Violent revolution: it’s what’s on the table

Another perfectly sane and rational GOP candidate has surfaced, and while he doesn’t appear to be directly advocating for the violent overthrow of the government, he considers the possibility “on the table”:

Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden has found himself in the spotlight after suggesting that the government may well need to be overthrown. In an interview this week, Broden was asked if he was actually calling for violence against the government when he told a crowd of Tea Party supporters last year that the “tyrannical” Obama administration might justify a “revolution.” If any government destroys our liberty, Broden replied, “we have a right… to get rid of it by any means necessary.”

You have to wonder if these people were the guinea pigs in some foul secret experiment that subjected them to a lobotomizing process and erased All Memory prior to January 2009.

The Obama administration is way far from perfect, but where were the baggers when George W was pissing all over their liberty and crapping on their beloved Constitution with disgusting policies like the suspension of civil liberties, invasion of privacy, outrageously broad expansion of Executive power, renditioning, torture, etc.?  (Initiatives that for the most part Obama has yet to rescind, I might add.)  Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter” Cheney shows up at a CPAC shindig packed to the rafters with teabagging fools and instead of being greeted with a volley of rotten tomatoes (and maybe some shoes), he’s received like a homecoming hero.  What is wrong with these people??

But I digress.  Which in itself just goes to show you how far down Bad Craziness Boulevard right-wing America has careened, that a candidate can casually talk up violent overthrow of government and it’s become so commonplace that it’s hardly worth the effort of a blog post.  Yeah yeah, violent revolution, 2nd amendment remedies, I’ll take you out, whatever.

 

18 Responses to “Violent revolution: it’s what’s on the table”


  1. 1 Brian Friday, October 22, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    There is a great disparity here.  The Bush administration did not “piss all over liberty and crap on their beloved Constitution with disgusting policies like the suspension of civil liberties, invasion of privacy, outrageously broad expansion of Executive power, renditioning, torture.”

    We were fighting a war.  US troops were engaged in fire fights, and the other de rigeures of combat.  It is always the way during war that actions that would otherwise be extreme become more common place.  There have been numerous examples throughout modern history where much more extreme measures were temporarily put in place, only to be removed when the threat abated.

    When Northern Italy was in existential jeopardy due to the actions of the Red Brigades, the curtailment of liberty was much, much more extreme.  Once they were no longer a threat, the liberties returned.  That is just one example.

    Dianne Feinstein, lusting to litigate against the Bush administration, set up a reporting process whereby anyone who was wronged by the Patriot Act could submit the details.  In more than a year and a half, she didn’t get one legitimate complaint — and she really wanted some!

    Many times I heard individuals with their hair on fire call into talk shows, and assert with great concern the trampling of civil liberties.  The hosts would ask, “exactly which rights have you lost?”  I heard this little vignette played out at least 15 times, more like 20+.  Not one time was any of these callers able to give any answer except one that made broad-brush allegations.

    But Obama has done something really unprecedented.  He has set up thousands of really powerful “inspectors,” “regulators,” etc. — czars (using that term as it has not been used previously) — which has sidelined congress with breathtaking audacity and lack of concern for the proper way to do things legally.

    This is a vast infringement on both liberty and openness in government.

    I do not think it is time– nor even near to the time to violently overthrow the federal government. But what do you think “… whenever any form of government becomes destructive to [the] ends [of securing the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government” means?  Does it have any application in this day and age?  (That is not intended to be rhetorical; I would actually like to know your understanding of these things.)  Granted, those words do not come from a legally binding document.  But they are thought to reflect a reality that is beyond legislation, that the described rights are the inherent rights of any and all civilizations “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are … endowed by their Creator [not through governments or legislation] with …”

    If it does have any application in this day & age, and if The People have the right to alter or abolish the government, what means would be within reason to accomplish such if the existing government will not go silently into the night?  I’m just asking because it sounded to me like you thought sentiments like that are the sentiments solely of nut cases, and I wanted to check whether I had that right.

    In other words, I’m just askin’.

  2. 2 JJ Friday, October 22, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Hi Brian — No, I don’t think those are the sentiments of nutcases.

    I believe that when a government becomes tyrannical, citizens have not only the right but the duty to overthrow it (by any means necessary).

    Which brings me to my real issue, which is the tea-peoples’ definition of “tyranny”. If they didn’t think Dick Cheney was a tyrant, I don’t see how they can think Obama is one. And really, even the Bush administration weren’t tyrants to the point where I think they should have been forcibly and violently removed from office. The electoral process, lame as it is, still seems to work okay.

  3. 3 Bruce Friday, October 22, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    I’ve actually entertained the thought lately that maybe those little Timothy Leary, CIA experiments with lsd back in the 60’s never actually ended. They did some tests, wrote some reports but never stopped the flow of drugs.

    This is a dream I woke up from the other day and I went yeah Brucie, nice way to go with the paranoia. But really, can you explain a better way way for people’s actions?

    The drug analogy might be a stretch, but how we affect each other has reached a point where it isn’t really that much different.

  4. 4 j2bad Friday, October 22, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    You’re just going to let that steaming pile that Brian just laid on your blog sit there unchallenged? And you call yourself a hippie.

    Where to start? Okay, the beginning.

    We were fighting a war. US troops were engaged in fire fights, and the other de rigeures of combat. It is always the way during war that actions that would otherwise be extreme become more common place. There have been numerous examples throughout modern history where much more extreme measures were temporarily put in place, only to be removed when the threat abated.

    Ah. So, what the last republican administration did isn’t an egregious insult to the constitution because other officials (even ones in other countries) have violated constitution rights even worse in the past? Yeah, that’s an argument of sorts, I suppose. Japanese internment was such a good idea, after all, that it’s only natural that the US should torture prisoners. I see.

    What else?

    Dianne Feinstein, lusting to litigate against the Bush administration, set up a reporting process whereby anyone who was wronged by the Patriot Act could submit the details. In more than a year and a half, she didn’t get one legitimate complaint — and she really wanted some!

    So the Bush Admin didn’t violate any laws, because they haven’t been prosecuted for any violations. Hmmm. By that argument, isn’t it a little surprising, then, that the Obama admin hasn’t been caught out violating all of those laws by having “Czars” in the government. By Brian’s own argument, Obama is completely innocent.

    Oh, and “unprecedented” Czars, at that. Yeah, nevermind that every President since – what? Nixon, right? – used that same honorary title. And nevermind that Czars don’t have any real power. Yeah, don’t let those silly facts get in the way of your argument.

    See, the problem you have when you engage with people who don’t believe in principles, is that they don’t follow any principles. So, when they’re on the losing side of an argument, they tell you that the rules don’t apply – see my first paragraph. And then, when it becomes convenient for them to defend clear bad acts, they insist that an apparent negative is indicative of a positive. For example, if you can’t point to any elephants, then that proves that my elephant-repellent is working. And then, when they want to attack your side, they abandon all of the seeming-principles they appeared to have when they were defending their own side, just to make a convenient – if kinda silly – claim about how bad your side is. As your reader Brian so nicely displayed.

    And seriously, what sort of hippie are you if you’re willing to go right past your own point about how absurd it is in our country to start talking about revolution, just because one political party lost one election?

    And “By any means necessary”? Really? I thought the whole point of your post was to point out how stupid it was to trot that line out.

    Y’know, on second thought, you caved pretty damn quickly. I guess you really are a hippie.

  5. 5 southern quebec Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Brian seems to have forgotten that Bush II was appointed rather than elected the first time.

    “We were fighting a war. US troops were engaged in fire fights, and the other de rigeures of combat.”

    You were fighting an ILLEGAL war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 or weapons of mass distraction. Remember that the people that attacked the WTC were from Saudia Arabia…not Iraq. Subtle, but important difference.

    Anyway…back to the teabaggers! They have a new name…
    http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2010/10/posted-without-comment.html

  6. 6 JJ Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 6:45 am

    j2bad

    You’re just going to let that steaming pile that Brian just laid on your blog sit there unchallenged?

    I don’t have the time or the desire to fisk every point in a comment, I leave that up to my other commenters (and you just demonstrated nicely how well that strategy works).

    And “By any means necessary”? Really? I thought the whole point of your post was to point out how stupid it was to trot that line out.

    Then you missed the point. My point was how stupid it is to trot that line out in the context of present-day government which is a long way from tyranny. But I certainly stand by my point that in the case of genuine tyranny, the people should overthrow the government.

    And you call yourself a hippie.

    Um, actually NO, I don’t call myself a hippie. It’s just the name of the blog, dude. So fuck off and thanks for the input. ASSHOLE

  7. 7 JJ Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Bruce

    The drug analogy might be a stretch, but how we affect each other has reached a point where it isn’t really that much different.

    Actually it’s not a bad analogy at all. Sometimes it does seem like a hospital for the criminally insane flung its doors wide open and all the inmates escaped, stopping briefly in the kitchen to steal the teabags on their way out.

  8. 8 JJ Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 6:58 am

    SQ – The bulk of Brian’s post was refried talking points not even worth addressing.

    But I did get a chuckle out of the “czar” thing — AFAIK every president since Reagan has had “czars” (and “czar” is just a media construct, it’s not even a real term so I don’t know why people waste so much energy jabbering about it).

  9. 9 croghan27 Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 9:19 am

    “We were fighting a war. US troops were engaged in fire fights, and the other de rigeures of combat.”

    War??? Here and all this time I thought that Congress and only Congress could declare the US was in a state of War – not some administration with greed and a grudge.

  10. 10 j2bad Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 11:25 am

    I don’t have the time or the desire to fisk every point in a comment

    You agreed with Brian, but you couldn’t be bothered to call him on his crazyness. And you sure took the time to rebut my criticism. I dunno, lazy, quick to anger, no sense of humor…are you sure you’re not a hippie?

  11. 11 JJ Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    j2b – You might have noticed that I answered Brian last night, and I answered you this morning. I don’t know about you, but my energy level fluctuates in inverse proportion to the number of hours I’ve been awake.

    Look, you’re new here so maybe I should explain the way things are because there’s some background you need to know before dumping on people. Especially me: dumping on me without having all the facts straight is a bad idea. So here goes.

    Brian has a history here of posting long, long comments: some of them are good but some of them are extended O’Reilly talking point memos. Anyone who tries to fisk all his points ends up posting a comment even longer than his, then he posts a comment even longer than that one, and eventually there’s a 65-comment thread and each comment is 20 paragraphs long. You see where I’m going with this 😉

    This blog has a regular readership that all “know” each other, so usually the other commenters answer Brian, or each other, talk amongst themselves etc. Therefore, I don’t always answer every comment, or I just take one point from a comment and address it (as I did with Brian’s post above, since he was nagging on that particular point).

    I dunno, lazy, quick to anger, no sense of humor…are you sure you’re not a hippie?

    Quite sure.
    Peruse the blog first, and then decide whether I have a sense of humour or not. Quick to anger? Only when someone’s being an asshole.

  12. 12 JJ Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Croghan – Brian’s off on another tangent!!! 😆 I wouldn’t worry about it too much 😉 Sometimes I wonder if he believes some of the things he types.

  13. 13 Brian Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    @Bruce
    But really, can you explain a better way way for people’s actions?

    Yeah, I can. I have a high expectation of stupid behavior.

    In the 5th grade, I asked a class mate how he had voted on something (fergit whut). His answer was that it was a secret ballot, and he didn’t have to tell me. Well, duh! But how that translated to he should not tell me? not so clear.

    I remember girls with green hair in Jr. high school. When asked, the reason given was “to do something different.” It never was “to do something better,” “I like the appearance,” always just a rudimentary, un-thought out reason.

    And these sort of observations run apace. People on the road who want to go 40MPH, but fight you like you are taking something from them if you try to pass so that you can go 50.

    There wree some women talking in the grocery stor, carts side by side, blocking the aisle. I POLITELY pointed out that if they would put their carts one behind the other, they could easily continue talking while others could actually use the aisle to shop (I was much nicer than what I just wrote). You could see their resolve to be sure to block the aisle steel itself into complete intractability.

    It goes on and on.

  14. 14 Brian Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    @southern quebec:

    Brian seems to have forgotten that Bush II was appointed rather than elected the first time.

    If you really believe that, rather than just being a troll, you are delusional, or are the kind of person who believes what you choose to believe, rather than what the evidence supports.

  15. 15 Brian Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    @southern quebec:

    … the people that attacked the WTC were from Saudia Arabia…not Iraq. Subtle, but important difference.

    No, it isn’t; it is rather the conclusion of a straw man argument.

  16. 16 Brian Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    @JJ:

    Sometimes it does seem like a hospital for the criminally insane flung its doors wide open and all the inmates escaped …

    I fear that that is what one could expect when elections much more resemble pageants than what we all know they ought to be. (Selecting among individuals based on their understanding of the problems to be solved, the legal means to do so, etc., etc.).

  17. 17 Brian Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    AFAIK every president since Reagan has had ‘czars’ 

    Yes, yes, of course they have. I know that, just as everyone else does, which is why I explicitly said, in acknowledgment of that fact, “… czars (using that term as it has not been used previously).” Hello?

  18. 18 Brian Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    @croghan27:

    We were fighting a war.  US troops were engaged in fire fights, and the other de rigeures of combat.

    War??? Here and all this time I thought that Congress and only Congress could declare the US was in a state of War – not some administration with greed and a grudge.

    You are exactly right, of course.  Only Congress can declare war.  But you will try in vain to find in the Constitution what a war declaration looks like, what specific wording must be contained in one, what its format will be, etc..

    Congress with 1 vote shy of a unanimous vote, specifically authorised militaary action, including the words (roughly; don’t want to go actually look it up) “And any other action the President deems necessary.”

    In my estimation, a carte blanche congressional authorization to use military force at the President’s discretion is, in fact, a declaration of war.


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,503
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: