Adam Kokesh: I’m a Ron Paul Supporter! And Fan of Kucinich + Iraq War, Ending the Conflict & his Pro-Peace Activism (videos)

Dandelion Salad

liamh2

On Nov. 3, 2007, Adam Kokesh shared his views on the Iraq War, his strategies for ending the conflict, and his pro-Peace activism, at an event held at St. Philip’s Episcopal Church, in Annapolis, MD. Mr. Kokesh is the co-chair of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, See, IVAW.org. During the Q&A period that followed his talk, he told the audience that he was, on a personal level, “a Ron Paul supporter!” Rep. Paul is the Republican congressman from Texas, who is an candidate for president on the GOP side. Mr. Kokesh, a former U.S. Marine Sergeant, added that he was also “a big fan of [Rep. Dennis J.] Kucinich,” the congressman from Ohio. Rep. Kucinich is running for president, too, under the banner of the Democratic Party. Mr. Kokesh’s talk was cosponsored by the Student Peace Action Network (SPAN) and the Anne Arundel Peace Action, See, http://www.studentPeaceAction.org and http://www.Peace-Action.org, with the support of activist Kevin Zeese of DemocracyRising.US.

***

Adam Kokesh on the Iraq War, Ending the Conflict, and his Pro-Peace Activism

William Hughes
1 hr 50 min 49 sec – Nov 3, 2007
authorwilliamhughes.com

On Nov. 3, 2007, Adam Kokesh shared his views on the Iraq War, his strategies for ending the conflict, and his Pro-Peace activism, at an event held at St. Philip’s Episcopal Church, in Annapolis, MD. He is the co-chair of the Iraq Veterans Against the War (See, IVAW.org) and a former U.S. Marine Sergeant. Mr. Kokesh’s talk was cosponsored by the Student Peace Action Network (SPAN) and the Anne Arundel Peace Action, with the support of activist Kevin Zeese of DemocracyRising.US. Jonathan Williams of SPAN spoke at the session prior to Mr. Kokesh. Another peace activist, “Chip” Gibbons, a student at Severna Park H.S., spoke also. He introduced the main speaker. See, www.studentPeaceAction.org and www.Peace-Action.org.

no longer available

12 thoughts on “Adam Kokesh: I’m a Ron Paul Supporter! And Fan of Kucinich + Iraq War, Ending the Conflict & his Pro-Peace Activism (videos)

  1. Just checking in to see if there are any effective counterarguments to my points. Nope.

    That’s probably what I would’ve said if I was in your position (i.e., a desperate state of denial, so thoroughly and repeatedly exposed as a fraud).

    The floor is still yours, Andrew (if you’re tired of wiping it with yourself, that is).

  2. Good morning, Andrew.

    You first commented:

    If you are a Ron Paul supporter it is either because (a) you support the second coming of George Wallace or (b) you are ignorant of Paul’s political beliefs.

    “It has been definitively proven that Ron Paul is an authoritarian who doesn’t believe the US Bill of Rights protects US citizens from state oppression and, furthermore, believes that Civil Rights has been bad for America.

    I then violently, viciously attacked you, and slanderously libeled you by requesting solid evidence to your charges.

    Okay, Andrew. It’s time for you to either put up or stfu with your anti-Paul agitprop.

    Well, in your last response, you provided a link to your blog, where you argued your case using a credible source with evidence; only, it wasn’t anything that supported your allegations.

    Authoritarian, Bill of Rights and civil rights=bad?

    The link you provided within your blog entry takes the reader to one of your MySpace blog entries; there, you have posted a lewrockwell.com transcript of a 2004 Ron Paul House speech. It was the one where he stood alone in opposition to symbolic legislation honoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — a familiar position for him. Excerpt:

    “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.”

    “This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

    As usual, Ron Paul is objecting based on the rule of law; he’s sworn to do so. Such shocking votes are part of his record. He would rise against the motion if it was honoring Taft, Mises, free enterprise, Christianity, or God.

    For your anti-gay charge, your blog once again linked to your other blog, where another 2004 House speech from the same source was posted. And like the other evidence, it didn’t qualify your allegations. (The speech, btw, was a stand against government tyranny in those regards — as are most of his stands — not an argument against gay marriage.) I’ll use only the thesis to make your smear-fallacy sufficiently evident:

    Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

    Sure, it seems harsh, and I’m sure it sucks for those who’d rather have the feds run our personal lives, but it’s his job to act according to what the federal government is expressly allowed or forbidden to do by the Constitution.

    In the same blog entry, you wrote:

    Why did the Supreme Court overturn these laws? Because such laws violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    And right on cue, an excerpt from the Ron Paul speech you provided for evidence actually refutes it:

    The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas. . . .

    “Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.

    Again: It’s not always easy to swallow, but it’s ethical congressional behavior according to supreme law in the United States.

    As little power he has as Congressman Paul, the loner, he’d make sure he has similar or even less as President Paul. You said you’ve done your research. You should know these things. He is determined to bring Executive power back down to the proper constitutional level.

    But of course you would have us believe that he’s an authoritarian, a racist, and a “states rights conservative, just like our good old buddy George C. Wallace” (as if his obedience to the Constitution, in some areas, solidifies that he’s some Confederate segregation proponent in this disguise he’s somehow remained in for the last 40 years or so).

    Authoritarian? Anti-gay people? Racist? Anti-Bill of Rights? Ah yes. I remember when I had my first beer…

    I will grant you this: I believe that his ideological point of view reinforces his constitutional position on the “War on Christmas.” It’s obvious in that last speech you provided. He is a devoted man of religious morals. At the same time, however, his record shows that he would not vote in his own favor if it violated his oath (even on abortion, believe it or not). The Law of the Land comes first — especially as it limits his power, and the state’s power, against us. Bottom line here: the federal government is not authorized to restrict our rights on any basis. Like he says, we get our rights as individuals — not groups, and they’re most definitely not the government’s to give to us or take away from us.

