I am friends with the both of them and I know @kennyskitchen really well, I was in Acapulco with them for the conference. Forgive me if I'm missing something from @adamkokesh 's platform but it seems to me that he would also be taking the negative on all three of your resolutions as well.
He is not attempting to take control of land and resources and he would agree fully that becoming president is not a legitimate means to do so.
He will not be trying to tell anybody what to do with federally controlled land and he certainly will not be trying to redistribute it to anybody, he just wants to relinquish federal control of it. Voluntaryism would dictate that anyone can then claim it and develop it. He would agree that the two ideas are incompatible.
The whole point of his campaign is to use the office to immediately dissolve it. I have never heard or seen anything from him that would suggest that he believes there is ANY legitimate means with which to wield authority over others. That is at the core of voluntaryism and anarchy and is the central theme of his FREEDOM! book.
So again I am not sure why you think Adam is supportive of any of the resolutions you put forth. If you have seen or heard from him or his content that directly or indirectly supposes affirmation of them could you point me to it? Because if it is true I would very much like to know so that I am not supporting a closet authoritarian. Ultimately his campaign relies on a huge amount of faith in him doing what he says he will should he actually get elected(fat chance right? but who knows..). But as far as I can tell he means what he says.
So please if you would show me what makes you think he believes in the legitimacy of the kinds of authority you are talking about. Thanks in advance for your time!
Completely agree I think OP just misunderstood Adams intentions. Would still be interested in seeing this debate though.