total takeover of medicine?

Even besides the massive costs that could literally bankrupt our country, this dangerous scheme strikes at the heart of everything you and I hold dear.

Under their Big Government Health Care power grab, American citizens will be nothing more than a dehumanized statistic -- a number on a piece of paper.

So those federal bureaucrats won’t be making their decisions on what health care you and your family receive based on what you and your doctor decide is best -- they will decide what is “best” for you.

I don’t know about you, but that sends shivers up my spine.

So if stopping Big Government’s takeover of medicine is your number one priority, please mark “OPTION 1” on your Member’s Directive.

But before you do, please consider what’s at stake with the dangerous “Cap and Tax” Bill.

Of course, you and I both know this bill has nothing to do with the environment.

It’s really about raw government POWER.

Government POWER to tax.

Government POWER to enter your home to “check for compliance.”

And government POWER to control the economy, our lives and our freedom.

If passed, Cap and Tax would give the federal government UNPRECEDENTED control over the private sector -- and our very lives.

And it will virtually guarantee our economy grinds to an IMMEDIATE halt.

I’m sure you can see why I’m torn.

If this is where you believe we should concentrate our resources, please mark “OPTION #2” on your Member’s Directive.

And, of course, I haven’t even mentioned AUDIT THE FED yet.

Thanks to the help of folks like you, we’re at a truly historic crossroads in our fight.

Of course, from here on out, our battle will only get more difficult because the Fed banksters and their cronies in Congress are going to do everything they can to stop us.

But if you and I can somehow pass AUDIT THE FED, the American people will finally see it’s the Federal Reserve that’s the cause of inflation, our constant economic crises and the destruction of the middle class . . .

. . . and we’ll be well on our way to finally ENDING the Fed once and for all.

If you believe we should concentrate solely on the AUDIT THE FED Bill, please mark “OPTION #3” on your Member's Directive.

But please remember, that’s not all.

You see, I know you weren’t fooled by Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric . . . his empty promises to “protect” civil liberties.

The truth is, the assaults are continuing and only getting worse.

Today, the PATRIOT Act is up for “reauthorization,” and Obama Administration officials “support its provisions.”

You know, the “provisions” that allow government goons to wiretap American citizens and search everything from banking to library to medical records.

Just as bad, they’re pushing a new DANGEROUS ID bill.

If passed, DANGEROUS ID would allow Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to establish virtually any standards she wants.

Retinal scans. Fingerprints. DNA information.

RFID tracking chips so anti-gun government goons can watch your every movement.

And after reading all those Homeland Security “memos” and “directives” calling patriotic Americans like you and me “terrorists,” I can’t imagine sitting idly by while police state cheerleaders in Congress continue their assault on our civil liberties.

If you believe Campaign for Liberty should focus on this fight, please mark “OPTION #4” on your Member’s Directive.

Of course, there is one more option.

I’ve hesitated until now to bring it up because it’s absolutely critical you understand the situation we’re in.

Without an IMMEDIATE and massive influx of funds, I will be FORCED to make cuts to our programs.

In fact, without an immediate contribution of at least $100 or $50, I may have to make cuts across the board.

“OPTION #5” is “FIGHT ALL OF THE ABOVE.”

Don’t back down. Don’t leave anything to chance. FIGHT.

If you choose this option, please make a contribution to Campaign for Liberty of $500 or at least $250.

I know that’s a tremendous amount to ask.

If our backs weren’t against the wall, I wouldn’t even consider it.

But if we don’t fight back, who will?

I know we can count on Ron Paul in Congress. Can he count on us?

Please click here to fill out your Member's Directive and make your most generous contribution today. Your advice and your support will make all the difference.

Sincerely,

John Tate
President

P.S. The tough economic times are affecting us all -- and Campaign for Liberty isn’t immune.

Without an influx of funds, your Campaign for Liberty is going to be forced to make devastating cuts.

So I need your IMMEDIATE advice.

Please click here to fill out your Member’s Directive and make your most generous contribution of $500, $250, $100 or at least $50.



This isn't real, is it?

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 04:09 PM
I'm stepping out on a limb here because I don't know Jesse, but I'm beginning to think Ron needs to broaden the distance between himself and some of his closer relationships or reign in the political power of some of those relationships.

Here's some trivia for you. Jesse Benton tried to kill Andrew Jackson. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229449)


Ok great, but are we going to see any kind of transparency or change?Not according to Benton, though he did say the 990's would be made available. I still have yet to find them on the IRS site and I called nat'l twice today and got nowhere.


"C4L will not be electing board members from the grassroots." Jesse Benton answering RPH's suggestion.:rolleyes:


This isn't real, is it?

Totally real. Get them via email and snail mail regularly. Though this is better than the ones they were sending before. At least on this one they mention the Patriot Act.

constituent
02-02-2010, 04:11 PM
At least on this one they mention the Patriot Act.

well, that and everything else under the sun. good god!

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 04:14 PM
well, that and everything else under the sun. good god!

Well, they want you to understand they can't do it without your $500 contribution. Or $250. Or $100. Or at least $50.

Hamer
02-02-2010, 04:16 PM
Constituent, yes that email is real.

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 05:11 PM
The rumors/fears that the CFL has abandoned their stance on non-interventionism are not true, and never were true.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229020

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 05:17 PM
The rumors/fears that the CFL has abandoned their stance on non-interventionism are not true, and never were true.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229020

Why did John Tate omit the Non-Intervention Plank at the 9/12 March?

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 05:21 PM
Why did John Tate omit the Non-Intervention Plank at the 9/12 March?

Michael, wasn't that the one in which his time to give the speech was practically cut in half? I still wish he would've cut out something else, instead of this, but I wasn't in his shoes having to drastically cut down a speech in short order.

Matt Collins
02-02-2010, 05:22 PM
Why did John Tate omit the Non-Intervention Plank at the 9/12 March?
Probably because he knew his audience.

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 05:22 PM
Constituent, yes that email is real.

Ommission does not equal "guilt". Just b/c the STOP THE WAR issue was not included in that particular survey, doesn't mean that it's not an issue. Ending the Fed would in turn end the wars. That is why it should be a top priority in my eyes, and all encompassing.

Regardless, the CFL has not abandoned their non-interventionist plank. I hope that people do not continue perpetuate this fear.

One other interesting point about the interview, I think most of us had assumed that whathisface had answered "incorrectly" on the undeclared war issue, that was not the case, he answered "incorrectly" about the abolishment of the IRS.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 05:23 PM
Michael, wasn't that the one in which his time to give the speech was practically cut in half? I still wish he would've cut out something else, instead of this, but it's hard to squish a speech down on short notice.

So let's trumpet what will get applause and leave out the part 90% of them needed to hear.

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 05:24 PM
Probably because he knew his audience.

exactly. This is why I don't go up to people I just met screaming "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JAWB!" even though I believe false flag terrorism is one of the biggest issues we have faced throughout history.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 05:25 PM
So let's trumpet what will get applause and leave out the part 90% of them needed to hear.

No, instead let's not give credit for what he did say; instead let's beat him around the head for what he didn't say.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 05:26 PM
Ommission does not equal "guilt". Just b/c the STOP THE WAR issue was not included in that particular survey, doesn't mean that it's not an issue. Ending the Fed would in turn end the wars. That is why it should be a top priority in my eyes, and all encompassing.

Regardless, the CFL has not abandoned their non-interventionist plank. I hope that people do not continue perpetuate this fear.

One other interesting point about the interview, I think most of us had assumed that whathisface had answered "incorrectly" on the undeclared war issue, that was not the case, he answered "incorrectly" about the abolishment of the IRS.
Dude, it's not in ANY of the surveys or mailers.

Also, the point about the wrong question is proof the survey is flawed. This guy answered correctly even though his stated position on Afghanistan is that we need to be there 10 more years.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 05:27 PM
No, instead let's not give credit for what he did say; instead let's beat him around the head for what he didn't say.

Silence is acquiescence.

newbitech
02-02-2010, 05:29 PM
Dude, it's not in ANY of the surveys or mailers. And I kid you not, the Patriot Act wasn't showing up in these things until my fateful conversation with Debbie Hopper, when I specifically said we don't see anything about the wars or the Patriot Act in any of the mailers.

Also, the point about the wrong question is proof the survey is flawed. This guy answered correctly even though his stated position on Afghanistan is that we need to be there 10 more years.


There is one question that didn't get answered correctly, and that is the one about the IRS. Apparently there was a long lengthy answer on that one and Buck didn't check yes or no.

I wonder what his answer was, and I also wonder if any other of his answers contained an explanation as to why he said yes.

Also, isn't the question of the IRS both on the survey and in this secret 350k spur of the moment "donation" being ignored?

dannno
02-02-2010, 05:32 PM
Why did John Tate omit the Non-Intervention Plank at the 9/12 March?

Why does RPF send all 9/11 threads to hot topics?


edit: wow this thread moves quick.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 05:34 PM
Why does RPF send all 9/11 threads to hot topics?

It was an Admin decision that was made long ago. We've been doing this since way back during the campaign, Danno.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 05:35 PM
There is one question that didn't get answered correctly, and that is the one about the IRS. Apparently there was a long lengthy answer on that one and Buck didn't check yes or no.

I wonder what his answer was, and I also wonder if any other of his answers contained an explanation as to why he said yes.

Also, isn't the question of the IRS both on the survey and in this secret 350k spur of the moment "donation" being ignored?Yeah, it is. Really good observation there. The C4L is so defensive about being accused of supporting a neo-con but they never bothered to highlight the fact that the question was about the IRS. But again, I think it goes back to the faulty question about occupation and Buck really being an interventionist. I'm getting a little loopy trying to wrap my head around this point. :o

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 05:36 PM
Dude, it's not in ANY of the surveys or mailers. And I kid you not, the Patriot Act wasn't showing up in these things until my fateful conversation with Debbie Hopper, when I specifically said we don't see anything about the wars or the Patriot Act in any of the mailers.

Also, the point about the wrong question is proof the survey is flawed. This guy answered correctly even though his stated position on Afghanistan is that we need to be there 10 more years.

When did you talk to Debbie Hopper?

I'm not talking about the survey LLS, I am talking about the fact that the recent perpetuated rumor/fear that the CFL has abandoned it's non-interventionist plank is FALSE.
I have posted my proof.
CFL's FIRST PUBLISHED BOOK is a non-interventionist foreign policy book!

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 05:37 PM
It was an Admin decision that was made long ago. We've been doing this since way back during the campaign, Danno.

I can remove it if need be. I had no idea that it would be moved, and the idea was a general one, I can edit out the taboo stuff.

Promontorium
02-02-2010, 06:06 PM
I learned a bit from this interview. It brings a new issue to my mind.

Despite the desire for people to say it wasn't the Campaign For Liberty's 350K, he clearly says that it was. The C4L was literally paid 350K to run this ad.

I do not think C4L has changed their overall opinion on this tactic, which I see as inherently wrong.

No matter how "open" the C4L is to take money from people, the fact of the matter is, as long as they let small groups dictate which candidate's "survey" gets advertised, C4L is supporting that candidate. If you have a half-neocon in one election, going against a full liberty candidate, and the neocon's supporters pay $10 million to C4L to advertise their necon's results, and the Liberty candidate's supporter's can only muster up $10,000 for C4L ads, WHO DO YOU THINK C4L will air more positive information about?

Campaign for Liberty is prostituting itself to the highest bidders. This is something they are still proud of, something they are going to continue doing. They will take the money from anyone, and put up ads for anyone. Under the guise of "promoting the survey" you must realize, those who don't have as much money, won't get as much C4L advertising. That's implicit. That in itself is endorsement. I don't care about legal technicalities, I'm talking morally.

You can't advertise 10 times as much for one candidate as another, and say that it's in any way "equal" or "across the board".

Certainly if C4L were an ad firm, I'd say "Gee, that makes good business sense, they should run ads for people that pay them. But C4L wasn't supposed to be an ad firm. That's their course. Fine. I'm one of the .001% that is leaving (knowing full well he ignored the many many more people who electronically left the C4L without calling).

I was also one of the .001% of voters who voted for Ron Paul.

The line has been drawn in the sand.

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 06:17 PM
I learned a bit from this interview. It brings a new issue to my mind.

Despite the desire for people to say it wasn't the Campaign For Liberty's 350K, he clearly says that it was. The C4L was literally paid 350K to run this ad.

I do not think C4L has changed their overall opinion on this tactic, which I see as inherently wrong.

No matter how "open" the C4L is to take money from people, the fact of the matter is, as long as they let small groups dictate which candidate's "survey" gets advertised, C4L is supporting that candidate. If you have a half-neocon in one election, going against a full liberty candidate, and the neocon's supporters pay $10 million to C4L to advertise their necon's results, and the Liberty candidate's supporter's can only muster up $10,000 for C4L ads, WHO DO YOU THINK C4L will air more positive information about?

Campaign for Liberty is prostituting itself to the highest bidders. This is something they are still proud of, something they are going to continue doing. They will take the money from anyone, and put up ads for anyone. Under the guise of "promoting the survey" you must realize, those who don't have as much money, won't get as much C4L advertising. That's implicit. That in itself is endorsement. I don't care about legal technicalities, I'm talking morally.

You can't advertise 10 times as much for one candidate as another, and say that it's in any way "equal" or "across the board".

Certainly if C4L were an ad firm, I'd say "Gee, that makes good business sense, they should run ads for people that pay them. But C4L wasn't supposed to be an ad firm. That's their course. Fine. I'm one of the .001% that is leaving (knowing full well he ignored the many many more people who electronically left the C4L without calling).

I was also one of the .001% of voters who voted for Ron Paul.

The line has been drawn in the sand.

Indeed.

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 06:27 PM
Promontorium,

The CO CFL is not organized, so they could not go about fundraising for specific issues/candidates on their own.

I am troubled here, because if a state is an organized chapter, why can't they have their own fundraising for a specific issue/candidate they want to donate to?
Isn't the point of an organized chapter - to allow the state to control where the money goes, assumedly, because they understand the political climate/race, rather than sending it off to National, then begging for it back?

If that were they case, why would independent chapters fund raise at all?

Say that a lot of CFL Kokesh people got together and raised money for Kokesh- do you expect them to send it to National, then have National send it back to them? :confused::confused:

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 06:45 PM
When did you talk to Debbie Hopper?

I'm not talking about the survey LLS, I am talking about the fact that the recent perpetuated rumor/fear that the CFL has abandoned it's non-interventionist plank is FALSE.
I have posted my proof.
CFL's FIRST PUBLISHED BOOK is a non-interventionist foreign policy book!The conversation was back in December. I called her because due to her being alerted to a certain thread here where I apparently said "negative things about C4L" she asked my state coordinator to remove me. Many things were said in the hour plus that I spoke with her, including her admission that Rothfeld is an old "cold warrior" and a host of other questions about the direction of C4L. She was indignant that I would ask why we are employing someone who clearly doesn't believe in our foreign policy AND thinks our mission of education is futile and we should focus on infiltrating the GOP. I also expressed my concern with the content and frequency of the sky is gonna fall if you don't send us your money mailers.


Promontorium,

The CO CFL is not organized, so they could not go about fundraising for specific issues/candidates on their own.

I am troubled here, because if a state is an organized chapter, why can't they have their own fundraising for a specific issue/candidate they want to donate to?
Isn't the point of an organized chapter - to allow the state to control where the money goes, assumedly, because they understand the political climate/race, rather than sending it off to National, then begging for it back?

If that were they case, why would independent chapters fund raise at all?

Say that a lot of CFL Kokesh people got together and raised money for Kokesh- do you expect them to send it to National, then have National send it back to them? :confused::confused:

There's no reason why they can't. One major problem is that because CO C4L is not organized the money went straight from these new, special donors who had earmarked these funds for BUCK alone to C4L national. There was, is and will not be any accountability whatsoever and certainly no input from the people on the ground in the state as to how, when and for whom these funds are to be used. The CO state coordinator was not even informed of the ad until the morning of its debut.

angelatc
02-02-2010, 06:46 PM
I am troubled here, because if a state is an organized chapter, why can't they have their own fundraising for a specific issue/candidate they want to donate to?

Are we sure they can't?

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 06:49 PM
Are we sure they can't?

Actually, according to the 501c4 designation they can't support a candidate. Period.

pacelli
02-02-2010, 06:59 PM
Actually, according to the 501c4 designation they can't support a candidate. Period.

And according to the same designation, they can't even detract support from a candidate. Wondering how this we're-going-to-hold-them-accountable i.e. "beat them up" is going to be rationalized under 501c4 too.

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 07:15 PM
Actually, according to the 501c4 designation they can't support a candidate. Period.

are the individual state chapters also 501c4's? Also, CFL did not give money ie "support" Buck. It was an individual group of donors who collected the money
I'm telling ya, if y'all keep calling out FEC violations, when you most likely do not know the details, you will only limit what individuals can do on a local level.

What happens if a group of people in the cfl get together and raise $ for Kokesh, do they have to send it to National, and then beg for it back? Has your local VT CFL chapter ever done any fundraising on it's own? If so, did you send it to National?


The conversation was back in December.
I wanted to make sure b/c I have a mailer in front of me dated Nov. 30 2009 which includes the questionaire re- the Patriot Act. So it is difficult for me to believe that you are the one who got Debbie Hopper to include the patriot act and non-interventionist fp in the mailers.
That same mailer, from back in Nov also includes a letter from RP - here is a snippet-

"Our constitutional principles and freedom-centered values are being assaulted at every turn. More bailouts, nationalized health care, cap and tax, one trillion dollar stiumulus plans, expansion of our itnerventionist foreign meddling. I could go on and on..."

I have just never gotten the feeling that the CFL was abandoning this plank, and with the publication of the new Fein book, it's been proven.

MsDoodahs
02-02-2010, 07:16 PM
And according to the same designation, they can't even detract support from a candidate. Wondering how this we're-going-to-hold-them-accountable i.e. "beat them up" is going to be rationalized under 501c4 too.

Someone explain to me how - with 26 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE - this kind of crap is happening?

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 07:20 PM
Michael, wasn't that the one in which his time to give the speech was practically cut in half? I still wish he would've cut out something else, instead of this, but I wasn't in his shoes having to drastically cut down a speech in short order.

Looks to me like this angle is grasping at straws


Probably because he knew his audience.

That is what I originally wrote it off as. I still didn't like it and contacted CfL, didn't like what I heard, but dismissed it for the reason you state. Now, I am not so sure...


exactly. This is why I don't go up to people I just met screaming "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JAWB!" even though I believe false flag terrorism is one of the biggest issues we have faced throughout history.

911Truth is not a central tenet of CfL.


Why does RPF send all 9/11 threads to hot topics?


edit: wow this thread moves quick.

See above reply to rev8, and LEs answer, (and I moved a large group of threads at once, took me a while to gather them all ;) )

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 07:40 PM
911Truth is not a central tenet of CfL.

No I understand that, I also don't go in to my local 912 meetings blasting about how evil war is- I take another route and go after the Fed, if the Fed is ended, then the wars of agression would stop. I cater to their issues in which we are in agreement, rather than hammering MY war issue, which is the ONE issue where we disagree- after all, I attended their meeting, not a CFL meeting. The war issue is the toughest nut to crack, and I have found that if you begin talking about the war, they turn you off.
There are other issues that we agree upon that would have the same effect (ending the Fed) that can be focused on, rather than alienating a bunch of people from the get go. Also, they might not have been invited back.

LibertyEagle
02-02-2010, 07:48 PM
Looks to me like this angle is grasping at straws


What?

It was discussed a lot on the board at the time. And my recollection of it was that someone came on here and said that was what the case had been. Personally, I don't know. I wasn't there.

Sheesh.

ronpaulhawaii
02-02-2010, 08:00 PM
No I understand that, I also don't go in to my local 912 meetings blasting about how evil war is- I take another route and go after the Fed, if the Fed is ended, then the wars of agression would stop. I cater to their issues in which we are in agreement, rather than hammering MY war issue, which is the ONE issue where we disagree- after all, I attended their meeting, not a CFL meeting. The war issue is the toughest nut to crack, and I have found that if you begin talking about the war, they turn you off.
There are other issues that we agree upon that would have the same effect (ending the Fed) that can be focused on, rather than alienating a bunch of people from the get go. Also, they might not have been invited back.

Who is talking about blasting? Who is talking about starting off with that?

Strawman

I have been defending the principles behind CfL for years now. At the moment I am selling non-interventionism to state GOP structures. I know it is the most difficult part of our philosophy to sell, but I am having success. I know about reading an audience and tailoring the message. I can understand sensitivity around the issue. But it is what sets us apart and any drift away from it will be met with fierce resistance. As someone else mentioned, "If I had seen that ad and looked up Bucks site, I would have dismissed CfL as a GOP front group"

Again, Tate's omission was noted, but not remarked upon. This incident demanded a closer look at what is going on.

revolutionary8
02-02-2010, 08:23 PM
rph, I am certainly not trying to tell you anything you don't already know, nor am I trying to diminish all the wonderful things you have done. I am sorry that you were put in the position of trying to answer for the CFL. Both of our organizations are very young organizations, so the relationship is still "new", so I really can't make a judgement on timing. I was just trying to reason why Tate wouldn't address that issue is all. I don't think John Tate is pro-war, No, and I don't think he is trying to compromise our non-interventionist FP plank.


The CO state coordinator was not even informed of the ad until the morning of its debut.
Now, there really is no excuse for this, unless the coordinator was MIA/Not involved.

One possible solution is for CO is to organize their own chapter I suppose.

I am still waiting for answers/explanations on what the local chapters can do- re fundraising- whether they have to send it to National, or if they can spend it where they choose to spend it.

LittleLightShining
02-02-2010, 11:28 PM
And according to the same designation, they can't even detract support from a candidate. Wondering how this we're-going-to-hold-them-accountable i.e. "beat them up" is going to be rationalized under 501c4 too.I've been wondering the same thing.


are the individual state chapters also 501c4's? Also, CFL did not give money ie "support" Buck. It was an individual group of donors who collected the money
I'm telling ya, if y'all keep calling out FEC violations, when you most likely do not know the details, you will only limit what individuals can do on a local level.

According to "The Campaign For Liberty State Partner Relationship" document the "basic requirements of the Campaign for Liberty State Partner include the following:


* Each State Partner must be named Campaign for Liberty, both legally and in practice. For example, in Minnesota the group will be called Minnesota Campaign for Liberty, or Campaign For Liberty of Minnesota or some similar wording.

* Each State Partner must be in agreement with, and adhere to, Campaign for Liberty's mission and statement of principles.

*Each State Partner will be a separate legal entity from National C4L. State Partners will be able to decide on their exact structure and activities provided they use the following guidelines:
1. Must conform to all relevant state and loal laws.
2. Must be incorporated as a 501c4 non-profit.
3. Bylaws must restrict its discretionary activity to lobbying on state and local issues and concerns. National concerns will be handled in accordance with guidance and support from Campaign for Liberty national.
4. Copies of the bylaws of each State Partner, plus subsequent amendments, must be filed with Campaign for Liberty headquarters.
5. Prepare and file Annual report with the National Office.


What happens if a group of people in the cfl get together and raise $ for Kokesh, do they have to send it to National, and then beg for it back? Has your local VT CFL chapter ever done any fundraising on it's own? If so, did you send it to National? We are not officially organized here. We do not do any fundraising per say. We have asked for contributions for specific projects. Right now we are asking members to assist us with the cost of maintaining the meetup for the next year, to pay for a room for our next meeting, to cover the cost of our table at the NH Liberty Forum and to print the bumper stickers that we give away on our website (in my sig below). We do not use the C4L logo on anything that we produce. We do not encourage anyone to send their money to national unless they want to be a local coordinator. Of course they are free to do whatever they please but most of us understand that national gives us nothing but a discount on store items so if we want or need any "official" materials and someone wants to contribute to national they might as well buy something.

As far as I know there is no legal way to raise money for any candidate as a 501c4. What i think happened here is that C4L was supposed to be a lobbying organization hence the c4 status. Over the course of the last year the organization has shifted focus from lobbying and education to political activity which is better suited to a 501c3.



I wanted to make sure b/c I have a mailer in front of me dated Nov. 30 2009 which includes the questionaire re- the Patriot Act. So it is difficult for me to believe that you are the one who got Debbie Hopper to include the patriot act and non-interventionist fp in the mailers.
That same mailer, from back in Nov also includes a letter from RP - here is a snippet-

"Our constitutional principles and freedom-centered values are being assaulted at every turn. More bailouts, nationalized health care, cap and tax, one trillion dollar stiumulus plans, expansion of our itnerventionist foreign meddling. I could go on and on..."

I have just never gotten the feeling that the CFL was abandoning this plank, and with the publication of the new Fein book, it's been proven.I think you're right. I was thinking about this a little earlier and I realized that the last 3 mailers were these survey things but I couldn't have gotten 3 of them since mid December. So I take responsibility for that mistake. I would add, though, that the conversation I relayed is accurate. I have written records from then and have been in contact with people here about the experience as the situation unfolded. Thanks for pointing that out.

AuH2O
02-02-2010, 11:38 PM
Over the course of the last year the organization has shifted focus from lobbying and education to political activity which is better suited to a 501c3.

Please elaborate.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 04:36 AM
I would add, though, that the conversation I relayed is accurate.

Actually much of what you've written here about me, our conversation, the events leading up to it, and the conclusions you drew as a result of it aren't at all accurate.

**EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL INFORMATION**

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 05:41 AM
Actually, Jessica, much of what you've written here about me, our conversation, the events leading up to it, and the conclusions you drew as a result of it aren't at all accurate.



Please elaborate on which parts of what I have written are inaccurate.


Have you thanked Liberty Eagle for the head's up? I notice that you were here and the only comment you have to make is a little swipe at me when there are well over a thousand posts on this board about this C4L National boondoggle in CO. You have either ONLY read what I posted (which tells me something about your concern for the grassroots) or you read everything and the only thing you have a comment about is little old me? TYPICAL.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 06:04 AM
Please elaborate on which parts of what I have written are inaccurate.

Have you thanked Liberty Eagle for the head's up? I notice that you were here and the only comment you have to make is a little swipe at me when there are well over a thousand posts on this board about this C4L National boondoggle in CO. You have either ONLY read what I posted (which tells me something about your concern for the grassroots) or you read everything and the only thing you have a comment about is little old me? TYPICAL.

Did it ever dawn on you that you mentioned her name in a post in this thread and that the site search facility makes it easy to find all such posts? :rolleyes:

Yes, indeed. Typical.


Dude, it's not in ANY of the surveys or mailers. And I kid you not, the Patriot Act wasn't showing up in these things until my fateful conversation with Debbie Hopper, when I specifically said we don't see anything about the wars or the Patriot Act in any of the mailers.

Also, the point about the wrong question is proof the survey is flawed. This guy answered correctly even though his stated position on Afghanistan is that we need to be there 10 more years.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 06:59 AM
You have either ONLY read what I posted (which tells me something about your concern for the grassroots) or you read everything and the only thing you have a comment about is little old me? TYPICAL.

Well, I can see we're off to a great start. Sling a few more accusations my way.

Jessica, John Tate has made a statement. Ronnie Paul, Congressman Paul's oldest son and Chairman of the C4L has made a statement. Jesse Benton has made a statement, and even Congressman Paul has addressed CO.

Although I've read most of the comments about Colorado, I haven't responded because it's not my place within the organization to do so and I have nothing to add to what those who do have that responsibility have already said that would satisfy you anyway.

So, yep, I guess that means I'm here for little old you.

MOD NOTE: EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT A MEMBER OF THE FORUM.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 06:59 AM
Did it ever dawn on you that you mentioned her name in a post in this thread and that the site search facility makes it easy to find all such posts? :rolleyes:

Yes, indeed. Typical.

Defensive much?

Has it dawned on you that the fact that she was here and didn't address anyone else and had no comment about ANY one else's concerns supports the information that I've shared about my experience with her? You ask questions, you raise concerns and they mark you as the enemy. Well, I'm gone now. And like I said, she'd rather come in here, make an accusation with no citations and try to discredit me instead of addressing concerns about her organization that other people, members, still have.

What a pathetic attempt at deflection that was.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 07:02 AM
Defensive much?



When someone spews a lie about me. Yes.


that other people, members, still have

By the way, LLS, Hopper is a forum member too.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 07:02 AM
Well, I can see we're off to a great start. Sling a few more accusations my way.

LLS, John Tate has made a statement. Ronnie Paul, Congressman Paul's oldest son and Chairman of the C4L has made a statement. Jesse Benton has made a statement, and even Congressman Paul has addressed CO.

Although I've read most of the comments about Colorado, I haven't responded because it's not my place within the organization to do so and I have nothing to add to what those who do have that responsibility have already said that would satisfy you anyway.

So, yep, I guess that means I'm here for little old you.
Please stop using my name on the forum.

You haven't addressed what you originally came in here to start with me about.

But since you're here, how about a link to the 990's that Jesse Benton said would be available but are not yet.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 07:08 AM
Debbie Hopper uses her real name as her poster name here at RPFs.

Debbie Hopper is one of the top tier staff at CFL.

Debbie Hopper has acted as a spokesperson for CFL.

Debbie Hopper is a public figure.

Debbie Hopper makes no effort to conceal her identity here (at least when posting as herself).

LittleLightShining does not use her real name, isn't a CFL staffer, doesn't act as a spokesperson for CFL, isn't a public figure, and makes an effort to conceal her identity here.

That's the difference.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 07:20 AM
I'm thinking you're trying to deflect the situation, not me.

