CFL Deserters

[dean.engelhardt]

Those of us that left CFL after the Ken Buck incident might have received some harsh communications because of our actions. I was told I made a foolish decision based on anger.

However, my local coordinator and interim state coordinator have taken time to communicate with me directly and respectfully. I copied my reply to my interim state coordinator below. I think a few of those that deleted their CFL membership feel the same way.



"Dave,

Thanks for the update. I've listened to it. I appreciate that you thought of me. I also read about an interview Ron Paul did with the creator of DailyPaul.com. I have decided not to rejoin C4L.

I treat non-intervention like others treat pro-life. I'm very passionate about. I'm a veteran and would like my 17 year old son to have the option of serving his country. However, I will not let him join until we have a Commander in Chief that makes good foreign policy decision and a congress that properly function as a check and balance if the Commander and Chief makes bad decisions. Right now our military is void of leadership. Because of that, we are sending men with young families overseas to be maimed and killed needlessly. Innocent foreign blood is being shed.

The President and Congress say they take direction from field Generals. Our military is not designed to make those decisions. Our Commander and Chief and is suppose to give the orders. This is why I support Ron Paul. He was the only Republican Presidential candidate that took the duty seriously.

CFL is dealing with other important issues. They are a political group that furthers the cause of liberty by forcing an audit of the fed, getting healthcare reform right, and stopping out of control government spending. I do understand that CFL has to operate politically to have power to make an impact on these important issues. I do not have the passion for these issues that the organization does, not as long as our service members are dying in vain.

I harbor no ill will to CFL. If they want to support candidates like Ken Buck because he votes 19 out of 20 times for the cause of liberty that is probably good. I hope they continue to grow. Supporting Adam Kokesh, Dennis Kucinich, and other anti-war candidates directly is where my passions are at now.

Thanks for think of me.

Dean Engelhardt"

[MsDoodahs]

Dean, was the harsh communication from this forum, or was it CFL communication (national state local)?

[squarepusher]

///

[InterestedParticipant]

"Dave,

Thanks for the update. I've listened to it. I appreciate that you thought of me. I also read about an interview Ron Paul did with the creator of DailyPaul.com. I have decided not to rejoin C4L.

I treat non-intervention like others treat pro-life. I'm very passionate about. I'm a veteran and would like my 17 year old son to have the option of serving his country. However, I will not let him join until we have a Commander in Chief that makes good foreign policy decision and a congress that properly function as a check and balance if the Commander and Chief makes bad decisions. Right now our military is void of leadership. Because of that, we are sending men with young families overseas to be maimed and killed needlessly. Innocent foreign blood is being shed.

The President and Congress say they take direction from field Generals. Our military is not designed to make those decisions. Our Commander and Chief and is suppose to give the orders. This is why I support Ron Paul. He was the only Republican Presidential candidate that took the duty seriously.

CFL is dealing with other important issues. They are a political group that furthers the cause of liberty by forcing an audit of the fed, getting healthcare reform right, and stopping out of control government spending. I do understand that CFL has to operate politically to have power to make an impact on these important issues. I do not have the passion for these issues that the organization does, not as long as our service members are dying in vain.

I harbor no ill will to CFL. If they want to support candidates like Ken Buck because he votes 19 out of 20 times for the cause of liberty that is probably good. I hope they continue to grow. Supporting Adam Kokesh, Dennis Kucinich, and other anti-war candidates directly is where my passions are at now.

Thanks for think of me.

Dean Engelhardt"
Very nice letter, Dean. I'm proud to see you stuck with your moral compass and did not compromise. We should all be so strong all the time.

If I have only one critique, it is with the subject of this thread: "C4L Deserters." Rather than use the term "deserters," how about something like "Former C4L Members who Didn't Compromise their Principles". Maybe someone can come up with something shorter.

But the way I see it, it was C4L that deserted us, not us that deserted C4L.

[dannno]

OP, have you considered that ending the Federal Reserve would end our foreign empire and force us to be non-interventionist?

I understand some of your frustrations.

[dannno]

C4L has apologized for accidentally promoting a non-interventionist when they meant to be promoting their 20 question survey and have said it won't happen again.

I don't see this as a reason to throw the entire organization under the bus, and I think if you look at the program they were promoting you will see how beneficial it will be for liberty in the future.

[InterestedParticipant]

C4L has apologized for accidentally promoting a non-interventionist when they meant to be promoting their 20 question survey and have said it won't happen again.

I don't see this as a reason to throw the entire organization under the bus, and I think if you look at the program they were promoting you will see how beneficial it will be for liberty in the future.
Ok, sell the benefits to me.

[dannno]

Ok, sell the benefits to me.

Very important to remember it's a long-term project, not a 2010 project.

Some have made the point that politicians can lie on the survey. This is fine, because C4L is not SUPPOSED to promote anybody based solely on the response to the survey.. they KIND of accidentally did for one candidate who the state coordinator happened to be in very close personal contact for the last year and had turned around on countless issues related to liberty and even fought for HR1207, but they still have agreed not to do that again... even though the money came from private donors...AND even though the candidate had proven that he is going to actually fight for the liberty oriented planks that he had agreed to..

The reason it is OK for these people to lie on the survey is because when they get into office, C4L will be holding them accountable. If they lie, then it will be recorded, and we know that even if that candidate attempts to advertise a liberty platform in their next election (say, on their website), C4L knows not to support them. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, don't you think?