    The Constitution isn’t perfect, but it’s meant to protect us from central government tyranny, and not from ourselves (on the rare occasion that it’s followed, that is).

    Ron Paul goes with what the Constitution dictates. If a representative can’t be loyal to that, then how can he be loyal to the people he’s serving? He often ends up voting against his constituents because his first duty is to fulfilling his oath.

    Bushmuck & Gang are prime examples of what rampant state cronyism and big-government tyranny will bring ya. Paul’s actions in his time serving have been completely antithetical to the Cheney-PNAC-Bush (authoritarian, huge empire-state) ways.

    The revision of reality that calls Ron Paul an authoritarian is last-ditch statist or corporatist disinfo — a view zeroed-out at anything but the US Constitution and individual freedom. And not that it deserves special infamy, but it reminds me of how Little Green Footballs and RedState blog shut him out: one fraud after another. (And talk about a “glass parking lot” crowd of state shills, bigots, and war propagandists. Those guys define all three at any given minute of the day.)

    But perhaps here’s where you and I differ. State v. People? Constitution-based statehood? Small government? Individual rights over group rights? No?

    We could seriously and constructively argue on those contentions, or about whether a vote for Ron Paul is bad for corporatists, statists, or “big-government Socialists”; but painting him an authoritarian or segregationist “has been definitively proven” to be way off the mark. Such accusations might not even be worth our time to discuss at the current rate — unless, of course, you somehow come up with something that will stick, or an actually arguable reason for opposing the man (good luck with that).

  3. I would like to know why people are so strongly in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Answer this: How is it good that the Federal Government made an end run around the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, by falling back on the Interstate Commerce Clause to ‘uphold’ civil rights? Do ‘Civil Rights’ proponents believe that the Interstate Commerce Clause is more important for maintaining our freedom than the Equal Protection Clause?

    The whole thing was a fraud, in the style of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment, to force integration in the South with the hope that the placated blacks would not take advantage of their right to move into the more racist and less racially defensable ‘lilly white’ North. Only ignorant blacks and racist whites think that Civil Rights legislation had anything to do with REAL civil rights.

  4. One more thing, I’m not smearing Paul. Paul smears. Paul and I are in two different groups. He stands against basic freedoms. I stand for them.

    It is irrelevant that nobody here is attacking Kucinich. You don’t have to wait for people to jump on Kucinich or any other genuinely progressive candidate before you expose authoritarians.

    As an anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-heterosexist, and anti-authoritarian activist, I have a moral obligation to expose people who stand against the interests of the great majority of people – workers, women, minorities, and gays and lesbians.

    Are you not anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-heterosexist, and anti-authoritarian? Are your politics really in line with a states rights conservative authoritarian like Ron Paul?

  5. I have already provided the sources for Ron Paul’s politics. Go to my web sites, I’ve posted it all there.

    Follow the link provided with my post here. I will make it easy for you, it’s http://wwsword.blogspot.com/

    Or read my MySpace page: http://blog.myspace.com/socius_aa

    It’s all there. I’ve done my research.

    The real question is why don’t you know all these things already? What have you been doing while I was out there actually finding out what this man’s political views are?

    Here’s some advice: stop jumping on me in bully tones (“put up or stfu”?) and do the hard work of a citizen.

    Don’t make the huge mistake of voting in your primary for, or sending dollars to, a racist, sexist and heterosexist authoritarian.

    I made it easy for you:

    http://wwsword.blogspot.com/

    Check it out for yourself.

  6. Is that some kind of bad joke? Have you no understanding of the constitution? Why do you constantly lie about Ron Paul’s “racist” remarks when you know they were not from him and they have been refuted by him? Kucinich is far more authoritarian – he desires to take al our money and start public works projects, forcing us to kowtow to the whims of his big government policies. At least be honest in your pablum.

  7. Okay, Andrew. It’s time for you to either put up or stfu with your anti-Paul agitprop. Nobody here is smearing Kucinich — much less, in a fraudulent manner.

    So, it’s time for you to provide sourced material to back up your yet unfounded assertions — and I expect it to come in the form of authentic Ron Paul quotes and the like. I already provided a rebuttal to your spiel in a previous forum, and not surprisingly, you haven’t responded to it yet (for reasons that are becoming quite obvious).

    The floor is yours…

  8. If you are a Ron Paul supporter it is either because (a) you support the second coming of George Wallace or (b) you are ignorant of Paul’s political beliefs.

    It has been definitively proven that Ron Paul is an authoritarian who doesn’t believe the US Bill of Rights protects US citizens from state oppression and, furthermore, believes that Civil Rights has been bad for America.

    If you are gay man living in Texas, Paul thinks the Texas government has the right to criminalize your private sexual conduct with other consenting adults. Moreover, Paul not only explicitly opposes Civil Rights in America, but he holds vile racist views concerning black Americans.

    Nobody who claims to be a progressive can support Ron Paul unless that support is accidental. And if that is the case – if you support Paul because you are ignorant of his beliefs and his record – then you can change course. Get behind Kucinich, the real progressive candidate. It’s okay to make mistakes out of ignorance. What isn’t okay is to deny the truth and continue to make that same mistake.

    If, on the other hand, you agree with Paul’s authoritarian racist politics, then don’t call yourself a pro-Constitution progressive.

    You can’t have it both ways.

Comments are closed.