Kokesh Lands Key Lunatic Endorsement
Can’t say this comes as a complete surprise.
LAKE JACKSON, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Congressman Ron Paul today endorsed Adam Kokesh, Republican candidate for Congress in New Mexico’s third district.
Said Dr. Paul, “Adam Kokesh has been a tremendous supporter of mine. Now, it is time for me to support him.
“As a fellow Veteran, Adam understands the many challenges facing our brave men and women in Uniform and the steps we must take to strengthen our national defense.
“Adam Kokesh has dedicated his life to fighting for Liberty. He has set himself apart as one of the bold young leaders our Country sorely needs as we strive to restore our Freedoms and what has made America the greatest nation in history. I am very happy that Adam has decided to run for Congress and wholeheartedly endorse him.”
What I don’t understand is exactly how this steaming bag of cowardly, un-American shit is going to “strengthen our national defense”?
Category: Politics
Well, I do find a small area of agreement with the head Paulistinian. Kokesh has set himself apart from other “leaders”, mostly by his drug use, storing urine in his fridge, and all-around asshattery.
Stupid is as stupid does…
shades of John F’ng sKerry maybe?
Or is that leftist is a leftist does?
Nailed it, UpNorth and streetsweeper. Beware of extremists Left, Right or Center.
Well if he shared his drugs with the enemy, then they would be much more ineffetive.
“Can’t say this comes as a complete surprise.”
Especially since this news is over a month old now.
Also, FYI, Marine 83 (#3), a leftist is not defined by one’s position on the war, but has to do with one’s views on individual rights (i.e., your rights end at the tip of my nose) and economic freedom. Are you not aware of what it means to be a conservative? Of course by simply following the cues of the fake conservatives in our government of the past few years, it is unsurprising that a young person today is confused over what political conservatism really means. More traditionally and historically in our country, it has been the conservative Republicans who have been reluctant to go to war while the Democrats have agitated for it and led the way. The neo-conservatives of today (and neo-conservatives are not conservative) are really only neo-Trotskyites, and you don’t even know it. And totally contrary to the foreign policy as advocated by our Founders.
And are you the Marine who was making the death threats against Ron Paul followers on another thread here the other day? Or was that the other Marine. Real American. Real conservative. I’m so impressed.
As the old saying goes, there are none more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Whatever Mommy Dearest Snnnxxxxxxxxxx……..
Snicker…..
There is Debbie again, offended that anyone would possibly insult St. Pauli Girl. Anyway as to your claim he isn’t a leftist lets just tick down the list and see how he aligns with the American left.
Hates George Bush… check
Hates the Military… check
Hates Israel… check
Hates coprorations… check
Against the war in Iraq and Afganistan… check
Thinks Islamic hatred against the west is Americas fault… check
9/11 was and inside job… check
Pro abortion… check
Isolationist… check
Thinks Iran is Americas fault… check
Wants to normalize relations with Cuba… check
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and fucks a duck it is probably a duck. Ron Paul is definitly a duck.
Marine 83, to clarify, you are talking about Kokesh or Ron Paul? Or both? Because, while all of those topics would definitely be worthwhile subjects to discuss objectively, the above definitely does not reflect Ron Paul’s views and if you think those are Kokesh’s view, I’d like to see your proof. In any event, in the absence of evidence, my assumption is that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Either way, it still remains that it is one’s underlying political philosophy that defines whether one is a defender of liberty or not. (I feel like I keep having the same conversation over and over again.l..) Still, picking a few items from the list, where can you show that Kokesh (or Ron Paul — whichever one it is you’re talking about) “hates” George Bush? Is there ONE IOTA of evidence that he opposes Bush’s policies any more than he opposes the policies of Obama? And who hates the military? Show me the evidence. Pro-abortion? Perhaps Kokesh; I don’t know. Libertarians are split on that issue (as well as the war). I can tell you that Ron Paul is definitely NOT pro-abortion; he is pro-life. So am I. Not that it matters. Who said 9/11 is an inside job? The acknowledgement that there were failures is NOT the same thing as saying it was an inside job. (I do know libertarians who do believe it was an inside job, however, I’m not aware that that has ever been Ron Paul’s position, and I highly doubt that it is Kokesh’s.) And Cuba. Again, show me the evidence. I have yet to meet a libertarian or conservative anywhere who rates the government of Cuba as high on the list of honorable governments.
Until I see the evidence, I will assume you are talking out of your ass, as usual.
Marine 83, Ron Paul is definitely NOT pro-abortion (despite his calls for personal freedom, women need not apply).
Great…so I’m guessing there wasn’t a Star Trek convention this weekend for Debra to attend?
Anonymous, the opposing positions that libertarians hold on abortion are still based on the same philosophy of defense of freedom and individual rights; the main divergence has to do with whether or not one recognizes the unborn as a human being with rights. The pro-abortion choice libertarians base their views on the individual rights of the mother and her inherent right to self-ownership while negating that the unborn child is a human being with the same inherent right to life. The pro-life libertarian view is based on acknowledgement of the unborn child as a human being with rights and that abortion is an unjust homicide stemming from the initiation of force against another human being.
An excellent pro-life libertarian resource is the non-profit organizaton, Libertarians For Life, founded by my friend, Doris Gordon (also the founder of the Maryland Libertarian Party, I believe), and is online at http://www.l4l.org/
Claymore,
No, I didn’t have a Star Trek convention to attend this weekend. Thanks for asking.
Let me be VERY clear here so Debra doesn’t misunderstand, both Paul and Kokesh are, in MY opinion, moonbats of the 1st order…
Any that follow Paul are moonbats of the 1st order…
Debra Medina is a Paulinista and a disciple OF Dr. Moonbat, thus, you guessed it, Medina is a moonbat…
But, that’s just MY opinion…
Debbie, now let’s address your shockingly bad grasp of history. Let’s take a look at the actions of our founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson became tired of paying tribute to the Muslims, hence the first Barbary War and The Shores of Tripoli. Jefferson was also responsible for the Louisiana Purchase which led to all sorts of non isolationist policies. James Madison grew tired of the Brits fucking with us and declared war on Great Briton; you might know it as the war of 1812. Madison also oversaw the Second Barbary War.
Yes the founding fathers would have preferred to remain isolationist, but soon realized to that no matter how much we desired neutrality, the shitheads of the world were not going to let us, and a robust foreign policy was necessary to keep America and Americans safe.
As to my supposed threats, you have just demonstrated a catastrophic fail in realm of reading comprehension. I merely stated that it was preferable to shoot communists first and paulians second, but, since paulians were communists anyway there really wasn’t much difference. But like most leftists you feel anything you disagree with threatening and therefore should be censored.
Nice history lesson aka a nice smackdowm Marine83…RESPECT
Oh, for crying out loud… Anonymous, there is no smack-down involved here at all. I guess you all are very young and haven’t already been through these debates numerous times over the past two decades. Pro-war and antiwar libertarians have been having these discussions over and over and over again with the same points brought up. And I’m really getting too old to be continually re-inventing the wheel. Surely we can just pull up some ten-year old debate on a yahoo group somewhere and cover the same territory with a lot less work and less stress on our hearts. I don’t know about you, but I’m 52 years old and I need to be concerning myself with priorities like that. As Patrick Buchanan, editor of “The American Conservative Magazine,” and author of the books, “Where the Right Went Wrong,” and “A Republic Not an Empire,” and many more, has pointed out, “No Arab nation has attacked the United States since the Barbary pirates, and none wants war with America.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan26.html Of course, you all just dismiss folks like Pat Buchanan as “moonbats” and “communists.” That’s so much easier than engaging in real thought and reflection. (Not that I agree with Pat Buchanan on every detail, but that is beside the point.) I can see that many of you are apparently experiencing emotional problems over the fact that libertarians are on solid ground regarding domestic policy, but you don’t want to admit it. On top of that, you don’t want to face the truth that there have been not only libertarians, but also conservatives, who have opposed to the war. The very fact that you call people who are libertarians and conservative, “leftists” and “communists,” just goes to show that your amygdalas have been hijacked by your neocortexes, and in such a state, you are not capable of fully rational thought. Look. Try to relax a little bit. Breathe. Smile. Do some yoga. Get a massage. Nurture yourself. Put away angry and violent thoughts that only get you upset, and allow your calm and connection response to arise and overtake your… Read more »
Marine 83, our founding fathers had no problem with administering a smack down to foreign devils who screwed with us, they refrained from modern retarded policies such as nation building.