You've put out false and misleading information about me and our conversation and I'm calling you on it.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 07:30 AM
Why the silence, LLS? Here's your chance! You've been saying a lot of things about Debbie Hopper. She's here. Let's see you say them to her face.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 07:48 AM
I'm thinking you're trying to defect the situation, not me.

You've put out false and misleading information about me and our conversation and I'm calling you on it.

I have to bring my son to school. I do have other things going on in my life outside of this forum.

You made an assertion with no citation the burden is on you to point out exactly what you are referring to.

What false and misleading information are you referring to?

I will be back in about 40 minutes.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 07:49 AM
Why the silence, LLS? Here's your chance! You've been saying a lot of things about Debbie Hopper. She's here. Let's see you say them to her face.

I have kids who need my attention in the morning. Go clean up for a half hour and check back in.

There better be something specific for me to respond to when I get back.

MRoCkEd
02-03-2010, 08:05 AM
YouTube - Mascot Win (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2ZpsHP2yg)

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 08:16 AM
I have kids who need my attention in the morning. Go clean up for a half hour and check back in. There better be something specific for me to respond to when I get back.

Or what? :rolleyes:

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 08:18 AM
Or what? :rolleyes:

Or you're wasting your time and mine. I have said what I needed to say in regards to you. If you'd rather stall instead of addressing EXACTLY what you came in here to fight with me about it that says an awful lot about you.

Where are the 990's, by the way, and why are you guys on Thanksgiving holiday again?

constituent
02-03-2010, 08:33 AM
damn, this is getting good.

i just got my stuff out of hawk and was looking forward to a really productive day...

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 08:39 AM
Debbie, who produced the ad for Buck?

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 08:46 AM
You've thrown my name around quite a bit on the forums. I assume you want links to specific statements you've made rather than me just giving everyone the jest of comments, so give me a little time to read through the many comments you have made about me and our conversation, and I'll be happy to point out where I believe you gave false or misleading information to the people on this board.

We can start with this one.

"Debbie Hopper busted up the CP over abortion"

As I said, give me a little time and I'll find the link for you in case you don't remember stating this.

It certainly sounds to me like you are stating factual information for which you are absolutely certain. Is that correct?

constituent
02-03-2010, 08:48 AM
We can start with this one.

"Debbie Hopper busted up the CP over abortion"

It certainly sounds to me like you are stating factual information for which you are absolutely certain. Is that correct?


Fair question!

Now, about those 990s. Who should interested parties contact at the CFL, and how should they go about doing so?

Many thanks, Mrs. Hopper. :)

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 09:00 AM
You've thrown my name around quite a bit on the forums. I assume you want links to specific statements you've made rather than me just giving everyone the jest of comments, so give me a little time to read through the many comments you have made about me and our conversation, and I'll be happy to point out where I believe you gave false or misleading information to the people on this board.

We can start with this one.

"Debbie Hopper busted up the CP over abortion"

As I said, give me a little time and I'll find the link for you in case you don't remember stating this.

It certainly sounds to me like you are stating factual information for which you are absolutely certain. Is that correct?

You mean this post? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2516403&postcount=635)


Here are the facts. Debbie Hopper wasn't there to vote for or against the resolution. She was forced off the Executive Committee at the Columbus National Committee meeting because she was forced out of the Missouri party for admitting to being pro-abortion and supported the running of pro-abortion candidates by Nevada. ... Sorry if you don't like it, but Debbie Hopper was a bad player.

There's more where that came from. (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:8qMuL-bK_f8J:www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D1358%26page%3D2+debbie+hopper +cp+pro-life&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)


Still waiting on those 990's Benton promised. And please tell me who produced the ad for Buck.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 09:00 AM
I have said what I needed to say in regards to you. If you'd rather stall instead of addressing EXACTLY what you came in here to fight with me about it that says an awful lot about you.

You completely misunderstand. I didn't come in here to fight with you. I came here because some of the things you've said about me and about our conversation are false.

You've said your peace about me all over the board.

I'll say my peace and we'll let people decide for themselves.

I'm not interested in a cat fight and there is no reason to have one.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 09:10 AM
You mean this post? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2516403&postcount=635)



There's more where that came from. (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:8qMuL-bK_f8J:www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D1358%26page%3D2+debbie+hopper +cp+pro-life&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)


Still waiting on those 990's Benton promised. And please tell me who produced the ad for Buck.

I don't have any doubt there is more where that came from.

Did you happen to check the facts or do you just pull crap of the internet that suits you and parade it as fact?

rancher89
02-03-2010, 09:14 AM
Debbie, hey, please "say your peace" and you and LLS can back and forth later. I want to hear what you have to say.
Thanks

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 09:18 AM
Debbie, hey, please "say your peace" and you and LLS can back and forth later. I want to hear what you have to say.
Thanks

First I'll let her clarify whether she verified what she is stating as fact.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 09:18 AM
I don't have any doubt there is more where that came from.

Did you happen to check the facts or do you just pull crap of the internet that suits you and parade it as fact?
Are you denying this is true, then?

You can say your side of it and people can make their own judgment but the fact is that there are people who believe this about you and were willing to say it about you openly. These people are extremely committed to their principles and their faith.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 09:21 AM
I guess I'll check back in later......

constituent
02-03-2010, 09:31 AM
Now, about those 990s. Who should interested parties contact at the CFL, and how should they go about doing so?

Mrs. Hopper, any thoughts? They would be much appreciated!

Thanks in advance. :)

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 09:35 AM
Are you denying this is true, then?

You can say your side of it and people can make their own judgment but the fact is that there are people who believe this about you and were willing to say it about you openly. These people are extremely committed to their principles and their faith.

Absolutely I'm saying they are untrue.

You were willing to spread that rumor on an open forum too, without ever checking to see if it was true. And you certainly never asked me about it. In fact, after reading many of the comments you've made it's hard not to conclude that you are hell bent on doing everything you can to discredit me.

I know where these comments can be found. They've been there for years.

Tell me. Did you verify them as factual before posting them here? Yes or No.

Once you clarify that, I'd be more than happy to tell you all about what went down at the CP National Committee meeting that those comments were referring to, and even provide you with the names and phone numbers of party officer who were serving at the time to verify that what I'm saying is true and that those statements are not.

What do you have, right here, right now, LittleLittleShining, to show that you did your due diligence and verified facts before slandering my name?

constituent
02-03-2010, 09:38 AM
Once you clarify that, I'd be more than happy to tell you all about what went down at the CP National Committee meeting that those comments were referring to, and even provide you with the names and phone numbers of party officer who were serving at the time to verify that what I'm saying is true and that those statements are not.

Hell, I'd like to hear that story sometime anyway!

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 09:42 AM
Absolutely I'm saying they are untrue.

You were willing to spread that rumor on an open forum too, without ever checking to see if it was true. And you certainly never asked me about it. In fact, after reading many of the comments you've made it's hard not to conclude that you are hell bent on doing everything you can to discredit me.

I know where these comments can be found. They've been there for years.

Tell me. Did you verify them as factual before posting them here? Yes or No.

Once you clarify that, I'd be more than happy to tell you all about what went down at the CP National Committee meeting that those comments were referring to, and even provide you with the names and phone numbers of party officer who were serving at the time to verify that what I'm saying is true and that those statements are not.

What do you have, right here, right now, LittleLittleShining, to show that you did your due diligence and verified facts before slandering my name?I am posting what was on the internet. If you know where this was posted and if you knew those statements were false you should have taken measures to protect yourself then.

Your insistence on focusing on me specifically, now and in December, shows that you are less intent to answer the questions you not only don't want to answer but don't even want asked shows that you are not here to bridge a divide between the grassroots and C4L but to further drive a wedge.

MRoCkEd
02-03-2010, 09:52 AM
Hey Debbie,

Is C4L going to get a new website soon? We need to know whether or not to start a petition for one.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 09:55 AM
LOL MRoCkEd I'd start working on the petition, for what it's worth.

I'm just guessing here, but the website isn't going to change much.

I did hear that they were going with a new email/message system a while back, but I have no details or any idea of when that will happen.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 09:57 AM
Mrs. Hopper, any thoughts? They would be much appreciated!

Thanks in advance. :)

When I'm called Mrs. Hopper, it makes me painfully aware of just how old I'm getting. ;)

Our 990's for the first year were filed with the IRS. Those records are open to the public, but I spoke with John and he said he'll have our copy scanned and posted on our website very soon.

constituent
02-03-2010, 09:57 AM
When I'm called Mrs. Hopper, it makes me painfully aware of just how old I'm getting. ;)

Our 990's for the first year were filed with the IRS. Those records are open to the public, but I spoke with John and he said he'll have our copy scanned and posted on our website very soon.

cool. simple enough, thanks!

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 10:00 AM
I am posting what was on the internet. If you know where this was posted and if you knew those statements were false you should have taken measures to protect yourself then.

Your insistence on focusing on me specifically, now and in December, shows that you are less intent to answer the questions you not only don't want to answer but don't even want asked shows that you are not here to bridge a divide between the grassroots and C4L but to further drive a wedge.

You keep trying to change the subject. What's so hard about this. A simple yes or no answer is all that's necessary.

Did you or did you not verify whether these statements were true before you posted them as fact?

MRoCkEd
02-03-2010, 10:04 AM
LOL MRoCkEd I'd start working on the petition, for what it's worth.

I'm just guessing here, but the website isn't going to change much.

I did hear that they were going with a new email/message system a while back, but I have no details or any idea of when that will happen.
A while back, a terra eclipse design was leaked, so they've at least explored the idea. I really think the organization would be vastly improved by investing in an attractive website..

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 10:11 AM
You keep trying to change the subject. What's so hard about this. A simple yes or no answer is all that's necessary.

Did you or did you not verify whether these statements were true before you posted them as fact?

They are as true as anything you have said to me.

You keep on sidestepping,. Why not address some of this while C4L is celebrating Thanksgiving today: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229449

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 10:12 AM
A while back, a terra eclipse design was leaked, so they've at least explored the idea. I really think the organization would be vastly improved by investing in an attractive website..

Yes, I recall when that leak occurred ;).

That leaked site was GREAT!

But alas, it was not to be....

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 10:14 AM
Yes, I recall when that leak occurred ;).

That leaked site was GREAT!

But alas, it was not to be....

Maybe if the folks at Terra Eclipse had been employed by the PCC they'd have taken that route.

MRoCkEd
02-03-2010, 10:16 AM
:)

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 10:17 AM
Hell, I'd like to hear that story sometime anyway!

I'm happy to tell you since _______ has absolutely no idea what went down. She found a quote on a forum, it fit the picture she wanted to paint of me and she went with it.

I'll try to give you the nutshell version of it, although it was a fight that spanned several years in the CP.

Should I give you a little background first before addressing the specific allegations?


****MOD NOTE - THIRD VIOLATION OF RPFS GUIDELINES - DO NOT CONTINUE USING HER REAL NAME IN YOUR COMMENTS. Thanks*****

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 10:23 AM
BTW, LittleLightShining, the fact that you won't answer whether you verified these "facts" about me before posting them on the forum, speaks volumes.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 10:28 AM
When I'm called Mrs. Hopper, it makes me painfully aware of just how old I'm getting. ;)

Our 990's for the first year were filed with the IRS. Those records are open to the public, but I spoke with John and he said he'll have our copy scanned and posted on our website very soon.

Thanks from me as well!

constituent
02-03-2010, 10:41 AM
Should I give you a little background first before addressing the specific allegations?


Yea, of course. I don't know anyone or anything, so just start at the beginning.

BTW, and as an aside... this thread is way more interesting, to the male observer anyway, when Debbie and _____ refer to each other as Debbie and ______ . Maybe LLS could be persuaded to use her real name for a share of the ad revenue generated by this thread?

And you guys should really change your avatars to supermodels or something. :D (though LLS, I do so love the avatar you've got! ;) :) )

...on with the story! :)

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 10:46 AM
LLS, did you verify any of your facts before making the allegations you did about Ms. Hopper, here?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2516403&postcount=635

She has asked you that same question more than once in this thread, but you are not answering her.

Please do so.

Thanks.

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 10:47 AM
Deb, thanks for dropping in. There are lots of festering wounds left over since the days of the PCC and addressing them is the only way they will heal. To say the least I am pissed off at CfL's mistake, more so at the original lack of response, and even more so by the whitewashes and attempted guilt trips that have been posted since.

You guys have wasted over a week of my time so far, when I have much better things to be doing. I can ignore a lot of things on the internet, I cannot ignore constant phone calls (even to the K4C campaign phone), endless chat pop-ups, overwhelming emails, in addition to this mess. When you guys turned off your phone, mine lit up.

I am pissed that you put me in this position. I am pissed that you forced me to play a hand that I'd rather never have played.

I used the opportunity to put to rest the lingering hope that we have not been duped with a bait and switch. I can deal with the fact that CfL has decided on a direction contrary to what we were sold. Making me force an answer to this change is unacceptable. These festering wounds should have been addressed long ago.


No I understand that, I also don't go in to my local 912 meetings blasting about how evil war is- I take another route and go after the Fed, if the Fed is ended, then the wars of agression would stop. I cater to their issues in which we are in agreement, rather than hammering MY war issue, which is the ONE issue where we disagree- after all, I attended their meeting, not a CFL meeting. The war issue is the toughest nut to crack, and I have found that if you begin talking about the war, they turn you off.
There are other issues that we agree upon that would have the same effect (ending the Fed) that can be focused on, rather than alienating a bunch of people from the get go. Also, they might not have been invited back.

Again, this is a strawman. No-one is talking about leading off, and hammering on the war issue. What my experience is that the majority of people are against the occupations. By avoiding the war issue to pander to the mongers, you potentially turn off the majority of Americans.

Further, "leading off" indicates that something follows. If the war issue is omitted, then "leading off" does not apply.


What?

It was discussed a lot on the board at the time. And my recollection of it was that someone came on here and said that was what the case had been. Personally, I don't know. I wasn't there.

Sheesh.

Yup, that is the answer I heard. Had a bad feeling in my gut about it, but let it slide. This incident has made me revisit that.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 10:54 AM
BTW, LittleLightShining, the fact that you won't answer whether you verified these "facts" about me before posting them on the forum, speaks volumes.Keep diverting.

I am ON THE PHONE WITH THE IRS RIGHT NOW and there is no "Campaign For Liberty" organization in Arlington, VA.

What state is C4L located in and what is the EIN #???

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 11:02 AM
Keep diverting.

I am ON THE PHONE WITH THE IRS RIGHT NOW and there is no "Campaign For Liberty" organization in Arlington, VA.

What state is C4L located in and what is the EIN #???

This is what I meant in my comment to Tate about CfLs mistake setting the dogs loose. I have been talking people down from rash moves for years now. I am done with that until I see some real moves towards Transparency, Accountability, and Grassroots Representation.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 11:02 AM
Michael if there are festering wounds you need to talk about that involve me, I would hope you'd pick up the phone and give me a call or even an email. We saw each other and spoke on a number of occasions in Valley Forge and you never mentioned any issues between us.

