Sunday, August 26, 2012

Adam Kokesh Banned from Ron Paul Festival

iRoot reports:
The following instructions regarding Adam Kokesh are contained in the packet of information for volunteers being trained to help at Ron Paul’s Sun Dome Rally–expected to draw over 10,000.

Note: This ban is by the official Ron Paul event and not the P.A.U.L. Festival


  1. He must be doing something right. Obviously Benton and Tate didn't want to be confronted.

  2. "I would not want to be a part of any group that would have me as a member." Graucho Marx.

  3. This is a classic case of man asserting his Property Rights. The owners of a house, restaurant or the organisers of any event have the absolute right to forbid entry to any person they want to keep out, for any reason or no reason at all.

    This is pure Libertarianism, and anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian does not complain when a property owner exercises his absolute right to exclude people from their property.

    This is not shocking, surprising or an outrage of any kind, for those who attempt to chime in with calls of hypocrisy and 'unfairness'. What you and I think of Kokesh is completely irrelevant. The right to own property is absolute. Period. It is not conditional under any circumstance. Bravo to Ron Paul and his crew; I support them 100% and defend their property rights 100%.

    1. This is a political event, funded through donations of political supporters. Of course what you or I or anybody else thinks is relavant. In politics, what everybody else thinks is the only thing that is relavant. Sure, the owners of the donations who own the venue can run it anyway they wish, but the fact that they are banning certain people, people who are very relavant to the liberty movement, is a very relavant fact. A fact that most everybody who reads this blog understands.

    2. I have no problem with 99% of what you've just written...but the fact you assume Ron Paul had a hand in the banning is a bit presumptuous to say the least.

      It's clear there are many decisions being made by Ron Paul's organization without his direct knowledge/consultation.

      I have a hard time believing Ron Paul would exclude anyone from one of his gathering who was there peacefully over some disagreement on a philosophical basis.

      That would no be out of character for Jesse Benton though based on what we've seen so far.

    3. You're probably a troll, but for the possibility you're not, another's property rights do not deny me the right to complain or to say the use of property rights are silly or stupid. A libertarian may or may not complain depending on whether they privately agree with that decision. The only requirement for the libertarian is that he does not use aggressive force to invade the property rights of the other; however, he can peacefully persuade, complain, whine, whatever, if he disagrees.

    4. How is this a libertarian festival when the libertarian candidate for the president is NOT RON PAUL BUT IS___GUESS WHO< GARY JOHNSON.



      The ironic result is that they burned him so badly, the romney people burned ron paul so badly------that he's now in this rather ridiculous and awkward position of NOT BEING A LIBERTARIAN party member and not being in the republican tent.

      he is basically staging a protest against the republican party outside the convention without having THE BALLS TO DOUBLE BACK AND JOIN GARY JOHNSON AS PART OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY----giving GARY ALL OF HIS MONEY AND SUPPORT.


      libertarian leadership should GROW A PAIR OF BALLS, and start telling the republican party to go fuck itself. The republican party should either LOSE or change into libertarians. IF the libertarians had any balls , they'd show the republican party that corruption and bullshit are intolerable, and that even if it means letting the other party of corruption win, that the corrupticrats----are no worse than the republicans.

    5. Anonymous:

      Your rant says far more about you than it does about Paul. Your inane question regarding "How is this a libertarian festival when Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate for president?" shows that you do not even understand the difference between capital "L" Libertarians and little "l" libertarians. There are numerous reasons for libertarians to be concerned about Gary Johnson. He gets it right about certain crucial issues (military non-interventionism, opposition to the Patriot Act, etc.).

      However, Johnson has some serious gaps when it comes to a comprehensive understanding of libertarian philosophy (Exhibit A: Wenzel's interview with Johnson). He seems to be more of a candidate with some very libertarian instincts, rather than one with a comprehensive libertarian philosophy. I will say without hesitation that Ron Paul is more libertarian than Gary Johnson, and that Paul is probably more libertarian than the majority (at least) of the Libertarian party.

      Your point about the Libertarian party and "tell the Republicans to go _____ themselves" does not make sense. The Libertarian party probably draws more votes from Republicans than they do from Democrats, and they have not stopped participating in presidential elections. Who knows? Their candidate this year, Johnson, could draw enough votes from Romney in some crucial swing states to cost him the election. That has not stopped him. I simply do not see how you come this idea that the Libertarian party (however flawed it may be, and no, I am not a member of that party) is not taking on Republicans/acting as an arm of the Republican Party.

      Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988. He has had more of an impact running for the Republican nomination in 2008 and 2012, bringing his principles before a far broader audience, expanding the libertarian movement. The educational impact of these two runs has been potent, kindling the fire of liberty among an enthusiastic minority of the younger generation (people born from 1980 forward). Furthermore, Ron Paul has challenged the Republican establishment, paving the way for either: 1) a stronger and effective pro-liberty spirit in the Republican Party(I maintain it is possible, though not likely), or 2) newly-libertarian individuals leaving the Republican Party and working throughout society to advance liberty (FAR more likely!). Either way, it was worth it.

  4. Kokeesh just trashed Alex Jones saying he was lying that the government was picking up and incarcerating men all over the country in psychiatric prisons when it is actually the founder of the Rutherford institute which represented Brandon Raun who clearly stated this was going on. Kokesh was also actively misinforming people about Ron Paul's political status etc trying to deter people from continuing financial support hence possibly one reason for this ban.

  5. I defend the freedom of association.

  6. Shortly after Rand endorsed Romney, Kokesh skewered Ron Paul, saying that he had failed as a parent to Rand. I'm sure the ban is related to that.

    1. At some point in time the child of any parent has to take responsibility for his/her own actions.

      Rand Paul probably had an idyllic childhood. That doesn't mean that he's not infallible or that Ron Paul did a bad job @ parenting because his philosophy didn't take hold in Rand.

      I don't know anything of Kokesh's personal life, but I'm going to guess that he doesn't have kids yet. Like most young people, his viewpoints on child rearing and success/failure will probably change if he ever does. Even more, what he thinks/feels I assure you will change between the time he starts to raise his kids and then "finishes" when they are out of the house.

      His comments are just the ramblings of an ignorant person in regard to parenting.

      Does that mean Kokesh should be banned from a Paul event or exluded from the Liberty movement, which he contributes to greatly? Of course not, that's just Jesse Benton & company sour grapes. Par for the course.

    2. @ = shift+2. I think it's easier just to type 'at'.

  7. This is funny in a schadefreude sort of way...

    The very idea of libertarians ex-communicating libertarians from the libertarian collective...

    Good Grief! Why is it so hard to smell the hypocrisy?

    Of course, the 'owners' may exclude whomever they choose. This is not a question of rights.

    This is a question of commitment.

    This is a question of whether it is PRUDENT to advocate universal natural rights and un-bounded political inclusion (even the so-called illegal immigrants, remember?) while EXPLICITLY NOT ENACTING THEM.

    Behaving in a 100% coherent libertarian manner is simply beyond human capacity...the glory and beauty is in the attempt. The learning is not in the destination, but in the path to attaining it.

    They are free to exclude whomever they wish. That is freedom of association.

    But they shouldn't do it. They weaken their advocacy of Freedom by doing it.

    Objecting to an individual is il-libertarian. Objecting to behavior is not.

    I find it hard to imagine that the organizers object to the name "Adam Kokesh" or the person.

    Objecting to a Person is not libertarian.

    Rather I suspect they object to some behavior that Adam typically performs, or that they suspect he will perform. It would be more libertarian to ban the behavior on this private property rather than the person.

    This is a political event after all. Performing political exclusion while advocating Liberty is not an effective use of resources.

  8. This is strange, because: 1) Adam Koresh recorded an interview with Brandon Raub over the phone right after Raub was committed, and 2) I have never seen any hostility towards Ron Paul or Alex Jones from Adam Koresh. Is Adam some kind of disinfo agent, suddenly turning on the movement?

  9. Here is your answer why Kokesh was banned: