Oath Keepers Chaplain wanted Montana Blue


RepublicanCongressby Dr. Ed Berry

Look at the large red area where voters elected Republicans to US Congress. If Oath Keepers National Chaplain Pastor Chuck Baldwin and his followers had their way, the whole State of Montana would have been blue.

Fortunately, common-sense Republican voters prevailed over Baldwin and his followers to keep Montana strongly red. Nationwide, wise Americans voted Republican to reject Obama and Harry Reid’s politics.

In general, tea parties did nothing to aid Republican victories across America. In fact, according to Ann Coulter, Republicans would have done better without tea parties:

Without tea party challenges and greedy Republican consultants, Republicans would be looking at 59 senate seats in the next Congress. Maybe 61 with Democrat flips.

And what if the money and energy wasted this year saving incumbent senators Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran and Pat Roberts from tea party challenges had been spent on senate elections in New Hampshire, Virginia or Minnesota? These guys weren’t Arlen Specter! They weren’t even John McCain or Marco Rubio.

While there are well-meaning folks in tea parties, the problem is most of America’s Tea Parties are led by delusional Libertarian and third-party radicals who don’t get it that conservative third-party voting elects Democrats.

Leading the way in this insanity are Oath Keepers Baldwin and John Birch Society CEO Art Thompson. Pastor Baldwin went ballistic and told his mesmerized Montana followers to vote Democrat but he failed to stop Republican Ryan Zinke’s election to US Congress.

An irrational parrot by Baldwin and followers is:

The Moron Mantra: “There’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans.”

Let’s contrast the Moron Mantra with some rationality.

On October 17, Dick Morris listed a few things Republicans can do if they get control of Congress:

But if the Republicans use their Senate majority to play small ball and make limited but very important advances, they can use their budgetary power to achieve great ends.

Because Congress has the ability to vote on each line of the budget while the President, lacking the line item veto, can only sign or veto the whole thing, Republicans can advance their agenda one line at a time. Each advance would be important, but they would not rise collectively to enough to justify a presidential veto and a government closure.

For example:

• Republicans can attach to the Homeland Security budget a requirement of a quarantine banning all travelers who have recently been to an Ebola-afflicted nation from coming into the United States.

• They could insert in the ICE budget language overriding the President’s coming executive order ending deportations.

• They could put in the HHS budget provisions killing the death panel (Medicare Payment Advisory Board) and the excise tax on medical devices.

• They can include language Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has gotten in the current budget banning enforcement of the Small Arms Limitation agreement signed by the US at the urging of the UN.

By this “small ball” strategy of using the budget to effect important but limited modifications in Obama’s policies, we can bring the Obama power grab to a screeching halt.

A Republican Senate can also block the confirmation of partisan liberal Democratic judges, using their power either to bargain for better selections or to keep the post vacant until a Republican president takes over. Similarly, they can use their confirmation power to block overly partisan appointments to federal regulatory boards or executive branch agencies.

Having jammed through the elimination of the 60 vote requirement for confirmations, the Democrats will now be shot with their own bullet and be unable to block Republican sway over nominations and confirmations. Turnabout is fair play.

Finally, the Republican Senate should bring to the floor and reject all executive branch power grab treaties Obama and others have signed. These treaties, failing Senate disapproval, remain in effect as a result of the presidential signature under the Vienna Convention.

The treaties we must kill are:

• The Law of the Sea Treaty.

• The Small Arms Trade Treaty.

• The International Criminal Court Treaty.

• The Code of Conduct in Outer Space.

• The Rights of the Disabled Treaty.

• And any Global Climate Change treaty the Administration negotiates.

Some of these treaties are bad ideas. Others, like the Disability Treaty, are not objectionable except that they usurp American jurisdiction and take away our right to legislate for ourselves in this area.

Control of the Senate can make a vast difference. Let’s hope Republicans get it and turn out in large numbers to bring it about.

Dick Morris’s list includes changes Tea Party Libertarian voters wish for. The question is:

Why are Libertarians and other third-party voters too dumb to realize they should vote Republican in order to help bring these changes about?