I think you have my number. If you don't, PM me and I'll be happy to give it to you so we can talk.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 11:05 AM
LLS, did you verify any of your facts before making the allegations you did about Ms. Hopper, here?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2516403&postcount=635

She has asked you that same question more than once in this thread, but you are not answering her.

Please do so.

Thanks.

I answered the question. Debbie really shouldn't be in here allll morning not picking a catfight with me. She ought to be addressing relevant issues and answering some questions that NO ONE at C4L wants to answer.

I'm putting you on virtual ignore, LE.

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 11:09 AM
Michael if there are festering wounds you need to talk about that involve me, I would hope you'd pick up the phone and give me a call or even an email. We saw each other and spoke on a number of occasions in Valley Forge and you never mentioned any issues between us.

I think you have my number. If you don't, PM me and I'll be happy to give it to you so we can talk.

No, they don't involve you in any way other than your position in CfL. Basically it is a death by a thousand cuts kinda situation. It is pervasive throughout the movement. An unintended consequence of my activism is I REALLY know the grassroots. I have been saying "give CfL time" for years, and that is done until I see some acceptable change.

angelatc
02-03-2010, 11:10 AM
Actually, according to the 501c4 designation they can't support a candidate. Period.

I would encourage you to explore the IRS site and make your own determinination if that statement from the CFL is even correct. Here's a place to start: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=170946,00.html

But I was actually wondering if it was true that the states that had officially organized within their own states were still prohibited from independent fundraising.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 11:17 AM
I answered the question. Debbie really shouldn't be in here allll morning not picking a catfight with me. She ought to be addressing relevant issues and answering some questions that NO ONE at C4L wants to answer.

I'm putting you on virtual ignore, LE.

Of course you are, LLS. Anyone who has read this thread knows you've refused to answer the question in spite of your claims to the contrary. Putting me on ignore doesn't change THAT fact.

You didn't answer the question because if you did admit that you didn't verify the story before you used it to slander me and discredit me, it will discredit you instead.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 11:21 AM
Of course you are, LLS. Anyone who has read this thread knows you've refused to answer the question in spite of your claims to the contrary. Putting me on ignore doesn't change THAT fact.

You didn't answer the question because if you did admit that you didn't verify the story before you used it to slander me and discredit me, it will discredit you instead.

I'm not ignoring you. I'm ignoring LE.

I have absolutely no reason to believe what you say over what was said on that thread that I posted. You have already indicated to me that it doesn't matter if people in an organization disagree with the principles of that organization.

Are you denying that you differed from the CP platform plank on abortion and pushed pro-choice candidates using the excuse that the state said candidate was running in had rules contrary to the plank? Are you denying that your position on this issue caused a major schism in the CP?

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 11:25 AM
I would encourage you to explore the IRS site and make your own determinination if that statement from the CFL is even correct. Here's a place to start: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=170946,00.html

But I was actually wondering if it was true that the states that had officially organized within their own states were still prohibited from independent fundraising.I spoke with 2 different agents at the irs, 0195266 and her supervisor 0196561.

I was asked if I had an EIN, I said no. I said the name of the organization is "Campaign For Liberty" and all of the correspondence for this groups comes from Arlington, VA. She looked it up and there is no Campaign For Liberty registered from Arlington, VA. I said that in my investigation I found a "Campaign For Liberty" in Lake Jackson, TX on Guidestar.

She looked into this and gave me an EIN number. It is the ein # for the organization in Lake Jackson listed on guidestar. There is no further information available on the guidestar site.

Jesse Benton made it sound like the 990's were readily available from the irs website when in fact, according to the second agent the irs has no website on which to make this information available. All 990's are stored on microfiche.

Requests for 990's from the irs require a filing of form 4506-A or a written letter indicating what organization and ein number a 990 form is being requested for. Because this information is stored on microfiche and requires manual extraction it could take up to 60 days from request received by the irs to receipt of the copy of the 990 to the person asking for it.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 11:36 AM
Are you denying that you differed from the CP platform plank on abortion and pushed pro-choice candidates using the excuse that the state said candidate was running in had rules contrary to the plank? Are you denying that your position on this issue caused a major schism in the CP?

You are dodging.

For at least the 4th time.......

Did you fact-check these claims in any way, shape or form, before you posted them on RPFs as FACT?

Yes OR No?

newbitech
02-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Keep diverting.

I am ON THE PHONE WITH THE IRS RIGHT NOW and there is no "Campaign For Liberty" organization in Arlington, VA.

What state is C4L located in and what is the EIN #???


2nd'ed I have been digging for this info ever since the days of the C4L in FL cutting off the head of the liberty movement down here and forcing us to support a State Coordinator who decided it was better to support incumbent GOP chair Greer, who incidently forced Ron Paul republicans OUT of the party by making us sign a pledge to support ANY who would have an (R) by their name.

I'd also like to know why the 501c4 status was slapped on our local meetup groups. Maybe this would explain why their has been no meetups since sept 09 and why the meetups are essentially DEAD in FL.

So yeah, what's the EIN please.

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 11:42 AM
This entire debate seems to turning into a giant strawman. More deflection from the real issues to make it about personal attacks. I have to go to an event and then knock on some doors. Will log back in in the car. I am not happy that this is throwing me off my game.

constituent
02-03-2010, 11:44 AM
Requests for 990's from the irs require a filing of form 4506-A or a written letter indicating what organization and ein number a 990 form is being requested for. Because this information is stored on microfiche and requires manual extraction it could take up to 60 days from request received by the irs to receipt of the copy of the 990 to the person asking for it.

So they're essentially buried for the time being?

Mrs. Hopper, any specific date from John Tate that we can expect to see the current 990 uploaded to the CFL site?

I think this would go a long way toward building some additional goodwill within the community. :)

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 11:55 AM
This entire debate seems to turning into a giant strawman. More deflection from the real issues to make it about personal attacks. I have to go to an event and then knock on some doors. Will log back in in the car. I am not happy that this is throwing me off my game.

RPH,

The fact that this incident has been used by a couple to spew half-truths and innuendos about people and post them as facts, here, without having done the tiniest bit of due-diligence, should concern us all. People's real names are being used and said names are being drug through the mud, and not only here, as some of those same half-truths have now been picked up by Google.

I can't imagine you would agree with this.

So, yes, we have real questions we want C4L to answer. They HAVE been trying to answer us, I think. I mean, let's see.... John Tate, Jesse Benton, Ronnie Paul and even Ron Paul, himself. Sheesh. How can we say they are not paying attention to us? So yeah, we have some questions that weren't answered. What I don't get is why we can't put together a list of the things we most feel we still need to know and present it to them.

Is all this drama really necessary?

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 12:05 PM
Here are the facts LLS would have discovered had she made any attempt to find the truth.

I was a delegate to the founding convention of the US Taxpayers Party (now the Constitution Party), served two terms as the National Secretary, as well as serving many years more as a National Committeewoman from my state.

For those of you who don't know, the Constitution Party takes a firm "no exceptions" position on abortion. I happen to share that view and worked to pass a resolution barring the national party from providing national support for any candidate who was not 100% pro-life. The resolution was overwhelmingly adopted by the national committee.

For some, that wasn't enough. They wanted a higher level of purity. They wanted the national committee to boot the Nevada Party from affiliation with the national party because the chairman of the Nevada Party held a personal view on abortion that allowed for exceptions in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother.

Those that wanted to get rid of Nevada and it's leadership, put forward a resolution to do so. I voted against the resolution to disaffiliate the Nevada Party. The resolution failed. Those of us who voted against it (the majority) were falsely labeled pro-aborts by those who lost. Most of them left after finally deciding the CP wasn't pure enough.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 12:08 PM
RPH,

The fact that this incident has been used by a couple to spew half-truths and innuendos about people and post them as facts, here, without having done the tiniest bit of due-diligence, should concern us all. People's real names are being used and said names are being drug through the mud, and not only here, as some of those same half-truths have now been picked up by Google.

I can't imagine you would agree with this.

So, yes, we have real questions we want C4L to answer. They HAVE been trying to answer us, I think. I mean, let's see.... John Tate, Jesse Benton, Ronnie Paul and even Ron Paul, himself. Sheesh. How can we say they are not paying attention to us? So yeah, we have some questions that weren't answered. What I don't get is why we can't put together a list of the things we most feel we still need to know and present it to them.

Is all this drama really necessary?

Ignore the dodging and fighting, get to the meat of it...

Why don't you post a list of questions LE?

I'm working on a list of questions as we type....

newbitech
02-03-2010, 12:08 PM
RPH,

The fact that this incident has been used by a couple to spew half-truths and innuendos about people and post them as facts, here, without having done the tiniest bit of due-diligence, should concern us all. People's real names are being used and said names are being drug through the mud, and not only here, as some of those same half-truths have now been picked up by Google.

I can't imagine you would agree with this.

So, yes, we have real questions we want C4L to answer. They HAVE been trying to answer us, I think. I mean, let's see.... John Tate, Jesse Benton, Ronnie Paul and even Ron Paul, himself. Sheesh. How can we say they are not paying attention to us? So yeah, we have some questions that weren't answered. What I don't get is why we can't put together a list of the things we most feel we still need to know and present it to them.

Is all this drama really necessary?


Hey LE,

I agree there is some sidetracking going on. I also agree and from my limited experience, dealing with the C4L on the website blogs etc, questions asked are answered.

What I have a hard time to understand is why the volume has to be turned up SOOO loud on those questions?

A lot of these questions aren't really new. Like RPH said, he's been asking people to give C4L time, give em time etcetc.

Some of us are running out of time.

It just seems like the grassroots is being asked over and over to be patient, just wait. Wait for what?

I know I am a political novice, so I don't always understand the tactics and strategies and I am willing to learn, but just because I am a political novice, this doesn't mean I am a novice.

If the only sources of information I have come from the internet, well then it is up to me to dig dig dig. And guess what? That is what I do. I am a freaking guru on digging up information and cross referencing sources.

I am also a fair man and I believe I have an even keel when it comes to discerning the truth.

I have shut up about C4L in FL for a while now, biding my time HOPING that some kind of political leadership will step in and help me understand the process. That leadership is just not there. So I have to wing it. I have to find answers online and we all know and agree these aren't the best answers, but dammit, they are the ONLY answers.

I threw down a couple of grand on politics. I put my money where my mouth is. I expect more from people who's career is politics. And when it's family, yeah I am going to be 10x's more critical of my brother than I am of someone that I have no kinship with.

We yell and scream and kick and bite at C4L because we love them. Even if it looks like we hate them. I guess I should speak for myself. I hate what has become of the liberty movement in FL. I thought I'd be soooo much further along by now in my political supporting aspirations.

More and more its just feeling like a big ass waste of time. I HATE THAT! And I want C4L, the people who got my 1000's to DO SOMETHING about it. Because I have no idea what to do!

And for me, to see an ad with the C4L logo on it, (yes I know the mistake blah blah) just makes me wonder what the hell I am really involved with or aspiring to be involved with. I HAVE NO CHOICE but to question every single little detail until I get an answer.

I can't wait for C4L forever. Until I can become a leader, I need someone to follow. Otherwise, ima sit right here from behind my little screen and do what I do best, and that is dig dig dig.

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 12:10 PM
RPH,

The fact that this incident has been used by a couple to spew half-truths and innuendos about people and post them as facts, here, without having done the tiniest bit of due-diligence, should concern us all. People's real names are being used and said names are being drug through the mud, and not only here, as some of those same half-truths have now been picked up by Google.

These kind of accusations have been floating forever. It is the nature of the internet. Again, it is just shifting the conversation away from the real issues and making it about "meanies on the internet" BS, if people only knew the caliber bof people who called me over this. One particularly important person involved said something to me on Fri. morning that finally allowed me to take a stand. He said, "Transparency would have prevented this"


I can't imagine you would agree with this.

I don't agree with running to the IRS, nor do I agree with making it personal, but I do know that many of the complaints I have seen from LLS have been echoed across the nation. Double standards and inconsistency.

And it all boils down to:

Transparency, Accountability, and Grassroots Representation.


So, yes, we have real questions we want C4L to answer. They HAVE been trying to answer us, I think. I mean, let's see.... John Tate, Jesse Benton, Ronnie Paul and even Ron Paul, himself. Sheesh. How can we say they are not paying attention to us? So yeah, we have some questions that weren't answered. What I don't get is why we can't put together a list of the things we most feel we still need to know and present it to them.

Is all this drama really necessary?

These "answers" have been whitewashes that attempt to blame the grassroots for a HUGE mistake of CfL. And that is outrageous.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 12:10 PM
Here are the facts LLS would have discovered had she made any attempt to find the truth.

I was a delegate to the founding convention of the US Taxpayers Party (now the Constitution Party), served two terms as the National Secretary, as well as serving many years more as a National Committeewoman from my state.

For those of you who don't know, the Constitution Party takes a firm "no exceptions" position on abortion. I happen to share that view and worked to pass a resolution barring the national party from providing national support for any candidate who was not 100% pro-life. The resolution was overwhelmingly adopted by the national committee.

For some, that wasn't enough. They wanted a higher level of purity. They wanted the national committee to boot the Nevada Party from affiliation with the national party because the chairman of the Nevada Party held a personal view on abortion that allowed for exceptions in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother.

Those that wanted to get rid of Nevada and it's leadership, put forward a resolution to do so. I voted against the resolution to disaffiliate the Nevada Party. The resolution failed. Those of us who voted against it (the majority) were falsely labeled pro-aborts by those who lost. Most of them left after finally deciding the CP wasn't pure enough.

I absolutely hate this kind of politics, we're facing the same thing with the gop and wanting a litmus test and wanting to close primaries from independents.....not good, not good at all. Thanks for clearing that up Deb, not that I was too concerned about that part of the whole dust up. :)

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 12:15 PM
Here are the facts LLS would have discovered had she made any attempt to find the truth.

I was a delegate to the founding convention of the US Taxpayers Party (now the Constitution Party), served two terms as the National Secretary, as well as serving many years more as a National Committeewoman from my state.

For those of you who don't know, the Constitution Party takes a firm "no exceptions" position on abortion. I happen to share that view and worked to pass a resolution barring the national party from providing national support for any candidate who was not 100% pro-life. The resolution was overwhelmingly adopted by the national committee.

For some, that wasn't enough. They wanted a higher level of purity. They wanted the national committee to boot the Nevada Party from affiliation with the national party because the chairman of the Nevada Party held a personal view on abortion that allowed for exceptions in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother.

Those that wanted to get rid of Nevada and it's leadership, put forward a resolution to do so. I voted against the resolution to disaffiliate the Nevada Party. The resolution failed. Those of us who voted against it (the majority) were falsely labeled pro-aborts by those who lost. Most of them left after finally deciding the CP wasn't pure enough.

I will be speaking with someone later today to fact check this statement.

In the meantime I would like to know where the 990's are hiding and why it's taking so long for C4L to get on the same page about this at HQ.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 12:17 PM
Deb, this is by no means a complete list, I know there are other questions that have been around since the inception of the C4L.


1) Did you bring Mike Rothfeld and/or were you instrumental in getting him on board for training at the conferences? I sat in Rothfeld's seminar in MN and in Atlanta, the one in Atlanta was much more confrontational than the one in MN. If you can, please tell me why the C4L feels it is OK for someone who is so obviously anti-third party and is pro war teach their members anything? Is he really the best the C4L could find to teach us?

2) Did you bring John Tate and/or were you instrumental in getting him on the C4L board? There are many who think that John Tate does not fully subscribe to Ron's message, I don't know, maybe you do and can let us know.

3) How did the C4L management get involved with the ad/survey situation in CO and how/why did they think that the ad was a good idea.

4) Why did it take so long for any word from the C4L on the ad/survey and why was Tate's response so off-target?

There are other questions Debbie, but this is a good start.

constituent
02-03-2010, 12:18 PM
Here are the facts LLS would have discovered had she made any attempt to find the truth.

I was a delegate to the founding convention of the US Taxpayers Party (now the Constitution Party), served two terms as the National Secretary, as well as serving many years more as a National Committeewoman from my state.

For those of you who don't know, the Constitution Party takes a firm "no exceptions" position on abortion. I happen to share that view and worked to pass a resolution barring the national party from providing national support for any candidate who was not 100% pro-life. The resolution was overwhelmingly adopted by the national committee.

For some, that wasn't enough. They wanted a higher level of purity. They wanted the national committee to boot the Nevada Party from affiliation with the national party because the chairman of the Nevada Party held a personal view on abortion that allowed for exceptions in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother.

Those that wanted to get rid of Nevada and it's leadership, put forward a resolution to do so. I voted against the resolution to disaffiliate the Nevada Party. The resolution failed. Those of us who voted against it (the majority) were falsely labeled pro-aborts by those who lost. Most of them left after finally deciding the CP wasn't pure enough.

Yea, that kinda s* is lame. Glad that's cleared up though. Thanks for sharing your story. :)

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 12:18 PM
I don't agree with running to the IRS, nor do I agree with making it personal, but I do know that many of the complaints I have seen from LLS have been echoed across the nation. Double standards and inconsistency.



I didn't go running to the IRS willy-nilly to cause trouble. I went to the IRS because Jesse Benton said it was readily available there, I could not find it and it was my only other option, since Debbie Hopper only responded so far as to shift responsibility to someone else. I had no other choice.

Benton needs to get his facts straight.

newbitech
02-03-2010, 12:22 PM
fwiw, the other thing that is obfuscated in the survey results is the fact that Ken Buck DID give a written response to AT LEAST 1 of the questions. I don't believe that answer was published with the survey. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I'd like to know if Ken Buck gave written responses to and of the other 19 questions or if he simply checked off yes and only wrote a response to the one question he didn't answer.

Incidentally, the question that he didn't answer was concerning that of eliminating the IRS.

I put this out there because it is evidence of what I am talking about.

We ask for Ken Bucks answers, and while we get a response and a link to the survey we later find that part of that response is missing (again correct me if I am wrong). The part that is missing is the written part. So NOW we have to go back and say, "thanks for the survey, can we please see ALL OF IT NOW?"

I mean come on.. It's not like we asked for the survey out of disbelief. We asked for the survey because WE WANT A PART in vetting the people that we are slapping OUR logo on.

See what I mean? Have to turn the volume up to get clear answers. Please don't insult me and throw me a bone. Give me the meat!

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 12:29 PM
I will be speaking with someone later today to fact check this statement.

In the meantime I would like to know where the 990's are hiding and why it's taking so long for C4L to get on the same page about this at HQ.

I suggest you go straight to the top. If you'd like to talk to Howard Philips, the Founder of the CP, or Jim Clymer, the Chairman, they are intimately familiar with what happened. I'd be happy to arrange such a call for you.

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 12:30 PM
2nd'ed I have been digging for this info ever since the days of the C4L in FL cutting off the head of the liberty movement down here and forcing us to support a State Coordinator who decided it was better to support incumbent GOP chair Greer, who incidently forced Ron Paul republicans OUT of the party by making us sign a pledge to support ANY who would have an (R) by their name.

I'd also like to know why the 501c4 status was slapped on our local meetup groups. Maybe this would explain why their has been no meetups since sept 09 and why the meetups are essentially DEAD in FL.

So yeah, what's the EIN please.

^^^ Festering wounds...


...

See what I mean? Have to turn the volume up to get clear answers. Please don't insult...

Yep, making people turn up the heat to get answers is a failure of CfL.

Transparency, Accountability, and Grassroots Representation...

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 12:30 PM
Ignore the dodging and fighting, get to the meat of it...

Why don't you post a list of questions LE?

I'm working on a list of questions as we type....

I sent mine a couple of days ago . But, if you'll start a thread, I'll dig back through my email and find any that are still applicable and add them to your list.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 12:32 PM
consider it done

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229633


Let's see a specific list of questions folks!

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 12:33 PM
I suggest you go straight to the top. If you'd like to talk to Howard Philips, the Founder of the CP, or Jim Clymer, the Chairman, they are intimately familiar with what happened. I'd be happy to arrange such a call for you.
I'd rather do my investigation my own way. Is this kinda like, here, ask John Tate about what happened with the Ken Buck ad? :rolleyes:

Cowlesy
02-03-2010, 12:34 PM
I suggest you go straight to the top. If you'd like to talk to Howard Philips, the Founder of the CP, or Jim Clymer, the Chairman, they are intimately familiar with what happened. I'd be happy to arrange such a call for you.

I never hear much from Mr. Phillips anymore, and I wish I did.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 12:34 PM
Benton needs to get his facts straight.

Saving for posterity.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 12:49 PM
It amazes me that Debbie Hopper has been on this forum since before I first logged in at around 7 this morning and with all of the questions and concerns that have been raised here over the last week all she can do is fight with me? Her insistence on trying to discredit me based on a statement I repeated which was found not in just one place on the internet but over and over and over again in various forums and utter disregard for the REAL issue at hand really is telling.

I mean, allll day. She has been here all day and the only recognition of any question raised was to pass the buck off to Tate about the 990's.

constituent
02-03-2010, 12:53 PM
It amazes me that Debbie Hopper has been on this forum since before I first logged in at around 7 this morning and with all of the questions and concerns that have been raised here over the last week all she can do is fight with me? Her insistence on trying to discredit me based on a statement I repeated which was found not in just one place on the internet but over and over and over again in various forums and utter disregard for the REAL issue at hand really is telling.

I mean, allll day. She has been here all day and the only recognition of any question raised was to pass the buck off to Tate about the 990's.

So turn it back around.

You've answered her question, she answered yours, you answered hers. As far as I can tell, it's your turn...

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 12:55 PM
So turn it back around.

You've answered her question, she answered yours, you answered hers. As far as I can tell, it's your turn...

I'm not the only person here asking questions. Shouldn't it be someone else's turn to have some questions answered?

I did, though, ask for who produced the Buck ad. That was ignored.

constituent
02-03-2010, 12:56 PM
I'm not the only person here asking questions. Shouldn't it be someone else's turn to have some questions answered?

oh hell no! ;) :)

surely you've come to the realization by now that you've come to represent the collective rage of CFL members scorned. I say you take up that torch and run with it.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 12:59 PM
oh hell no! ;) :)

surely you've come to the realization by now that you've come to represent the collective rage. I say you take up that torch and run with it.

Yeah, so I can be singlehandedly credited with "destroying the C4L"? :eek:

constituent
02-03-2010, 01:00 PM
Yeah, so I can be singlehandedly credited with "destroying the C4L"? :eek:

there are things in life much worse than super villain status.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 01:02 PM
I never hear much from Mr. Phillips anymore, and I wish I did.

Howard Phillips is a good man and anyone who knows him knows that his commitment to protecting the life of unborn babies is steadfast and unwavering.

Howard voted against the resolution to disaffiliate NV and was also labeled a pro abort...and worse.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 01:03 PM
Howard Phillips is a good man and anyone who knows him knows that his commitment to protecting the life of unborn babies is steadfast and unwavering.

Howard voted against the resolution to disaffiliate NV and was also labeled a pro abort...and worse.

So how about that ad? Who produced it?

newbitech
02-03-2010, 01:04 PM
I'm not the only person here asking questions. Shouldn't it be someone else's turn to have some questions answered?

I don't know Debbie Hopper is the right person to ask this question to, but..

Mrs. Hopper,

Can you tell me who else is responsible for the Ken Buck ad mistake? Since Mr. Benton said that C4L is only partially responsible, I'd like to know who else that C4L believe should shoulder the responsibility for this mistake?

And a follow up, because I don't think their was any other mistake for this particular incident other than the horrible decision to take this tactic, IF indeed Mr. Benton was speaking about some other mistake besides the ad, what mistake was that, and why is it a mistake, and again who is responsible for that mistake and probably most importantly HOW can I make sure those mistakes NEVER happens again (whatever the mistakes were)?

Thanks Debbie for coming here to defend yourself and interacting with the grassroots. I am sorry that you did have to defend yourself in this way, I have largely ignored the personal things going on because I am more interested in getting to the subject at hand. I am also sorry that it takes you having to defend yourself to get some leadership visibility among the grassroots, and while I am thinking about, do C4L staff consider themselves to be a part of the grassroots too?

Thanks again. I don't know that you have anything else better to do with your time than working with the grassroots to flatten out the organizational pyramid a bit.

Cowlesy
02-03-2010, 01:06 PM
Howard Phillips is a good man and anyone who knows him knows that his commitment to protecting the life of unborn babies is steadfast and unwavering.

Howard voted against the resolution to disaffiliate NV and was also labeled a pro abort...and worse.

Yep, he's one of my favorite conservatives that few ever hear about. I hope he's doing well.

constituent
02-03-2010, 01:12 PM
So how about that ad? Who produced it?

I understand that there is a concern over this issue. Perhaps, LLS, it would be helpful if you outlined for everyone what that concern might be, or at least as you see it so far. If you get a chance.

Many thanks. :)

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 01:13 PM
Howard Phillips is a good man and anyone who knows him knows that his commitment to protecting the life of unborn babies is steadfast and unwavering.

Howard voted against the resolution to disaffiliate NV and was also labeled a pro abort...and worse.

So let me get this straight.

There are links one can find with a basic google search to sites where people involved with the CP disaffiliation discuss their view of the behavior of various people involved, those links were added at RPFs so members could read the comments for themselves (because your name is mentioned), you are ticked off because the statements at those links from people who were involved don't reflect kindly on your behavior, and you think calling someone who agrees with your position is "verification?" Laughable, but good try.

Moving on.


Did you or did you not verify whether these statements were true before you posted them as fact?

Debbie - did CFL or did CFL not verify whether Ken Buck's survey responses were true before CFL ran the ad as fact?

angelatc
02-03-2010, 01:29 PM
I didn't go running to the IRS willy-nilly to cause trouble. I went to the IRS because Jesse Benton said it was readily available there, I could not find it and it was my only other option, since Debbie Hopper only responded so far as to shift responsibility to someone else. I had no other choice.

Benton needs to get his facts straight.

It looks to me like the CFL is required to make copies available to anybody who asks for them. http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=139231,00.html

I suspect that a letter to the Lake Jackson address should suffice as a request.

I am not surprised to find out they're incorporated there. That's where Ron's daughter lives, and she keeps the books for all his organizations, I believe.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 01:34 PM
So let me get this straight.

There are links one can find with a basic google search to sites where people involved with the CP disaffiliation discuss their view of the behavior of various people involved, those links were added at RPFs so members could read the comments for themselves (because your name is mentioned), you are ticked off because the statements at those links from people who were involved don't reflect kindly on your behavior, and you think calling someone who agrees with your position is "verification?" Laughable, but good try.

Moving on.

No, it was the way you took said information and started making innuendos with it; when you had done absolutely zilch in the way of confirming it.

Why are you afraid to talk to the Chairman of the Constitution Party, or even its Founder? Do you not believe they would know the facts of what you're claiming, or is it because you know, once you do, that your antics will be displayed for all to see.

angelatc
02-03-2010, 01:42 PM
I understand that there is a concern over this issue. Perhaps, LLS, it would be helpful if you outlined for everyone what that concern might be, or at least as you see it so far. If you get a chance.

Many thanks. :)

I want to point out that LLS isn't the only person with that concern. I have an accounting background, and the whole scenario set off my radar too.

A select few brand new CFL members manage all banded together and quietly raised more than a quarter of a million dollars to make a TV ad and buy ad time in support of a survey (more specifically a specific candidate's response to the survey) that none of the older members or state leadership had even heard about?

How were they tied in with National? Why did they funnel the money through an organization that they have practically no relationship with?

Why was it so darned exciting to get a response to an otherwise mundane survey?

Could they be using the CFL to launder campaign money, skirting the FEC rules? The "it's not an endorsement, dammit!" ad sure seemed to indicate they weren't above playing close to that line.

I don't expect them to tell us where the money came from, but it doesn't pass the smell test from where I sit.

I've been involved with allegations of financial misdoings several times in my life. Not every accusation ends up being true, but I've never seen the guilty confess, even with a table full of evidence spread out in front of them . It was always just a matter of us "not understanding."

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 01:50 PM
I want to point out that LLS isn't the only person with that concern. I have an accounting background, and the whole scenario set off my radar too.

A select few brand new CFL members manage all banded together and quietly raised more than a quarter of a million dollars to make a TV ad and buy ad time in support of a survey (more specifically a specific candidate's response to the survey) that none of the older members or state leadership had even heard about?

How were they tied in with National? Why did they funnel the money through an organization that they have practically no relationship with?

Why was it so darned exciting to get a response to an otherwise mundane survey?

Could they be using the CFL to launder campaign money, skirting the FEC rules? The "it's not an endorsement, dammit!" ad sure seemed to indicate they weren't above playing close to that line.

I don't expect them to tell us where the money came from, but it doesn't pass the smell test from where I sit.

I've been involved with allegations of financial misdoings several times in my life. Not every accusation ends up being true, but I've never seen the guilty confess, even with a table full of evidence spread out in front of them . It was always just a matter of us "not understanding."

FWIW, I agree with you Angie, that those are totally legitimate questions. Although personally, the fact that they may have walked very closely to the FEC regs, is not an issue with me. I hate the frickin' FEC regs. :p

Rancher has a thread going where questions are being compiled. Want to add this there?

rancher89
02-03-2010, 01:53 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229633

Bruehound
02-03-2010, 01:55 PM
Could they be using the CFL to launder campaign money, skirting the FEC rules? The "it's not an endorsement, dammit!" ad sure seemed to indicate they weren't above playing close to that line.

