Friday, October 22, 2010

Texas Republican candidate talks violent overthrow

Emotions are running high as we come into the final days of the 2010 election. Tea Party candidates are passionate, and Democratic candidates are desperate. So it is perhaps not surprising that extreme statements are made. But it is shocking to hear of one Texas congressional candidate openly discussing the violent overthrow of government, if the 2010 elections do not bring about change.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.
Passion in political debate is no vice, but reasonableness is a virtue! The Founding Fathers turned to violence only AFTER trying every other possible remedy. It was only two years ago that Republicans controlled the Federal government. We have plenty of remedies left. (And "losing a valid election" is NOT evidence of tyranny.)

3 comments:

shadowmom1 said...

Well, the guy is technically correct. But as you say, he is WAY too premature. Violent overthrow is a LAST resort and we are nowhere near that necessity now.

Nomad said...

We WERE born from violent rebellion, but only after MONTHS and YEARS of patient appeal to the English crown. And our Fathers specifically created a system that is (relatively) easy to reform in order to make violent rebellion unnecessary.

Can anyone with a straight face tell me that universal health care is worth going to WAR over? Hardly seems on the same level as "No taxation without representation."

JoeNewman19 said...

Nomad, if anyone tells you with a straight face that universal health care is worth going to war over, they're probably armed and I would suggest backing away slowly. In all seriousness, though, I feel sorry those who think the Tea Party coming to power will benefit them. The leaders of the movement (Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc.) can in no way relate to their worshiping followers. How have millionaires who make it their main cause to cut taxes on themselves and to do everything else they can do gain wealth tricked a large group of people (mostly who fall into a socio-economic class which benefits LEAST from tax-cuts) into doing their bidding? It makes no sense to me. I'm not surprised at all by Watson's comments, the most extreme of the Tea Party movement, I believe, are seriously hoping for civil war.