Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin says bloodshed may be needed to protect conservatism


The title is not real journalism, it is sensationalism.

In a nation where each citizen needs to be an informed citizen. To be aware of his civic duties. That’s the country I grew up in. But a very gradual poisoning has occurred here, the ‘greatest nation on earth.’ This poison is spread by the media and reinforced by liars and those who serve self at the expense of others.

I don’t wish for any bloodshed to happen in this country but I do expect people to quit their jobs because of their conscience. To speak the truth daily to counteract the lies being spread among the people.

There will be martyrs - some financial and some physical. There will be those who will sacrifice some of their pleasures so that the damage caused by the poison can be reversed. And it can. Just tell yourself, “I want no more poison in my life.” Ask God for strength and guidance.




He probably should have not said what he said but commenting that violence will be a part of our future and how governments work is not necessarily advocating it.

This country will shed blood in the name of governance. I don’t advocate it but it will happen.



Matt Bevin suggested that an armed, bloody uprising might be necessary if we were to elect Hillary Clinton as President:

Somebody asked me yesterday, I did an interview, “Do you think it’s possible, if Hillary Clinton were to win the election, do you think it’s possible that we’ll be able to survive, that we’d ever be able to recover as a nation?” And while there are people who have stood on this stage and said we would not, I would beg to differ. I do think it would be possible, but at what price? At what price? The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what? The blood of who? The tyrants, to be sure, but who else? The patriots.

Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren. I have nine children. It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood is needed to redeem something, to reclaim something that we, through our apathy and our indifference, have given away. Don’t let it happen.

Such comments are outrageous, a call to armed rebellion if the nation elects a Democrat, thus endangering the survival of the country. Obviously, Mr. Bevin has no love for democracy, for majority rule. This is a substantial step up from a veiled reference to “Second Amendment rights.” There is no justification for such talk, especially from a governor.



The Governor’s suggestion is definitely not in line with Catholic thinking and reasoning. Our response to liberalism should be in accord with Catholic teachings.



Conservatives may get to the point one day when a rebellion is necessary to enforce natural law against a leftist government. There may be a popular uprising or states may secede from the Union. I predicted that the Confederate States of America would come back if Bernie Sanders was elected because the South is totally against the socialist agenda.



Yes this is true, but the kicker is, NO govt in power will ever admit themselves to be tyrannical, so naturally they are going to try and hide this to ensure majority of people do not rebel. Many people fail to recognize this, they assume the Govt in power will just come out and let them know if and when a rebellion is needed. LOL



Even if there were overt tyranny, a majority would not fight. Don’t kid yourself. Many would not even recognize it.

And, really, unless the government involved were literally killing people in large numbers, fighting would not be justified. Resistance must be proportional to the wrong being done.

BTW, a Government that routinely resorts to killing (beyond the relative handful involved in the death penalty) is already broken, but there are far worse things than liberalism.




Violence breeds violence; I’d much rather people use the mechanism in place to settle whatever issues which come between the parties. Shedding blood never accomplishes anything.



There may be a time when violence will be necessary to fight against an oppressive government that denies the people their freedoms. That day is not today, but it may be closer than some think it is. I also do not think that outright violence and murder by the government is necessary for it to morally permissible to resist government rule with force. If legitimate, legal options, such as the courts, are not available or are under the control of the unjust government, then violence may be the only realistic solution.

Institutions such as the Catholic Church in the US are in an especially precarious position right now. It is not outside the realm of possibility that within the next decade that Catholic institutions will be forced to obey unjust laws and regulations (such as Catholic hospitals being forced to abort babies) or be forced to shut down in massive numbers. This is already happening to some extent today (see the HHS rules on contraception - it’s only going to get worse from there). If it came to a choice between capitulation or being forced out of existence, using force may not seem to be such an extreme option.

Though I do think that when it comes to the use of violence against an oppressive government, it will not take the form of all out war, such as another civil war, but will be fought using more indirect tactics, such as guerrilla warfare, or covert bombings or other terrorist like acts against government targets. It will probably also be a small minority that would actually participate in the violence, even if a large portion of the populace would be against the government.



This guy is basically a fascist. What kind of rights does he think need protecting from a milquetoast right-centrist like Hilary? She’s hardly a radical figure.

“It’s a slippery slope. First we’re killing children. Then it’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Now it’s this gender-bending kind of ‘don’t ask, don’t be a bigot, don’t be unreasonable, don’t be unenlightened, heaven forbid, just keep your mouth shut.’”

These don’t seem like rights being violated. It seems more like he wants to subjugate others.



A Clinton presidency, a big change in the Supreme Court, and amnesty for illegal aliens could be a tipping point. Then how would we maintain our Bill of Rights.



We just have to disagree civilly, as I deny that violence is ever justified unless one is oneself, or as a citizen, being subjected to, or threatened with violence.

I am aware that my thought process would not have created this country in the 1700s, but we are not confronted with the 1700s.




And just how are people threatening to, or inciting to insurrect against my government supposed to bother me **less ** than workers entering the country without waiting for visas that will never come?

The cure is infinitely worse than the disease, IMINWHO.




We are living in different times and the moral base of our country is quickly deteriorating. Not so long ago, a political figure in this country making such comments would have the electorate demanding resignation and it would have happened. I doubt this will affect the Governor politically. I could be wrong though.




I spit my iced tea all over my keyboard. What person, even leaning to the right, is an abortion, gay marriage, single-payer, big government, high taxes, feminist ideology, anti-religion supporter and promoter?

This is the most flawed modifier to describe Mrs Clinton in the history of CAF.



Sounds like one more deplorable guy. He is advocating violence if a President advocates amnesty for illegals (still needs Congress to approve) or allows gay marriage (already law of the land) or raises taxes on the rich or nominates a judge he does not like (still needs Senate approval)



Though I’ve wondered about his point myself, on my own, I think this is the wrong perspective. Nothing will protect this country as long as we champion abortion. A nation that kills its own children will not be blessed. The bloodshed is already going on.



So you are saying that Italy with 90% Catholics where almost all politicians are Catholic, where most of the Vatican staff comes from, where a public referendum on keeping abortion legal passed with an overwhelming majority, where all abortions are paid for by the government, is a a evil, doomed country?

I think you need to go to Italy and stop the bloodshed immediately!



Take a quick look at the incidents involving large scale violence in just the last 5 years, and you’ll see that conservative Americans who believe in the Constitution were not involved in them in any way. Ferguson, Baltimore, several Trump rallies, Milwaukee, etc were all brought about by the far left or individuals supported by the far left. If and when this violence increases, the governor’s words may prove to be both prophetic and appropriate.



I don’t see why what he said is controversial. Most Americans, including most liberals it seems, agree that the United States and her way of life is under constant threat from enemies around the world. The threat is great and requires perpetual war in order to defend our democratic way of life and freedom. If Saddam Hussein or Afghan rock farmers can threaten our very existence then I have no doubt there are domestic forces who represent a far graver threat.

I also don’t understand why this would be controversial in the context of US political history. England and King George were far less of a tyrannical government then the one we currently have. In fact they were willing to offer concessions whereas the current federal government is dictatorial with its imposition of grave evils like abortion, same sex marriage and now transgenderism.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit