Activist Adam Kokesh's home raided by paramilitary team/ thread 2

Gemini_Fyre · Jul 18, 2013

SpaceCricket79 said: ↑

They're perfectly constitutional. Arguing otherwise is like a PETard arguing that "meat is unconstituional" because they unilaterally decreed that "right to life, liberty, etc" includes animals.
Click to expand...

Aye, indeed they are - at a state level, not a federal level. If the states want to pass such craziness I suppose they can. So long as they stick within their own state constitution and adhere to the national constitution.

It's pure BS and has no validity. The courts ultimately interpret and decide the laws, if you think their interpretations are bad then work to change them. That's what real Americans do - self-righteous attention seekers who purposely break existing laws just to play the 'victim' when they're busted aren't looking to change anything, just stroke their own ego.
Click to expand...

Not seeing how getting thrown in jail increases or bolsters one's ego, perhaps I'm missing that part of it.

Your views are void, according to the law.
Click to expand...

Not my view, SCOTUS's view really -

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided.

Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

. . . It is . . . the opinion of the court,

That, by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the President of the United States appointed him a justice of peace, for the county of Washington in the District of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years.

That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of this country afford him a remedy.

It remains to be enquired whether,

He is entitled to the remedy for which applies. This depends on,
The nature of the writ applied for and
The power of this court.

. . . This, then, is a plain case for mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired, whether it can issue from this court.

The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

The Secretary of State, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.

The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and, consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

In the distribution of this power it is declared that "the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction."

It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts, is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution is form without substance.

Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them, or they have no operation at all.

It cannot he presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

. . . To enable this court, then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that, if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and, therefore, seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary, in such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the Constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.

The question, whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric had been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is, consequently, to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the Constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution; or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written constitution — would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it rises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? Ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law?

The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims who the Constitution endeavours to preserve?

"No person," says the Constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Here the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support?

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as —, according to the best of my abilities and understanding agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall he made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be

Discharged.
Click to expand...

Don't like it? Take it up with them. The decision is still standing to my knowledge.

SpaceCricket79 · Jul 18, 2013

conhog said: ↑

All the while screaming about "liberals" who blame everyone else for THEIR problems LOL

Even more hilarious this scum they are supporting here has ties to leftist groups LOL
Click to expand...

I'll never understand how they identify anyone who isn't supporting member of a Marxist organization as a "progressive"

So not supporting Marxists makes you "progressive"? Okay well by that logic, then I guess Marxists are "conservative" right? What are these guys smoking?

conhog · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Perhaps if they had probable cause I could condone such an action. But as it stands he loaded a weapon, chambered a round and that was it. Nothing more.

Now had he aimed it at another person? Indeed, throw him away. But that isn't what happened.

But really, why are people enforcing what they do not know to be a law? If an officer can't cite the code he has no business enforce the penalty for it - other than common law matters which are largely common sense.

If they didn't have probable cause they should sue them. If they did than they don't have much to work with.

I will, never heard of it.
Click to expand...

We ran into situations a few times where the wrong person was arrested or whatever, and as long as the police act believing their actions are legal then the arrest is one of good faith.

For instance, once we served a warrant at the wrong home. Two numbers were transposed on the warrant and we went to 287 instead of 278 (not really, that was just an example) anyway no one realized the mistake until people were already in cuffs and guess what was found ? Yep, drugs LOL. And yes arrests were made and the people sued claiming we didn't have probable cause to enter the house and they lost because we entered on good faith.

- - - Updated - - -

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Aye, indeed they are - at a state level, not a federal level. If the states want to pass such craziness I suppose they can. So long as they stick within their own state constitution and adhere to the national constitution.

Not seeing how getting thrown in jail increases or bolsters one's ego, perhaps I'm missing that part of it.

Not my view, SCOTUS's view really -

Don't like it? Take it up with them. The decision is still standing to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Thank you for agreeing that SCOTUS has the power to void laws which they deem unconstitutional. Adam the moron does not .