The C4L surveys are supposed to do two things:

Show how liberty oriented a candidate is

Show how honest a candidate is (can we count on them to do what they said they would do in the survey?)


I don't know of any other program that would be as effective in determining those two extremely important qualities in a candidate.

[InterestedParticipant]

Very important to remember it's a long-term project.

Some have made the point that politicians can lie on the survey. This is fine, because C4L is not SUPPOSED to promote anybody based solely on the response to the survey.. they KIND of accidentally did for one candidate who the state coordinator happened to be in very close personal contact for the last year and had turned around on countless issues related to liberty and even fought for HR1207, but they still have agreed not to do that again... even though the money came from private donors...AND even though the candidate had proven that he is going to actually fight for the liberty oriented planks that he had agreed to..

The reason it is OK for these people to lie on the survey is because when they get into office, C4L will be holding them accountable. If they lie, then it will be recorded, and we know that even if that candidate attempts to advertise a liberty platform (say, on their website), C4L knows not to support them. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, don't you think?

The C4L surveys are supposed to do two things:

Show how liberty oriented a candidate is

Show how honest a candidate is


I don't know of any other program that would be as effective in determining those two extremely important qualities in a candidate.
As I said in an earlier post in another thread, the grassroots can easily obtain their own SurveyMonkey.com account and conduct their own surveys. C4L conducting surveys is not a significant value added benefit, and certainly does not justify the type of overhead they have. Give me a real tangible benefit here.

[dannno]

As I said in an earlier post in another thread, the grassroots can easily obtain their own SurveyMonkey.com account and conduct their own surveys. C4L conducting surveys is not a significant value added benefit, and certainly does not justify the type of overhead they have. Give me a real tangible benefit here.

You didn't comprehend my post, try again. Read slower or something. There's a lot more to it than throwing a candidate over to surveymonkey.

[dannno]

I honestly cannot think of a more important program for C4L to be involved in, for the long-term.

You can't just go into a district start half-assing it, you need real information on these candidates.. you need the information that I addressed in my post related to liberty and honesty. Otherwise the organization is going to waste a lot of money.

Also, I don't think this is the "only" program they are running, nobody is claiming this program takes up all the overhead of the organization. I just think it is the most important one they are running for the long-term, otherwise there are no metrics at all and with the number of districts we have throughout the country they will not be effective.

[dean.engelhardt]

Dean, was the harsh communication from this forum, or was it CFL communication (national state local)?

I sent a goodbye email to all my contacts in CFL that included my personal email address. The negative responses were from some of those contacts. State and local coordinators contacted me and are very understanding. I've had no direct communications from national.

[dean.engelhardt]

[QUOTE=dannno;2527313]OP, have you considered that ending the Federal Reserve would end our foreign empire and force us to be non-interventionist?

First, thank you for understanding the frustration, but I'm not that frustrated anymore. Supporting candidates directly and participating in this forum keep my activist juices flowing. I feel I can still make a difference.

I wish I could believe that ending the Fed would force us to be non-interventionist. I believe there are other factors involved. Military/industrial complex; terrible national energy policy; foreign lobbyist influence; two-party system; all wrapped up in voter apathy and stupidity. Hopefully I'm proven wrong.

[LibertyEagle]

Ending the FED would be huge. No, it wouldn't fix every, single, problem out there. But, it would be one helluva first step.

[dean.engelhardt]

Ending the FED would be huge. No, it wouldn't fix every, single, problem out there. But, it would be one helluva first step.

Agree

[InterestedParticipant]

Ending the FED would be huge. No, it wouldn't fix every, single, problem out there. But, it would be one helluva first step.
Be very careful what you wish for with this "End the Fed" business.

The only reason we are now seeing non-profit groups pushing for this is because it is part of the plan as we continue to finalize our migration to an International Financial Monetary system. So, one cannot simply ask to End the Fed without also specifying its replacement in the same sentence, otherwise, you risk being caught in a trap.

[revolutionary8]

:D:

[LibertyEagle]

Be very careful what you wish for with this "End the Fed" business.

The only reason we are now seeing non-profit groups pushing for this is because it is part of the plan as we continue to finalize our migration to an International Financial Monetary system. So, one cannot simply ask to End the Fed without also specifying its replacement in the same sentence, otherwise, you risk being caught in a trap.

That isn't lost on me, IP, and yes, I realize it's more than coincidental that the MSM is exposing the FED at this time.

Note: By the way, this is also something that the JBS has raised.

[revolutionary8]

:D:

[LibertyEagle]

PLEASE, FTLOG, STOP PANDERING LE. :D
When have you ever known me to pander, rev? ;)


We ALL know what could "take it's place", WE ALL HOPE THAT IT IS NOTHING. It will be agent provocs like "IP" and his "ilk" (if ONE gets "caught", its ON PURPOSE, JUST TO FUCK W/ YA) but regardless, the monolith needs TO GO.
I never said the FED shouldn't go, because I think it must. But, the alternate agendas, I am also going to keep my eye on. Capisce?

[revolutionary8]

When have you ever known me to pander, rev? ;)


I never said the FED shouldn't go, because I think it must. But, the alternate agendas, I am also going to keep my eye on. Capisce?
ummm, lets see, lemme think...

NEVER.

LE, we disagree on MANY things, but I would never ever, not in a million, think you would ever SELL OUT. not ever...