This tactic is very common in the poltical arena and not unusual at all. It is my opinion that the FEC reg's deserve all "skirting" they get. Some may call this avoidance of regulation a "loophole", I prefer to call all loopholes "freedom leaks".

Having said all that, I am by no means supportive of the whole Ken Buck affair and how it was handled. But then again, I have never been affiliated with CFL by my own choice.

angelatc
02-03-2010, 02:06 PM
I copied and pasted it there. Thanks for the link, but they won't ever answer it.

constituent
02-03-2010, 02:08 PM
I copied and pasted it there. Thanks for the link, but they won't ever answer it.

But you asked. Sometimes that's all you can do... :)

newbitech
02-03-2010, 02:13 PM
I want to point out that LLS isn't the only person with that concern. I have an accounting background, and the whole scenario set off my radar too.

A select few brand new CFL members manage all banded together and quietly raised more than a quarter of a million dollars to make a TV ad and buy ad time in support of a survey (more specifically a specific candidate's response to the survey) that none of the older members or state leadership had even heard about?

How were they tied in with National? Why did they funnel the money through an organization that they have practically no relationship with?

Why was it so darned exciting to get a response to an otherwise mundane survey?

Could they be using the CFL to launder campaign money, skirting the FEC rules? The "it's not an endorsement, dammit!" ad sure seemed to indicate they weren't above playing close to that line.

I don't expect them to tell us where the money came from, but it doesn't pass the smell test from where I sit.

I've been involved with allegations of financial misdoings several times in my life. Not every accusation ends up being true, but I've never seen the guilty confess, even with a table full of evidence spread out in front of them . It was always just a matter of us "not understanding."


I have been investigating the source of the donations as well. Here is a recent article excerpt that I haven't "fact checked" yet, but it is along the lines of what I already suspected. I imagine the key difference here is discerning whether or not these "special donors" will be revealed via IRS disclosure laws or FEC electioneering laws.



Disclaimer and Disclosure Requirements Upheld
While freeing corporations and unions to engage in political speech, the Court in Citizens United left intact several key provisions of campaign finance law pertaining to disclosure of those making independent expenditures. Noting that, “[t]he First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way,” the Court in Citizens United upheld two of the McCain-Feingold law’s key disclaimer requirements, both for “electioneering communications,” which are television and radio advertisements that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate in the period 30 days prior to a primary election or 60 days prior to a general election. The first requirement upheld requires that such advertisements include the name and address (physical or web) of the responsible entity (the so-called “stand by your ad” requirement).


The second requirement upheld is that an individual or entity spending more than $10,000 in a calendar year on such electioneering communications must file disclosure reports with the FEC, which identify the amount of the expenditures, as well as the sponsoring entity, the election the expenditures are directed at, and the name of certain donors who contributed $1,000 or more toward the electioneering communications. FEC Regulations also compel similar disclosure for independent expenditures. For entities such as 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) organizations that are provided donor confidentiality under IRS Regulations, we recommend careful analysis of how such competing FEC and IRS provisions interact.



So clearly there is a balancing act going on here in which under one scenario, the FEC scenario call it, the people that came up with this large chunk of change will have to disclose their electioneering communication.

The other scenario, the IRS scenario, some donor confidentiality can be expected. Whether or not that covers the $1,000-$10,000 individual donation or expenditure amount, i am not sure.

Again, the key question here is considering the ad was in fact an endorsement for Ken Buck's election, are we going to find out who the special donors were?

Either through the IRS, FEC, or C4L. Well we know C4L isn't going to disclose Benton has said as much. However, and I hate to leverage the IRS or FEC against our own organization, but these donors are going to be required to disclose.

One of the things that Benton said in this interview is that he wanted to teach local and grassroots how to identify these "special donors". Well, that is what the questions about the IRS and FEC are doing. Trying to identify these donors.

He could start by telling us how these particular donors were identified. No he doesn't have to tell us their names or any identifying information. He does say that the "special donors" approached the C4L. Ok, did they say why? Was it because of the survey? Is that what C4L was told by the donors?

We do know that according to Benton, the donors wanted to run "an aggressive ad". Hmm.. That sounds like code words for an endorsement ad. If the mistake was running the ad, then the mistake was also identifying the special donors. This doesn't surprise me because Benton also admits that another mistake was made in not notifying the grassroots of this idea to identify special donors.

He pretty much tells us that in order to have any significance in being influential, then C4L has to get money. While I don't disagree, I find this to be short sited, as the often cited success of C4L in that of HR 1207 gaining wide spread attention and support, and even passage in a larger bill, this success didn't come from special interest, secret, and moneyed donors.

Clearly the success of C4L comes on the heals of the Ron Paul revolution where it was the spontaneous acts of 1000's of individuals finally seeing the problems that Ron Paul has been talking about for 30 years. This wasn't because of an advertisement or because of money and political influence. This is because our country is coming apart at the seems.

So, there is a significant reason to dig into the financing of this ad. Why is it so important to develop a strategy that abandons what has been successful for the purpose of finding money?

the r3volution and the Ron Paul campaign was one of the most successful campaigns EVER in terms of pound for pound dollars spent to results. This efficiency is one of the major reasons why Ron Paul's ideology stood out so much as being right. If Ron Paul becomes president and runs this country like he runs his campaign, THEN WE CAN eliminate Income taxes, social security, and WARS.

So, what is so great about the Benton strategy of going after special interest money? Isn't that the kind of bullshit that we are dealing with already? Why the departure from what until this point has seemed to work in growing this movement? Transparency, Accountability, Responsibility and yes connecting with the grassroots on an unprecedented level?

What or better yet WHOSE idea is so important that they can be sold for 350k? Did someone forget that it was NOT special interest that raked in 6.3 million IN A SINGLE DAY? Come on now, this question about money is arguably at the root of the mistakes and SHOULD NOT be ignored.

We don't need your stinking money, should have been the answer.

rancher89
02-03-2010, 02:14 PM
I copied and pasted it there. Thanks for the link, but they won't ever answer it.

I intend to post the list to the C4L forum and to send it as often as I have to to the inboxes of everyone on the board.

Keep it friendly and to the point, I just want answers.

angelatc
02-03-2010, 02:15 PM
This tactic is very common in the poltical arena and not unusual at all. It is my opinion that the FEC reg's deserve all "skirting" they get. Some may call this avoidance of regulation a "loophole", I prefer to call all loopholes "freedom leaks".

Having said all that, I am by no means supportive of the whole Ken Buck affair and how it was handled. But then again, I have never been affiliated with CFL by my own choice.

I'm sure we'd be fine with it if it was done internally, or in support of a questionnaire that a liberty candidate returned.

But the CFL made an end run around the state leadership, the grassroots, and apparently their founders anti-war ethic in addition to circumventing the FEC regulations.

Additionally, they've done pretty much nothing to establish any level of trust in the rank and file. So far, the members seem to be viewed primarily as ATM machines who occasionally can gather signatures.

angelatc
02-03-2010, 02:34 PM
So, there is a significant reason to dig into the financing of this ad. Why is it so important to develop a strategy that abandons what has been successful for the purpose of finding money?

I don't think they've abandoned their former strategy - I think they've just expanded on it. Like I said, if this had been done on behalf of a liberty candidate, we'd likely be cheering and making billionaire jokes.

But it didn't, and that has created some justifiable concern about the direction "our" organization is taking as well as who is actually driving us off the cliff.

pacelli
02-03-2010, 02:39 PM
This entire debate seems to turning into a giant strawman. More deflection from the real issues to make it about personal attacks. I have to go to an event and then knock on some doors. Will log back in in the car. I am not happy that this is throwing me off my game.

Take a deep breath, fagetta 'bout it, paisan. Eat some pasta and recharge. Burn away the strawman arguments & issues (figuratively speaking, of course), and focus on the things that are important for you right now. Reflect on what you want to know that you still don't know. Perhaps more importantly, reflect on what actions (if any) that you want. I know your heart is in the right place, and always has been. You aren't letting anyone down. Don't let the C4L's mistakes distract you from your mission.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 02:49 PM
Hey, Newbie.

As I said when I came here this morning, John, Ronnie Paul, Jesse, and Dr. Paul have all addressed the Colorado ad. They are the ones with the authority to speak to this issue. I am not.

As far as what Jesse meant, obviously I can't speak for him, but I don't really think he meant anything by it, and certainly not what I've heard suggested on some threads here.

If you've ever done an interview before, you know it can be more than a little nerve wracking. Particularly when you're already under fire. You never say everything you want to say in the way you want to say it. But I can tell you for sure, he didn't do the interview to point his finger at anybody but us. He admitted we made mistakes, apologized for them, and said we would take steps to make sure there isn't a repeat performance. Those steps are being put in place.

As to your other question, sure the C4L staff sees themselves as part of the grassroots, just as much as you do. They are every bit as committed to restoring constitutionally limited government, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy as the most avid patriot on this forum.

newbitech
02-03-2010, 02:53 PM
I don't think they've abandoned their former strategy - I think they've just expanded on it. Like I said, if this had been done on behalf of a liberty candidate, we'd likely be cheering and making billionaire jokes.

But it didn't, and that has created some justifiable concern about the direction "our" organization is taking as well as who is actually driving us off the cliff.

I guess, why mess with success? I mean I get that the C4L needs money. But that is not how the audit the fed bill got to where its at.

So I understand there is a difference between getting a candidate into office and holding those already in office accountable to principles. Getting candidates into office takes money, that can come from millions donating 10 bucks or it can come from 10's donating a million bucks.

But holding those in office accountable requires millions demanding accountability. The politician that would ignore the millions demanding accountability in favor of the 10's for the sake of the money deserve to be sent home to find a productive job. There is no two ways about it.

Holding pols accountable IMO takes truth which is invaluable. Taking money over truth is a sign of where your values are.

I agree, if this was someone stepping up to pay for Rand Paul ads or Medina ads, then the grassroots would be cheering. That is because we know we are going to be getting someone that will work from the inside FOR US and NOT for the money. Ken Buck? Not so much.

So my question again comes back to, what idea is so great that it can be sold for 350k? Well, I think to answer that question, we really have to know whose idea it was. That way we can ask them. Of course, it was Ken Buck supporters. Of course they think that Ken Buck is the best candidate to represent them. He may be 100% truthful about being 95% pro liberty. I don't know. Its the other 5% that bothers me. Besides that, I took me all of 2 minutes to find out that Ken Buck has violated the 4th amendment on numerous occasions during his time as a prosecutor.

I wonder if those people coming up with this money is the police benevolent organization who know that Ken Buck will advocate violating the 4th amendment thus giving them greater power to break into people's home and ask for papers.

I know sounds totally conspiratorial or whatever, but as a person who has basically had his chance of a "normal" life ruined by standing up against cops who violate the 4th, I want to know what asshole thinks its cool to give a 4th amendment violator MORE power to usurp my right to be secure in my person and effects.

I suspect its the cops in CO as they would stand to gain the most benefit of a loosening of this vital restriction on the way they do business. Just my opinion, and if that is indeed the case, then I want C4L to take the money that I have donated to the Revolution and give it right back to that special donor and tell them that John in FL said thanks but, no thanks, and don't come back.

newbitech
02-03-2010, 03:04 PM
Hey, Newbie.

As I said when I came here this morning, John, Ronnie Paul, Jesse, and Dr. Paul have all addressed the Colorado ad. They are the ones with the authority to speak to this issue. I am not.

As far as what Jesse meant, obviously I can't speak for him, but I don't really think he meant anything by it, and certainly not what I've heard suggested on some threads here.

If you've ever done an interview before, you know it can be more than a little nerve wracking. Particularly when you're already under fire. You never say everything you want to say in the way you want to say it. But I can tell you for sure, he didn't do the interview to point his finger at anybody but us. He admitted we made mistakes, apologized for them, and said we would take steps to make sure there isn't a repeat performance. Those steps are being put in place.

As to your other question, sure the C4L staff sees themselves as part of the grassroots, just as much as you do. They are every bit as committed to restoring constitutionally limited government, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy as the most avid patriot on this forum.

alright then. I appreciate your answer. I posted some questions in the questions for C4L thread. Hopefully we can get some authoritative answers to those questions.

I haven't done interviews like that no, but I would probably be a little nervous too. It probably takes years of experience that I don't have to address what probably seemed like a mob of crazies ready to rip apart everything he was going to say.

Am I satisfied with the words? To be honest, I look at actions more than anything. We can pick apart words all day long, but in the end, what is going to matter is the actions that take place.

So I have been encouraged to voice some of my lingering concerns, and I have been reluctant to do so because I never really saw the C4L as grassroots. But it is good to know that you do consider yourself grassroots. I always understood from back in the campaign days that the campaign had to stay away from grassroots on certain things. there was some kind of forced separation do to laws that didn't seem natural.

Once the campaign was over, I never really saw the bridge get built between that unnatural divide. I wish that would change, because so many of us would like to participate in politics, but outside of donating money and making phone calls and showing up at rallies, what else can be done?

I think I am going to reach out more for help as was suggested to me. I am a little reluctant because I really don't have time to be 100% committed and I hate to do things half assed. But, I am going to try to give everyone a chance for the sake of my local issues.

Thanks for responding, and please encourage the directors to allow the grassroots to put 1 (just one) person on the board of directors who is nominated and elected to represent the grassroots.

angelatc
02-03-2010, 03:07 PM
I guess, why mess with success? I mean I get that the C4L needs money. But that is not how the audit the fed bill got to where its at.


Because if an organization isn't growing, it's dying.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 03:15 PM
Hey, Newbie.

As I said when I came here this morning, John, Ronnie Paul, Jesse, and Dr. Paul have all addressed the Colorado ad. They are the ones with the authority to speak to this issue. I am not.

As far as what Jesse meant, obviously I can't speak for him, but I don't really think he meant anything by it, and certainly not what I've heard suggested on some threads here.

If you've ever done an interview before, you know it can be more than a little nerve wracking. Particularly when you're already under fire. You never say everything you want to say in the way you want to say it. But I can tell you for sure, he didn't do the interview to point his finger at anybody but us. He admitted we made mistakes, apologized for them, and said we would take steps to make sure there isn't a repeat performance. Those steps are being put in place.

As to your other question, sure the C4L staff sees themselves as part of the grassroots, just as much as you do. They are every bit as committed to restoring constitutionally limited government, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy as the most avid patriot on this forum.That's not what you told me about Michael Rothfeld.You said he does not agree with the C4L principle of a non-interventionist foreign policy. You said he is "an old cold warrior." You said that it doesn't matter if he agrees with us on foreign policy because he is not the policy person and went so far as to try to illustrate your point by asking me if I feel I need to agree about everything my mechanic believes in for him to be able to fix my car.


alright then. I appreciate your answer. I posted some questions in the questions for C4L thread. Hopefully we can get some authoritative answers to those questions.

I haven't done interviews like that no, but I would probably be a little nervous too. It probably takes years of experience that I don't have to address what probably seemed like a mob of crazies ready to rip apart everything he was going to say.