SpaceCricket79 · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Not seeing how getting thrown in jail increases or bolsters one's ego, perhaps I'm missing that part of it.
Click to expand...

Some people are really that stupid and desperate for attention believe it or not:

Don't like it? Take it up with them. The decision is still standing to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

If it isn't a clearly recognized violation of the Constitution to the point that the Supreme Court isn't getting involved in overturning it, then it has no relevance. Except maybe to Marxists like Kokesh.

Gemini_Fyre · Jul 18, 2013

SpaceCricket79 said: ↑

Some people are really that stupid and desperate for attention believe it or not:

Click to expand...

Everybody needs a hobby I guess.

If it isn't a clearly recognized violation of the Constitution to the point that the Supreme Court isn't getting involved in overturning it, then it has no relevance. Except maybe to Marxists like Kokesh.
Click to expand...

Jailing someone for having a weapon and loading it, while doing no harm to anybody? Sounds like a blatant breach of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments to me. But hey, who cares right?

If the government wasn't so hypocritical, I really wouldn't care. But they play favorites and that is my problem, and they disregard their own rules.

conhog · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Everybody needs a hobby I guess.

Jailing someone for having a weapon and loading it, while doing no harm to anybody? Sounds like a blatant breach of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments to me. But hey, who cares right?

If the government wasn't so hypocritical, I really wouldn't care. But they play favorites and that is my problem, and they disregard their own rules.
Click to expand...

Please stop lying. He wasn't jailed for the shotgun. He was jailed for the drugs.

SpaceCricket79 · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Everybody needs a hobby I guess.

Jailing someone for having a weapon and loading it, while doing no harm to anybody? Sounds like a blatant breach of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments to me. But hey, who cares right?

If the government wasn't so hypocritical, I really wouldn't care. But they play favorites and that is my problem, and they disregard their own rules.
Click to expand...

He broke a law, if you think the law is a violation of the constitution then work with the Supreme Court to get it changed. Breaking a law and then claiming victim is silly.

- - - Updated - - -

conhog said: ↑

Please stop lying. He wasn't jailed for the shotgun. He was jailed for the drugs.
Click to expand...

He was also jailed for illegally carrying a weapon on federal property. He knew this was against the law, but he didn't care because he thinks (his interpretation of) the constitution overrides the law, lmao

Really this is just a case of Darwinism in action - guy makes terroristic threat, guy breaks gun law, guy posts video on youtube of him breaking gun law, guy gets arrested, guy cries victimhood. Oh boo hoo...

Talon · Jul 18, 2013

conhog said: ↑

Please stop lying. He wasn't jailed for the shotgun. He was jailed for the drugs.
Click to expand...

And loading a shotgun in public in the District.

This is what Elvis is facing for his latest act of attention-whorery:

Adam was arrested for possession of a Schedule I drug (Psilocybin mushrooms) as well as possession of drugs while in possession of a firearm. Possession of Schedule I and Schedule II drugs is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and a maximum $2,500 fine, with a 2 year minimum sentence. In comparison, carrying a loaded firearm in the District of Columbia is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

http://adamvstheman.com/
Click to expand...

Ouch.

Like I said before, he's more of a threat to himself than anyone/anything else.

Gemini_Fyre · Jul 18, 2013

conhog said: ↑

Please stop lying.
Click to expand...

Lead by example. Until then, don't let the truth confuse you for false hood, even if it sounds strange.

Look it up, get some source material for yourself before you start calling others a liar princess.

He wasn't jailed for the shotgun. He was jailed for the drugs.
Click to expand...

The drugs were at his home were they not? What was the probable cause on the warrant to go and arrest him then? Couldn't have anything to do with his loading a shotgun in a gun free zone could it? Nah...

SpaceCricket79 · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Lead by example. Until then, don't let the truth confuse you for false hood, even if it sounds strange.

Look it up, get some source material for yourself before you start calling others a liar princess.

The drugs were at his home were they not? What was the probable cause on the warrant to go and arrest him then?
Click to expand...

Terroristic threats. Threatening a "non-violent revolution" within a year from now, is a credible threat.

Couldn't have anything to do with his loading a shotgun in a gun free zone could it? Nah...
Click to expand...

Given his terroristic threat, I'd say that added credibility to it and is definitely a probable cause.

- - - Updated - - -

Riot said: ↑

Putting bounty on someone is also a federal crime.
Click to expand...

It must really suck to be on the same level as the Black Panthers, doesn't it?

SpaceCricket79 · Jul 18, 2013

The XL said: ↑

He's not the one starting wars and droning children
Click to expand...

No that was just George Washington, who waged an unconstitutional war against the British Empire in the name of the vast NWO globalist conspiracy and the corporate-funded war machine. Those damn Neocons should have voted for Ron Paul instead of George Washington

lmao

conhog · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Lead by example. Until then, don't let the truth confuse you for false hood, even if it sounds strange.

Look it up, get some source material for yourself before you start calling others a liar princess.

The drugs were at his home were they not? What was the probable cause on the warrant to go and arrest him then? Couldn't have anything to do with his loading a shotgun in a gun free zone could it? Nah...
Click to expand...

Again, learn how the law works. Just because something gives police probable cause doesn't mean one will be arrested for that. He was NOT arrested for the shotgun, he was arrested for the drugs found subsequent to the search done under warrant.

The charges filed as far as I know have nothing to do with the shotgun.

I mean you DO realize that the DA doesn't have to file any charges right? Pretty standard procedure to ignore some stupid little nothing crime in order to focus on the bigger crime. As you say shotgun loading stupid and illegal but meh, drugs on the other hand........

- - - Updated - - -

SpaceCricket79 said: ↑

No that was just George Washington, who waged an unconstitutional war against the British Empire in the name of the vast NWO globalist conspiracy and the corporate-funded war machine. Those damn Neocons should have voted for Ron Paul instead of George Washington

lmao
Click to expand...

Here's another thing. Apparently these folks don't understand that Washington was a terrorist traitor scum, until he won LOL. Good luck Adam the coward.

Casper · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Perhaps because jail is not a fun place to be? Being sent to jail makes a statement on both sides. One is willing to jail, and the other is willing to risk being jailed.

But don't trouble yourself with grown up concepts like civil disobedience and such. Liberals always like it when it serves their purpose but get all frowny faced when it doesn't.

All laws repugnant to the constitution are void. He broke no such law.

Never said he was a hero - can't say I even agree with his methods. But I will stand up for him because he was unlawfully jailed. If you can't see the walls closing in slowly around you, just don't complain when you're on the butcher's chopping block.
Click to expand...

He was in possesion of illegal drugs and he broke DC laws, some hero, more like a nut case and wanna be Traitor, like his fans.

conhog · Jul 18, 2013

Casper said: ↑

He was in possesion of illegal drugs and he broke DC laws, some hero, more like a nut case and wanna be Traitor, like his fans.
Click to expand...

All this does is prove to me that an idiot can do ANYTHING and if they love them some guns some will find excuses. I mean this guy is a drug using, dishonorable, Islam associating scum, but hey he loves the second amendment , so its all good..

LOL

Gemini_Fyre · Jul 18, 2013

conhog said: ↑

All this does is prove to me that an idiot can do ANYTHING and if they love them some guns some will find excuses. I mean this guy is a drug using, dishonorable, Islam associating scum, but hey he loves the second amendment , so its all good..

LOL
Click to expand...

So basically you just don't like him eh?

- - - Updated - - -

Casper said: ↑

He was in possesion of illegal drugs and he broke DC laws, some hero, more like a nut case and wanna be Traitor, like his fans.
Click to expand...

All I am noticing is the amount of harm he hasn't done. And wondering why he is in jail for it. Makes no logical sense.

conhog · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

So basically you just don't like him eh?

- - - Updated - - -

All I am noticing is the amount of harm he hasn't done. And wondering why he is in jail for it. Makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

I don't know him, so I neither like nor dislike him. I do however dislike his actions.

And he's in jail for breaking the law.

You really can't bring yourself to admit that he broke the law can you? Funny, Rosa Parks family still to this day proudly admit that she broke the law.

The Real American Thinker · Jul 18, 2013

SpaceCricket79 said: ↑

He broke a law, if you think the law is a violation of the constitution then work with the Supreme Court to get it changed. Breaking a law and then claiming victim is silly.
Click to expand...

He hasn't claimed victim?

Besides, if anyone actually took your example, women, racial minorities, and various nations such as India and the USA would still be vassals of their colonial masters.

He was also jailed for illegally carrying a weapon on federal property. He knew this was against the law, but he didn't care because he thinks (his interpretation of) the constitution overrides the law, lmao
Click to expand...

No? It was a deliberate act of breaking a law he believes is unjust, aka civil disobedience.

Really this is just a case of Darwinism in action - guy makes terroristic threat, guy breaks gun law, guy posts video on youtube of him breaking gun law, guy gets arrested, guy cries victimhood. Oh boo hoo...
Click to expand...

I thought you were a conservative? Conservatives don't generally call lawful gun owners and veterans protesting the government "terrorists."

- - - Updated - - -

conhog said: ↑

I don't know him, so I neither like nor dislike him. I do however dislike his actions.

And he's in jail for breaking the law.

You really can't bring yourself to admit that he broke the law can you? Funny, Rosa Parks family still to this day proudly admit that she broke the law.
Click to expand...

And so does Kokesh and his defenders. I've never said he didn't break the law. He is, like Rosa Parks, Gandhi, MLK Jr., Henry David Thoreau, Jesus, Alice Paul, etc. a man who acted in civil disobedience against a law he believes to be unjust.

conhog · Jul 18, 2013

The Real American Thinker said: ↑

He hasn't claimed victim?

Besides, if anyone actually took your example, women, racial minorities, and various nations such as India and the USA would still be vassals of their colonial masters.
Click to expand...

All Adam the Coward has to do to move from terrorist to hero is win his war. Good luck to the scumbag

No? It was a deliberate act of breaking a law he believes is unjust, aka civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

Ive already proven that he did not break the laws he broke to dispute those laws. Therefor what he did was NOT civil disobedience.

I thought you were a conservative? Conservatives don't generally call lawful gun owners and veterans protesting the government "terrorists."
Click to expand...

See , proving my point, ALL you care about is that this idiots loves guns. "Him love guns, so him can't be bad" , that is every bit as retarded as the liberals who think that everything associated with guns is bad..

This guy is a piece of (*)(*)(*)(*).

Gemini_Fyre · Jul 18, 2013

conhog said: ↑

I don't know him, so I neither like nor dislike him. I do however dislike his actions.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but there are plenty of people on here calling him a coward who don't have the stones to do what he did - foolish or otherwise.

And he's in jail for breaking the law.
Click to expand...

An unconstitutional law at that.

You really can't bring yourself to admit that he broke the law can you? Funny, Rosa Parks family still to this day proudly admit that she broke the law.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional "laws" aren't laws. This isn't calculus man.

Zosiasmom · Jul 18, 2013

SpaceCricket79 said: ↑

He broke a law, if you think the law is a violation of the constitution then work with the Supreme Court to get it changed.
Click to expand...

You realize there are many ways to change a law, yes?

Breaking a law and then claiming victim is silly.
Click to expand...

Feel free to show me where he "claimed victim". It was me--not him--saying he was a victim of the police state.

The Real American Thinker · Jul 18, 2013

conhog said: ↑

All Adam the Coward has to do to move from terrorist to hero is win his war. Good luck to the scumbag
Click to expand...

...he stood up to the government, stared down twenty armed members of a SWAT team, and still defies the government even in prison. I fail to see how this is cowardice. He's doing more to put his beliefs in practice than probably anybody on these forums.

Ive already proven that he did not break the laws he broke to dispute those laws. Therefor what he did was NOT civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

Well, prove it again, please. I am not here often, so I missed your "proof." Or, at the very least, link me to your post where you proved this.

See , proving my point, ALL you care about is that this idiots loves guns. "Him love guns, so him can't be bad" , that is every bit as retarded as the liberals who think that everything associated with guns is bad..

This guy is a piece of (*)(*)(*)(*).
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't like guns at all. I care that he has principles and stands up for them, even if I don't always agree with those principles.

SpaceCricket79 · Jul 18, 2013

Zosiasmom said: ↑

You realize there are many ways to change a law, yes?
Click to expand...

No.

Feel free to show me where he "claimed victim". It was me--not him--saying he was a victim of the police state.
Click to expand...

He was a "victim" of sane people with morals who treat Marxists who threaten terrorism they way they should be - like terrorists.

conhog · Jul 18, 2013

Gemini_Fyre said: ↑

Fair enough, but there are plenty of people on here calling him a coward who don't have the stones to do what he did - foolish or otherwise.
Click to expand...

LOL it certainly doesn't take any stones to post a video of yourself braking a law, just a lack of brains.

[/QUOTE]

An unconstitutional law at that.

Unconstitutional "laws" aren't laws. This isn't calculus man.[/QUOTE]

A law is constitutional until SCOTUS says it is not constitutional, that is our system no matter how hard you and others try to spin it. Thank God the framers were smart enough to not let morons like Adam the Coward decide individually which laws were unconstitutional.

You truly come across as an infantile baby when you argue otherwise man.. I mean all we see from you guys is "wah we're not getting our way here" when 200 plus years of jurisprudence says that a law, any law is constitutional unless SCOTUS says it is not.

When MLK was marching to change the laws. Not one time did he ever say "these laws are unconstitutional" not once, he certainly wanted the laws changed, but he also recognized that until they were changed they were the law. He didn't act like a big damned baby and scream that the government had no right.................. LOL

The Real American Thinker · Jul 18, 2013

SpaceCricket79 said: ↑

No.

He was a "victim" of sane people with morals who treat Marxists who threaten terrorism they way they should be - like terrorists.
Click to expand...

Kokesh is not a Marxist, lol. The man's a stone cold libertarian. He eats Marxists for breakfast.

Besides, he didn't threaten terrorism. Why is protesting the government now considered terrorism?

SpaceCricket79 · Jul 18, 2013

The Real American Thinker said: ↑

...he stood up to the government, stared down twenty armed members of a SWAT team, and still defies the government even in prison.
Click to expand...

That's not an admirable thing. Blind stupidity and attention seeking masquerading as 'courage' isn't admirable.

I fail to see how this is cowardice. He's doing more to put his beliefs in practice than probably anybody on these forums.
Click to expand...

He put less into his beliefs than Jakar did. Jakar is more ballsy than him.

Well, prove it again, please. I am not here often, so I missed your "proof." Or, at the very least, link me to your post where you proved this.
Click to expand...

He broke a law, he made a credible terroristic threat. The Marxist got what was coming to him - boo hoo.

Actually, I don't like guns at all. I care that he has principles and stands up for them, even if I don't always agree with those principles.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Activist Adam Kokesh's home raided by paramilitary team/ thread 2

Gemini_Fyre New Member

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

conhog Banned

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

Gemini_Fyre New Member

conhog Banned

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

Gemini_Fyre New Member

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

conhog Banned

Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

conhog Banned

Gemini_Fyre New Member

conhog Banned

The Real American Thinker New Member

conhog Banned

Gemini_Fyre New Member

Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

The Real American Thinker New Member

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

conhog Banned

The Real American Thinker New Member

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Activist Adam Kokesh's home raided by paramilitary team/ thread 2

Gemini_Fyre New Member

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

conhog Banned

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

Gemini_Fyre New Member

conhog Banned

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

Gemini_Fyre New Member

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

conhog Banned

Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

conhog Banned

Gemini_Fyre New Member

conhog Banned

The Real American Thinker New Member

conhog Banned

Gemini_Fyre New Member

Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

The Real American Thinker New Member

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

conhog Banned

The Real American Thinker New Member

SpaceCricket79 New Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches