Rep. Steve King Calls For Overthrow Of U.S. Government
Tweet
During the Bush presidency, the establishment left said “hey, let’s organize and mobilize and get our next candidate elected”. During the Clinton presidency they tried to remove him from office via impeachment, during the Obama presidency the right is calling for revolution.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) urged a smaller-than-expected crowd of Tea Party protesters on Tuesday to launch a Velvet Revolution-style uprising against the federal government, saying the parallels are striking between America’s current government and Eastern European communist rule.
Speaking to the Huffington Post shortly after his speech, King declared that a peaceful uprising, a la the successful overthrowing of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia on the streets of Prague in 1989 ‘would be fine with me.’
This isn’t just some nutbar at a teabag rally. This is a member of the US House.
22 Responses to “Rep. Steve King Calls For Overthrow Of U.S. Government”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Yep, well, these same Republicans and Joe Lieberman (oxymoron) have sided with the Nation of Israel over the United States. They are choosing Israel’s security over America’s security. So, can’t say I am surprised that these same Republicans, who choose to support Israel’s Netanyahu over their own President, are also advocating an overthrow of the US government. I mean, really, does it shock you?
King is crap with feet.
Someone needs to have these bozos organize a march to Hawaii. You know, so they can protest at the President’s birthplace and demand his birth certificate. It could start at the Santa Monica Pier…just start marching west…
The Marching Morons
Oh, and it’s not treason because he’s not actually *calling* for the overthrow of the government; he’d just be OK with it. No blatant dog-whistle at all, there.
During the Bush presidency, the establishment left said “hey, let’s organize and mobilize and get our next candidate elected”. During the Clinton presidency they tried to remove him from office via impeachment,
The establishment left did? Wait, what?
Sean, totally agree with you. That second sentence is all kinds of messed up. I came into comments just to say something about it. Guessed you beat me to it.
Agreed—not *Treason*….but it meets the legal def for Sedition, and should be prosecuted as such (especially after another nutbar throws down and starts shooting….which is only a matter of time, IMO)
Basically the idiot-moron republicans hate the government UNLESS they’re the ones in power. Then it’s a different story….
I remember a time where the mouth breathers on the right would make fun of protestors (remember Protest Warrior), now they run around with their misspelled signs throwing tea bags and silly string like they are saving the country. How can anyone take them seriously?
Now don’t sell King short…he’s a Member of the House AND a nutbar at a Teabag rally.
Shouldn’t he resign from office to maintain his lofty anti-US principles?
Thing one: Steve King is a nutjob.
Thing two: overthrowing the government is a notion that can be called many things fairly, but not anti-American. It’s right there in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Talking about revolution is well within the rights of a citizen of this country. And actually engaging in revolution is well within the rights of any person, anywhere, at any time. I hold that truth to be self-evident, and I’m not the only one.
Thing three: note that King is advocating a peaceful revolution. Via protesting in the streets. Good luck with that, but I do appreciate the gesture toward nonviolent solutions. I can think of a few hippies, like this one African-American guy with the same last name, who took a similar approach. (And I’m not suggesting that MLK ever openly advocated revolution, if you want to split hairs, but that was more or less what he was engaged in — and more or less succeeded at.)
Thing four: please review thing one. Steve King is somewhere between ridiculous and repugnant in my book. That doesn’t mean that every statement he makes is automatically crazy. This one isn’t.
Martin Luther King, a suit-and-tie-wearing, no-indication-of-drug-taking, minister was a “hippie”? Seriously?
No. It was Teh Sarcasmz. Kthxbai.
Felix helix: Thing two: overthrowing the government is a notion that can be called many things fairly, but not anti-American. It’s right there in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
Uh, no.
The sentence’s main point is that if you’re going to leave you should explain why. And to construe that “disolv[ing] political bonds” is a call to overthrow the government is a mis-characterization.
The Declaration doesn’t call for the overthrow of England’s system. It says the colonists didn’t want to be part of it anymore.
