Ron Paul's Poisonous Partisans

Some of Ron Paul's most avid (some say "rabid") supporters are not friends of America.  The Marxist group "Code Pink" are frequent and vociferous supporters of the good congressman, as are "Iraq Veterans against the War," a Soros-funded group that is sometimes violently opposed to any American intervention overseas, no matter how justified it may be.

Code Pink, headed up by Medea Benjamin, shows up at any anti-American gathering that happens to have media (no pun intended) coverage scheduled.  That organization is frequently joined by IVAW in its pursuit of America-bashing.

Now, Rep. Paul cannot be held totally responsible for who attends his rallies and who organizes his Iowa Straw Poll effort, but the public should not be kept in the dark about who it is that has become so close to the congressman.

I first met one of the most visible of the Code Pink/IVAW crowd about three years when Gathering of Eagles, a pro-troop organization I nominally chair, organized a counter-demonstration against a protest planned by CP/IVAW in front of the U.S. Army Recruiting Station on 14th Street in Washington, D.C. They were, of course, shouting anti-Iraq War slogans and doing their best to offer photo ops and interviews to D.C.'s credulous media.  One young man in particular got my attention, as he seemed to be the "patrol leader" of the "military" element.

It turns out that this fellow, one Adam Kokesh, was indeed an Iraq veteran (a Marine) with a beef.  It is impossible to know when he turned against the Iraq War, but his passion was not diminished when he was "busted" for bringing a pistol to the States when he rotated home.

Even then his reputation could have emerged relatively unscathed had he cooperated with the USMC officer tasked to investigate his case.  Instead, he refused to cooperate and allegedly used the phrase "f*** you" when he addressed the officer.  That was when things went sour.

Within a matter of weeks Kokesh was demoted from Sergeant to Lance Corporal and was stripped of an award he had received for his Iraq service.  He was then given a "general discharge under honorable conditions," which was what his lawyer and the Marine legal beagles agreed to give him in lieu of a court-martial.

That sequence of events apparently convinced Kokesh to turn against "the establishment," as he obviously viewed it.  From that point on, it seemed that he was determined to be his generation's answer to Lieutenant John Kerry, who, as we all remember, was at the forefront of the anti-Vietnam War crowd alongside Jane Fonda, William Ayers, and the like.

He has not quite reached that level of dissidence, however, but it's not for lack of trying.  Fast-forward to 2010: it is announced that Mr. Adam Kokesh, a native of the Third Congressional District of New Mexico, has filed to run  in the Republican primary for the congressional seat of Democrat Ben Ray.  Kokesh was running as a Libertarian, which has some recognition in the Republican Party as a legitimate, if somewhat rogue, element.

And here's where the Kokesh case starts to get messy and, by so doing, contaminate the cause of both Ron Paul and the libertarian movement (not to be confused with the Libertarian Party).

I never saw such a change occur in a person as that which occurred in Adam Kokesh once he became an establishment candidate.  He sported a haircut of respectable length and style, wore suits and ties and normal shoes, and generally conducted himself in a respectable manner. 

Of course, that was a quid pro quo, as Paul had endorsed Kokesh's New Mexico candidacy.  And he did it with his eyes wide open, as I personally told the congressman all about Kokesh, including the bit about the latter's demonstrating against the U.S. military during time of war and of his transgressions against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and his punishment.

Paul blew me off, saying that he would look into my allegations. 

There's a difference between those conscientious libertarians who understand that Ayn Rand was right about personal freedom and some of the so-called "Paulistas," of which Kokesh is a vocal and active proponent.  It was he and others like him who out-organized Pawlenty in the Iowa Straw Poll and relegated him to the status of "former candidate." 

Ron Paul, on the other hand, came within 150 votes of winning the poll, and it was clear that his success was the result of hyperactive campaigning on his behalf by the Paulistas.

Ron Paul first ran for a full term in Congress in 1976, when he was barely defeated by an LBJ Democrat in an election that was ultimately decided in the House of Representatives.  However, his payback came in 1978, when he decisively defeated that same Democrat.  He has held that seat since then.  I am proud to say that I was a contributor to both of his first campaigns (even though I was not a resident of his district).

I am not, however, proud of what Ron Paul has become.  Instead of being the effective champion of personal freedom and the free market, he has become an outspoken proponent of isolationism, a point of view that has made him so attractive to (and, in my view, a prisoner of) the successors to the Kerry/Fonda crowd of the sixties and seventies.

During the Iowa presidential debate, Paul consistently used the term "militarism" to describe American intervention abroad.  While opposition to that intervention can make an honest case for their point of view, it is dead wrong (and dishonest) to use the term "militarism" to describe what is clearly intended to benefit the populations of those nations in which the U.S. military is involved, viz., Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, regarding the debate, anyone who thought that Paul "won" that event doesn't know anything about debating.  He frequently stumbled in his speech and found it difficult at times to develop his points.

America needs, in these times, a leader who is not so hidebound by his personal ideology as to be incapable of realizing that there is a larger world outside that which is encompassed by his economic beliefs, as rational as Ron Paul's may be.

That leader is clearly not Ron Paul, whose personal entourage includes the aforementioned Adam Kokesh, who currently hosts a radio talk show whose broadcast rights have been bought by Russian Television, which is owned by the Russian government.

Keep your friends closer, Congressman Paul, but not so close as to keep you from seeing who they are.  By now it should be apparent that Code Pink, IVAW, and Adam Kokesh have deceived you.

Some of Ron Paul's most avid (some say "rabid") supporters are not friends of America.  The Marxist group "Code Pink" are frequent and vociferous supporters of the good congressman, as are "Iraq Veterans against the War," a Soros-funded group that is sometimes violently opposed to any American intervention overseas, no matter how justified it may be.

Code Pink, headed up by Medea Benjamin, shows up at any anti-American gathering that happens to have media (no pun intended) coverage scheduled.  That organization is frequently joined by IVAW in its pursuit of America-bashing.

Now, Rep. Paul cannot be held totally responsible for who attends his rallies and who organizes his Iowa Straw Poll effort, but the public should not be kept in the dark about who it is that has become so close to the congressman.

I first met one of the most visible of the Code Pink/IVAW crowd about three years when Gathering of Eagles, a pro-troop organization I nominally chair, organized a counter-demonstration against a protest planned by CP/IVAW in front of the U.S. Army Recruiting Station on 14th Street in Washington, D.C. They were, of course, shouting anti-Iraq War slogans and doing their best to offer photo ops and interviews to D.C.'s credulous media.  One young man in particular got my attention, as he seemed to be the "patrol leader" of the "military" element.

It turns out that this fellow, one Adam Kokesh, was indeed an Iraq veteran (a Marine) with a beef.  It is impossible to know when he turned against the Iraq War, but his passion was not diminished when he was "busted" for bringing a pistol to the States when he rotated home.

Even then his reputation could have emerged relatively unscathed had he cooperated with the USMC officer tasked to investigate his case.  Instead, he refused to cooperate and allegedly used the phrase "f*** you" when he addressed the officer.  That was when things went sour.

Within a matter of weeks Kokesh was demoted from Sergeant to Lance Corporal and was stripped of an award he had received for his Iraq service.  He was then given a "general discharge under honorable conditions," which was what his lawyer and the Marine legal beagles agreed to give him in lieu of a court-martial.

That sequence of events apparently convinced Kokesh to turn against "the establishment," as he obviously viewed it.  From that point on, it seemed that he was determined to be his generation's answer to Lieutenant John Kerry, who, as we all remember, was at the forefront of the anti-Vietnam War crowd alongside Jane Fonda, William Ayers, and the like.

He has not quite reached that level of dissidence, however, but it's not for lack of trying.  Fast-forward to 2010: it is announced that Mr. Adam Kokesh, a native of the Third Congressional District of New Mexico, has filed to run  in the Republican primary for the congressional seat of Democrat Ben Ray.  Kokesh was running as a Libertarian, which has some recognition in the Republican Party as a legitimate, if somewhat rogue, element.

And here's where the Kokesh case starts to get messy and, by so doing, contaminate the cause of both Ron Paul and the libertarian movement (not to be confused with the Libertarian Party).

I never saw such a change occur in a person as that which occurred in Adam Kokesh once he became an establishment candidate.  He sported a haircut of respectable length and style, wore suits and ties and normal shoes, and generally conducted himself in a respectable manner. 

Of course, that was a quid pro quo, as Paul had endorsed Kokesh's New Mexico candidacy.  And he did it with his eyes wide open, as I personally told the congressman all about Kokesh, including the bit about the latter's demonstrating against the U.S. military during time of war and of his transgressions against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and his punishment.

Paul blew me off, saying that he would look into my allegations. 

There's a difference between those conscientious libertarians who understand that Ayn Rand was right about personal freedom and some of the so-called "Paulistas," of which Kokesh is a vocal and active proponent.  It was he and others like him who out-organized Pawlenty in the Iowa Straw Poll and relegated him to the status of "former candidate." 

Ron Paul, on the other hand, came within 150 votes of winning the poll, and it was clear that his success was the result of hyperactive campaigning on his behalf by the Paulistas.

Ron Paul first ran for a full term in Congress in 1976, when he was barely defeated by an LBJ Democrat in an election that was ultimately decided in the House of Representatives.  However, his payback came in 1978, when he decisively defeated that same Democrat.  He has held that seat since then.  I am proud to say that I was a contributor to both of his first campaigns (even though I was not a resident of his district).

I am not, however, proud of what Ron Paul has become.  Instead of being the effective champion of personal freedom and the free market, he has become an outspoken proponent of isolationism, a point of view that has made him so attractive to (and, in my view, a prisoner of) the successors to the Kerry/Fonda crowd of the sixties and seventies.

During the Iowa presidential debate, Paul consistently used the term "militarism" to describe American intervention abroad.  While opposition to that intervention can make an honest case for their point of view, it is dead wrong (and dishonest) to use the term "militarism" to describe what is clearly intended to benefit the populations of those nations in which the U.S. military is involved, viz., Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, regarding the debate, anyone who thought that Paul "won" that event doesn't know anything about debating.  He frequently stumbled in his speech and found it difficult at times to develop his points.

America needs, in these times, a leader who is not so hidebound by his personal ideology as to be incapable of realizing that there is a larger world outside that which is encompassed by his economic beliefs, as rational as Ron Paul's may be.

That leader is clearly not Ron Paul, whose personal entourage includes the aforementioned Adam Kokesh, who currently hosts a radio talk show whose broadcast rights have been bought by Russian Television, which is owned by the Russian government.

Keep your friends closer, Congressman Paul, but not so close as to keep you from seeing who they are.  By now it should be apparent that Code Pink, IVAW, and Adam Kokesh have deceived you.