Updated: 5:09 PM
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 (PDT)
Time in Seattle, WA
Here's my comment I left over on Mike Adam's NaturalNews.com:
Calling for the violent overthrow of the federal government is what that government could use right now to arrest him and try him for treason and make it stick.
What kind of organizing is this? I want no part of such gross ineptitude.
He's trying to start an ill-conceived operation where all he'd manage to do is get people killed, maimed, and imprisoned by federal operatives.
I see that the Infowars.com site says Kokesh "Plans Peaceful 'Revolt'." The Natural News article didn't address anything along those lines. If Kokesh said his armed revolt will be peaceful, he's really playing word games concerning something that should be handled vastly more maturely.
He's going to be putting people's lives at risk to accomplish what? An armed revolt is not peaceful unless the government rolls over and plays dead, which it most certainly would not do. It would come fully prepared for extreme, lethal violence and ready to give firm orders.
What would all those armed marchers who would be revolting against the government do when told to turn around, just turn around? What would the march have then accomplished? More importantly, would the government allow the thing to even get started given that Kokesh has said "revolt."
Revolt has always been a charged up word that the vast majority of people have usually taken as meaning ready to physically fight. When coupled with "armed," it's just the height of folly to pretend as if one is walking on the edge but not crossing over, clearly putting the government in a position where it will have no choice but to coerce people to disband and possibly (likely) disarm.
I really dislike Kokesh word-gaming around such potential mayhem if Infowars hasn't mischaracterized it.
I'll watch the interview because Natural News didn't mention "peaceful" anything whereas Infowars did.
Okay, he's completely butchered the term "revolt". He utterly fails to understand the political/historical sense of the term when used with "armed" and marching on a nation's capital. It is now clear that he thinks he will only do this march if he gets the permission of the government. That's not a revolt! A armed revolt marching on the capital would fight the government telling the march that it can't do what it wants, which is to march armed into the capital. Heaven help us. Save us from loose talk!