14 thoughts on “Oath Keepers Chaplain wanted Montana Blue”

  1. Ed: I think you exaggerate. There is no evidence that "…the problem is MOST of America’s Tea Parties are led by delusional Libertarian and third-party radicals. I attended a Tea Party Patriots conference call last night and one of the largest groups, Tea Party Patriots.org (TPP) noted that our volunteers campaigned for, called for, and generally supported most of the winning candidates. In fact nearly all the winners ran on at least "no amnesty" and "Repeal Obama Care". These have been top goals of TPP for at least 18 months and we produced a film starring Nick Searcy explaining the issues.
    I have never met the crazy tea party folks the media purports exist. Most just want less government (a Constitutionally limited one), fiscal responsibility, personal property rights, and free markets. That is certainly the tea party goals common to Montana. If Republicans can achieve these goals that is great but if they simply want to diddle around as they have in the past, then they will certainly be challenged in the primaries. Please stop attacking Americans that believe in the four goals noted.

  2. Dear Bob, Thank you for your comment. Well, I have met the crazy tea party folks in Montana. They voted Libertarian in enough numbers to elect Democrat Tester to the US Senate in 2012 and Democrat Bullock as governor, and they voted Libertarian (and even Democrat) in 2014 because our duly nominated Republican candidates "were not good enough for them."

    Such voting is crazy when these same folks claim to support, as you put it, "less government, fiscal responsibility, personal property rights, and free markets."

    While I agree with your four political goals, I will continue to attack those who call themselves "conservatives" as they trash Republicans in the final elections when these Republicans represent our best chance to achieve these goals.

  3. The Tea Party should have made an impact on the last election, after all , they should represent the private sector, the only real tax payers . The private sector has the most to gain , by electing republicans. Democrats represent bigger government, meaning more people on welfare, and more government employees, witch means higher taxes. Now do we stop the republicans from getting in bed with the democrats.

  4. Pastor Chuck Baldwin has boldly taken a public stand and answered these questions with a resounding 'NO!' I agree with him.

    Now that the election is over I challenge Republicans to do the same. No song and dance, just a simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer.

    1. Will the Republicans repeal the NDAA?
    2. Will the Republicans repeal Obamacare?
    3. Will the Republicans enforce our borders?
    4. Will the Republicans stop the never-ending unconstitutional wars on foreign soil?
    5. Will the Republicans remove the illegal aliens from American soil?
    6. Will the Republicans balance the federal budget?
    7. Will the Republicans rid us of fiat money and replace it with real money backed by precious metals?
    8. Will the Republicans outlaw abortion?
    9. Will the Republicans stop foreign aid?
    10. Will the Republicans impeach Obama?

  5. @4 Dear Montana Guy, and your point is? Do you wish Montana went blue?

    If you want to keep from getting irreversible brain damage, you need to understand why Chuck Baldwin's rants are nonsense. Here is a little hint: all his 10 statements are straw men. For example:

    1. You can't run a mile in 3 minutes.
    2. You can't drive from Kalispell to Great Falls in one hour.
    3. You can't fly 900 mph in a commercial airliner.

    So following your implications related to Chuck Baldwin's statements, we should conclude that you can't get to your destination any better than a monkey.

    Chuck Baldwin's methods can give you brain damage because they block you from seeing reality. The truth is there are a lot of valuable things Republicans will accomplish even if they don't reach all the unrealistic goalposts Chuck Baldwin has set.

    The three statements I made about you are all true because I set unrealistic conditions. But even though you cannot meet these unrealistic conditions, you can get to your destinations better than a monkey. This is why Chuck Baldwin's statements are balderdash.

  6. Dick Morris' list is what they "could" or "should" do. This is rather meaningless. It's a wish list. What they are committed to doing is what really counts now. What they actually end up doing will prove their worth. Baldwin and many others can plainly see that the "Rs" helped get us to the edge of financial collapse and maybe worse calamities. Let's remember that an "R" behind the name doesn't mean much. On this Baldwin is right. To say otherwise ignores the facts, Ed. You would do well to consider that you sound a lot like a Republican Party cheerleader without demanding something more than Statist "Lite" from them. I for one will NEVER forgive them for the Patriot Act. Most of them, Ds and Rs, are shills for the internationalist and the banking cartel. If this is not true, please explain to your readers why we continue the slide toward totalitarianism regardless of which party is running the show. The Rs are very good and playing us as fools. How can you blame anyone that simply refuses to bend over for them one more time?

