Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

GOP Candidate Doesn't Rule Out Violent Overthrow of Government

4 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Stephen Broden, a Republican running for Congress in a Dallas, Texas district, says if the Nov. 2 election does not yield the desired change in Washington then a violent overthrow of government would be one option "on the table," the Dallas Morning News reported.

Broden, a South Dallas pastor, made the remark in a prolonged back-and-forth exchange with WFAA-TV on Thursday.
When asked about his statement last year at a tea party event that the nation's government is tyrannical and could be altered by revolution if constitutional remedies fail, Broden initially avoided talk of insurrection. Altering it or abolishing it would be the best way to deal with repressive government, he said.

Stephen Broden, Republican candidate for Congress in Dallas districtPressed by reporter Brad Watson, Broden said: "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 by any means necessary." Watson asked if that includes violence as an option. "The option is on the table. I don't think we remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said.

The Dallas GOP didn't appreciate Broden's comments. "It is a disappointing, isolated incident," said Jonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party.

Broden is running in a heavily Democratic district against nine-term Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, whose campaign has been dogged by questions about misuse of Congressional Black Caucus Scholarship Foundation money.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

We should all remember that our government was founded on the principle that the majority rules. Who ever is elected will be elected by the majority of the people. Just because whoever is elected doesn't please you and you want a violent overthrow of the government. Then you are guilty of treason and should be in the pen.

October 23 2010 at 9:38 AM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to cmcwfc's comment

You're wrong, we were most certainly *not* founded on the principle of majority rule. Quite the opposite, the Founders feared "a tyranny of the majority," and gave us a Constitution especially to protect minorities from abuses.

October 23 2010 at 10:44 AM Report abuse +9 rate up rate down Reply

For the following reasons, we must logically conclude that Stephen Broden, the famous African-American Republican running for U.S. Congress in a heavily Democratic Texas district against nine-term Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, whose campaign has been dogged by questions about misuse of Congressional Black Caucus Scholarship Foundation money, is correct in his claims that if the Nov. 2 election does not yield the desired change in Washington, then a violent overthrow of government would be one option "on the table," as the Dallas Morning News reported: “Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to OVERTHROW the Constitution, but to OVERTHROW the men who pervert the Constitution.” [Emphasis added in caps for clarification.] – Abraham Lincoln (via: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make VIOLENT REVOLUTION inevitable. John F. Kennedy (via: (PS: J.F.K. spoke the truth --and took a bullet for us! [Emphasis added in caps for clarification.]) Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note (via: cf: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [Emphasis added in caps for clarification.] Declaration of Independence (via: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter OR TO ABOLISH it, and to institute NEW Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. [Emphasis added in caps for clarification.] — John Hancock, et al. CONCLUSION: If the state is no longer free, then, as a practical matter, it is both the right and the Constitutional, Legal, and Moral duty of the citizen to make it free. The three means that come to mind are the following: *1* Voting (Representation of the People) *2* News Media exposure of corrupt government (First Amendment rights of Free Press) *3* Revolution (As was done when we declared independence from Great Britain) Of course, it is next to impossible to accomplish #3 above, and it might even be an “Act of Terrorism” to prematurely declare revolution (violet or otherwise), but we did it once -and both the Constitution and many of our nation's forefathers advocated this as something that must not be taken off the table.

October 23 2010 at 2:43 AM Report abuse -5 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to GordonWayneWatts's comment

Actually, the founders of our nation did not see the constitution as involate. If they did think that they had all of the answers, they would not have included provisions for amendments. However, if you want the constitution "inviolate" as the founders wrote it, remember that not only are you removing freedom of speach, and religion from the cconstitution, but also freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, the rights of women to vote, direct election of senators, protection against self-incrimination, and the end to slavery. I think you need to rethink your undersatanding of the mind of the founding fathers, who by the way, violated their mandate to "reform" the Articles of Conferation, by writing a completely new constitution and provide for an adoption process which abrogated the requirement for approval of all thirteen states to adopt any law for thenation.

October 23 2010 at 6:24 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Republicans want to turn this slow recession recovery into the depression that they intended. Vote republican to destroy America. Their economic ideas haven't changed one bit. Fall for it again and you deserve to have your job outsourced and your family living on the street if they didn't get you on the first go round.

October 23 2010 at 12:55 AM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Jerry's comment

Yeah......I believe that the whole financial meltdown was orchestrated by the toadies from Bush and his Wall streeters.....they knew he was damaged goods and that no repub could get elected in 08....then they screwed down the economy so that any dem would seem to be only a 1 timer.....lets see how Obama holds up to this legacy

October 23 2010 at 8:38 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

How interesting is it...that all the talk of violent overthrow comes from the party that was removed from the majority for their abuse of power to begin with? The reason we're in the mess we're in is due to the actions and policies of the previous administration that was fully supported by those that are calling for an overthrow of government.It's also noteworthy to recognize that the same "patriots" are demanding fidelity to the U.S. Constitution without either knowing or understanding it's contents,or advocating it's change. The argument has been made that since corporations pay taxes,they should be accommodated a place at the political table..but an examination of the facts will show that most major corporations don't pay ANY tax at all due to the generous tax laws created by the very politicians that decry the "socialist" administration currently in place.

October 23 2010 at 12:35 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

I think that Stphen Broden is concerned that members of Congress in both parties don't understand how seriously angry the voter/taxpayers actually are. We've had decades of candidates making campaign promises and breaking them as soon as they're elected. You know, like close Gitmo, transparency, no earmarks, no lobbyists, balanced budget, expose corruption, etc...

October 22 2010 at 9:13 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Preamble to the Constitution. What do you think is meant when they wrote about government acts with the consent of the governed, and government by the people, of the people and for the people. It means there is no "ruling class" and it also means our elected reps better darn well pay attention to the public. That being said, our "peaceful revolt" should take place on Nov. 2 - but if we get the "same ol same ol" it may be time to start over. I've often said that if Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe could see the mostrosity our federalgovernment has become they would IMMEDIATELY call for a new American revolution.

October 22 2010 at 9:00 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

To lerch1, this is one of the most reasonable comments I have read in a long time.

October 22 2010 at 8:58 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

Americans a revolt will take place on November 2nd. And if change does not occur, revolts do not need to be violent. We Americans need to stand together and start following our laws and incarcerate the traitors in this country. We were not designed to be a socialist country and those that want socialism, let them go to France, England etc. Americans would gladly use taxpayor money to assist with the move. YOU WANT SOCIALISM, THEN MOVE ELSEWHERE.

October 22 2010 at 7:52 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

We most certainly need change but not this kind of change. A time may come but it isn't here yet so let's keep our heads.

October 22 2010 at 7:46 PM Report abuse +14 rate up rate down Reply
John Vilvens

Socialism social and econmic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. Government owns gm, aig,the list goes on, finacial bills give executive branch the right to take over any business they deem in failure . Cap and trade to regulate how much carbon emission and power a plant may produce. Force the people to buy a product oor service, healthcare. We are head down the path to socialism. It is not working in europe and brition but we are rushing down that path .

October 22 2010 at 7:38 PM Report abuse -6 rate up rate down Reply


View All »

Discover inspiring videos on TEDWomen where people are reshaping our future with ideas.

View the Video »

Follow Politics Daily

Politics Home Page : Roll Call