IMO, we flushed our principals down the toilet in 1898 when we delved into imperialism, got sucked into WWI and literally stole the legitimate governments of Central American nations in the 20s and 30s to secure the profits of outfits like The American Fruit company. A certain 2 X MOH Marine Corps officer penned a few words about those atrocities… “War is a Racket” ring any bells?
In the words of the great philosophy student of the City of Angels…….Can’t we all just get along???
Pat Buchanan…Lew Rockwell…Bob Barr…Ron Paul…all we need now is the Birchers, Birthers, Truthers and a couple thousand Spock ears and we can have our own Star Trek convention.
I’m going to have to agree with JuniorAG here. While I can agree that isolationism is not an entirely viable strategy in today’s world, some of our current interventionism is downright idiotic and retarded.
Does our current policy of interventionism benefit OUR national security. Overall, I am inclined to say no.
Okay, Fred–so we just sit on our asses in Fortress America while the rest of the world lines up to take a giant shit on us behind the strings of Nazi Germany, the Soviets, Chinese, etc, etc, etc? In a world economy in which our (and most of civilization) country depends on raw materials not available within our border, it’s important to encourage friendly relations with said nations. You might call it “nation building”, some would call it good business or preservation of our self-interests. What’s good for us is in many cases good for others far beyond our borders, but what do we know, right?
NHSparky,
You are correct in the sense of encouraging friendly relations. The interventionism that needs to stop is the invasions and war. The friendly relations are to be encouraged through trading and the free market. That’s the way it works.
Also, FYI, I am not an isolationist (whatever that is), nor is that the foreign policy advocated by Ron Paul. It seems to me that “isolationism” is a term invented to draw attention away from what is the real problem, which is interventionism. And the answer is non-interventionism. That does not preclude true defense of the nation and Constitution, where necessary. I have yet to be persuaded that it is necessary.
Oh, goody–more KumBahYa mentality. Okay, so what happens when trading and free market don’t work and said nation wants to invade neighbors, murder its own citizens by the hundreds of thousands, etc? You know, rather than play ball, they’d rather try to shove the bat up our asses?
I don’t know how to explain that in 40 words or less in an intelligent manner.
In fact, they tried to train me on giving sound bites to the news media, you know, but I completely failed…
Well, I’ll talk to you later…I have to call my daughter now, then go to bed because I have to get up at 0330 hrs.
NH Sparky,
If our national interests involve the spread of Wahhabism, then we are doing a spectacular job at that one right about now.
Fred,
Looks like rectal/cranial inversion is alive and well among some segments of our posting community. Please try and use a talking point that is 1–less than 8 years old, 2–hasn’t been debunked at least 100 ways from Sunday.
NH Sparky
Are you implying that Saudi Arabia and certain other players in the Gulf states do not continue to pursue a global, Islamic Imperialist agenda?
Or are you implying that the Saudi religious establishment is not one gigantic, multinational terrorist spawning pool?
Now to the interventionist point. Is it not still the policy of the United States to protect Saudi Arabia and certain other Gulf states from countries like Iran?
Unless that changed yesterday, I don’t see where my argument has been debunked.
For that matter, where is the logic of fighting them over there so we don’t fight them here?
Are you implying that we overtly (or covertly) encourage Wahhabism? Seriously? They have a commodity which they are willing to sell. We are willing to buy it. Do I tell you what to do with your money when you’ve earned it or accumulate a given sum? We can encourage them to do or not do certain actions, but I think we’ve already demonstrated we don’t “nation build”. Far from it, in fact.
NH Sparky,
Yes, I am implying that we encourage the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia exports Wahhabism. At the same end, we protect Saudi Arabia and fail to ever hold them to account for anything. That’s encouragement if you ask me.
And why aren’t we telling them what to do with their money? What they do with their money poses a threat to our national security in more ways then one.
I mean Iran sends money to individuals who want to kill us in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia sends a lot more money to individuals who would happily attack us right here in the US as well as in the Middle East.
Yet we are protecting Saudi Arabia from Iran. Bizarre if you ask me.
Nice narrow view you got there. Too bad it ain’t that simple. BTW–you are aware that Wahhabism is basically looked down upon as a cult by even most Shia?
NH Sparky
I think the only things that make this issue overly complicated are
A. A bipartisan failure to curb our dependence on foreign oil.
B. The Saudi Lobby’s nefarious influence in Washington DC.
C. The overall ignorance from both the Right and the Left regarding the Middle East.
Of course Wahhabism is rejected by the Shia. The Wahhabis view the Shia as polytheists who are meant to be slaughtered. History as well as recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan show that the Wahhabis intend on actually carrying out that vision.
Besides, I’d say over 90+% attacks on US troops in Iraq were committed by Sunnis. They were definitely responsible for the majority of US troop deaths despite the minority in Iraq. Furthermore, I’d say the majority of foreign fighters in both Iraq and Afghanistan are Saudis. I know for a fact that a very large proportion of them are. Most of the money came from Saudi Arabia too.
That and is anyone really naive enough to believe that Saudi funded mosques preach anything other than Wahhabism? Or for that matter, is anyone naive enough to believe that a totalitarian police state like Saudi Arabia doesn’t know where so much of its money or citizens are going?
As far as the Shia go, they have their radical nutcases but overall, the Shia strike me as being the more rational of the two major sects at the moment. Definitely more rational than the Wahhabis who run Saudi Arabia.
Debra,
People who think personal liberty is of the utmost importance also think something unborn within the sphere of a born person has the same rights as that born person? Right. You can’t have two equal liberties within one sphere of existence. One has to win out.
As the “website” you linked says: Nonetheless, libertarianism’s basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else — for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy.
Unless of course you are aggressing against the right of a woman. Your basic principles mean you have to aggress against the rights of one of the two- either the unborn baby or the born woman. As a “pro-life” lib you are willing to violate the the rights of born women over unborn babies.
It’s cool if you are anti-abortion but don’t try to dress it up as something it is not.
Anonymous (#36),
So, in your opinion, if someone assaults a pregnant woman thereby killing her unborn child but the mother lives, the assailant should only be charged with assault on the woman and not murder of the child? Just asking.
As for my position as a pro-life libertarian, while I do strongly view abortion as unjust homicide, I am more of a pro-life anarchist with regard to the politics and legalities of the matter and I will not argue for, nor against, any legal or political position on the matter at all. In that respect, I do differ from the position of Libertarians For Life because they do feel that government has the responsibility to come down on the side of the right in defense of the innocent (the innocent being the unborn child). I also know from many long discussions with Doris Gordon years ago, the found of Libertarians For Life, that she is not looking at this as a matter of prosecuting women for killing their unborn, but rather as a matter of going after and legally prohibiting the doctors who perform them.
While again I maintain neutrality on the legal aspects and will argue only with regard to the biology and ethics of abortion, considering that forced abortions are not exactly an unheard of atrocity (my best friend in the Army had an abortion forced on her, i.e., physically forced on her), I personally don’t consider the foregoing to be a bad idea.