Tea Party Leader Resigns Over Rand Paul's Pal Adam Kokesh

Genuine GOP Mom ^ | March 23, 2010 | Mommy

[La Enchiladita]

Below is a video of Rand Paul with his pal Adam Kokesh talking about their common "movement".

Read a report at Gathering of Eagles about James Bancroft's "mighty stand for truth" as he has resigned the Hartford Tea Party over their support for Peter Schiff who is part of this Libertarian "movement" with Adam Kokesh. Please read the whole post.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul's libertarian movement is attempting to take over the Republican Party through co-opting the Tea Party movement. We've seen this here in Kentucky as a good chunk of our Tea Party leaders supported Bill Johnson, but Rand Paul's big money (77% of it coming from out of state people in this "liberty movement") gave him credibility with the media and made him able to bill himself as "the Tea Party candidate" here. It was all a hoax, of course, and now Kentucky's grassroots-selected candidate has been disenfranchised.

Across America, the story seems to be the same. Many people involved in politics for the first time in many years have no idea that the Ron Paul / Rand Paul camp is actually anti-war, hates the 14th amendment and the 17th amendment and.....believe in UFOs. Like the people in the Hartford Tea Party who would not listen to Mr. Bancroft, they are being duped with the "broadened message" of Rand Paul and other candidates in this "movement". It's like Obama all over again.

[concretebob]

Headlines are supposed to grab your mind and make you look.
Semper Fidelis, my Brother.

[RaceBannon]

exactly, be sensational to make the person actually read to see the details! :)

[Marine_Uncle]

He is anti war period. An isolationist. But in all due respect some of the things he had so say are mainstream Republican conservative principles. Would I vote for him no. Because of his long term stand on not really supporting the military.
Yes he obviously was talking out of his hate regarding Iraq.

[concretebob]

or silly or stupid, as long as you get the person to think:

"WTF is this about?"

[RaceBannon]

exactly

The Tea Party thinks that someone who associates with and is endorsed with Marxist traitors and Code PInk persons is somehow able to lead us to LIBERTY

Shocks me

[MitchellC]

Kidd, regarding your questions here and in the other post, I think we'd do a lot better to ping some sane folks. :)

To all those pinged, I'm wondering about your opinions regarding the Connecticut primary.

I know that DJ is down on Rand Paul, and given that that race is in KY, I can generally see his point, but I'd wonder if he has the same reservations about Schiff when the alternative is McMahon or Simmons.

In what regard is Schiff an isolationist?

Check out the debate between Schiff, McMahon and Simmons from the other week; it's posted on YouTube by Schiff. In it Schiff says that we shouldn't allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, which to me pretty much destroys this idea that he's an "isolationist."

Schiff invests overseas...at present, that is just better investment of his own money. I don’t think that is a reflection of his patriotism (or lack of)

I don't see anything unpatriotic about this either. He isn't insulting American business, he's just being realistic, as he sees it, about how completely screwed over the US economy is by the federal government, and the fact that as of right now things aren't on track to get any better.

[AuH2ORepublican]

The CT Senate race is one that I just can't get very worked up over. You have a socially liberal, economically moderate ex-Congressman (and ex-intelligence officer) who is very strong on national defense in Rob Simmons, a socially liberal wrestling executive with question marks for economic and foreign issues in Linda McMahon, and a socially liberal but economically conservative financial guru who is a question mark on foreign issues in Peter Schiff. Even before realizing that the company that Schiff keeps points to his positions on foreign affairs (including, and most importantly, national security) being not only largely unknown, but potentially harmful to America and our allies in the war against Islamofascism, I was concerned that Schiff didn't appear able to win a plurality in the primary, and thus a vote for Schiff could allow McMahon---who has no redeeming qualities as far as I can tell and would have no chance in the general (and may well be a Democrat plant), to slip past the flawed but qualified (and electable) Simmons.

If Rob Simmons was a bit more conservative, he'd be an ideal candidate for us in the CT Senate race, but unfortunately in CT we do not have any conservatives with the profile and experience needed to be elected to the U.S. Senate, particularly against a generally popular state AG. So until we start electing conservatives to lower offices (such as the U.S. House, governor, Lt. Gov. and AG) we can't expect to be able to elect a conservative Senator not because conservatives can't win in CT (that is a liberal canard), but because candidates without the type of profile that CT voters look for in Senate candidates can't win. That's my two cents.

[campaignPete R-CT]

i am 100% behind Linda McMahon and refrain from any bad-mouthing of Schiff. I like him.

On the other hand, it’s priority #16 for me. and that Linda gal sure don’t need help from me. She got all help $$ can buy.

[kidd]

Those points aside, I have trouble with Schiff’s attitude towards Iraq. And I’m unsure about his position on abortion (has he stated one?)

Despite the domestic mess that Obama has created (which Schiff would be a great fighter to correct), the greatest threat is still radical Islamic terrorism. And Schiff has shown great ignorance in this regard.

All this is a moot point. Any GOP candidate is behind in the polls against Blumenthal. Schiff, McMahon and Simmons are all flawed candidates, but the health care fight has shown that any republican is better than any democrat. Unless Forras can gain some ground quickly, I’ll have to support whoever can beat Blumenthal.

[RaceBannon]

Schiff is pro abortion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orb-RCByq9g

[usflagwaver]

Actually, no. I was a Rudy supporter. But the main reason was because people that did support Rudy or Romney were treated so badly by some of the people on FreeRepublic, and then when I found out that not only was Jim Robinson allowing this to happen, but was apparently encouraging it and purging people from FreeRepublic that disagreed with him that I lost confidence in FreeRepublic for many months.

[ansel12]

and purging people from FreeRepublic that disagreed with him

I never saw that, FR has many Rudy and Giuliani supporters, you just said that you are among them.

I think the people that Jim bans are people that become trolls, that become so loud and persistent and nasty in pushing a non conservative agenda or candidate, that they start hijacking threads and stopping conservative discussion and become a serious hindrance to the free flow of useful information and exchange here.

Another liberal type troll that I think gets banned is someone that does the above on a new account, when it becomes clear that they are purely here to disrupt and have no other conservative value or interest to freerepublic, then Jim may dump them pretty quick, I'm sure you have seen that nooby troll sign up, that was just here for grins and giggles.

If you mean that all candidates should be given equal footing on freerepublic, then think about it a little more. FReepublic is a conservative web site, intended to advance conservatism and conservative candidates, once a candidate is seen as clearly an enemy to those purposes then he becomes our enemy and must be stopped, that is what political activism is about.

I don't know what your limits are so it is hard for me to think of an example that would lead you to accept the necessity of banning some of a anti-conservative candidates more radical, obstinate, and dominating advocates, but Jim has his own vision of the purpose of freerepublic and it's influence, and his limit was Rudy Giuliani, and is now Mitt Romney.

Liberal candidates such as pro abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani cannot be advanced here without his defenders trying to win at the very least, tolerance for abortion and their other failings, did you think that Jim Robinson would let his forum come to be used in advancing the abortion movement into the very core of conservative activism here at FR, or that he would block that cancer to free-up and return to the discussion of acceptable, conservative candidates that we can advance to victory over the cancerous one?

[meyer]

I didn’t know that there ever was a tea party leader.

[meyer]

This is why Sarah want the Republicans to take the tea party back.

Her success level would drastically increase if she weren't campaigning for McCain. He is a great example of everything that is wrong with the Republican leadership these days.

[La Enchiladita]

Read the article and the thread and you will learn a lot!!:)

[meyer]

Read the article and the thread and you will learn a lot!!:)

I did, and I have! :-)

I also unsubscribed from Rand's email list today.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Thank you for all of your research. I wish you the best in debating the rabid Paul supporters on here. Pretty soon you'll receive a reply from Christian_Capitalist who will proceed to do three things:

Nope. It's your turn.

But, mainly just because a little birdie told me that it's generally considered polite to "ping" persons whom you mention in your posts, so I figured that you must have wanted to speak to me.... and the omission was merely an unfortunate oversight on your part.

So, if my opinion's being asked, I'll offer it:

Having been advised by FReeper "kristinn" to check out the other Republican campaigning for the NM 3rd District, Tom Mullins, I'm unaware of what qualities would recommend Kokesh over Mullins except for his infamous "celebrity" status. That may be enough to get some national attention focused on what is normally a pretty sleepy Democrat-safe Congressional race, but it's not necessarily guaranteed to actually gain many votes for the GOP in New Mexico itself. There's not even a particular reason to vote for Kokesh on Anti-War grounds -- Even if one were an Anti-War Republican who believes that ending the Iraq War is the most important issue in the whole wide world, Tom Mullins has expressed sentiments every bit as dovishly Anti-War as those of Adam Kokesh:

"Going forward from today. We must leave Iraq to its own people, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, to govern and secure. The sooner we can remove our troops the better.... Tom does not believe the United States should be the world's policeman. Nor should we attempt to occupy land and build an empire. Tom believes that we need to let other nations take the lead and focus upon our domestic security.

So, since Tom Mullins (a successful businessman with some quasi-political "executive" experience as a Petroleum Association president) is just as Non-Interventionist and Anti-War in his expressed sentiments as is Kokesh -- well, remind me again, what political or private sector business experience does Kokesh have other than his Anti-War gig? Has he done anything else besides some banner-waving protest work to demonstrate to me any real commitment to the Pro-Life and Fiscal Conservative issues which are most important to me? I'm afraid I don't know of any.

Now, since Kokesh did some leg-work for the Ron Paul campaign in 2008, I can see why the Pauls would endorse him in return -- like Sarah Palin's endorsement of John McCain, I can understand it on grounds of personal gratitude, but I'm not required to like it.

So, Rand Paul can take some flak on this thread for his endorsement of Adam Kokesh, without me rushing to his defense on this one; just as I know that Sarah Palin (whom I like otherwise) is taking some flak for her endorsement of John McCain (whom, were I an AZ resident, I would vote for in the General election against the Democrat; but that's about it). I think Tom Mullins looks like a fine GOP candidate, and so I have no particular interest in supporting Kokesh instead (as I would, for the sake of beating the Democrat, if Kokesh were the only Republican running).

Since you asked.

[RaceBannon]

here are some interesting facts to consider, also, about Kokesh

READ what the IVAW people said to the the WORKERS WORLD PARTY:

http://www.workers.org/2007/us/military-0913/index.html

Madden: On Sept. 17 Adam Kokesh [who is co-chair of the board—WW] is organizing a National Truth-in-Recruiting Day.

WW: Did the convention change the IVAW’s political orientation?

Madden: What the convention did is show that the IVAW members were all more or less on the same page.

Stevens: The political statement Mejia made at the convention was that we need to look at the root of the problem—not just the war but the capitalist system. People responded positively to this.

LETS REPEAT THAT LAST SENTENCE:

not just the war but the capitalist system. People responded positively to this.

So, in an interview with a communist news organization, IVAW members confirm, BY NAME, Adam Kokesh is aligned with ABOLISHING CAPITALISM

If that in itself doesn't abolish Kokesh as a republican, I dont know what will!!

[RaceBannon]

What the Tea Parties are not telling you about Peter Schiff:

Peter Schiff admits on camera that he has ZERO money investigated in American corporations or industry. If Peter Schiff refuses to invest in American companies, how can Peter Schiff say he is helping Americans keep their jobs?

http://ameriborn.com/shifty/

---

SCHIFF himself admits he believes the Iraq War is a QUAGMIRE in 2009!!
http://www.freespeechmonster.com/?p=103

Schiff has said this many times
http://peterschiffsays.com/defense.htm

Aug 7, 2009, Iraq is a quagmire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9t741ewbGA

---

Peter Schiff repeating talking points of the lunatic left, listen yourself. He says in 2009 that Iraq is a QUAGMIRE when we already won!! He blames the war on bankers and whoever, and not a word about blaming it on terrorists! listen yourself, Schiff repeats left wing talking points to his radio audience about the Iraq war!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo81QDSuixk

---

Peter Schiff has made open statements that are quite like the statements of the anti-war leftists, to include the OTHER Ron Paul endorsed candidates Rand Paul and Adam Kokesh

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=schiff+%2B+isolationist&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enUS220US220&q=peter+schiff+isolationist

---

RON PAUL SUPPORTERS are disagreeing with SCHIFF because or SCHIFF’s Jewish Faith...Why is anti-semitism connected with Ron Paul?

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/119119
Schiff’s loyalty to his Jewish faith
Submitted by ptarantino on Wed, 12/16/2009 - 19:34.
might be showing a little here-

I’d like to hear a lot more from him, on this issue.

---

Ron Paul Supporters believe that Peter Schiff is anti-war

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/119119
I see this was back in December.
Submitted by reedr3v on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 00:12.
I’ve been listening carefully to Schiff, and he had little to say on foreign policy, then he was vague; in the recent Yale series, Part seven, that was on the front page, he seems to have thought through the issues more clearly (beyond his forte’ in finance) and to my ear comes down pretty solidly anti war. Check out that recent video and see what you think.
He’s not Ron Paul, but he seems to be coming along fast. Here’s the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pb8bJJ29lw

---

Peter Schiff is pro-choice on abortion

http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&rlz=1T4GGIC_enUS220US220&q=Peter+schiff+%2B+abortion&aq=f&aqi=g-c1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

---

Libertarians need to infiltrate the GOP
http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/06/02/peter-schiff-libertarians-need-to-infliltrate-the-gop/
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=19285
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message808505/pg1
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090707200009AAzSQfB

---

Peter Schiff Telegraphs GOP Primary Run
by: tparty Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 11:28:23 AM EDT
Is a Republican Superprimary for Senate in the offing? Addressing the Connecticut Libertarian Party’s convention in Bridgeport this past weekend, Ron Paul acolyte Peter Schiff - who has been the subject of a draft movement by national Paul supporters and has recently made more and more noise himself about possibly challenging Chris Dodd as either a third-party candidate or in a Republican primary - seems to be clearly saying that if he were to run, it would not be as a third-party candidate, but in a Republican Primary:

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/diary/11430/peter-schiff-telegraphs-gop-primary-run

[La Enchiladita]

I also unsubscribed from Rand's email list today.

You have my heartiest congratulations!!