0 votes

Tom Mullen on Adam vs. the Man: Disband the Army

Check out my discussion with Adam Kokesh on getting rid of what the founding fathers considered the greatest threat to freedom:

http://youtu.be/3BCVQXAPFRI



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not saying

they are realistic and practical when saying what they have but if you think about it..If gun ownership was widely practiced why would we need such a large army.

Some of it makes sense to a degree.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Hold on one second. This is stupid.

Let's not buy off on the notion that every ounce of evil emanates from America. That would be a suicidal miscalculation. There is a lot of evil in this world and unilateral disarmament is just plain stupid. If I though Dr. Paul was the least bit interested in such idiocy, I would bail immediately.

Lets bring the troops home, maintain a powerful military that can handle ANY realistic scenario, and drop all this pacifistic silliness. I think self preservation calls for maintaining the most powerful military force in the word, but not 10X that. And of course, no more foreign occupation, naval intimidation, or any war undeclared.

But we need a military. We need a powerful navy that can enforce freedom of the seas and free trade. We need a military that is powerful enough that if a new Hitler started rolling up countries we could put a stop to it.

We don't need or want to disband the army

Let's not go to the opposite extreme now... We don't need to be disbanding the army. Army is not a bad thing. It's just how it's used that's a bad thing. Very similar to the whole guns thing actually, it's the criminal, not the tool that's the problem. But I'll try not to digress...

In short - we need a strong, modern army at all times, capable of defending the nation. BUT we don't need army that's all over the world. That's what costs money. We need them here , ready to go in the case of genuine attack by another country, but not going around and attacking random countries at will and doing nation-building crap. And we need responsible congress , not criminals we currently have, that know that pulling the trigger is the absolute last resort and only allowed when genuinely defending yourself.

Adam works for the Man.

The Russian government. Adam Kokesh is a fraud.

You've been ZAMPED!!!!!!!

We don't want the Army

We don't want the Army disbanded. We want the Army educated. Everyone in the military needs to understand what an illegal order is. I received classes on this subject, and it is more vital than ever that everyone service member understand this concept.

Also, an understanding of the Constitution. Every service member takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution. They need to understand that document. And they need to understand that any order that contradicts the Constitution is an illegal order.

They need to understand that they work for the American people, not the politicians. Their freedoms are tied to the freedoms of the American people. Failing to defend the freedoms of the American people means sacrificing their own.

You guys must have smoked

You guys must have smoked something before this show!! Geez, I'm beginning to wonder about Kokesh.

Don't forget RT(Russia Today) is a state funded tv network and by state I mean the Russian Federation.

I'm RealHarrySeaward on YouTube and @JayToTheDee on Twitter.

whatever we might believe about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' .

. . of keeping armies and navies fed and supplied with financial support--

if (when) there is a crash, this could become a moot point.

If/when the dollar fails . . . who will pay the military to 'protect us' overseas.

Who will pay to bring them home?

It's a vicious quagmire.

If Americans are struggling to feed themselves, how will *they*/*we* support an army which is merely holding up an evil empire?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Ron Paul is not

Ron Paul is not anti-military, he is anti-war.

BIG difference.

Ron gets more support from the military than any other candidate, COMBINED.

"Disband the Army" - ?

You might as well say disband a large segment of Ron Paul's support base.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

I believe that Ron Paul's political ideals are THE . . .

political ideals of truth and liberty.

I hope, along with Dr. Paul, that there will not be complete chaos--

complete chaos is not something most Americans can wrap their minds around.

I think that Dr. Paul has talked about 'phasing out'. Those of us who are older, who find it difficult to run as fast as we once ran--

don't 'relish' the idea of anyone going without food or shelter.

So we HOPE.

But the reality could be that, with a collapse, more than just the military who support Dr. Paul's ideals . . .

will be affected financially.

Then will come the time when we will be glad that we learned to cut our wants and grow our own food and keep our lives simple.