Am I satisfied with the words? To be honest, I look at actions more than anything. We can pick apart words all day long, but in the end, what is going to matter is the actions that take place. Jesse Benton's job is to give interviews. His words, phrasing and expression were half-hearted attempts to appease. His derisve snicker when asked the question (from Michael Maresco) about having a grassroots member on the board before saying "no" was extremely insulting.


So I have been encouraged to voice some of my lingering concerns, and I have been reluctant to do so because I never really saw the C4L as grassroots. But it is good to know that you do consider yourself grassroots. I always understood from back in the campaign days that the campaign had to stay away from grassroots on certain things. there was some kind of forced separation do to laws that didn't seem natural.

Once the campaign was over, I never really saw the bridge get built between that unnatural divide. I wish that would change, because so many of us would like to participate in politics, but outside of donating money and making phone calls and showing up at rallies, what else can be done?

I think I am going to reach out more for help as was suggested to me. I am a little reluctant because I really don't have time to be 100% committed and I hate to do things half assed. But, I am going to try to give everyone a chance for the sake of my local issues.

Thanks for responding, and please encourage the directors to allow the grassroots to put 1 (just one) person on the board of directors who is nominated and elected to represent the grassroots.
You're making a lot of good points. I hope they are taken to heart.

newbitech
02-03-2010, 03:15 PM
Because if an organization isn't growing, it's dying.

hmmm,, I didn't really see C4L as dying on the national level. Sure on the FL level it was pretty much DOA.

But in some parts was and is growing.

So another good question, what does the C4L directors use as a model of success?

Is it getting favorable legislation passed or at least accepted, for instance hr1207?

Is it getting candidates elected to office, which is yet to be decided like Rand, Medina, Kokesh, Schiff, Bradley?

So how does the organization determine growth? What is the metric?

Is it monetary donations? The numbers of people signed up on the website (inactive for months tho they may be)?



I didn't see the C4L dying at all. Sure, I saw the cancer, but I ignored it because I was asked to ignore it. I thought it was being taken care of. And I thought that in the mean time, the working parts were being replicated.

Hopefully, what happened here is part of the healing process, and not a wound to add insult to injury. I will continue to wait and see. What else can I do?

constituent
02-03-2010, 03:24 PM
Hopefully, what happened here is part of the healing process, and not a wound to add insult to injury. I will continue to wait and see. What else can I do?

Not to say that you should soil your pants, but you could.

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 03:26 PM
No, they don't involve you in any way other than your position in CfL. Basically it is a death by a thousand cuts kinda situation. It is pervasive throughout the movement. An unintended consequence of my activism is I REALLY know the grassroots. I have been saying "give CfL time" for years, and that is done until I see some acceptable change.

As I said, Michael, if you want to talk, please do give me a call.

randolphfuller
02-03-2010, 03:26 PM
ThePhrase "mistake were made", is supposed to make everything go away and after it is uttered no more questions can be asked? This reminds me of Michael Brown during Katrina. When he was being interrogated by a Senate committee he shouted"What do you want from me Senator? I have said I made a lot of mistakes", The "mistakes" he is talking about was spending a day and a half sending emails about what a sharp and meticulous dresser he was. He threw in the information that he bought all his clothes a t Northrops.
This was how he was occupying his time when hundreds were drowning and thousands homeless. There is one BIG difference. They got rid of Michael Brown.

LittleLightShining
02-03-2010, 03:27 PM
As I said, Michael, if you want to talk, please do give me a call.

Why can't you have a transparent conversation here?

newbitech
02-03-2010, 03:38 PM
Not to say that you should soil your pants, but you could.


point of order! No the fact is I could not as I am not wearing any pants!:eek:

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 03:39 PM
Are you denying that you differed from the CP platform plank on abortion and pushed pro-choice candidates using the excuse that the state said candidate was running in had rules contrary to the plank? Are you denying that your position on this issue caused a major schism in the CP?

Yes, LLS, I am. The way I voted had nothing to do with the CP platform, or frankly, even with abortion. It had everything to do with the Constitution and Bylaws of the national party and the legitimate authority the national committee could exercise over independent state party organizations.

MsDoodahs
02-03-2010, 03:55 PM
Yes, LLS, I am. The way I voted had nothing to do with the CP platform, or frankly, even with abortion. It had everything to do with the Constitution and Bylaws of the national party and the legitimate authority the national committee could exercise over independent state party organizations.

1. Do others view the situation differently from yourself?

2. Do those who view the situation differently from yourself have the right to their point of view?

3. Do they have the right to expresss their view of the situation?

4. Do they have the right to express their views on the internet, at a forum that is private property, and not subject to your control?

5. Does any individual have the right to read, at the private property not subject to your control, the views expressed on the internet by those who view that particular situation differently from yourself?

ronpaulhawaii
02-03-2010, 04:03 PM
... I always understood from back in the campaign days that the campaign had to stay away from grassroots on certain things....

From my view, that excuse was overplayed and became a crutch. And is another festering wound that I have heard complaints of nationwide. Unresponsiveness and unsatisfactory answers...


As I said, Michael, if you want to talk, please do give me a call.

Would have been better had I not heard the "Holiday Greeting" last week, then non-answers from those I did speak to, and finally no answer from Tate on Fri morn as the moment of crisis approached. You guys screwed up so friggin badly, and have the gall to lecture us and try to use guilt trips to calm the stormy seas. :mad:

How about an unconditional public apology to everyone you have hurt???

Sheesh...

I don't know what you could say to me on the phone that would help. I really don't have a lot of questions, (am too busy) and from the replies I have seen/heard from RP, RPjr, JB, & JT. I don't see how it would be possible for you to address my anger. Whether anyone likes it or not. I ended up having to channel the collective angst of the r3VOLution (due to CfL turning off their phones) and I'm sure I'm not the only one thrown off my game due to CfL's boneheaded mistakes.

:mad:

(And having your apologists on here insulting people with valid concerns is not helping relieve my anger... In fact, I am getting increasingly angry.)

Debbie Hopper
02-03-2010, 04:43 PM
1) Did you bring Mike Rothfeld and/or were you instrumental in getting him on board for training at the conferences? I sat in Rothfeld's seminar in MN and in Atlanta, the one in Atlanta was much more confrontational than the one in MN. If you can, please tell me why the C4L feels it is OK for someone who is so obviously anti-third party and is pro war teach their members anything? Is he really the best the C4L could find to teach us?

2) Did you bring John Tate and/or were you instrumental in getting him on the C4L board? There are many who think that John Tate does not fully subscribe to Ron's message, I don't know, maybe you do and can let us know.


I can certainly answer some of your questions, not all of them. As I've stated several times on this thread, John, Ronnie, Jesse and Dr. Paul have all addressed CO. I have no authority to speak to that issue or add to what they've said.

Regarding Mike Rothfeld, let me clarify my "history" with Mike. When I was National Secretary for the CP, we brought the Leadership Institute in to do some campaign training at a national committee meeting in Austin. LI sent two trainers, neither of which I knew. One of them was Mike Rothfeld. His training was quite excellent, although like you, I strongly objected to his view on third parties.

Although I certainly used some of things I learned from Mike in the years since and found them valuable, I never saw or spoke with him again until the summer we were preparing for the Rally for the Republic. And even then, I didn't know it was him.

We knew we wanted to do a solid training program that focused on a pain/pleasure model rather than an access based model. I asked around for suggestions and Mike was strongly recommended by a several people, including John Tate, who at that time wasn't even himself on staff with the C4L.

I read Mike's article on the real nature of politics, check out the material he covered in his seminars, talked to him, talked to a number of people who had been through his training, asked him if he was interested and he agreed.

It wasn't until we got to MN and I saw him face to face that I realized who he was.

I thought I could finish this before I had to leave to pick up one of my grandkids, but I've run out of time.

I'd be happy to answer the rest when I get back later this evening if you want me to.

****MOD NOTE - DO NOT USE MEMBERS REAL NAMES HERE. USE THEIR RON PAUL FORUMS HANDLE.*****

rancher89
02-03-2010, 04:58 PM
I can certainly answer some of your questions, not all of them. As I've stated several times on this thread, John, Ronnie, Jesse and Dr. Paul have all addressed CO. I have no authority to speak to that issue or add to what they've said.

Regarding Mike Rothfeld, let me clarify my "history" with Mike. When I was National Secretary for the CP, we brought the Leadership Institute in to do some campaign training at a national committee meeting in Austin. LI sent two trainers, neither of which I knew. One of them was Mike Rothfeld. His training was quite excellent, although like you, I strongly objected to his view on third parties.

Although I certainly used some of things I learned from Mike in the years since and found them valuable, I never saw or spoke with him again until the summer we were preparing for the Rally for the Republic. And even then, I didn't know it was him.

We knew we wanted to do a solid training program that focused on a pain/pleasure module rather than an access based model. I asked around for suggestions and Mike was strongly recommended by a several people, including John Tate, who at that time wasn't even himself on staff with the C4L.

I read Mike's article on the real nature of politics, check out the material he covered in his seminars, talked to him, talked to a number of people who had been through his training, asked him if he was interested and he agreed.

It wasn't until we got to MN and I saw him face to face that I realized who he was.

I thought I could finish this before I had to leave to pick up one of my grandkids, but I've run out of time.

I'd be happy to answer the rest when I get back later this evening if you want me to.


****MOD NOTE - DO NOT USE MEMBERS REAL NAMES HERE. USE THEIR RON PAUL FORUMS HANDLE.*****


Thanks Deb, I'd like that. Mods, it's ok, I've been thinking about changing my handle anyway. I'm not stealth anymore and I'm pretty sure most everyone knows who I am. I understand why the "use username" rule is there. Deb and I have talked before away from the forum and I can understand reverting to the normal way of addressing me. I've done it when posting to or about Gunny from time to time. :o

RedWhiteBlue
02-04-2010, 02:31 AM
From the interview:

Kurt Wallace - What, if anything, has Ron Paul said about this issue?

Jesse Benton: He’s been upset about it, but the thing he’s been most upset about has been the viciousness of people on the internet....

John Tate is a friend of his. John Tate is a real decent person. And I’m his grandson-in-law and when he sees our names drug through the mud and people just being over-the-top vicious, people threatening to call the Federal Election Commission on us, and pushing investigations on us, and this and that, he just kind of scratches his head and just wonders what these people are thinking. It’s personally wounding to him, and really what he just wants is everybody to calm down, take a deep breath, listen to the facts, and let’s get through this and get back to working on things that are really important.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-04-2010, 06:06 AM
From the interview:

Kurt Wallace - What, if anything, has Ron Paul said about this issue?

Jesse Benton: He’s been upset about it, but the thing he’s been most upset about has been the viciousness of people on the internet....

John Tate is a friend of his. John Tate is a real decent person. And I’m his grandson-in-law and when he sees our names drug through the mud and people just being over-the-top vicious, people threatening to call the Federal Election Commission on us, and pushing investigations on us, and this and that, he just kind of scratches his head and just wonders what these people are thinking. It’s personally wounding to him, and really what he just wants is everybody to calm down, take a deep breath, listen to the facts, and let’s get through this and get back to working on things that are really important.

This comment reflects a disconnect with grass roots supporters and projects. It reflects a naivety of any grass roots project or person that has asked for money and has mismanaged it. It reflects a naivety of many threads buried in the vent forum. While some of the comments have been personal the general discontent is not personal. It is professional. Many people are here because they have had poor representation in government for years.

The old "it won't happen again, lets get back to things that are important, we know what we are doing" is not going to address this:

Transparency, Accountability, Grassroots Representation

But this is the underlying problem:

Ownership

Since you can't really have first three without the latter. As grass roots supporters, political outsiders, and everyday people we are either partners in the liberty pursuit or we aren't. We have trusted Ron Paul and people are simply demanding the same level of respect.

constituent
02-04-2010, 07:30 AM
Jesse Benton: He’s been upset about it, but the thing he’s been most upset about has been the viciousness of people on the internet....

John Tate is a friend of his. John Tate is a real decent person. And I’m his grandson-in-law and when he sees our names drug through the mud and people just being over-the-top vicious, people threatening to call the Federal Election Commission on us, and pushing investigations on us, and this and that, he just kind of scratches his head and just wonders what these people are thinking. It’s personally wounding to him, and really what he just wants is everybody to calm down, take a deep breath, listen to the facts, and let’s get through this and get back to working on things that are really important.

This post is just pitiful, and really it almost borders on vile.

Reminds me of that country tune from the 90's, "you say it best, when you say nothing at all."

It's nothing personal, and I hope that you understand, but I certainly thought by now that you'd have realized deflection will get you nowhere with this crowd.

Bite the bullet, take your licks and move on. It happens to the best of us.

MsDoodahs
02-04-2010, 08:01 AM
From the interview:

Kurt Wallace - What, if anything, has Ron Paul said about this issue?

Jesse Benton: He’s been upset about it, but the thing he’s been most upset about has been the viciousness of people on the internet....

John Tate is a friend of his. John Tate is a real decent person. And I’m his grandson-in-law and when he sees our names drug through the mud and people just being over-the-top vicious, people threatening to call the Federal Election Commission on us, and pushing investigations on us, and this and that, he just kind of scratches his head and just wonders what these people are thinking. It’s personally wounding to him, and really what he just wants is everybody to calm down, take a deep breath, listen to the facts, and let’s get through this and get back to working on things that are really important.

With all due respect, if - upon being told that the grassroots is extremely upset - Dr. Paul's reaction is scratching his head and wondering what the grassroots is thinking?

THEN DR. Paul is not being told the truth as to WHY the grassroots are reacting this way.

Dr. Paul needs to connect with the grassroots personally - not through handlers - so that he knows and understands what we are thinking. A phone call with Nystrom is not sufficient. Ron could easily be provided a list of our concerns so that he understands why the grassroots is angry - but doing so would land CFL staff in hot water, so I see no reason to anticpate such a thing will happen - even if CFL makes the promise.

CFL has a poor record of keeping promises to the grassroots. It is not the grassroots fault that a promise from CFL is considered by many to be utterly worthless at this point. I wonder if Dr. Paul has any inkling that this is the case...

Until that happens, Dr. Paul will continue to be (imo intentionally) disconnected from the grassroots by those who now appear to be playing CYA within CFL.

Until that happens, Dr. Paul will have no understanding of why some have lost respect for CFL.

Spare me the "poor Ron, he wants you to stop being a meanie" routine. I am not buying that. More CYA crap from CFL staff.

And NO, Benton - you can't even trot Ron out and have him tell us to stop being mean.

WE ARE NOT BEING MEAN. WE HAVE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. CFL CONTINUES TO IGNORE THEM.

Using the "poor old Ron" routine to try and silence those questions is BS and we all know it.

To the reader, answer this question:

Let's say Dr. Paul had been kept abreast of the legitimate grassroots concerns and questions with respect to CFL from its inception.

