“Don’t make me regret this.”

These were the words uttered by a judge to libertarian activist Adam Kokesh, right before releasing him from prison on November 6th.

Now Kokesh has his freedom back… Temporarily, at least.

He was initially arrested in July for putting a video online of himself loading a shotgun in D.C.’s Freedom Plaza.

D.C. gun laws are some of the strictest in the U.S. As reported by ABC News, “The District has a litany of laws on the books that make it more difficult to obtain some firearms, impossible to obtain others, and illegal to carry any loaded gun in the city.” Just being in D.C. with a loaded firearm, even if it is legally registered, is a violation of the law.

On July 9, not even a week after producing and uploading his video, Kokesh’s home was raided by a SWAT team. He spent over 120 days in jail with no bond, no bail, and no trial. 57 of those days were spent in solitary confinement.

On November 6th, Kokesh pled guilty to carrying a rifle or shotgun, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. He also pled guilty to possession of marijuana in Washington, D.C. He was subsequently released from jail and is currently awaiting his sentencing on January 17. He faces up to six years behind bars.

Although Kokesh is out of jail for now, he said his time behind bars was “humbling.”

“The first place they took me was the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center,” he said. “It was a borderline torturous situation. I was in a tiny cell without a mattress — all concrete. There was a light on 24/7 and it was too cold to sleep, since all they gave me to wear was a t-shirt and shorts.”

Kokesh’s 57 days in that cell were unforgettable. “The room they put me in was absolutely tiny,” he said. “There wasn’t even enough room to do squats or push-ups.”

The worst part of solitary confinement? “Isolation. All I had were the walls to stare at and that was intense.”

Eventually the activist was taken out of solitary confinement and transferred to a D.C. jail, where he was put in general population. “For the last two months I was sent to a correctional facility where I was corrected and I was treated — in no way whatsoever,” Kokesh said. “They put me with a big group of guys. This is supposed to be one of the toughest jails in the country, but a lot of people there knew my story and were actually big fans.”

Kokesh said he does not believe his treatment was extra harsh for political reasons, as some have surmised. He said, “The raid on my home was definitely politically motivated. But there was nothing in my treatment in jail that was harsh or unusual… It was a really humbling experience in a lot of ways. As challenging as my experience was, there are a lot of guys dealing with much worse in there.”

Despite weathering a few tough months, don’t expect Kokesh to drop off the map or back down with regards to his activism.

If anything, he has more of a reason to remain politically involved now, after experiencing what he believes is government corruption firsthand. He said, “We know that if you live in America, a no-knock raid is a possibility at anytime, for anybody. I was not expecting to have my home raided the way that it was [as a result of the video]. I thought the worst case scenario was that I would be arrested, booked, charged, and then released. Not that I would get kicked around, guns pointed at me, and flash banged.” (Read details of his home raid and arrest.)

Kokesh continued, “I do feel like it’s kind of silly for me to have been so naïve to think that I could get a fair trial and to think I wouldn’t be bullied. It’s certainly been an eye-opening experience…. I am absolutely still going to be involved in activism. I plan to be as aggressive as I possibly can.”

Aggressive, indeed — Kokesh is so committed to changing the system, that he has announced a 2020 presidential bid.

“This next year I plan to launch my 2020 presidential campaign,” he said. “The more that government screws up between now and then, the more people will be on board with this. I have one goal, one simple platform: to dissolve the federal government entirely and return all authority to the states.

“A lot of libertarians recognize the problem and a lot of libertarians want to address the problem. The answer to achieving a truly free stateless society is localization. If you don’t like the policies in one area, you can leave. In a truly free society, you would still have things that look like city governments, but they would be based on private property and association. You can have a transition by abolishing the federal government, then state government, then city government.”

Wherever Kokesh’s ends up in the future – a jail cell or the oval office (or both) – one thing is for sure: he is a person of strong principle who is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in. Even if you do not agree with Kokesh’s beliefs or way of doing things, this fact cannot be denied.

Kokesh is deeply grateful for the support he received while in jail, and would like to thank everyone who donated to his legal defense fund. If you want to make a donation to Adam’s cause, you can do so here. We will keep you up-to-date on his situation as news breaks.


 Follow Kristin Tate on Facebook and Twitter

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Kristin Tate
Kristin Tate is a multi-media reporter for Breitbart News and BenSwann.com.Dedicated to fearless journalism, she regularly works on undercover stings with James O'Keefe to reveal government waste, abuse, and fraud.Tate was a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter President and Founder. She will continue to fight tirelessly for individual liberty and free markets through new media. Visit Kristin's website at www.TheLibertarianChick.com.

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • mdj

    Thank you for this report.

  • SickOfTheStupid

    Sorry Adam , you are done has a convicted felon you can not hold political office nor be put on a ballot ……………..They only hope you had was holding out for a jury trial and counting on jury nullification jail is hell but you should have maned up and rode it out……………………I am disappointed in your lack of courage and perseverance you do not have the leadership potential lots of us mistakenly thought you had.

    • Texascane1967

      You might want to re-read the Constitution. There is no proscription on felons holding any federal office. Lyndon LaRouche has run for president eight times despite being a convicted felon. Kokesh might not be able to vote for himself but he can certainly run.

    • jbo5112

      He is still eligible to hold the office of President, and Alaska had felon Ted Stevens on their ballot for Senator in 2008. The US Constitution does not ban him from anything.


      • SickOfTheStupid

        he can not be on the ballot in my state ….sorry our state constitution will not allow it

        to add using factcheck.org has evidence is a epic fail ………..

        • Texascane1967

          Your state constitution language is unconstitutional. States cannot place their own restrictions on federal candidates.

          • SickOfTheStupid

            it has never been challenged to my knowledge so knock yourselves out . That aside our government is already filled with crooks and criminals your welcome to try and elect one that is a documented and certified criminal but I doubt the sheep will fall for it

        • jbo5112

          What’s so wrong with using factcheck.org on such a well known Senate race from 2008? Were the basic facts wrong? Would you rather that I spend hours digging up ballot evidence, court transcripts and other primary sources for something that was well covered in the news a few years ago? I simply picked them because they came up first in Google, their facts seemed reasonably correct and they are somewhat well respected (some level of support by the Annenberg Foundation and the University of Pennsylvania, and have won 4 Webby Awards).

          States can create pretty much any requirements they want for state and lower offices, but the requirements for holding a federal office are set by the US Constitution. I know states are allowed to set requirements for ballot access, but I am doubtful that any state would exclude a class of people who are eligible for the office.

          Citing vague references to law in an unnamed state isn’t much evidence of anything. If you would name a state, I could check up on its constitution and ballot requirements. For example, the New Mexico Constitution in Article VII bans “persons convicted of a felonious or infamous crime unless restored to political rights” from voting, and further states “Every citizen of the United States who is a legal resident of the state and is a qualified elector therein, shall be qualified to hold any elective public office except as otherwise provided in this constitution.” (age and residency requirements, with some extra judicial requirements) The felon basically has to finish their complete sentence (incarceration, parole, probation) to be restored, and if interested in the full details, you can read NMSA Chapter 31, Article 13, Section 1.

          Given the state of election laws, however, he pretty much cannot become eligible for election to the office of President (i.e. qualify for ballot access in enough states) without backing by a top 5 or top 10 political party. Even still, 1972 is the last time someone who wasn’t a Republican or Democrat got a single vote from the Electoral College by a faithless elector, and 1968 is the last time a non-Republican/non-Democrat actually won electoral college votes. Aside from Strom Thurmond (part of the Dixiecrat faction of Democrats) in 1948, those are the only non-Democrat/non-Republican electoral college votes in a century.

  • J

    Is anyone else wondering why this article has not covered why his lawyer dropped the case? I’m actually a wee bit upset yall chose not to include it. I’m sure there was a reason that I’m unaware of though.

    And I agree with Sick of the Stupid. If he’s a felon it’s game over, man. Game over.

  • jack

    I like Adam, he’s doing something.

  • http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com Global Political Awakening

    Great article! Adam is man of courage and integrity. He’s got my vote!

  • Ron Paulyes

    kokesh pleaded out instead of having his day in court. kokesh used a free pblic defender instead of representing himself. kokesh refused to fight for his right to bail, and allowed the judge to keep him locked up. kokesh lost the little respect anyone had for him. its obvious his projected personna is not real.

    • SharpndPensel

      Okay. Your turn to go load a weapon in freedom plaza. Show us what you’ve got.

    • Michael Blake

      soory ron i have more respect for the man now!!!

    • Mike

      He’s not too smart, not smart enough he went into battle with his pants down and unarmed. just getting uppity and drawing lots of attention is not fighting a war it’s being a target

    • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

      Maybe he realized the futility of going through the court system.

  • Solid Snake

    Political action is a waste of time. Adam should know this by now.

  • trizzybob

    is he appealing his conviction?

    • fyi4u2day

      He pleaded out. I don’t understand why he wouldn’t take this protest to court and he is not saying.

      • trizzybob

        people plead guilty all the time and still appeal their appeal their convicts. I don’t understand either

  • fyi4u2day

    Why is he still not explaining his guilty pleas? Him not going to trial seems pointless to his protest.

  • Yanksta

    I like Kokesh. He makes this statement:

    “The answer to achieving a truly free stateless society is localization.
    If you don’t like the policies in one area, you can leave. In a truly
    free society, you would still have things that look like city
    governments, but they would be based on private property and
    association. You can have a transition by abolishing the federal
    government, then state government, then city government.”

    Which leaves me wondering….

    What does a locality do when a neighboring locality or nation state decides there are resources in the locality for which they are willing to use force in order to take?

    • Mike Most

      Like he says, you would still have groups that would appear to act as city governments. Hopefully, they’d be working together to offer each other resources at market rates, and to share resources where mutually beneficial. But in the case that there is an unreasonable aggressor, the answer would be Insurance. The “locality” or association of property owners would undoubtedly acquire insurance to protect their property against fraud, theft, burglary etc. The insurance companies wouldn’t want to pony up & have to pay their clients in the event that their property is damaged or stolen, so they would have the incentive to protect their clients by any means possible…. Counter forces.

      • John Clark

        Mike, it doesn’t work my friend and it never will. History has shown this.

        • Mike Most

          John, I’m not sure history has shown this. As long as government has existed, there was been a monopoly on force, instituted by government. More commonly known as the police. In a stateless society, private property owners would be able to purchase protection contracts. These companies would probably not be hired by the property owners themselves (although they would most likely have that option) – But rather the insurance companies would hire them to protect their clients lives, as well as their assets.

          Does it seem far fetched? Perhaps it’s a bit difficult to digest at first, but it is actually quite plausible. But no, it’s not something that society has tried, at least I haven’t seen any evidence of it in my reading.

          • John Clark

            Articles of Confederation, the first decade of our country was so bad that states were about to go to war with each other. Trade failed because each state had its own form of currency that the others did not recognize. Read up on it.

          • Mike Most

            I’ve read the Articles of Confederation, and I’m aware of their failure, and it’s eventual metamorphosis into what we now call the Constitution. The Constitution is a great piece of paper, I’m on board with pretty much all of it. The problem is, it can be manipulated by bureaucrats & special interests at will, against the wishes of the populace. You’re postulating that I think the Articles of Confederation were a good idea. I’m not. I’m advocating private property & contract rights.

          • John Clark

            Without some government to oversee those contract rights how can you enforce the contract. You cannot act without a government body. A federal government must be in place. Chaos ensues when one does not exist.

          • Mike Most

            Contracts need to be enforced, absolutely. I suppose the idea is to remove the monopoly on these functions that the government currently holds. Stateless society, anarcho-capitalism, voluntarism… whatever term you want to apply to it, they all espouse the idea that removing monopolies is the #1 goal. Removing government from the equation is in some senses a byproduct of that. Or I suppose it could be argued vice versa. Either way, courts would exists just like they do today, but they would be competing. But of course there are many questions and concerns associated with that idea, granted. Scary right? This is a pretty in depth sort of topic, and there are several pieces of literature on it, but I’ll try my best to provide a brief synopsis & answer some of the more glaring questions one might have regarding this supposition.

            First off, I don’t think the idea of competing courts is quite as scary as the legal system that’s in place today. If someone had a claim of contract violation, they would confront the party & bring it to a court of their choosing. If the other party involved disagreed with the choice, the would offer a different choice. Just like in the the legal system today, there will be judges that would be more lenient in some areas, more strict in others. But they would have their respective reputations, much like vendors do today for any kind of product they’re offering.

            What if the party decided to boycott the other contract holder & just not show up to court, or agree on one? To that I would say, how many people in that community would ever do business with them ever again? They’d in all likelihood be banished by all other parties involved. This isn’t the wild west either, this is the 21st centruty, the twitterverse, facebook etc. They’d be compelled to come forward and settle disputes. And in addition, to comply with whatever the courts decision may be.

            Sorry for any grammar/spelling errors… typing from my phone.

          • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

            I think your explanation of a possible voluntaryist society is fair; it is only one possibility. When you remove the monopoly you open up to innovation. The technology and communication of today really make the historical argument sound week as it really is a new world for anarchy.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            “As long as government has existed, there was been a monopoly on force, instituted by government. More commonly known as the police.”

            I’m not sure you can say this with 100% accuracy – The Constitution was written and implies that their was no monopoly on force during the formation of our country.

            “The problem is, it can be manipulated by bureaucrats & special interests at will, against the wishes of the populace.”

            Not so – The only way it can be manipulated is if the majority of the populace is either: a. Apathetic toward enforcing it (happened for many years now) or b. Wanting to replace it because they think they’ve found and intellectually superior ideology (almost anyone who is an ‘activist’ be they liberal, voluntarist, anarchist, etc. wants to change the constitution, or do away with it)

            Since both a & b are true of most people today, the establishment (those bureaucrats & special interests) is winning. If everyone could support the constitution, the majority of the wants that liberals, conservatives, libertarians, voluntarists, and anarchists would be met – Nobody would get EVERYTHING they want, but they would get the important stuff – and that is how the real world works: Ideologies can never be 100% accurate, and so a “best case scenario” should be looked at on a realistic level.

      • Yanksta

        Insurance? So if I am killed by an aggressor trying to take what is mine, how is that going to help ME?

    • John Clark

      Exactly. He needs to read up on the Articles of Confederation and how that form of government failed.

      • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

        Saying something “failed” in the past isn’t really a sign it would fail again. Plenty of things fail before they take off. Certainly statism has failed many times… I don’t take that as proof that it will always fail, nor as proof that Voluntaryism will succeed.

        • Gregg Braddoch

          Socialists and Communists have been saying that for years.

          Failures can never “prove” something will not work – Even when a scientist performs their experiment multiple times and it fails – It is not a proven failure – Human beings make an argument from induction (which is logical, but not always correct) when something repeatedly fails, because it is logical to think that if something has failed once, or twice, or more times, that it will fail again, or at least have a substantially higher rate of failure.

          • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

            Scientist work with controlled variables. But in general, I agree. Statism is the failure. Even a little fails. A lot fails. Voluntaryism is the next experiment.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            You apparently mis-understood what I was saying:

            Past failures are still a good indication that something will not work, even if it cannot be considered “proven.” A wise intellectual will view things that have similarities to past failures with greater skepticism than those who do not have any similar failures.

            Voluntarism is nothing new, it is simply the radicalization of the form of government that our founding fathers established, and goes waaay to far (IMHO) in it’s anti-government stance.

          • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

            Your argument is full of holes. Saying voluntaryism is nothing new, when it is in fact a newer idea, then pointing to a statist regime that failed, is nonsensical. It isn’t anti-government; it is anti-coercion in that there can be no legitimacy if there is no voluntary exchange. So we can claim, without question, that every coercive regime, which is all of them right now, is illegitimate and their “rules” and “laws” and “edicts” do not apply to anyone in any legitimate way.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            Your statement is an opinion, and cannot point to objective evidence. My position, which you consider “full of holes” is backed by historical documentation:

            the ideas behind voluntarism have been around for hundreds of years, voluntarism just interprets them differently. (and IMHO, very badly – instead of a corrupt government deciding disputes, voluntarists somehow think a 3rd party working for profit will do better)

          • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

            Voluntaryism does not mean what you just claimed… what you said can be described as one possible scenario given by Anarcho-Capitalist.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            There is virtually no large difference between ancaps and voluntarists – they are both anti-authoritarian (which is good), anti-government (which cannot be proven to be god), based on voluntary, self-government (which the US constitution is based on), and from there they extrapolate all sorts of weird ways to do things without government, but nobody has show that any of these methods will work in practice.

          • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

            Sure there is. AnCaps have a system they propose within the world of Voluntaryism. Voluntaryist can be AnCaps, but to be Volutnaryist you have to also recognize that other systems could be sought out which are not capitalism, and still be voluntary. Voluntaryist are not anti-government but anti coercion. There are plenty of non-coercive governments today (non-state of course). I completely disagree that “nobody has shown…” as we have so many successful and innovative industries which are not monopolized by statist, or which have or have not been monopolized by the state throughout history, and that to me shows that those that are monopolized, are not necessarily needed to be monopolized. That is an opinion, but everything in regards to this type of discussion will be an opinion.

    • goodf2@yahoo.com

      Using k-12 school as an example…
      Communism is maybe 5th grade ideology
      Socialism is a 6th grade ideology
      7th 8th grades are maybe where the young mind adheres to conformity
      9th grade is where a struggling young mind seeking liberty develops an affinity for Anarchism. Th eyoung mind begins to develop a distaste for Bossmanship and begins to lean toward seeking Leadership
      Leadership involves finding a solution to a problem and rallying people to follow you voluntarily to success. The leader finds a way for people to achieve their objectives.
      Bossmanship involves directing people as subjects involuntarily to achieve the agenda of the Boss’s superiors
      10th-12th grade is where most people jump off the free thinking bandwagon and become firmly ensconced in the ideologies and thinking and speaking in the metaphors and hyperbole provided to them by the social engineers who work for this unlawful unconstitutional occupation regime.

      Libertarianism requires nothing less than a master degree in everything.

    • pennsyltuckycowboy

      you watch too much Jericho TV on Netflix

      • Yanksta

        Too much Jericho? What if I have a solar array that is making power for my home. The electricity is down. What is to stop someone bigger than me from coming and taking it? That’s not Jericho. That’s real life.

  • Joshua Miller

    To have a fair trial you have to go to trial.

  • John Reinhardt

    If kokesh was not being paid by Russia I would probably support him but hes a Russian agent who has openly admitted taking money from Russia to do their work here within the U.S.

    • John Reinhardt
      • SickOfTheStupid

        he reports for Russia Today , although it is state funded it is a far cry from him being a subversive or spy ………………….Putin would have gotten him a good lawyer if he was a spy not some crudy public defender.

        • John Clark

          Ha ha, You have no idea. When you have an asset that gets caught you send flowers so you can deny any involvement. Spy Tradecraft 101

          • SickOfTheStupid

            Kokesh is not bright enough to pass spycraft 101……….he is not even a effective activist he had a mediocre military carrier and tends to burn his bridges

      • Colin

        Um, being a corespondent for RT (English version especially) doesnt make you a spy. It in no way fits the definition so I am not sure where you are going with this.

    • John Reinhardt

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph6noxr13Q0 Proof Adam is a paid shill of Russia.

  • grendal113

    I would like to know why he didn’t fight this? Why his attorney ran and hid?

    • John Reinhardt

      Hes a shill being paid by Russia and allowed by Obama.

  • John Clark

    How can you call yourself a libertarian if you consider the U.S. Constitution a “failed experiment”. Libertarians are supposed to support and defend the Constitution, not destroy it. Kokesh wants a transition into anarchy. I cannot support that and will to all in my power to stop him.

    • John Reinhardt

      You are 100 pct on the mark John Clark.

      • John Clark

        I swore an oath and I must honor it.

        • John Reinhardt

          Same here my friend.

          • Colin

            I dont understand you guys. The right to keep and bare arms is in the Constitution. If the government is breaking the Constitution (and it is constantly) then we may have to seek justice outside the traditional methods. But either way this is a story about the government violating the Constitution not the other way around

    • James Guzman

      Libertarianism is founded on private property and the non-agression principle, neither of which are compatible with the constitution.

      • John Clark

        Sir, I disagree. You are an anarchist if you believe that.

        • James Guzman

          Anarchist, Anarcho capitalist, voluntarist you can call it what you would like but it is the logical progression from classical liberalism into what is called libertarianism today.

          • John Clark

            You’re not even close to a Classical Liberal. Jefferson believed in a small federal government with little power not the lack there of.

          • James Guzman

            What I am is beside the point and liberalism or libertarianism is antithetical to the deification of the thoughts of one man. Philosophical thought has progressed since 1700’s.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            Progression is not always good – Especially if it does not heed the warnings or reasons our government was setup the way it was – There are literally hundreds of years of thought before Jefferson and the founding fathers where many types of governments were tried – these results were recorded and studied by the framers of the constitution. So, if you are saying to get rid of the constitution, and make a new one – What makes your new “progressive” way better? And don’t say “positive rights” because “positive” being superior to “negative” rights is a statement about moral values, and altogether arbitrary.

          • James Guzman

            You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the voluntarist position. If you are actually interested there is enough literature for you to read for the rest of your life on the subject at mises.org.

          • Gregg Braddoch

            Lots of literature does not impress me – What impresses me is a demonstrable link between that literature and reality. I am aware that Mises, Spooner, Hayek, and others have large bodies of work that are internally consistent, however I am also aware that the ideology they are advocating has its basis in a moral standpoint, and anything that is based on a moral standpoint is wholly subjective, and cannot be proven.

          • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

            That is where we can say thought has progressed; many voluntaryist have, while not abandoning their personal moral objections to coercion, found other logically sounds arguments for voluntaryism. Namely that if you want any legitimacy in a human exchange, it has to be a voluntary exchange, as the subjectivity of morals does not give an action legitimacy.

          • jwclark

            “Philosophical thought has progressed since 1700?” Nonsense. Where would it go?
            You must be an academic philosopher. Only someone who makes a living out of mastering a plethora of a never ending “new” and supposedly relevant data would talk like this. Again, “Progress?” Nonsense. JWC

          • James Guzman

            Nice argument….oh wait.. you didn’t make one. Would you care to explain to me how every philosopher in the last 300 years is irrelevant? Or would you prefer to continue making inaccurate ad hominem attacks?

          • jwclark

            You have already said that what you are “is beside the point”–presumably for this conversation. But that is rarely the case since it is not possible for my self to not be on the line–though I can feign a posture to that effect as I please, and find fifteen philosophers to defend it. That said, if not an academic philosopher, what are you that is somehow unrelated to what you have said?
            As for my making or not making an argument there is nevertheless a life time of thought and of course study behind my question “where would it go?” And though it may seem to you that what I wrote was a personal attack (if you think so, you must think as little of academic philosophers as I do) it was more an expression of how much contempt I feel for those who in the name of helping others in fact make things unnecessarily complicated instead of easier for them and who preserve their jobs in making sure that nothing is ever final–and thus no one is ever responsible for anything!
            As for the notion of “progress” it is one of the hooks that the “military industrial (medical, educational, etc.,) complex enslaves people with and as a pat explanation for everything, like natural selection, it is sufficiently satisfying to keep the majority from even trying to look at things for themselves. No true teacher or friend would ever do this to someone they cared for.
            Progress? Look out at the world man. And look at Adam Kokesh’s situation. If philosophical thought has progressed since 1700 it has done so in complete isolation from the daily world, and, the cycles of a set number of different types of political domination have not changed one wit since Plato laid them out in the Republic more than 2000 years ago. And furthermore we send graduates of the Political Science department at UCLA to Iraq thinking that they are exporting “freedom” and other American principles. Where’s the progress in that?
            Again, what are you? Have you progressed away from any responsibility to the world for what you do and how that relates to what you say? I am open to your answer, but, for one at least, I doubt it. JWC

          • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

            You are correct; philosophical thought has progressed; we literally have logical philosophical and economical arguments that are sounds and show anarchism is, not necessarily the “best” system as it isn’t a system and “Best is subjective (a dictator like Obama wouldn’t consider it the best)… but the only way with any legitimacy. For through voluntary exchange we achieve legitimacy in our actions. A “constitution” which binds generations who neither were alive during the signing, not signed it, or took an oath to live by it, cannot be said to have any legitimate claim over those people.

    • dradeel

      The U.S. Constitution IS a proven failed experiment. How can you look at the situation today and say that it isn’t?

      “Libertarians are supposed to support and defend the Constitution, not destroy it”
      There’s loads about the Constitution that all libertarians should and do dislike. It’s not an end all piece of document that encompasses all that is libertarianism. Far from it. What it is, however, is the closest thing we’ve ever seen on the face of this Earth – at least as the guiding principles of a sizable nation – that has actually tried to catch the essence of what has become libertarianism. It’s is the only law of the land that is grounded in individualism and human moral rights, as opposed to decree of the governing elites and/or spokespeople for a god (using religion to uphold their tyranny and power). That’s exactly why many libertarians defend it: because of its historical and popular significance that stems from the age of enlightenment and individualism.

      So, if you’re a libertarian that believes in the rule of law and individualism (as most/nearly all do), then in a relative sense, the US Constitution is a thing of beauty and is worth defending. But that does not mean it shouldn’t be changed and shouldn’t be improved upon. Heck, if it all comes down to it, from a libertarian view point, it should be removed. Replaced with something better? Maybe. Replaced with nothing? Maybe. Remember, the deconstruction of the federation does not equal anarchism. Neither does the deconstruction of the federation have to result in the end of the United States. Libertarians come in different flavors.

      Can’t a person both defend the Constitution and be critical of it at the same time? There’s nothing intellectually dishonest about that, unless you analyze it in a vacuum where nothing else exists.

      • John Clark

        I’m all for amending the Constitution but it has to be done in the way it has been drawn out.

        • dradeel

          I do not necessarily disagree with you. But can you answer me why it has to be done in the way it has been drawn out?

          • g.johnon

            because to whom in hell are you going to entrust the power to change it?

          • jwclark

            That’s right g.johnon! The pickins are pretty slim, eh? JWC

      • jwclark

        This will be true only when they no longer use the Constitution to pretend that that is what they are honoring. Then only will it be over. Until then, be careful that you do not make a bad situation even worse by discouraging your neighbors. Things can get very very bad before they are finished. Remember that.
        Yes, in practice it is dead. But in the hearts of men it is not. Place your mind and your actions there! JWC

      • RonWillison

        dradeel.. I would ask of you what part of our Constitution you would be critical of? If those we have sent to DC to represent us and our wishes, Instead of putting We the People and our Nations laws in the back of the bus and placing their campaign contributers and what they exact in exchange for those contributions at the top of the pile. This Country would not have been derailed 100 years ago. America wouldn’t be sporting black eyes and growing more worldwide disdain as we speak. Once upon a time. America and her generous empathetic peoples would load up every available shipping resource we had to get immediate relief to any and all country’s that took an environmental catastrophic hit. Today the only things raining down from the undebelly’s of our C140’s is death and destruction. To be fair one of our Aircraft carriers did reach the Phillipines today with needed supplies. What would the world look like today if “We The People had been doing as told by the framers and heeding warning about placing our trust in Government and allowing con artists to sell us snake oil like the Federal Reserve Central banking system of government? What would the world look like if the same evil bastards that sold our great grand parents the Trogen Horse we call the FED, had been found out before succeeding in that treachery. And instead, hung by the necks until dead.? Can you in your wildest dreams believe the middle east would look as it does now if those same crooks and criminals and their offspring had not been able to use our money against the rest of the world to fund both sides of every war, create every boom and bust, which wouild ultimately lead to the preplanned birth of the United Nations and its use as the vehicle for the biggest illegal and immoral land grab by decree in human history for the sole purpose of taking the territories biblically know as Palestine from those who had been living on those lands from before the time of the exodus and Moses and giving them to the Zionists for creating the God Forbidden nation State of Israel. See Moses and the Exodus for the reason I said God forbidden. Something to do with Praying to Bulls made of Gold as I recall. That God was over ruled by a higher authority. LORD Rothchilds family and friends. When our founders put phrases like friends with all nations, While avoiding entanglements to any if adhered to. would we not be looking at a different global image today?. Do you think they were warning us about situations like being joined at the hip and running interference at the UN for Israel was what they were thinking about? I do. That founding Document was not thrown together willy nilly. The reason the right to keep and bare arms was placed in the second spot was because the most important one. The first amendment right to speak and gather in protest for redress of grievances is the glue that binds the whole document and concept together. FREE SPEECH ZONES? Two hundred years ago. A president writing laws like that with Executive Orders would have got him impeached at best. Hung at the worst.. Our freedom to speak without fear of retribution had to be protected. Which is why private gun ownership was placed in the second. Those of you that believ Adam Kokesh is an anarkist should dig a little deeper. The Patriot Act. War Powers Act, NDAA with its totally wicked embedded subsets are harbingers of your childrens futures. And the same crowd that has given humanity 90 percent of the death destruction and mayhem for the past 100 years alone are still proceeding along with their well designed and executed Pogram, and those people have and always will live by the law of the jungle while selling you and I the Rule of Law. Leave my Constitution alone.

    • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

      Small “l” libertarians are anarchist. Big “L” Libertarians are Libertarian Party members and are statist.

      The only argument for the constitution being anything other than a failure is that the people are a failure instead… which would come down to the oath breakers as nearly every “citizen” in any land did not take any oath, or sign any contract to be party to any constitution or any other “law”.

      • dradeel

        If libertarians are anarchists, why not say anarchist instead of libertarian? Why would you confuse your own terminology like that? It’s obvious that libertarian means something else and actually includes more groups than just anarchists. Libertarian philosophy is indeed very much intertwined with anarcho-capitalistic concepts and ideas, no doubt about it, and could be said to be the only proper philosophical basis for anarcho-capitalism, but not all libertarians are anarchists, as not all libertarians necessarily ground their views in libertarian philosophy… Which indeed becomes another confusion of terminology, as libertarianism as a word holds multiple meanings.

        • http://bevoluntaryist.com/ BeVoluntaryist

          I don’t use that term. I was just clarifying why some people say “libertarian” but don’t follow the party “Libertarians” ideas and norms such as hero worshiping the “founding fathers” and the “constitution”…

          However, I don’t really think it is a confusing of terminology. Saying “I want freedom” and “I want no ruler” are really just two ways of saying the same thing. So an-archy means “without rulers”. Liberty-arian means “advocate of liberty”… if you want to go to a dictionary, many uses of the word say “anarchist” as a synonym.

    • jwclark

      John: You don’t have to stop him. He will do that himself. What you need to do is support him against those forces that violate his right to political speech, etc., and do so because you or your neighbor is next. Anarchy is a political position, loading a gun in Freedom Plaza is political thearte, i.e., speech. Use all your power to protect that. JWC

  • mike

    Abolishing an institution chartered through the people exercising their liberty to self govern is not libertarian.
    Adam Kokesh here is not speaking of libertarianism he is speaking of anarchism.
    Anarchy is antithetical to liberty. Liberty does not persist without the formality of instituting protections.
    What is being sold to you as Classic Jeffersonian libertarianism is in fact Anarchism and I believe this was either engineered as a way to cripple true libertarianism or is a result of libertarian PARTY politicians making appeals in THEIR Ideologies to include Anarchists in the fold for political reasons.
    As Libertarian I would strive with the greatest effort to rally and oppose any attempt to dissolve the federal state and local institutions (which would leave us as the colony of the first conquering nation to take advantage of this).
    The answer to the question of how do we fix these problems is not to throw out the mechanism of solution.
    It is to throw out the unlawful unconstitutional occupation regime that has supplanted itself over this nation one law and one politician at a time using the exigent system still in place since the founding.

    • joev

      “We” did not charter this system or government. Jefferson thought the system should be overthrown every 20 years. He would be disappointed in “us”

    • RonWillison

      . You must not have been paying attention during the 2012 Republican Primary season or the general election itself. If you had. You would have noticed the hundreds of document cases of out and out Election Fraud, Rigging and Voter suppression that took place Nationwide. I have no less than 49 raw video’s recorded in real time and uploadeed to Youtube that show FELONIES being committed. And what have any of you heard from Any law enforcement agency? Be it your local Dog catcher or Holders office? NADA, ZIP, it never happened. So go ahead on and keep believing that your vote will change something. Our Presidents have been preselected since 12-23-1913 by the FED and other International Bankers and Investors. Our two party election system is a made for TV game of charades designed to let you delude yourself into believing your vote is even counted. The really sad part in all of that is. Most of you know it and find living in the fantasy more comfortable than having to contemplate the alternatives and remedies. Most probably don’t even realise that the root cause of the over the top suicide rates taking place among our returning military personnel can be laid directly in the laps of our Nationwide law enforcement system.and agencies. I’m sure that each and every one of you reading this have heard these words. “Ron Paul recieved more campaign contributions from our military personnel than all the other candidates combined” What do you suppose the effect would would be to you when after a hard day of killing, maiming, and blowing stuff up as you have been ordered to do by your commanders. You turn on the election and see the complete and total lack of any sence of justice or adherance to our most sacred of all laws that you are in harms way trying to defend for mom, apple pie and your children futures. What are our children defending? Are they expected to just suck it up when some higher up tells them, Sorry about your luck soldier, The powers that be have decide your horse in this race is not allowed to win. Now get in that tank and go blow some thing or some body up. And all any of you that think I have mis-stated anything in this tirade need to consider is, this one very important fact. As long as there is no effort on anybody’s part to dismantle the entrenched power structure in charge of giving the people the political choices you are allowed to have on voting day and you support those pre-sellected puppets by voting for one of them. YOU are responsible for the growing never before seen suicide rates taking place amonst our mentally destroyed children.who wear the uniforms that once upon a time were worn by people who thought they were defending all that this once morally sound great nation stood for. Fair elections, equality, Justice for all, not just the chosen few, and the right to take a crap without some camera counting how many sheets of TP you used to wipe your ass with

      • jwclark

        Good essay, and more than a “rant.” To put passion in your words is not the same as ranting. There is a time far passionate speech, for real rage. And indeed, we are almost past time for any speech at all. Good essay. “Any of you who harm even one of these innocent ones…” is a relevant notion here. JWC

    • Tannim

      You were wrong the first time, too.

  • goodf2@yahoo.com

    Think about this:

    Abolishing an institution chartered through the people exercising their liberty to self govern is not libertarian.
    Adam Kokesh here is not speaking of libertarianism he is speaking of anarchism.
    Anarchy is antithetical to liberty. Liberty does not persist without the formality of instituting protections.
    is being sold to you as Classic Jeffersonian libertarianism is in fact
    Anarchism and I believe this was either engineered as a way to cripple
    true libertarianism or is a result of libertarian PARTY politicians
    making appeals in THEIR Ideologies to include Anarchists in the fold for
    political reasons.
    As Libertarian I would strive with the greatest
    effort to rally and oppose any attempt to dissolve the federal state and
    local institutions (which would leave us as the colony of the first
    conquering nation to take advantage of this).
    The answer to the question of how do we fix these problems is not to throw out the mechanism of solution.
    is to throw out the unlawful unconstitutional occupation regime that
    has supplanted itself over this nation one law and one politician at a
    time using the exigent system still in place since the founding.

    • James Guzman

      The logical conclusion to Jeffersonian liberalism is voluntarism. Classical liberalism thought has been continued through people like Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard into what is called libertarianism today.

    • Gene Fulgham

      There can be no occupier when the occupied are conditioned not to pay tribute. Without absorbing a tax base, an invasion becomes an endless money pit, with nothing to be gained.

    • Tannim

      Go read some Gary Chartier and then get back to us, because your knowledge is woefully inadequate.

    • dktne

      YES. the depowering of the fed, instead of abolishing it, would be best, and far easier to manage. there would have to be serious amendments in terms of political donations (none being allowed, or only $5 being allowed per person) and other issues and a serious resurgence in giving care to the nation and wanting each individual to be well etc but not forcing anyone to act in any way, allowing one to freely pursue the greater health they seek

  • Liberty Felix

    Makes me feel again the frustrations like I had with Larken Rose’s decisions which transfficiated into jail time. [sic: an officious mutation]

  • Liberty Tree

    funny how our capital has a law that is contradictory to the Constitution… Maybe it’s on purpose?

  • bossmanham

    Why did he plead guilty? It makes no sense to if he’s doing this to uphold the constitution.

    • http://FreedomOutpost.com/ Tim Brown

      Exactly, well I’m glad to hear that at least I was right in pointing out the idiocy of his “armed march on Washington.” He admitted he was naive. That is a good lesson learned. His pleading of guilty not only keeps him from legally owning guns now, but also removes any chance he thought he had of taking this thing to a trial. Again, something I pointed out before. Glad to here he’s home, but I won’t vote for the guy for President.

  • Marvin

    I did not like how he treated Chris Duane. He lost my support from that incident.

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    LOVE BEN SWANN for covering this! THIS is alt-media! THIS is the future of journalism! It’s a little bit of a shame to have a REPUBLICAN (cloaked as a “libertarian”) report the story… but otherwise, FANFRIGGINTASTIC news coverage!!!!

  • Skip

    None of you geniuses thought to ask him what was up with that whole lawyer thing?

  • Jeff

    Where is the Interview? It’s not on video? He had two friends come out 7 days ago saying that Adam would be making a video after his release, and nothing has come forth, not even a lame explanation of he was ordered not to by his attorney or it would not be smart to make one before his sentencing day in January, do we have any word at all? Is he going to talk to the people that supported him YES OR NO? Or just out there trying to milk the money?

  • Garret McCarty

    Adam Kokesh lost my support when he loaded a gun in Washington, DC and made a ruckus when he was punished for it. There is no reason for this kind of action, no matter how pro gun you are. He broke the law, and it was no surprise to me that he was arrested and served jail time. Honestly, he should. Adam is not above the law.

    But what can you expect from Kokesh . . . Remember he is the guy that does drugs (DMT) and posts the videos on YouTube. A real upstanding guy. Presidential material for sure. *sarcasm*

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      “He broke the law.”
      Which “law?” Which “law” REPEALED the 2nd Amendment?

      “Does drugs?”
      You mean like alcohol? Nicotine? Mind-altering pharms? Or… do you mean ONLY the politically incorrect “drugs” that can be used to SMEAR someone… when you have no LEGITIMATE argument against him?

      • Steve Holmes

        Your comment was 29 minutes faster than mine. r3VOLution your are right on!

      • Bomber1947

        the 2nd amendment has no validity in DC or any other Federal Territory. DC is run by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Anyone in Federal Territory or agrees to be a citizen under the 14th has no right to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is the scam most people don’t understand. Gov. jurisdiction Vs. Common Law jurisdiction of the Constitution. The States are NOT Federal Territory.

        • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

          Gonna have to walk me through this (and please… DO NOT INSULT ME WITH PRECEDENT). I’d like to understand how my GOD-GIVEN rights (articulated in the Bill of Rights)… are… STRIPPED… by the 14th and a district that STEALS MY EARNINGS AND FREEDOM, IN COMPLETE VIOLATION (ironically) of the Bill of Rights and the Enumerated Powers. And, since the federal government “owns” a SHOCKING amount of STATE LAND… are my GOD-GIVEN rights, likewise, STRIPPED within my own state? And since, federal DOMINION has been established, through a COMPLETE MOLESTATION of the Commerce clause, AS EVERY AND ANY INCH of the United States…

          where DOES… the 2nd Amendment apply?

          • Bomber1947

            First let me state, the 14th amendment may have been fraudulently ratified so whether it is Lawful or not is up for consideration. Your rights were not stripped by the 14th amendment unless you lived in DC. Through various trickery (fraud) most people have agreed through “adhesion” clauses in legal documents they sign such as a driver’s license (why do you need a license for traveling, something that is a right as long as it is not commercial activity), social security # (a gov. “benefit” program), voter registration (you swear you are a US citizen- not an American citizen or a citizen of your birth State), fire arms permit ( again you don’t need gov. permission to keep and bear arms which is a right, so why did you agree to get a permit? Because you behaved like a subject rather than one of the sovereign people.)

          • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

            Sorry, I’m a little slow. Please cite THE EXACT VERBIAGE of the 14th, that repeals the Bill of Rights in particular areas.

        • Tannim

          Uh, wrong. The rights of the people are not subject to limitation because of a federal district. In fact, before incorporation of the 2A to the states by the 14th, it could have been argued that 2A only applied on federal turf. Your logic is completely inaccurate and backwards.

        • http://www.michaelpshipley.com/ Michael P. Shipley

          Thats the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

        • iamme

          The second amendment has THE MOST validity in DC, the whole reason for it was to protect the country from all threats foreign AND DOMESTIC.

    • gary the squirrel

      loser shill

    • jwclark

      Garret: Remember what Aunty Em said to Dorothy when they came with a “writ” from the sheriff to take little Toto (“toto” means “all” by the way and that means all of us)? She said, “We can’t go against the law Dorothy.”
      But if Dorothy had listened to Aunty Em (and to you) there would be no companions (heart, mind, and will), no Yellow Brick Road, no Oz, no wizard, and especially no Journey to unify Dorothy and her soulish companions! In other words, if we listen to you all we will have is that monocromatic humdrum that is Kansas before Dorothy realizes there is a higher possibility, i.e., something higher than “the ordinary life lived in the ordinary way.” So, thanks, but no thanks Garret. JWC

    • oldironsides

      With a conviction now on the books for a gun charge, Adam Kokesh will never be allowed to own a gun ever again. Not sure if his crimes were Felonies or Misdemeanors but he will regret his actions. His egotistical grand standing stunt proved absolutely nothing and accomplished even less.

    • iamme

      Garret, if law becomes unjust, the just become outlaws. This is exactly what Adam did. He saw that the law of DC was unjust, so he became an outlaw by carrying his gun in DC.

  • Christy

    This guy loves himself way too much to make any sort of difference for the people. He is power hungry just like the rest of them. His presidential aspirations are a complete joke and will be a waste of time and money.

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      That’s what Establishment republicans said, WORD FOR WORD, about Ron Paul in 2012.

  • barry the squirrel

    and the likelihood that he will be in the oval office whilst maintaining that creed is so impossible that the author looks to be crack borne.

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is… never try.”
      ~ Homer Simpson

    • berky

      what does that have to do with the author? … i’ll give you a hint… absolutely nothing

  • just a man

    Ben Carson MD 2016

  • Scott Robart

    If it looked like Kokesh had a chance at President in 2020, he’d have a mysterious car accident on a back road out in the country, similar to what has happened to others who tried to divulge information or change the system. There’s no way he’d be allowed to tear down the system that so many have built to protect themselves and their associates and make a few people a lot of $$. He’d have a better chance of flapping his arms and taking flight.

  • jwclark

    We are missing any discussion of why he pled guilty. Why? Still, something is not right here. JWC

    • http://www.michaelpshipley.com/ Michael P. Shipley

      Because if he didnt he’s probably get 20 years. There was no way jury nullification would of saved him. The sheep are too afraid. This way he will get much less or just get probation.

  • Kokesh4Prez

    Adam Kokesh was a political prisoner that appears to finally be broken by the Feds and State authorities. I’ve been a loyal Kokesh follower for over a year watching him speak out against government authority/policy abuse in so many other forms than the “Gun Activist” portrayed by the mainstream media. Adam’s 23 second video was only 1 of well over 1000 videos Adam has produced on his YouTube channel (**MANDATORY VIEWING**). Many videos point out the illegitimacy/hypocrisy/control of Gov involvement in many facets. Adam shares his educated viewpoints regarding the TSA, Drug War, War on Terror, Parks Police, 9/11, Obama, Bush, Economics and many more.

    The reason I said Adam was “broken” before you will soon understand after you see his other videos. Adam speaks so eloquently for his cause and has gained increasing popularity via social media outlets Facebook and Twitter as well as his YouTube channel. After posting the “Shotgun” video as the final result of a foiled plan to march in civil disobedience to the capital with shotguns draped over their backs to show support of our 2nd amendment….at this point our Gov had had enough and wanted to make an example of Kokesh as well as break him down.

    In my opinion, Adam would have never willingly plead guilty to these charges against him. Keep in mind, they kept him in one of the most mentally unstable conditions (solitary confinement) for nearly 2 months with the lights on. After nearly four months we have no idea which federal agency: CIA, FBI, JSOC may have done to break this man’s spirt….we just learned today on Ben Swann of the FBI’s shooting the “friend” of the Boston suspects 7x while being interrogated and unarmed……smh

    So in the end, I still have these questions:

    Why would Adam’s lawyer (who was a friend) quit right before his trial with out explanation?

    Why have the charges from the “magic mushrooms” disappeared…and now Marijuana? Adam has stated may times before that these mushrooms were planted.

    What was this cell phone charge? Authorities claimed that charges for sneaking in a cell phone would be dropped in exchange for a guilty plea?

    Why would Adam Kokesh plead guilty less than 2 weeks after posting this statement from his arraignment? Posted on his Adam Vs the Man website)

    “Due to the oath I swore to the constitution when I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, by virtue of the universal human right to self defense, in accordance with the Supreme Court case, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the statutes under which I am being charged are unconstitutional and thus null and void, and on behalf of all freedom loving Americans, I plead not guilty.”

    • jwclark

      Thanks Kokesh4president. Kokesh will shoot himself in the foot in the end but that does not mean that he should have his rights violated. He is like any other neighbor, citizen, or brother; his rights need to be protected and defended. He needs the support of those who have now, because of his language, distanced themselves from him. Swann seems to understand this. Apparently Alex Jones doesn’t. He should though and it is not to his credit that Kokesh has been dropped as a news item from his shows. It is shameful really. JWC

    • Fum Baz

      > broken by the Feds and State authorities.

      Or maybe he realized the futility of his cause since he’s got a fraction of a fraction of a percent of support he should have gotten.

  • Shane DZ

    If anyone else reported this, I would have more faith in what I read. However, Kristin Tate is not a reporter. She’s news entertainment. Many of her articles are charged and lack sources.

    A close friend made me laugh when he told me he thought Adam Kokesh was a plant. That joke isn’t as funny now having read Kristin Tate’s article.

    • Mike

      Were you born this stupid or is it something you work to accomplish?
      Nothing wrong with Tate, go f&^k a goat.

    • brianmiddleton

      What was wrong with it, other than your inflammatory statements and overly broad conclusions?

