Adam Kokesh Announces Violent Overthrow of US Government?

Updated: 5:09 PM
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 (PDT)
Time in Seattle, WA

Here's my comment I left over on Mike Adam's

Armed march on Washington D.C. announced for July 4th: Is Adam Kokesh crazy, or courageous?"Adam Kokesh explained, 'This is an armed revolt against the American government. Make no mistake about it.'"

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.

Armed march on Washington D.C. announced for July 4th: Is Adam Kokesh crazy, or courageous?.

I see that the 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!


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.