Dr. Paul's ideals keep us going and help us not to become discouraged, but he is as aware as any wise older person could be . . .

that everything we see before us now in terms of the prosperity that *we* as a nation have enjoyed, could be gone very quickly and very completely.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I don't agree ...

This will derail any hope we have. Fact is we do need our Army and Military, but we need them home. This will have the effect of scaring everyone.

Beware of Communist "support" for Ron

Kokesh knows where his bread gets buttered... and the interview was ridiculous. I'm in agreement with OctoBox on this one. Ours is a nuclear world now and there's no putting that back into Pandora's box (no relation to Octo)..

Disband the US Army? What

Disband the US Army? What did they do? They followed ORDERS...if they don't, they get sent to the brig.

This idea is not a good one.

How about bring our troops home, and let them serve stateside...protecting our own borders and soil?

Disband the Army?

Do you WANT to lose an election?

Youthful idealism is great and all, but this idea just makes no political sense right now.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

I agree but more importantly

I agree but more importantly it makes no logical sense either.

I'm RealHarrySeaward on YouTube and @JayToTheDee on Twitter.

how is the army any different, really . . . than

the huge educational complex?

Less than a year ago many DPers were calling for teachers' unions to be disbanded so that teachers could get less pay and fewer benefits.

As I stated then, I have no affiliation with public education in any way; I taught my children.

But the fact is that, though the Department of Education came after the Department(s) of the Army, Navy, etc.--

it is as much a part of the landscape of American society, and most people, even DPers . . . use the educational system--

to WANT the collapse of anything is not going to engender order.

But that collapse may be, because the 'elite' have desired it in order to control *us* . . .

eminent.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Better than you think

The vast majority could be converted to reserves, or to national guard under state control, if they arent already. A great number of serving units overseas for some years now have been reserve or ng units all along. Strategically speaking we have the vast advantage of all that sea coast, a harsh natural barrier with Mexico on most of that border, and the Canadians are friendly. We dont need to keep spending as much money as the rest of the world combined on "defense" to be secure.

I agree. No need to even go

I agree.

No need to even go there right now. Simply no need.

I'm sure the truthers and self-defeatists among us will attack me as per usual, but I don't care.

We need to focus this Ron Paul campaign on what he can do in 4-8 years. Obviously, disbanding the military is not one of them.

Incredible idea. Will it ever

Incredible idea. Will it ever fly? Probably not, unfortunately

One world, under government, with power and money for the elite

Terrible, stupid idea.

Weak-willed or uninformed Ron supporters will not understand why this is a moronic idea because it cleverly twists Ron's support for reducing our overseas presence into fully abandoning the military, leaving America vulnerable to Russian or Chinese manipulation or attack, as if the economic disadvantage wasn't enough. And that's not the end of it, this crap can be pulled out of a hat as proof that Ron Paul supporters are "anti-American" for political points.

Agreed

Absolutely agree.

um.. side note

Is it just me or does Adam seemed stoned?

Perhaps not hitting the pipe before a broadcast would be smart.

He is not that smart.

He has willingly become a Russia Today collaborator.

Although I agree with you -- your comment sounded a bit

McCarthish -- hahahahaha. Was that intentional?

"Da, Comrade Kokesh is a weeling collaborator for Russian teleevizuhn"

Haha!

Yes, the word was chosen for it's historical reference. Nice to see someone caught that.

For the Religious Right...

... , the warmongers, with their neocon friends, a quote from a famous English preacher at the time of Queen Victoria's long reign :

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “A New Departure”, page 153.

“Whatsoever things are honest, true, kind, humane, and moral, may reckon our aid. We are on the side of temperance, and therefore on the side of the limitation of the abominable traffic which is ruining our country; and we are opposed to all that licenses vice among men, or allows cruelty to animals. We are up to the hilt advocates of peace, and we earnestly war against war. I wish that Christian men would insist more and more on the unrighteousness of war, believing that Christianity means no sword, no cannon, no bloodshed, and that if a nation is driven to fight in its own defense, Christianity stands by to weep and to intervene as soon as possible, and not to join in the cruel shouts which celebrate an enemy’s slaughter. Let us always be on the side of right. Today, then, my brethren, I beg you to join with me in seeking renewal. Now is the time for a man to buckle on his harness, and bestir himself."