Which response from Dr. Paul himself do YOU believe is more likely:

a. "Answer their questions."

b. "Don't answer the questions, tell them they're hurting my feelings, and maybe that will shut them up."

LittleLightShining
02-04-2010, 08:20 AM
With all due respect, if - upon being told that the grassroots is extremely upset - Dr. Paul's reaction is scratching his head and wondering what the grassroots is thinking?

THEN DR. Paul is not being told the truth as to WHY the grassroots are reacting this way.

Dr. Paul needs to connect with the grassroots personally - not through handlers - so that he knows and understands what we are thinking. A phone call with Nystrom is not sufficient. Ron could easily be provided a list of our concerns so that he understands why the grassroots is angry - but doing so would land CFL staff in hot water, so I see no reason to anticpate such a thing will happen - even if CFL makes the promise.

CFL has a poor record of keeping promises to the grassroots. It is not the grassroots fault that a promise from CFL is considered by many to be utterly worthless at this point. I wonder if Dr. Paul has any inkling that this is the case...

Until that happens, Dr. Paul will continue to be (imo intentionally) disconnected from the grassroots by those who now appear to be playing CYA within CFL. I think I know what you mean-- the intention is not Ron's but the handlers. Right?


Until that happens, Dr. Paul will have no understanding of why some have lost respect for CFL.

Spare me the "poor Ron, he wants you to stop being a meanie" routine. I am not buying that. More CYA crap from CFL staff.

And NO, Benton - you can't even trot Ron out and have him tell us to stop being mean.

WE ARE NOT BEING MEAN. WE HAVE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. CFL CONTINUES TO IGNORE THEM.

Using the "poor old Ron" routine to try and silence those questions is BS and we all know it.

To the reader, answer this question:

Let's say Dr. Paul had been kept abreast of the legitimate grassroots concerns and questions with respect to CFL from its inception.

Which response from Dr. Paul himself do YOU believe is more likely:

a. "Answer their questions."

b. "Don't answer the questions, tell them they're hurting my feelings, and maybe that will shut them up."I'd bet money on a.

I'm 100% in agreement with you.

I'm done arguing about it here. There's too much to do locally. I'm going to keep pressing for the 990's. I'm disgusted that no one wants to fess up about who produced the ad. I want to know the answers to all the questions we're asking but I don't want to get bogged down in personality conflict that deflects the issue. Since someone else can't seem to control herself in this area and is purposely using it to help C4L engage in the covering of asses it's time for me to be the grown up and not participate in it.

rancher89
02-04-2010, 08:23 AM
crickets, again

MsDoodahs
02-04-2010, 08:24 AM
I think I know what you mean-- the intention is not Ron's but the handlers. Right?

Exactly. Ron is being kept in the dark by handlers.

LibertyEagle
02-04-2010, 08:24 AM
crickets, again

Damn straight! The piss poor way she was treated when she was over here yesterday was flat out embarrassing. If I were her, I would NEVER come back here.

LibertyEagle
02-04-2010, 08:26 AM
Exactly. Ron is being kept in the dark by handlers.

Yeah, right. His eldest son is the Chairman of the Board. Are you implying that HE has kept his father in the dark?

MsDoodahs
02-04-2010, 08:45 AM
(And having your apologists on here insulting people with valid concerns is not helping relieve my anger... In fact, I am getting increasingly angry.)

:)

rancher89
02-04-2010, 08:47 AM
Well, maybe she'll be back today. I checked in late last night and left her a pm.

We had managed to get to a point where she was addressing one the specific questions that I had listed and away from the cat fight. That was progress. I am encouraged by her willingness to speak directly to us at all about any of the questions, including her history with the CP (thanks again Deb :) ) and the manner in which she did start to answer my questions gave me hope that we were going to get answers, real ones. I know that the question she was answering was not one of the ones most people wanted to hear the answer for, it was my question, sorry...:)

I'm hoping that she and her family are well and that she'll be back to finish her answer and possibly give us what information she can on the other questions. Or someone else from the board..... :)



BTW, I can't spend a lot of time on this between today and Sunday, but I intend to post those questions on the C4L forum by Monday, Tuesday at the latest. If you posed a question(s) and I haven't added it to the OP, please help me frame the questions, I'm not a CPA. :o I will also put them on my C4L blogroll with a few personal comments to flesh things out.

I just want answers that make sense. I'm glad they pulled the ad and admitted they made a mistake, but by delaying and then spinning, they've opened up the door for questions about how they conduct business....... I've calmed down from last Friday, thankfully, but that does not mean that the questions have gone away.

specsaregood
02-04-2010, 01:57 PM
Jesse Benton's job is to give interviews. His words, phrasing and expression were half-hearted attempts to appease. His derisve snicker when asked the question (from Michael Maresco) about having a grassroots member on the board before saying "no" was extremely insulting.

Wait, what?! Did I miss this somewhere?

Danke
02-04-2010, 02:05 PM
Wait, what?! Did I miss this somewhere?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2523645&postcount=9

RedWhiteBlue
02-04-2010, 03:12 PM
....... I've calmed down from last Friday, thankfully, but that does not mean that the questions have gone away.

Sure glad to hear you've calmed down after stabbing Debbie Hopper square in the back by calling her a "party hack" on RPF and throwing your fellow state coordinators under the bus.

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

ronpaulhawaii
02-04-2010, 03:27 PM
I really wish people would quit fanning flames and just talk about the issues rather than the personalities

constituent
02-04-2010, 03:42 PM
Sure glad to hear you've calmed down after stabbing Debbie Hopper square in the back by calling her a "party hack" on RPF and throwing your fellow state coordinators under the bus.

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

you can't win this game... not like this.

just imho. :)

RedWhiteBlue
02-04-2010, 03:58 PM
I really wish people would quit fanning flames and just talk about the issues rather than the personalities

I wish the same were afforded to the people (personalities) who have been subject to the abuse.

Some have DEMANDED more apology from people who work at the CFL.

They should be given an apology when someone has lied about them, stabbed them in the back or thrown them under the bus.

It's part of the healing process.

Case in point: Michael Nystrom's gracious apology.

constituent
02-04-2010, 04:05 PM
I wish the same were afforded to the people (personalities) who have been subject to the abuse.

Some have DEMANDED more apology from people who work at the CFL.

They should be given an apology when someone has lied about them, stabbed them in the back or thrown them under the bus.

It's part of the healing process.

Case in point: Michael Nystrom's gracious apology.

sigh...

ronpaulhawaii
02-04-2010, 04:28 PM
I wish the same were afforded to the people (personalities) who have been subject to the abuse.

Some have DEMANDED more apology from people who work at the CFL.

They should be given an apology when someone has lied about them, stabbed them in the back or thrown them under the bus.

It's part of the healing process.

Case in point: Michael Nystrom's gracious apology.

You do understand that you have me at a distinct disadvantage in that everything I say affects my political capital... jus sayin...

I have no idea why you want to drag this out, but...

People that have been lied to, (Grassroots Representation), stepped on (don't get me started, NYC springs immediately to mind), and thrown for a loop, (the buck incident) aren't generally very friendly. IMO - The source of their outrage should really tread lightly if they expect to maintain their support...

From my last comment on DP on this subject:


FTR- My comment on the CfL blog, that ended up here and then into the blogosphere, was crafted to vent collective steam. It was very effective at that, as the the overwhelming amount of thank you notes/chats/calls received attests. Things were blowing up and I was actually doing CfL a favor. Since their mistake forced me into the position, I used the opportunity to "beat them up" over the organizational bait and switch.

At least that is settled

Onward and forward

Debbie Hopper
02-05-2010, 01:35 AM
Exactly. Ron is being kept in the dark by handlers.

Come on people. This is just crazy and insulting to Congressman Paul. He's not some poor feeble idiot being led blindly around by anybody!

He's got friends, family, and advisers all around him who keep their finger on the pulse of the RP universe, who are not C4L. They visit here. They read Daily Paul.
They consider themselves to be a part of the revolution too. They don't want to see it fail.

Whoever these evil handlers are, they couldn't keep it from Ron if they wanted to.

tpreitzel
02-05-2010, 01:39 AM
Come on people. This is just crazy and insulting to Congressman Paul. He's not some poor feeble idiot being lead blindly around by anybody!

He's got friends, family, and advisers all around him who keep their finger on the pulse of the RP universe, who are not C4L. They visit here. They read Daily Paul.
They consider themselves to be a part of the revolution too. They don't want to see it fail.

Whoever these evil handlers are, they couldn't keep it from Ron if they wanted to.

;) Personally, I don't think we'll fail with or without the C4L. As you indicate, the RP universe, i.e. the effort to restore constitutional liberty, is quite big and growing.

Debbie Hopper
02-05-2010, 02:27 AM
;) Personally, I don't think we'll fail with or without the C4L. As you indicate, the RP universe, i.e. the effort to restore constitutional liberty, is quite big and growing.

I hope you are right. We certainly can't afford to fail. Either way, I was in the fight to restore constitutionally limited government long before the Ron Paul Campaign and the C4L, and if the C4L were gone, I'd be finding some other like minded-folks to align myself with and keep fighting.

I agree, the message is resonating with a lot more Americans. Even on the war issue. We're making significant inroads and radically altering the political debate.

But the movement is very much in it's infancy, and consequently, much more vulnerable.

Divide and concur is certainly the cheapest way for our enemies to destroy us. They expend nothing and we waste our time, energy and resources shooting at each other.

We can't stop them from trying to destroy us, but I sure hope we stop helping them.

tpreitzel
02-05-2010, 02:36 AM
I hope you are right. We certainly can't afford to fail. Either way, I was in the fight to restore constitutionally limited government long before the Ron Paul Campaign and the C4L, and if the C4L were gone, I'd be finding some other like minded-folks to align myself with and keep fighting.

I agree, the message is resonating with a lot more Americans. Even on the war issue. We're making significant inroads and radically altering the political debate.

But the movement is very much in it's infancy, and consequently, much more vulnerable.

Divide and concur is certainly the cheapest way for our enemies to destroy us. They expend nothing and we waste our time, energy and resources shooting at each other.

We can't stop them from trying to destroy us, but I sure hope we stop helping them.

This latest internal squabbling is similar to a family spat. Families grow stronger when all members learn to respect each other. However, respect doesn't necessarily imply mindless agreement. We have our differences which is good because we're thinking independently. Don't be too concerned as we're all still working for the restoration of constitutional liberty. Say "hi" to Ron personally for us. We love his work in restoring constitutional liberty and appreciate him highly.

Debbie Hopper
02-05-2010, 03:01 AM
This latest internal squabbling is similar to a family spat. Families grow stronger when all members learn to respect each other. However, respect doesn't necessarily imply mindless agreement. We have our differences which is good because we're thinking independently. Don't be too concerned as we're all still working for the restoration of constitutional liberty. Say "hi" to Ron personally for us. We love his work and appreciate him highly.

I don't know about your family, but my family had plenty of squabbles. They didn't get personal or vicious and they certainly didn't end in fist-to-cuffs out in the front yard for anybody else to see. ;)

I'm not advocating mindless agreement with anyone. Not even Ron himself. I don't think anybody is.

What I am saying is that adults, particularly those who advocate for peace, individual liberty and personal responsibility should be able to have a civil discussion, even on the areas where there is strong disagreement without making it personal.

If you don't agree with somebody, don't try to destroy their reputation and impune their character. Destroy they're argument/position if you think they're wrong, not them personally.

It's been sad to watch people's name get drug through the mud.

That's what grieved Ron.

You ever see him treat even his worst enemy that way?

tpreitzel
02-05-2010, 03:22 AM
I don't know about your family, but my family had plenty of squabbles. They didn't get personal or vicious and they certainly didn't end in fist-to-cuffs out in the front yard for anybody else to see. ;)

Unfortunately, I think your family is a minority especially when one considers the size of this extended family. ;)



If you don't agree with somebody, don't try to destroy their reputation and impune their character. Destroy they're argument/position if you think they're wrong, not them personally.

It's been sad to watch people's name get drug through the mud.

That's what grieved Ron.

You ever see him treat even his worst enemy that way?Although this response may hurt a bit, I still think it's at least partly true. Certain members of the C4L have been damaging their own reputations by their own words and actions without much help from us. The grassroots are still looking for real answers on some significant questions. As for me personally, I harbor absolutely no malice against anyone. Anyway, it's good to see you here. I'm off to bed! Goodnight.

MsDoodahs
02-05-2010, 08:48 AM
Come on people. This is just crazy and insulting to Congressman Paul. He's not some poor feeble idiot being lead blindly around by anybody!

He's got friends, family, and advisers all around him who keep their finger on the pulse of the RP universe, who are not C4L. They visit here. They read Daily Paul.
They consider themselves to be a part of the revolution too. They don't want to see it fail.

Whoever these evil handlers are, they couldn't keep it from Ron if they wanted to.

You intimate that Dr. Paul IS aware of the questions coming from the grassroots, and that the lack of answers coming from CFL is based on HIS decision to leave those questions unanswered.

Have you personally provided him with the questions, or is your response an assumption that someone else has made Dr. Paul aware of the questions?

Cowlesy
02-05-2010, 08:52 AM
What I am saying is that adults, particularly those who advocate for peace, individual liberty and personal responsibility should be able to have a civil discussion, even on the areas where there is strong disagreement without making it personal.


Oh Mrs. Hopper.....welcome to the internet-tubes. :)

ronpaulhawaii
02-05-2010, 10:32 AM
I don't know about your family, but my family had plenty of squabbles. They didn't get personal or vicious and they certainly didn't end in fist-to-cuffs out in the front yard for anybody else to see. ;)

Well, your family may be different than many I have seen.

Please excuse the graphic example, but it is apt:

How would your family handle being sent a link to a porn film starring your teenage daughter?


What I am saying is that adults, particularly those who advocate for peace, individual liberty and personal responsibility should be able to have a civil discussion, even on the areas where there is strong disagreement without making it personal.

If you don't agree with somebody, don't try to destroy their reputation and impune their character. Destroy they're argument/position if you think they're wrong, not them personally.

The amount of people making it personal is miniscule. To focus on those few is unfair (and making it personal...) In fact, I am being personally attacked with lies in another thread over this. As Cowlesy mentions, "Welcome to the Intertubes"

All that said, I am glad you have come by. For certain much could have been avoided if some of these lurkers you mention had jumped in and helped when the crisis was building...

rancher89
02-05-2010, 10:47 AM
LOL, MY family is harder on me than any of the posters here have been on each other. Try driving 13 hours, all night, and dealing with the worst you've seen here and keeping it together for 9 hours before losing it when the attacks on RP and our efforts became just too much to bear anymore. (that's 35 hours of no sleep) :eek: IMHO, real families are much worse than anything the interwebs can dish out.

And I STILL go back for Thanksgiving each year. :)

Good to see you here Deb, wish you'd been here Thurs/Fri.....:)

I can't stay long, too much to do, but I'll check in tonight and/or tomorrow.

Peace out!