As far as Ron Paul is concerned, my issues are with the fringe elements his campaign has attracted, and refused to disavow,
although I do take exception to some of Dr Paul's views of how America should act.
If it were a march against the War in Iraq, it wouldn't surprise me if Kokesh was there. It's not like we've had any anti-war (or even defense-only) coalition on the Right, for decades. Kokesh is politically naive enough to do something like that without thinking of the political ramifications.
We can document his involvement with the IVAW Winter Soldier 2 in March of 2007.
No surprises with that -- Kokesh is the poster boy for the IVAW and has made no secret of his support for it.
When I went to the "American Patriots Against Kokesh" website there was a rather long quasi-legal defense of their actions that didn't exactly inspire confidence in me. It was more like, "screw you, we'll do what we want":
(CFL Letter) RE: Slander, Libelous Statements, Use of threats, coercion to prevent income, tampering with election funding, use of misleading video clips and doctored footage.
(APAK Response)Slander: defense of truth, various First Amendment protections, marketplace of ideas, etc. Look them up. Libelous Statements: see above.
Use of Threats: where? You should know that threats can be difficult, and are not generally a cause of action for a person, rather this would probably fall under criminal.
Coercion to prevent income: Now you are just making sh*t up.
Tampering with election funding: Not a cause of action,making sh*t up again.
(Especially this:) Use of misleading video clips and doctored footage: Misleading video clips not illegal. Doctored footage where? Um, wouldn’t that pretty much screw all media outlets? Also, not a cause of action....
What is that last part? Is it a "Yes, we deliberately doctored video clips so as to make them misleading, but that's not a crime or a legal consideration"? Because that's what I got out of it. If so, that's for a court to decide, not me.
It just strikes me as odd that not just "the CFL on behalf of Kokesh", but rather all the CFL candidates are up in arms over this. What's this about? How were they affected? Because they really have nothing to gain by publicly defending Kokesh without good reason -- except that the blog goes after more than Kokesh and attempts to establish "guilt by association" with all the CFL "associates", including Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. It also drags out that Storefront crap again.
I've got a whole lot more questions than answers about all of this. I suspect that the truth of all of it will come out eventually, but probably not today.
I believe in the right to free speech and the right to oppose or support any candidates you choose. But there is a legal line and a moral line. I have no idea whether you crossed either or not.