How different our country would have been today if Christian pastors adhered to the above when George Bush and his oily constituents were in full swing beguiling the flock with his lies and deceit. I left the church after a pastor told the congregation that "we fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here," and the stooges in the pew all cheered and cried "Amen!'

Plano TX

good points, sleuth--

at least outwardly Christianity appears to have been hijacked.

Thank goodness that God looks on the heart!

Each of us can choose to be true.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Thank you!~

Spurgeon was the preacher closest to a Christian Libertarian that I can remember reading about. He has some great quotes on Christian Liberty, especially concerning the laymen using their gifts along side the clergy.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Kokesh is out of his straitjacket again

Disbanding the army in a nuclear world is lunacy, principle will hang you if you let it. This isn't the 18th century, war is literally minutes away at all times. Keeping an armed and disciplined military force is important.

But even more important is the military structure itself. The military industrial complex, as much reviled as it is, must be maintained, at least to a certain extent. We need to be ready to launch into full scale nationwide military production at any moment. Keeping the supply lines open, and the private contractors funded is critical.

Challenge everything and the path will be clear.

I think you missed the part

I think you missed the part about our navy, nuclear weapons, and heavily armed citizenry.

I'd even go so far as to disband police, as they're just large bodies of troops quartered among us.

Interestingly, did you know what Costa Rica has had unprecedented peace, prosperity, and freedom since abolishing their military in 1949 after a failed coup attempt?

They also have insanely beautiful and curvaceous Latinas.

Amen !

I'd even go so far as to disband police, as they're just large bodies of troops quartered among us.

Amen.

The police in my city, county are so off the wall out of control. I have surrendered my license 3 times in the last 5 years because I refused to go to court to face retarded charges. Eventually costing me more money but still.... A guy with a badge and a gun harassing motorists for traffic offenses seems a little over the top to me. Maybe an unarmed official would be more appropriate. They somehow have confiscated enough money to build a new police station and courthouse in the same 5 years though...hmmmm. mostly just in the city though they don't like to come out here ;)

Police are just an end-run

Police are just an end-run around posse comitatus and standing armies because they gave them smaller weapons and a different name.

All standing armies are bad because they encourage government to engage in mischief.

your name is quite fitting

And I'm so glad that i will live to see your precious military crumble into dust. Untold thousands of maimed children and grieving parents will rejoice.

reedr3v's picture

So there's no way out of a military empire?

Many might be willing to give peace a chance. If we continue current nuke arsenals, eventual self-destruction is not reasonably avoidable.

Already peaceful use of nuclear energy is backfiring big time with unexpected meltdowns, and the recent wildfire threats of the nuclear labs in New Mexico.

No one is calling for immediate disarmament of all weaponry; but the huge standing army can definitely go. Once we are on track as a NON-empire and have soundly begun to rebuild a peaceful, trustworthy international reputation, the pressure will be off other countries escalating their long distance weaponry.

We would be able to gradually and safely phase out the old nukes and stop the mania to build new ones; other defensive strategies and tech could be considered in the far less likely scenario of attack.

Bankruptcy will get rid of

Bankruptcy will get rid of it.

Tom -- I agree in principal with what you are saying

The Founding Father's said a lot of things, however, that they never tried to end -- they NEVER came close to getting rid of standing Armies as they never came close to ending Slavery.

Jefferson also wanted to force Haiti back into the hands of Imperialist France -- Big Bankers made all their money on Militarism and Slavery (fact). Bankers (France and England) were seeking new routes to the Western US and supported the South up to and during the Civil War (the only way the Southerns could engange in long battle -- by debt-financing). So, let's not confuse Jefferson's Francophillia with his "romantic" notions of liberty and standing armies.

Armies back then are not as well trained or well equiped as they are today. You cannot "raise" an Army from non-militia trained civilians into a modern war machine. This is why so many died in WWI and WWII -- It was not until Korea that we started developing "live-fire" training complete with psychological dissensitization (etc).