That’s a mighty fine hair you’re splitting, imho. Overthrowing a system may be different from throwing off a system — destroying what exists versus separating from it — but either way you’re talking about using force to defy the system and its authority over you. That’s rebellion. That’s revolution.
If you want to get technical, the bit about abolishing the government isn’t mentioned until the fourth sentence. My bad.
By the way, the only reason the colonists were saying “let’s not be a part of England anymore” instead of “let’s overthrow the monarchy” was the Atlantic Ocean. It’s (relatively) easy to separate from an undesirable system when it’s on a different continent. Just imagine if Buckingham Palace had been located in Boston.
but either way you’re talking about using force to defy the system and its authority over you.
Where did I do that? “Hey, boss, I quit. Let me tell you why.” is not a call to use force. I’m sure nobody expected England to accept this quietly. But the Declaration, even in it’s fourth sentence, doesn’t call for using force to overthrow of anything.
In fact, when a new government was established in the colonies which did not satisfactorily “effect their safety and happiness” that government was “throw[n] off” and abolished and a new one put in place thru the non-violent means of drafting a different Constitution.
Oh, I see. So if Texas decides to “quit” the country, the “boss” won’t have a problem with that? Sure he won’t. That other guy, what’s his name — Lincoln, was it? — he was all like, “Oh, you Southerners just want to do your own thing. Right on. Peace be with you, brothers.” I’m pretty sure that’s how that went.
Seceding from a country is a very different thing from quitting a job. The analogy doesn’t hold up. It’s silly to pretend otherwise. The latter is inherently a violence-free action; if it isn’t, you’re not an employee but a slave. The former is, in any real-world context, an inherently violent proposition.
I return to my initial points, which have yet to be refuted:
1) Revolutionary rhetoric is a very American thing. (Though, to be sure, not only an American thing.)
2) Abolishing an oppressive government was advocated for in the founding manifesto of our country, and is the reason our country exists. That could not have come to pass without the use of force, and the colonists knew it. That’s how come we’ve got a Second Amendment.
3) Steve King advocated a peaceful uprising. So even if you’ve got a problem with advocating the violent overthrow of the government, this ain’t that.
There are times when one takes a bit too much pleasure watching others wound themselves with their own rhetorical weaponry. It’s one thing to feel a bit of satisfaction when an adversary is hoist with his on petard. It’s quite another to claim ownership of the petard in question.
It ends badly.
After lying to the american people and promote such socialist agenda, it is the call of a true american to clean the government, and bring to justice the enemies of the constitution.
Enjoy your delusions, moron. Careful, I hear that Obama has commissioned satellite technology that can penetrate tinfoil hats now, so you might want to retreat to your backyard, underground, lead-lined bunker. Don’t worry, we’ll come for you when the coast is clear.
Felix, you seem to be refusing to understand anything I’ve written.
Hmmmmm………….actually the Constitution is a blueprint for the overthrowing of the Governmentin many respects. Many of the founding fathers felt that a “cleansing” or revolution should occur at least every 100 years.
If you read the Constitution literally, as I feel it should be read, you will find many instances within the docuement that allow for the disolution of the “State”. We the people are the State. Therefore, if the majority of the people feel the Government has stepped over the line in a particular instance, which in this case they certainly have(and not for reasons concerning political parties or race but for violation of the coloring of Law), we are obligated to; A. Vote the the offending Article out of Law (or if this is impossible), B. Force the offending Article out of Law. Both of these two solutions and/or remedies are provided for by the Constitution. The latter of the two placed there as intentionally as the first and in retospect, as nonchalantly and matter-of-factly by the signers of the Document. To these men, one was as effective as the other and weighed by the same scale equally, to be usd as the “majority” saw fit. Neither being any less patriotic than the other.
The trouble with the system comes when the Constitution is misinterpeted. When this happens to a certain extent or in a certain manner, the founding fathers placed in a fail safe, for situations that might arise from any unforeseen conflicts. The fail safe being revolution. To support this they added the Second Amendment which allowed for the swift enforcement of the fail safe in the event it mght be needed.