      • time waster

        I my self was much more excited to read the article before I saw that it was reported by MSM wanna be

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      My guess is damage control. Journalists who have been OUTED as republicans will often temporarily shift their reporting from the typical “Obama did it, Obama did it, Obama did it” and the transparent PROMOTION of the Palins, Breitbarts, etc… to more hard-hitting, alternative reporting. Then, after a few weeks pass, they will INEVITABLY slide back into the republican PROMOTIONAL “reports.” Usually something gossipy, like “(insert republican) SLAMS (insert democrat).” And almost ALWAYS linked from a REPUBLICAN site, like Breitbart or the Blaze, thus PROMOTING the MS(republican)M.

      And anyone who exposes REPUBLICANS, will always be met with childish insults… something like: “Were you born this stupid or is it something you work to accomplish? Nothing wrong with Tate, go f&^k a goat.”

  • Notkiddin

    Don’t worry your pretty little heads about Pres in 2020. We’re not going to have a republic by then anyway. Go buy some water/food and ammo so you don’t come harassing me when it happens.

  • PaulBraveheart

    That a true American Hero, fighting for our frredom and liberty!

  • jwclark

    Upon reflection this is just fluff and a lot of puff. It is not satisfactory and does not answer any of the vital questions that patriots have about Kokesh and his experience and why he had pled guilty to things that are not in fact crimes at all. Why didn’t you go for the real answers, and why didn’t you explain why those answers are not in this article? You have puffed him up, but have not given that any supporting factual data or any argumentation. Why? JWC

  • Scott Sourile

    First off, this turned into an opinion peace at the end. Secondly, this didn’t answer any questions.

  • Joseph

    He accomplished nothing. In the end he actually showed he is a moron. Abolish the fed? Get real. The real action is the return to the constitutional principles that are in the founding document. The best way to fix anything is to return it to the guiding rules enshrined at its inception. Maybe if more ppl woukd actually read the document and hold the government accountable it’d work. Alas that isnt about to happen without a possible violent restructuring as it was in the beginning although I dearly hope I am wrong

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      Pssst… you just REINFORCED Kokesh’s theory of DISSOLVING federal government, after calling him names… for wanting to dissolve federal government. Yeah… the Constitution would be fantastic… IF… it was followed. But our American experiment, while WILDLY SUCCESSFUL in many ways, has PROVEN that it WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED, REGARDLESS OF WHAT “FAILSAFE” LANGUAGE (Amendment 10) is added. Seems Patrick Henry was right, to fight against the Constitution.

      • Robert

        Henry’s greatest quote wasn’t, “Give me liberty or give me death!”, it was, “I smelled a rat.” when asked why he didn’t attend the first gathering of the so-called Federalists, because when one REALLY thinks about that, how in the hell could the South have ever been anti-federalist?

        What the so-called “Federalists” really were was, Nationalist and is PRECISELY why Henry made his infamous rat reference.

        The “rat” he smelled by the way was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was nothing but a shill to the Bank of London and Henry had cottoned onto this an din the end it is Hamilton who talks Washington and Jefferson into giving us Debt-Money.

        Another fact is, it was the anti-nationalist arguments that “gave” us The Bill of Rights, not the other way around.

        And that is where we are today, 53% of this country have no problem being Slaves to the States Debt because historical facts have not been taught to anyone in the public school system, they have been dumb-ed down and indoctrinated.

        But probably the best quote of all time came from Samuel Adams, “How strangely will the Tools of Tyrants pervert the plain meaning of words!”, and man have they ever :/

      • dannyboy

        so your argument is because the rules aren’t being followed that the rules aren’t any good? That argument can be made anywhere at anytime regarding anything if the rules aren’t followed!!!!! The PROBLEM is not following the Constitution (partly in way of using precedent in lieu of the constitution) an apathetic constituency, political lobby, oppressive federal government, legal redefinition of terms. etc… Your claim that it has been proven that it will not be followed, is through corruption. Corruption is the issue, not the constitution. I can see this whole agenda on both sides of the Hegelian dialectic for Constitution dissolvement and the beginning of chipping away at the document. When in reality we should become active in garnering support for following and persecuting politicians, and CEO’s and corporations for breaking it’s laws. The rule of law can’t work until the law is upheld. The lobby, secret cabals, and secret agendas make that impossible.

    • iamme

      Actually he has accomplished much in the way of waking people up to the corruption of the government.

  • patrick

    It is difficult to seriously sympathize with this guy. He stated above that his goal is to abolish the federal, state, and local government. That is absurd. Sure, you can cut many things but stop at the state level. We still need critical support from the federal government for SOME things.

    I guess I am not a true libertarian as my views only go as far as putting more power to the local governments and less to the federal government> less regulation and over sight from the feds and more community planning and growth form the local level.

    If you really want to make any kind of change you need to run for office. Whether or not it is city clerk or sanitation director you can have an influence politically. It is a shame that not only Kokesh could have accomplished this at a local level but that he had to spend months in jail to realize it. Further, he wants to run for President which is not even practical. Not even a blip on the radar.

    If he ran locally he would have had a much greater chance of winning.

    BTW, when you challenge the federal government they are going to call your bluff. They were arrogant about the raid because you were arrogant about loading a unlawful fire-arm in the District of Columbia .

    • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

      1. “I have one goal, one simple platform: to dissolve the federal government entirely and return all authority to the states.” NOT abolish the “fed, State and local” governments.

      2. No, you are NOT “libertarian” if you seek to shift federal “power” to local government. Decentralized government is a beautiful thing, but most “power” should rest WITH THE INDIVIDUAL, not ANY government: Retirement, healthcare, education, food, unemployment, housing, etc, etc.

      3. There is NO SUCH THING as an “unlawful fire-arm,” per the 2nd Amendment.

      4. Kokesh HAS run for office before, AND SEEMS TO HAVE REALIZED THE FUTILITY of doing so.

      5. “BTW, when you challenge the federal government they are going to call your bluff.” ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THIS?!?!?!?!?! Are you comfortable with a federal government THAT HAS A COMPLETE MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF VIOLENT FORCE?!?!?!?! DO you NOT understand what a TRUE “balance of power” is? Do you see how this reality WILL ALWAYS, ALWAYS turn OPPRESSIVE, AS IT HAS?

    • Jonnyboy Stranger

      Bahhhh bahhhh I need my socialist state government to tell me what to do and to push other people around if they do something I don’t approve of while I force people to pay their ransom so I feel good at night.

    • 4truthsake

      You should have research this guy before basing your limited comment on this one incident. Your overall view is immature feed by fake news, modern propaganda, and dumb-down-social media. Running for office is not the only way to “change” anything. A good example to knock down your limited knowledge is Obama–he ran–what changed! Change is when we pick the RIGHT steadfast Constitutional supporters for office. We have a lot and enough of jacka*** who ran for office, won, and changed nothing but coins in their pocket.

    • iamme

      The only reason we need the federal government for somethings is because of the federal government. They cause the problems and then send in their own people to fix the problems.

  • TheWholeTruth

    He should never have plead guilty. Go to trial, let the people decide. He could have gotten a decent jury who would have nullified the laws.

    NEVER plead guilty and NEVER take a plea deal. If they offer a deal, they have squat on you!

    • jjay

      at this point they are irrelevant to me, the word guilty is just that, a bunch of letters someone want meaing applied to, i refuse, saying that, i used to think like that, a part of me still does, and that part knows exactly what you mean……but the more they become aggressive in their authority, the less choices you have to make, and just as long as they are not heinous choices i say……..why care those who are fast becoming irrelevant by the actions they show no signs of stopping

  • DMChoreographer

    What an idiot…..I for one hopes he gets a resounding defeat.

    • Kenneth Karolchik-Griffin

      you should refer to yourself in your posts.

      • DMChoreographer

        I did……

        • Kenneth Karolchik-Griffin

          i am glad you know you’re an idiot. i was referring to you as the idiot i am glad you agree you are one and will be defeated..

          • http://kool-computers.com/USAPatriot/ DMChoreographer

            When you mature enough to recognize Adam was wrong for the way he did this I’ll take your replies more serious. He was warned repeatedly. If that doesn’t ring in your head when Oathkeepers warn of trouble, then nothing can get through to you.

            There is a time, a way and a logic in DC that, whether you like it or not won’t be stopped with foos like Adam.

            Once that sinks in and he goes there and then gets arrested, he deserved what he had coming. If he was so great, this hero of yours, he should have never pleaded guilty. He was warned this would happen. He got what he asked for.

          • iamme

            Once it sinks in DMChoreographer that DC, the District of Criminals, isn’t above constitutional law meaning the right to bear arms. After that you will realize he didn’t do anything illegal, it is actually those who made the ban on guns in DC that were doing something illegal.

          • http://kool-computers.com/USAPatriot/ DMChoreographer

            Let me put it this way for all of you who seem to think you all need to reply to my comments. I have personally emailed Ben Swann to have Stewart Rhodes interviewed for you. If you actually go to the Oathkeepers website, you can read Stewarts full response to the issues. This problem didn’t just happen overnight, and there are no magic bullet solutions.

            Thank you

  • John Landry

    Has Adam hurt anyone in the process? No. He was simply expressing his right to free speech. So what if he had a loaded weapon? He didn’t want to harm anyone with it, he was just making a point. America, please stop being terrified wusses and protect your rights.

    • Tupac

      “i shall never break, never surrender, never bend over”… wait, no one came to my protest-8 people, but they were going to line the streets and chant my name, i have like 70k followers on Facebook- what, they’re all as insignificant and ill informed as me, but the constitution, i saw a movie where they talk like lawyers, no, then what have i been doing – wasting my time, but i am important- i’ve been compared to Gandhi, i was the one comparing myself, call alex jones, i’ll rub the lotion on its tummy.

      • John Landry

        You blame the few, when it is the many who are responsible. Never forget that.

  • Ronjae Jones

    I think You Guys Should Read the Organic Act of 1871. Documents like these should basically sum up why most people in office are discreetly but yet in our faces, deconstructing the Constitution and really running this country in the Ground. Comment.

    • dannyboy

      You’ re so right here… But it isn’t being accomplished through discreet it is being accomplished openly through education, and I don’t mean ignorance or apathy, which yes plays it’s role. But education veers us in a specific direction for a specific purpose. This is to be working members of the State (Socialism). The educational system is built on this, it isn’t built on understanding fully our beautiful rule of law or focusing on the individual in the classroom. How could it be when in all reality the people who brought us that system and their goal was indoctrination into an “ism” system. Meaning fascism or socialism and then duping the masses into thinking that either one of them, when pertaining to the actual body of people; you and I, would bear any signifigance difference on our lives. Either one of them enslaves the people to the state. So either the State, using slave labor to manufacture their own labor and their ruling class runs the pions Or the Corporations through the State and politicians rules the pions via lobby and legilslation. This is of course achieved by an apathetic body of people, us, by allowing circumvention, redefinition, no prosecution etc.. of laws and crimes. They are in the final stages of a plan that I can personally trace back to 1830’s through the Eastern Liberal Establishment all fascilitated through the wealthy families who landed in Mass, CT, and RI…
      Its’ all about education education education… control someones formative years and regardless of the field of expertise you instill in them you swear them to and oath and brotherhood to achieve a common trans-genrational goal. and voila… here it is.

  • RevNowWhileWeCan

    Sorry guys but no! If you don’t think that the oligarchs are smart enough to throw Kokesh at us as “controlled opposition”, to try and keep the movement divided, you haven’t been paying attention. This is a movement of peace and I really don’t trust a Libertarian who calls on a nation to solve the current problems by breaking the current laws and turning possibly very, very tragic. That’s what he did by calling for an armed march on D.C. I support Adam’s beliefs 100% but I cannot trust his tactics and neither should you. Unless of course, you do support an armed revolt to bring change to the current system, then Adam’s your guy. The oligarchs would love nothing more than to round up all of his team and squash the remnants of the movement. Keep your eye on the ball and stay focused on peace as the answer to every possible question because if peace is not the answer to your question, they will win. They can deal with everything else but they don’t know what to do with peace and Kokesh’s tactics do NOT support the Libertarian phrases that come out of his mouth. Demagogues are no longer in fashion. Stay focused. Peace……….

    • Kenneth Karolchik-Griffin

      adam is a friend of mine and you are talking nonsense, actually you seem to be exactly what you are trying to label adam.

    • raheem

      eye on what ball?whts the solution?

    • Tupac

      Keep what movement divided? You guys couldn’t put together a senior prom, which i imagine most of you attended with your moms. You actually think the government thinks you’re a threat to them? All they have to do is cut off your supply hot pockets and you’ll break. Everyone thinks they matter these days, you didn’t go to school, you don’t know how anything works. your living in an imaginary society(possibly in your parents basement) preying the society that works will fall apart so you won’t feel like a loser anymore. Surprise, in the next society you’re still a loser.

      • dannyboy

        That’s funny the Tea Party is the most successful challenge to the status quo Hegelian dialectic paradigm that has been seen in decades. The media, the Republicans, and the Democrats want to push the party into the Republican Party (or the Reps did bc it bolstered it in the beginning but now is fighting it so it doesn’t take over it’s party). While it’s true that many of the core ideals are Rebulicanesque traditionally speaking. That doesn’t mean much today at all. Libertarians believe in individual civil liberties, the Constitution, the individual above the state (the reverse of that is socialsim, which is how YOU were trained in school)
        Progressives seem to think they have this uber-educational advantage bc they went to University but all that really happened is that you were indocrinated by the likes of Daniel Coit Gilman, Andrew Dickson White, Timothy Dwight, and the forefather of our educational system John Dewey. All of whom were taught either directly or indirectly-through-lineage by Wilhelm Wundt, Hebart, and Fredreich Hegel all while doing Post grad work at the University of Berlin. Where Philisophical socialism was the rule of the day in Germany at that time it was drilled into and formed the basis of the approach of the US educational system. Through these 3 main figures Gilman, Dwight, and White all of whom graduated from Yale and attended Berlin prior to 1860 is the reason that we have been culturaly indoctrinated into socialism.
        So while you think that your some hot shot bc you have a bachelors or something and look down on everyone else you were simply taught since the moment you could speak to be a socialist and surprise surprise, here you are. Read John Dewey’s Educational theory or the works of Wilhem Wundt or trace the paths and titles the people I named had and their influence on the system.
        In closing I hate Kokesh and despise everything about him. I think he’s an arrogant shmuck who does more harm, a la Alex Jones, than good. That’s why I’m here on Ben Swann’s site bc so far I have found him to be a respectable journalist who lends credence to an area rife with so many misleading figures.

    • iamme

      When law is unjust, only the lawless are just.

  • Mike TheVet

    This is the wrong move, Adam. C’mon now, he must see this as a monumental waste of time.

    Let’s concentrate on something we can control: Industrial Hemp.

    • jjay

      no reason he cant do both

      • Mike TheVet

        The reason why he shouldn’t run is because we all know what wlil happen, if he runs in 2020.
        Now, if Adam runs for other positions within the US Government and wins those votes, we have something else to talk about.
        But TPTB wouldn’t ever allow “our” kind in the WH.

    • Brady2600

      Adam has pointed out many times, that one of the difficulties of activism is that, while you spend your time trying to win back just one of your freedoms, government often swallows a number of other ones whole while you are busy doing that.

  • jjay

    the party of peace and love

  • Kenneth Karolchik-Griffin

    Adam Kokesh 2020 , count me in, a better choice then the biggov anti-american statists in the gop/dnc.

  • BigSkyCountry
  • Varuka Salt


    • Mqira

      I think he was pretty tight!!!

    • Fum Baz

      loose |lo͞os| adjective

      1 not firmly or tightly fixed in place; detached or able to be detached:

      2 (of a garment) not fitting tightly or closely:

      3 relaxed; physically slack:

      What exactly are you trying to say, son?

  • damen

    This reads like an Onion article. Let’s get this guy some treatment for his PTSD. And whoever is manipulating him, knock it off.

    • Fum Baz

      It is obvious who’s been manipulating you though, buddy.

      • damen

        Who is that? It’s not Adam Kokesh for damn sure. I’ll tell you that.

    • Andrew Harrison

      I find it really odd and disturbing that you would use Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a scapegoat for something you perceive as illegitimate. Like the article read, whether you agree with him or not, the fact that he was willing to put his entire life and career in jeopardy for something he believed in is admirable in itself. It is also a lot more you can say about an individual compared to those who like to hide behind the image and pay lio service to the movement.

  • damen

    Also, since when is this any libertarian’s position?

    “I have one goal, one simple platform: to dissolve the federal government entirely and return all authority to the states.”

    That would mean abolishing the U.S. Constitution. Let’s think a minute, people.

    • Jean-Luc H Ulmer

      Kind of.

    • Soo Houng

      You are aware that each state has a Constitution as well, right?

      Many libertarians support states rights and minimizing the government. Just because you abolish government on a Federal Level doesn’t mean the Union will dissolve. It just means the Bureaucrats in office, don’t have ultimate say over what each state does. Only to uphold the most core laws within the bill of rights.

      • damen

        Yes, it does mean the Union will dissolve if there is no federal union. That’s just a really, really stupid thing to say. Even the Founding Fathers had the Articles of Confederation before the U.S. Constitution. It was a federal government. A weak one, which is why it failed, but a federal government nonetheless. You should learn more from history and less from Alex Jones. It’ll do you good and help you on your next exam.

    • dannyboy

      it isn’t the Libertarian position, Kokesh is just another paid hack to help destroy and splinter a group, by rubles non the less. I’m a libertarian and a Libertarian want’s to limit size, scope, and reach of government amongst other thing may other things. Kokesh is an Abolishonist and any Libertarian with a brain wouldn’t support that clown

      • Darkness Dragon

        Yeah? Care to share us what libertarianism is based upon then, oh wise one?

      • Brady2600

        I can’t see how much of a knowledgeable libertarian you can be if your not at least familiar with rothbardians. Anarcho-capitalists are just one of the philosophical subgroups of libertarians that don’t believe in any government. Libertarian does not equate to minarchist only.

    • Fum Baz

      Indeed, think about it — what exactly are you disagreeing with and what does the federal government has to do with the “u.s. constitution”.

      • damen

        The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land, grants you freedom of speech, religion, guns, and on and on, and puts limits on what the government can do to you. Without it, there’s no federal government, or at least no federal government with limitations. That’s what “the federal government has to do with the ‘u.s. constitution.'” Literally everything. Read it sometime.

        • Jalen C Stegman

          the constitution doesn’t grant any freedoms to anybody. It simply recognizes them.

        • KayGee

          The constitution is the law of the land. The federal government is an institution that is run by the federal reserve. Without the federal government there would still be state governments, and eventually local governments and possibly even deeper. The laws would be made locally. Boundaries would diminish as a result. In the end, we and our PRIVATE property will make our own laws. NO government would have authority over our property like they do now. The feds can kill us on our own property after breaking into our houses and they WON’T get in any kind of trouble, because they’re all psychopathic, power-hungry thieves. Adam is speaking of diminishing all government and giving us our power back as individuals so we can live how WE want to live and not have to be governed based on how other people who have nothing to do with us want to live. That’s what his movement is all about. You obviously don’t know very much about him. I can back his views, but I’ll back no person individually. Anyone could be lying to us by spewing positivity, lol.

        • Matthew Reece

          Rights do not come from the Constitution (or anywhere else). Rights are valid because their invalidity results in logical contradictions, contradictions equal falsehood, and invalidity being false is equivalent to validity being true.

    • iamme

      It does not mean abolishing the US constitution, it means restoring power to those it legitimately belongs to.

    • Matthew Reece

      Some libertarians (like me) are free market anarchists, so abolishing the Constitution (or just understanding that it is not a valid contract binding on anyone alive today) is not such a drastic step.

    • Darkness Dragon

      Any libertarian knows deep-down that abolishing any authoritarian monopoly is the ultimate goal of the Non-Aggression Policy. Anarchism is the logical conclusion, and the means.

    • Brady2600

      Since Rothbard.


    What an idiot. He wants to be a martyr for a cause that was lost more than 150 years ago. No amount of activism, political or social, is going to “fix” America. No amount of voting, no amount of petitioning, no amount of martyring. And there’s not going to be a revolution, either. If you don’t like the steep decline America is in, gtfo; nothing else makes sense.

    • FollowYourName

      Maybe you should follow suit and your Username. New Orleans doesn’t need willful sheep like you. It’s bad enough we have to deal with career criminals in our city. Much less, idiots who perpetuate the problems we’re facing locally and nationally.

      • GTFOofNOLA

        Your mother regrets not aborting you every day.

        • James Hale

          Your mother wishes she had swallowed.

    • foobar9001

      Damn straight. Downvotes and the reply below is a great indication that it is indeed the case, ironically enough, they call you “sheep” :). No need to gtfo though, just play the game some other way and live a good life, there is no need to get agitated about such a silly thing as politics.

    • iamme

      No cause is lost if there is but one fool to fight for it.

  • dannyboy

    Adam Kokesh for President… I love all these media personalities who claim to represent the right are nothing but caricatures and jokes and do nothing more than hurt the party than help it. If you support Kokesh, may the good Lord open your eyes to this shmuck…

    • iamme

      Sometimes you have to use big flashy actions to bring attention to something that has been hiding in plain sight for so long.

      • dannyboy

        Spam much?

  • jagragg

    Once respected, Adam has lost his freaking mind!

    • iamme

      Which is crazier, taking a stand against a tyrannical government or bending knee to it?

      • Lee G

        Challenging the unconstitutionality of the DC laws in federal court with reasoned, well thought out legal briefs and arguments. Not getting yourself tossed in jail, then having to cop out and giving the movement a black eye! Bad move Adam! Question, how many of you, supposedly his supporters, are going to follow his lead and pull a similar stunt? I’m watching the news feeds…………..

  • piratecrayons

    everyone blabbering “aw adam kokesh is dumb, wow like, guns in DC are illegal, what a dumby for taking guns to DC when he knew they were illegal”

    mmk well guess what, the government doesn’t listen to you, the only way to get them to listen to you is to cause a commotion, cause a problem for them because they gotta do something about it. adam wanted to cause a problem for DC not to cause harm to it but to liberate it. DC is not exempt from constitutional laws. the right to take up and own arms and ammunition is legal in the united states not only in your home but in public. just because it’s not normal anymore to sling your shot gun around your shoulder for your walks around the city doesn’t mean it’s not normal for some one who lives in the middle of no where.

    adams take on localizing government is a great one – why should the vote of the 51% overrule the vote of the 49%. we’re talking about hundreds of millions of people effected in some cases. it’s unfair that just because some city kids (which i am, myself) can vote so that they feel “safe” in their little crowded city by, for say, limiting ammunition capacities to 10 rounds per magazine, while the people out in the wilderness might take on bears, moose, and other wild life might need more bullets than that.
    or, maybe some one just WANTS more bullets than that. ever think about that? how we buy cars we want? it goes faster than what we need but hey, we want a fast car right? so why is it different that the gun laws are slowly constricted to being “you can have what you NEED”, while cars are something you can buy freely – and cause more deaths with than guns do.

    i could go on and on but anyways.
    i am 15 years old from los angeles and i will vote for adam kokesh in 2020!!

    • Theudoricus

      I agree with localizing government. Voting, however, will remain the same as it already is in the case of 51% over 49%. Congress makes decisions for us at a federal level, which is resulting in false representations of the majority in some cases. In our state governments, the people are in charge of voting, but that does not mean corruption is not in play. Personally, I do not think voting for Adam Kokesh in 2020 is a reasonable choice. I’ve been following his videos, podcasts, etc. for quite a while now, and quite honestly, the man has a vindictive attitude toward the government and his choices are poorly planned and executed, like that of him loading a shotgun in D.C.

      I am an autodidact of philosophy and theology, as well as a student in history and human resource management. I am also 19 years old living in Ohio. I would suggest reasoning with yourself about Kokesh’s 2020 campaign.

    • iamme

      Not just own, piratecrayons, but to bear them as well.

    • Darkness Dragon

      Well said, young one.

      The key behind localizing government is knowing that it will eventually lead to ending government itself. It is after all, a legalized form of robbery that is even worse than robbery as Lysander Spooner so eloquently.

      “The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

      “The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a protector, and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to protect those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do.

      “He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful sovereign, on account of the protection he affords you. He does not keep protecting you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.”

  • iamme

    People say that Adam Kokesh did absolutely nothing by his video of loading a gun in Freedom Plaza, but I beg to differ. The reason why is because of him people are now on this site and many others like this one discussing politics and other related topics. He might not have changed the laws of DC, but that really was never the point of the march or the video.

    • Darkness Dragon

      Mhm, even saying Adam Kokesh did everything right is an understatement. What he did was courageous and should become awe-inspiring for the rest of us.

  • Lee G.

    Dissolve the Federal Government??? How are going to do that Adam? The United States Constitution Guarantees the existence of the Federal Government. It doesn’t guarantee it’s size, but some sort of government is explicitly stated within it. Now I know the meaning of radicals!

    • Darkness Dragon

      Yes, we’re radicals that want to burn a constitution that has no problem supporting murder, thievery, and hiding behind other laws to protect other murderers and thieves.

      Really, whether we’re radical or not doesn’t matter. What does matter is, anarchism is the only alternative left. It works in Somalia just fine, it can work here even better.

      • OpenMaw

        … It works in Somalia? Are you insane? Do you have any idea what it’s like in Somalia?

        • Darkness Dragon

          Considering the only people in Somalia interested in control are those vying to establish a government, while the rest of Somalian society which is anarchist is intent on getting with their daily lives by strengthening their own economy, it damn well is working just as well as if there were a government.

  • n0truscotsman

    I don’t agree with many of Adam’s positions, particularly anarchism because I have seen the consequences of anarchism. Anarchism is the suspension of the rule of law (coveted by our founding fathers when abiding by the Constitution) and rule by able-bodied, single, young men, everyone else be damned.
    I don’t even think his stunt in DC was a particularly wise move. Gutsy? absolutely.
    When you slap the beast (feds) in the face, be prepared to deal with the consequences. That is all I have to say.

  • Darkness Dragon

    Liberty begins between the ears – which is to say, the truth of liberty
    & liberty of truth doesn’t come without thought; it cannot be
    bought, and it cannot be sold.

    What we see here can be viewed as a blip on a radar. But what starts out small is often disregarded, and a smaller fire left unintended becomes a bigger fire. It can become the biggest and most powerful of fires that just can’t be stopped, and the same is true here: each small fire, or better yet, each small blip on a radar can add up. They will add up, and preventing them only adds fuel to their energy.

    Sooner or later, this federal government like every other government is going to have to fall flat in-over itself, precisely because reality doesn’t falter – that more than 6,000 years of human experience tells us that the problem is not whether one class or human is less fit to rule than another, but that no one is fit to rule over another human being for we are all blind to others, and even blind to ourselves.

    Thankfully, Adam Kokesh is one of those blips on the radar, which hopefully would mean fewer of us are needed to put even blips on the radar. But in the case that we do, who then are you to criticize Kokesh’s actions and not respect him for being at least a man of action? Absolutely nothing.

    • Darkness Dragon

      P.S. I have a question for those that claim to support libertarianism but not anarchism in spite of the inherent contradiction for doing so.

      Are you the same fools that support the state-worshiping ideology of Randian-Objectivism and thus support the Zionist/Corporatist Ayn Rand?

      • iamme

        Libertarianism is just a stepping stone towards anarchy for me.

      • Brady2600

        One can see the value of some aspects of objectivism, yet still reject it as a whole because it is statist. Familiarity with Adams content would have already explained this to you. Anarcho-capitalists do not support corporatism as corporations are a contractual agreement with the state, something we do not believe in. Anarcho-capitalism is not all that different from anarchism, but the term exists mostly to differentiate itself from anarcho syndicalism and the other red predilections of the early incarnations of anarchism. We don’t present ourselves as anarchists because ancaps are a distinctive modern movement.

    • iamme

      Adam Kokesh might not be the one who starts the revolution but he will be one of the ones who sparks the mind of the one who does.