Same reason why China got their butts kicked by Vietnam after we left -- because the Chinese soldiers were conscripted farmers and civilians and the Vietnamese were 20 years+ battle hardened.

Founding Fathers

Though the Declaration of Independence that was signed didn't include a clause that ended slavery previous versions would have actually freed the slaves. I don't know who all the parties involved in this freeing of the slaves at the time were, but I know that it was tried. Unfortunately the representatives whose colonies relied on slave labor wouldn't sign if this was included, but if they had then the U.S. wouldn't have had the blemish of slavery continue until 1863-1865-later even if there were hold-outs or you consider Southern-style sharecropping slavery. So in defense of at least a portion of the founders emancipation was attempted.

The founding fathers don't

The founding fathers don't have to agree with the premise that standing armies are wrong.

We can make our own decisions without having to channel George Washington.

Warlord -- I agree

My argument is the basis for why I'm against "hero-worship" and "harkening back" to a time when most Americans were not free (all women - all Indians - all minorities - most non-property owning white men).

thank you for pointing this out . . .

*we* tend to have these historical perspective gaps--

How can *we* forget all those who were enslaved/oppressed 200 years ago?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The Slave Master is less free than the Slave

The Slave Master has as many fears as the Slave, but the slave can escape whereas the "master" is in debt (beholden to the gov't that certified / benefited his family with "status") and never free of it -- his burden passes on to his heirs.

Only by the Might of a Huge Empire can you have slavery begin in the States -- thereafter (after revolution) only a Big Gov't can support and propagate it.

Tom Mullen's picture

Octobox, that's just not true

There was NO standing army during John Adams presidency. He achieved peace with France in time to stop it from being formed. He did expand the navy during his presidency, but guess what? Thomas Jefferson cut the navy down by 95%

Even after all of this, America still felt secure from what was a much more threatening landscape than we live in today - imperial powers all around with designs on North America.

As one other commenter here suggested, you have to ask yourself the question, Why has Switzerland remained safe throughout the 20th and 21st centuries without a standing army? Why haven't they succumbed to the horrors of not having one suggested by other people?

The Swiss? You guys are kidding right? Seriously???

There are many reasons (here are some):

1) Extremely difficult Terrain
2) Hitler used Swiss Banks to funnel ingots (gold) and had wired accounts -- many a gold tooth, stolen gold jewlery, or like item was funneled through Switzerland during WWII
3) It was not a beneficial route to anywhere else
4) The Swiss did allow German troops and material to pass through to Germany -- the Swiss rail system was effectively part of the Third Reich
5) The Swiss swore to destroy the tunnels that lead to their famed vaults -- with 1000's of snipers and rocket launchers guarding them from the mountains above the collapsed tunnels it was not worth it.
6) Germans traded Coal for Swiss Steel
7) One Swiss Armament Dealer (Oerlikon) made double-barrell anti-aircraft canons the Germans used frequently on "us" and our "alies" -- That was ONE ARMAMENT DEALER.
8) A huge market was German Art

In 1942 more than 30,000 Jews were apprehended by the Swiss and given back to Germany -- The Swiss did take in some Jews at the onset, but charged Swiss Jews a "head tax" to cover the cost.

Oh -- Why did the biggest Swiss Banks agree to pay $1.25Billion in reparations to Hollocaust Suvivors -- prior to this they sent $1,200 to over 100,000 Jews in Europe (elsewhere).

Hmmmmm -- Me thinks you guys should do your homework.

The Swiss and the U.S.

Citizens of the U.S. aided both sides of the war in WWII Prescott Bush was in charge of a bank whose assets were seized because it was holding Nazi funds, and that bank was affiliated with a lot of Nazi factories,etc., and Standard Oil sold fuel to the Luftwaffe. The Swiss aren't innocent either and Swiss bankers held Nazi funds, and your other claims could absolutely all be true. I would like to point out that the Swiss are still an armed citizenry and that the Swiss maintained armed neutrality throughout WWI also. Even though the Swiss are a comfortable people who let some unsavory things happen in their country, like the people of the U.S. do often enough, there is no doubt that the best type of citizenry to prevent despotism is an armed citizenry when that citizenry is educated enough to identify despotism and its roots. The U.S. and Switzerland I believe have largely failed in that respect, but at least their citizens are still armed if enough people manage to awaken and find that peaceful revolution cannot be secured.

Tom Mullen -- tsk tsk tsk

How do you move Indians off their land, insure transatlantic slavery, enforce fugitive slave laws with no standing army?

Better yet (forget that one); if you have NO STANDING ARMY why do you appoint Washington as it's leader and (of all people) Hamilton as it's Major General?

It was Washington and Hamilton who built up the Army and were asked to head the "new" Emergency Army as the threat of war loomed. It was the EMERGENCY ARMY that was disbanded not the core army -- most of the Army was intact when Jefferson took office.

The "High Federalists" build the standing army during Washington's admin and imposed the first property tax.

Remember the Fries Rebellion? How did Adams knock that down?

He sent in the "standing army" -- didn't he, in 1799? Worse! He sent in the "standing army" 4 weeks after everything was peaceful.

Let me quote you and excerpt of the affair (eyewitness account):

The army troops "swarmed over the countryside making arrests, some based on little more than local rumor, gloating over their terrified captives and making themselves odious everywhere they went." Many of the expedition's own officers became sick at what they had to do, one exclaiming that "a sergeant and 6 men might have performed all the service for which we have been assembled at so heavy an expense to the United States".

Also - Adams signed off on the Aliens and Sedition Act (also written by the "High Federalists").

Adam's Major General (Hamiliton) said this:

As Alexander Hamilton later observed, the exclusive dependence on [Page 421] the militia, "had liked to have cost us our independence . . . .The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind."

Tom Mullen's picture

washington had an army

to put downt the whiskey rebellion, but Adams had no federal troops until 1798. You are correct in that he did use some of them for the so-called Fries rebellion, but he never let it do anything else and had it disbanded by the time his term was up. Hamilton wanted it so that he could "liberate" Florida and other Spanish territories, but Adams never let him go forward with any of this.

Wrongo Drongo

Adams was the Vice President under Washington (correct)?

So, he was part of the Washington Admin, correct?

Now Washington was Prez 'till 1797, correct?

So -- you agree there was Federal Troop Increases up 'till 1797 (fact -- as I stated Washington and Hamilton built up the standing army) but that somehow he eliminated them 'till 1798, which is when Fries Rebellion took place -- where Adams then used an instantly formed Federal Troops to put it down? After peace was established regarding a bloodless "uprising?"

Then why did Adams send 800 Troops to "evict" settlers who carved out a homestead in Tenessee, in 1797?

Why was Adams building Forts (by the hands and for station) for Federal Troops -- To facilitate a "disbanning" or to increase the size of Federal Troops?

Why did Adams issues Death Warrants for Military Disserters?

Don't get me wrong Adams is my favorite -- I just don't believe in "Hero-Worship" these men (all Founders) were the same Wealthy Elite (the upper 8%) we are dealing with today (just evolved).

Tom Mullen's picture

adams is not my favorite, nor do I hero-worship any of them

but this is what Adams biography (David McCullough) says:

pg. 499

"The country began to prepare for war. On April 8, 1798 ,Representative Samuel Sewall, a Federalist from Marblehead, Mass called on Congriss to give the President all he had asked for and slowly, somewhat reluctantly...(he then talks about the navy, arming merchant vessels, etc. and gets to the army a few paragraphs later)

"A bill for a "provisional army" was passed, but not before it was cut from 25,000 men to 10,000, which was still more than Adams had asked for or wanted. For though he wast he greatest advocate of the navy of any American statesman of his generation, Adams deplored the idea of a standing army."

pg. 539

The removal of the government from PHiladelphia to the new Federal City by the Potomac was scheudled to take place in June (1800). The President was to go there himself for a first look as soon as he could get away. But two critical issues required decisions in the weeks that remained - what to do about the TEMPORARY army and what do do about three Pennsylvania German farmers who had been sentenced to hang for treason. (emphasis added).

