What Campaign for Liberty Is Doing

A friend writes:

My source was a participant at the C4L annual cadre training meeting in Florida last week: John Tate and Mike Rothfeld were featured and at the final full session Tate emphasized, without any real explanation, that C4L was to have nothing to do with foreign policy. It will only deal with domestic issues like audit the fed and will be supporting the Rand Paul agenda. Hunter, Benton and Tate are all already enlisted in the effort and are on the Rand PAC’s payroll.

UPDATE: Doug Wead writes: “The information about me, published above [now modified --TW], is incorrect. I have not been contacted about this, nor have I had any conversations about it, nor was I in any meetings about it, nor was I at the event in Florida, nor am I on the Rand Paul PAC payroll. God bless the Liberty Movement.”

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/ Brown Supremacism

nonsense. focus on fed. tate is right.
Dan

1. What a BS copout on saying you didnt accuse Tom Woods of dividing the movement. Anybody who reads your first post on here can see that you were implying that Tom making this post was dividing the movement. You just are trying to back track now because you got called out for it.

2. Nothing you have said there gives me any facts about how it was Ron Paul’s decision to back off of foreign policy at C4L. Considering how out of character that would be for Ron Paul to say, I’m going need actual proof that he said that.

3. If it turns out that Ron Paul did make this decision, which I doubt, then it would change nothing on my opinion of the decision. It is stupid, cowardly, and it turns C4L into a typical republican organization that ignores one of the most important moral issues we face as human beings. You confirming that there is indeed a move away from foreign policy, which I’ve seen for a while over there, lets me know that C4L is not worth my time, energy, or money.

I don’t goose step behind anyone, including the great Dr. Paul. It’s about the message, not a man for me, and I don’t feel like C4L is doing the message any favors by dropping one of its most important tenets.
Dan

Nonsense. Focus on the spreading libertarianism the same way Ron Paul has done for the last 35 years. Becoming another domestic policy institute is beyond stupid. Tate is a moron or worse.
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/ Brown Supremacism

end the fed = gold standard = libertarianism.

lets focus on the big issue. tate boy is right.
Dan

The gold standard isn’t libertarian. A free market in money, where the government sets no standard, would be libertarian. Maybe you should spend your time studying libertarianism instead of weighing in on strategy. Also, while your at it go read Ron Paul’s farewell address where he said,

“The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends, and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.”

You can keep your boy Tate. I’ll take the approach Ron Paul has used to introduce more people to libertarianism than anyone who has ever walked this planet.
Anonymous

Spreading the message of Liberty without discussing US foreign policy is like poking out one of your eyes and pretend there’s no consequences. Evidently, one loses sight. But even more importantly, one loses depth.

Tom splitting up “za movement”? Don’t think so.

Nope, it’s C4L politicizing and splitting up Liberty.

Imagine the Statue of Lib divided in four. Her head, severed from the rest of the body, stays in New Amsterdam, her feet sent to Los Angeles, her hands down to Dallas and her remains put on display in Detroit. Ridiculous right? You said it.

Thank you Tom, for not remaining silent.

Cheers,
Richard

P.s.: like to recommend the following article by Lew Rockwell “The astonishing Ron Paul”, especially the part right before it says, “Ron never acted this way”.
http://www.facebook.com/dljholt Donna Jenkins Holt

1. My comment about division was in response to ALL of the comments I had read on this post. Not just the post itself.

2. Ron is not backing off foreign policy. The C4L mission will not change. Educating the public on foreign policy has been Ron’s greatest challenge so he is rethinking how he will go about doing that. That is not the same as backing off. I gave you the facts. You just don’t want to accept them. Everyone with C4L has been and will continue to be behind the message. C4L is what Ron wants it to be. If that’s a problem for you, you should take it up the Dr. Paul.
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/ Brown Supremacism

if the government sets no standard, then why is only gold/silver legal tender in constitution. paul has said million times that the constitution is “pretty libertarian”. what a load of nonsense you spout.

personal responsibility, family, community are important, but the government has to set standards on thing like national defense, currency, contracts…

you are totally wrong, you don’t even know your libertarianism zombie.
Dan

I didn’t say Ron Paul was backing off of foreign policy. I said it has been clear that campaign for liberty has. I just went to their site to see the last time they talked about the wars going on around the world, and I stopped when I got to Sept. and I still had ran into a foreign policy post. Nothing about Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Lybia, sanctions, etc. I mean Ron Paul just spoke on the floor of Congress denouncing the sanctions on Iran as an act of war, and not a peep about that from C4L.

Like I said before, I don’t care who is making the decision to not talk about foreign policy issues at C4L. If I had to guess I would say it is probably John Tate, but regardless it is an idiotic decision. I won’t support them again until I see the organization become more representative of the libertarian message. So far, I just see them moving away. And if that’s on Ron Paul, then that is still a problem for me. I don’t think Ron walks on water, and I realize he isn’t infallible. That wouldn’t mean I would start hating Ron Paul. It would just mean I think his decision making at C4L is lacking, and I would have no interest being associated with them or helping them in any way. LVMI better deserves my time, energy, and money. Still, until I see some proof that Ron Paul is the one making a joke out of C4L, I will continue to suspect John Tate for turning the organization into a worthless footnote.

Oh, and the reason I don’t just accept your “facts” is because I don’t know you and you are associated with the very organization I am questioning. Your statements don’t coalesce with what I’ve been seeing with my own two eyes over at C4L. If you think I’m supposed to just accept your word, especially after your weasely way of dealing with how you implied Tom Woods was dividing the movement, then you are delusional. Show me something tangible that doesn’t rely on me taking a word from a stranger who has an obvious conflict of interest.
Dan

Yes, I understand fully that the government CURRENTLY sets the standard for money, and that they would if we were under a gold standard, but that is not the libertarian solution. The libertarian solution is to remove the government entirely from the issue of money and let it be handled by the free market. This is the same position Ron Paul supports. He wrote a friggin book about it.

Your second statement just further shows how little you understand libertarianism. Go read For a New Liberty by Rothbard, Democracy The God That Failed by Hoppe, Rollback by Tom Woods, etc. Get yourself caught up on libertarian theory so we can have an intelligent discussion of this topic without you resulting to insulting me, even when at the same time you come off as someone who has never studied libertarianism.
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/ Brown Supremacism

zombie, libertarianism is a utopia of free markets, just as communism was a genocidal utopia of total statism.

partially free markets can work in homogenous societies with tiny populations like Hong Kong (friedman’s fav. example), pre-70s holland,

you did not answer my original question, you dishonest zombie:

Has any libertarian ever won an election in a non-white majority district?

Hans Hermann Hoppe is the only half sane libertarian who is worth reading. He wanted a stop to all mass immigration which is ravaging USA>
Dan

You never asked me that question, which is why I have never answered it. What’s wrong with you, by the way? But to answer your ridiculous question, I don’t know and I don’t care. I agree with Ron Paul that solutions to our problems won’t come from government.

As I thought, you aren’t even sympathetic to libertarianism. Your down right hostile towards it, even though you haven’t demonstrated an ability to grasp the philosophy or that you’ve even read it.

No wonder you like Tate’s approach over Ron Paul’s. Ron Paul is a libertarian and Tate isn’t.

Last thing from me, I highly recommend that you start studying libertarianism if you insist on talking about it. You may not realize it, but you have come off looking very foolish in this thread. If you took the time to study libertarianism, as Ron Paul has done for decades, you will be able to write something meaningful instead of the drivel you have posted so far. Best of luck.
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/ Brown Supremacism

you zombie, Tate cannot move an inch without paul’s nod. you are too gullible. you think tate and rand paul are just doing their own thing without paul’s approval. If you think that, you live in a dreamland and its useless talking to you.

paul and tate know each other for decades.

“I dont know and I dont care”. Well if you don’t care zombie, then you are a loser. losers dont care. they never have.
anon

‘keep the faith’ is self-deprecating and destructive. you should first have faith in yourself rather than having all faith outside of yourself. people like tate and establishment and c4l feed off ideology of just having faith in others, especially those that media picks for you – like rand paul.
M Abraham

I’ll be the one to point out that C4L and YAL are tyrannical organizations that are NOT run by Ron Paul. He is responsible for picking the douchebags who control C4L and YAL, though, and that is the worst thing he has ever done in his life, maybe the only really bad thing.

Even Stalin and Hitler held elections, but Dear Leader’s Tate and Frazee are tyrants for life. Tate’s salary has grown by leaps and bounds while he cratered C4L membership down to maybe 5% of what it was before we wised up. These creatures are top down control freaks who hate and fear the grass roots. They are the statist plugs sent in to bottle up Americans who want liberty

Run screaming from these frauds who publically gloat about “purging” anyone who disagrees with their narrow, 1950s style big government conservatism…
Aristides

I’m very active in C4L. I heard this same allegation (through the “grapevine”) about a year ago, but I have not received any direction on the matter from state or national leadership. In September, 2012, I attended LPAC, a C4L sponsored event. Having already heard the rumor, I was interested in seeing if there was any change in the organization’s position on foreign policy. John Tate was there, but I did not hear him say anything about it. Many of the speakers took a strong stance against interventionism, foreign aid, and militarism. I saw no indication that C4L is shying away from controversial subjects (there were even a few friendly nods to an-caps). It’s possible that there is a strategic plan to focus on domestic issues on the legislative front, but I’ve seen no evidence that Campaign for Liberty is softening its official stance on foreign policy or avoiding candid discussion of it. I feel I should state that I am only relaying my personal experience and I do not speak for the entire organization in any official capacity.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

That would be great to hear. Unfortunately, these are the same people I had to sneak around to get an antiwar speaker into the Rally for the Republic lineup.
Aristides

My personal suspicion is that they may have had some other issue (legitimate or not) with your anti-war speaker (LPAC had no shortage of anti-war speakers). Obviously, I can only speculate since I was not there, but I can’t help thinking that there is more to this story. It just doesn’t fit with my experience. I’ll concede that there has been a big push for involvement in local politics, which automatically puts foreign policy on the back burner. We’ve been much more focused on tedious things like red-light cameras and “sustainable growth” zoning laws, but I have never been directed to avoid discussions of non-interventionism. Hopefully, that won’t change.
http://twitter.com/Gameodactyl Patrick Gann

Just received a C4L newsletter asking readers to answer a poll question. Link’s text: “Please fill out your Supportive’s Directive to inform Campaign for Liberty on issues matter most to you” [sic]

Link goes here:

http://www.chooseliberty.org/supporterdirective2012.aspx?pid=1228p

3 issues and an “all of the above” button:

1. “Stopping big government’s takeover of the internet”
2. “Fighting national security state power grabs” (that’s … vague)
3. “Passing audit the fed”

Where’s the “foreign policy is terrible” button? Where’s the support for truly sound money? This seems rather milquetoast to me.

I rest my case, and so too, I suspect, does Mr Woods.
J Fournier

Is it fair to say this anti-war speaker was Adam Kokesh? I love Adam’s stuff, and his ostracism is another reason I don’t give to C4L.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

No, Bill Kauffman. I was told to get an antiwar speaker and get him into the lineup, and that this was not something the organizers were keen to have.
J Fournier

Hopefully some day Tom, Adam Kokesh, et al will have time to form their own organization that will rival C4L and the real Ron Paul grassroots will have a place to send their spare money that they can trust.