I agree that the armed protest is a bad idea.
The people have a right to do it. That is not the issue.
There is even an arguable point of view that it's a good idea to promote the idea of peaceful, responsible gun ownership, and the right to openly carry, in major public venues.
My problem with the march is that the organized crime syndicate which has taken over the United States, is completely shameless in their use of false flags. They don't care how many people are killed, maimed, or imprisoned, if it furthers their goals.
What really surprised me though, was Y.O.G.'s comment, "...listening to the rants of Alex Jones...", in which it seems like a backhanded insult to Alex Jones, and anyone who may listen to him.
I've read many articles which came from Infowars over the years. Sometime last summer I started following some of their videos on Youtube. After a few weeks I subscribed to their
prisonplanet.tv site. I've been watching their
Nightly News program regularly since then.
I've watched while the Infowars news team consistently were the first to break important stories. Some of these were later reluctantly reported in the mainstream media, but only because alternate news services such as Infowars and Drudge Report had brought them to light.
It's true that Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, said publicly that Infowars and Drudge were not credible news sources. But don't you have to ask yourself whether you consider Napolitano credible? One should also note that when she was forced to admit Infowars had been right, just two days later, she offered an actual (though lame IMHO) apology.
You may be aware of the interview not long ago, in which Alex Jones appeared on the Piers Morgan show on CNN? You may or may not have agreed with the way Jones presented his views. But you should realize that Morgan's regular audience is only about 600,000 viewers. Jones' Nightly News has about 3 million. The night of that interview, Morgan had 2 million viewers. Sure, many of those were regular viewers of Jones. But many people saw that program who were not otherwise familiar with Jones, or with the 2nd Amendment perspective. Infowars greatly increased their viewership as a result of that program, which means the word is getting out.
I have found Infowars to be a very credible news agency. That doesn't mean I believe everything they say, without question. Sometimes they are wrong. The difference is, I believe they do not intentionally lie, and they try to get it right as much as possible. Whereas we know mainstream media cannot be believed on even the simplest of issues. They lie pathologically.
My original question was whether or not readers think Kokesh might be an agent provacateur. I should also note, for anyone who didn't take the time to actually view the clip I linked, that Alex Jones is on record as saying he thinks the march is a bad idea. However, Jones does intend to cover the event, with as many cameras as possible.
I don't find it strange when the mainstream media demonizes alternative news sources such as Infowars, or when they make personal attacks on people such as Jones. I do find it strange when people such as Y.O.G., whom I believe would agree with me about the unreliablility of mainstream media, would also disparage Jones.
So now my question is, "What does it take to become a legitimate news agency?"
A good follow-up question would be, "Do ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or Fox qualify as legitimate news agencies?" Why, or why not? And lastly, does Infowars/Prisonplanet qualify?
Y.O.G., if I've misread your intent, then I apologize. Would you care to clarify?
Thanks.