The fate of the now useless and unpopular army was settled with reamrkably little fuss, showing how greatly times had changed. Adams declared that were it left to him the army "would not exist a fortnight." Both Federalists and Republicans in Congress, seeing no reason why Adams should get the credit, voted to disband the army by summer. Had Hamilton been given free reign with the army, Adams would remark, it would have required a second army to disband the first one.

Tom: I like you

I don't even remember how we got onto Adams.

We are pruning the weeds here -- the "root" that is choking out (actually it's never existed) free-markets is an abdication of consumer-sovereignty (everyone is a consumer).

The Wealthy Abdicate their Duty to earn wealth via Fair-Market Competition -- instead they seek Gov't Force-Agency to Ensure It.

The Middle Class and Poor abdicate because they Vote and Lobby; because they join Unions (religious, social, and labor) -- refuse to use "common sense."

Both the Wealthy and the Poor Middle "harken" back nostalgically for when they were freer (when it was clear there was no freedom back then).

Adams "used" the Army you say he never had and I paraphrased from the same book -- hahahahaha. I'm more interested in what men do then their petty sentiments about Liberty.

Ron Paul's favorite Founding Father was -- John Adams (by-the-by)

Tom Mullen's picture

John Adams

THat would really surprise me about Ron Paul, because Adams was on the wrong side of so many arguments that RP takes Jefferson's side on. I would think that from everything he has said, Jefferson would be RP's favorite.

One thing that jumps out to me, though, after reading about a lot of these founding lawyers, is that John Adams may have been the one with the most personal integrity out of all of them. Jefferson was probably the best writer/thinker on liberty, but personally he comes across like a two-faced bastard at times, where with Adams you always knew where you stood. I think Jefferson was right on the things that he disagreed with Adams on, but Jefferson was more likely to compromise his principles than Adams.

Jefferson was VERY interested in how History would look at

him and his actions were to the contrary in most cases.

Ron Paul said in an interview, when asked who his favorite FF was, "John Adams" -- I think it suprised the interviewer too.

That doesn't mean he was his favorite president -- Adams was too old, too compromising -- he was a poor politician once in office.

Adams was one of only few who did not make money on Slavery -- nearly all the rest did either directly or indirectly.

Jefferson was pro-slavery (in reality) and pro-military -- Adams (as you said) did not trust a Standing Army and was right to want to build a strong Navy.

One must have an Army Guard to guard borders and ports -- "Marines" could guard the ports as a subset of the Navy.

We cannot turn to militias in modern times -- it's absurd. Militias are AWESOME once we've been invaded and Navy - Army - Air has been subdued -- We all saw the movie Red Dawn. But as far as being the "gate-keepers" it's absurd.

Below my post are links to how I think a transitionary society would work and a "better" constitution -- a Free-Society has no constitution so it's only for the transition.

States can handle Army-Air Guard

National Navy and National GAO to pay off foreign debt

Everything else can be handled locally in whatever way cities and townships want.

Tom Mullen's picture

Jefferson was not pro-military

With the army disbanded, he took the additional step of cutting Adams' navy by 95% - that's how he eliminated all of those taxes.

He was not pro-slavery either. He was just too weak of character to face what he thought would be the hardship of freeing his slaves. Later, economists satisfactorily proved that slave labor was less profitable than free labor, so his (and most other slaveowners) economic fears were unfounded.

Economics was a young science in early America. Adam Smith only wrote his treatise in 1776. While Jefferson agreed and based many of his economic positions on it and other early free market economists, he certainly didn't realize the full implications of it and apply them consistently. 200 years later, most politicians still don't understand it.

On militia's, I argue that NO GROUND TROOPS ARE NEEDED AT ALL. Do the thought experiment of a country trying to invade the US, even if the US had no ground troops, but still had its air force, navy, and nukes. Step by step, think about how it goes down. It's impossible.