  7. @6 Dear Steve,

    Dick Morris describes what is possible and reasonable for the Republican Congress to accomplish. Republicans are limited because Obama can veto any original bills. Blame Obama on those who did not support Romney in 2012, like Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers Chaplain Chuck Baldwin, John Birch Society CEO Art Thompson, wayward Christians, and Ron Paul extremists who would not support Romney in the final election.

    Baldwin’s claim that “Republicans are as bad as Democrats” is factually wrong. Read PolyMontana for proof.

    Baldwin’s claim that the Republican Party is bad because some voters elected some bad Republicans is the logical error of assuming the whole equals a few of its parts, a fundamental logical error known since Aristotle.

    I support Republicans not because of their “R” but because 95 percent of them are good people and they are our only hope to save America. Read D’Souza’s book and watch his movie “America” to understand the danger Obama and the Democrats are to America.

    Baldwin plays you for a fool. He teaches you to “never forgive” any Republicans because some are bad, where he should teach you to vote for those who can best save America, like Steve Daines and Ryan Zinke, and Mitt Romney in 2012.

    Baldwin teaches you to focus on hate and vote for evil, where he should teach you to focus on love and vote for the “greater good.”

    Baldwin teaches you there are no solutions, where he should teach you Republicans do offer solutions.

    Baldwin teaches you there is no hope, where he should teach you there is hope.

    Baldwin teaches you the False Voting Mantra, the False Moron Mantra, and the False Suicide Mantra, where he should teach you the True Voting Principle.

    The Bible tells us “By their works we shall know them.” By this measure, Baldwin is a false prophet the Bible warned us about because his works help elect Democrats like Obama as President, Tester as US Senator, and Bullock as Governor, and, if Baldwin had his way, Lewis to Congress rather than Ryan Zinke.

    Baldwin’s works are immoral by Christian standards, unethical by philosophical standards, and illogical by scientific standards. Baldwin’s works are evil and those who follow him do so at their own spiritual, mental, and personal destruction.

    America’s survival is at stake. It is time for us to stop our petty complaints about Republicans and wake up to the fact that Republicans are our only hope to save America.

  8. Edwin Xavier, I see that you have now taken to quoting "the Bible" and this begs the obvious question which Bible? Any Bible Edwin? Are they all the same Edwin? Where does your Bible come from Edwin? What text was your Bible translated from Edwin?

    Yes, these are just rhetorical questions Edwin. We all know the real answers already.

    Steve Wagner = President

    Edwin Xavier Berry = Dog catcher (coadjutor)

    John Swenson = Man who outed Edwin Xavier Berry, aka "Popeye" = War Lover

    p.s. Edwin, yes the profile you posted was the correct John Swenson and I was hoping that you would post my profile again in your response. I just love reading and seeing it up in lights.

  9. Ed, if 95% of Rs are "good people" are you willing to say that at least a majority of Ds are "good people?" What would be your definition of a "good person" anyway and why should we adopt that definition? I would argue that the vast majority of those that vote and elect Democrats are "good people." Meaning that they are not throat slashers, rapists and thieves.

    Have you ever considered that the "America" that you all are trying to save has just run its course and can't be saved? That we may be in a time of major transition? The thesis of the authors of "The Sovereign Individual" that came out in the 90's is that certain technological advances (micro-chips / internet / etc) make empires and highly centralized institutions obsolete. If they were correct, and there is much evidence that they generally were, what we are seeing is the foundations of the American Empire crumbling as a natural consequence of these advances, NOT because some of us refused to vote for Mitt or Zinke.

    I suspect that there is no general agreement among the "Save America" crowd as to just what that means anyway. Remember, that many Democrats are trying to "Save America." Maybe one of the biggest problems that we have is that few commentators bother to define their terms.

    You attack and demean Baldwin et,al as if you assume they have the same set of presuppositions that you do.

    I will speak for myself, but put money down that says Mr. Baldwin has a similar view; America IS NOT THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, Jesus Christ AND ONLY he is the Savior of the world. The Kingdom of God is not dependent on the future of the United States Inc. Those who belong to that Kingdom have a different Sovereign and therefore a different set of priorities than even "good people" who are Republicans.

    The United States has for decades been actively at war with the Living God by, among other things, setting up its laws as higher than God's. There may be faster ways for an empire to end up in the dust bin of history, but this is a sure one.

    I for one, respect Baldwin and all those who know the difference between what is open to compromise and what is not.

    You are certainly free to stay with your "Party First" rant but I would suggest a wiser position is fealty to Christ in ALL things. Or as I once posted on our church sign: Seek ye first the kingdom of God – let the empire go to Hell. The world will go on post US of A.

    Don't think that I am hoping or even working toward that end. I have done my best for 40 yrs to call men to repentance especially those in the political sphere. (Like Mr. Baldwin at a high cost to my own interests) Their hearts are cold to the righteous ways of God.

    Their version of America and their own political fortunes are all that matter to them. Serving the false savior "Empire" rather than the true savior Jesus Christ is the problem. This spawned an unhealthy & unprofitable focus on politics that has led us into the pit. What makes you think more of the same can lead us out?

  10. Edwin likes the "Red" on his map because it fits neatly into his little world view, that is his world view of a perfect Fascist State where he has both temporal and spiritual power over you.

    His hatred for heretics such as myself is the only evidence required to prove his imbalance as a human.

  11. @9 Dear Steve,

    Thank you for your comment. I took the liberty to add paragraph breaks to your comment to make it easier for readers to follow. You make some important points.

    Let me attempt to focus our discussion as I respond to your questions and comments.

    First, my definition of “good” and “evil” in this discussion relates to how our actions and voting in particular affect America and its people. Actions that work to build up America are “good.” Actions that work to tear down America are “evil.”

    The reason for this definition is when America is productive more people have better jobs, better education, better health, better ability to help others, and more freedom. In addition, a productive America helps the rest of the world.

    By contrast, a torn down America leads to more poverty, less freedom, and less ability to help other people, and less ability to defend our nation from our enemies.

    I do not define “good” to mean to believe in God or to attend church on Sundays. These things are personal and do not directly affect other people. Only our actions affect people. I understand you are a minister and your primary focus is on saving souls. But in this discussion, we are concerned with how our actions improve or tear down people’s lives.

    In particular, I refer to D’Souza’s “America” where D’Souza makes the distinction between “good” and “evil” very clear, namely, actions that build up America are “good” and actions that tear down America are “evil.”

    D’Souza’s work is very important to this discussion. He shows how the Democrat-supported belief that America stole its wealth from others is “evil” because it is false and destructive. He shows how Obama and the Democrats use this false belief to tear down America because they believe America “deserves” to be torn down.

    By contrast, the Republican-supported belief that we can create wealth out of nothing but our creativity and hard work is “good” because it is true and helps people.

    The fact is Republicans are the only group that can and will defend America from the Democrats who intend to destroy America.

    This fundamental difference of core belief about wealth creation is the primary reason Republicans are better for America than Democrats.

    I define those who support the “evil” agenda for America as “evil” and those who support the “good” agenda for America as “good.”

    Second, the various theories about other sources of America’s problems, or concerns that we may fail to save America no matter how hard we work, are not relevant to this discussion. These are negative thoughts that distract from the positive focus we need to save America.

    Third, D’Souza has defined what it means to “save America.” It is irrelevant whether all agree with this definition because those who disagree only show their ignorance about the biggest danger to America.

    You and other ministers who wish to do good for America must understand what D’Souza has shown and tell it to your people. You may “save souls for God” by preaching the “Word of God” but you make a big mistake if you think such preaching alone will save America. It will not.

    Our personal religious beliefs by themselves do not affect the lives of others. Only our actions affect the lives of others. Therefore, your statement “Jesus Christ AND ONLY he is the Savior of the world” is irrelevant to this discussion because this belief does not tell us how we should act or vote to achieve the "greater good."

    To make a positive effect on the lives of people and to truly help save America, you must tell your people to vote according to the True Voting Principle which I have explained in depth in my other posts on PolyMontana.

    Fourth, I do not attack Baldwin’s religious beliefs nor do I attack him personally. Religion is outside the scope of this discussion because it is personal.

    Religion is also irrelevant because an atheist can be more moral, ethical, and "good" than an illogical Christian, especially when that illogical Christian votes in a manner that works to tear down America and thereby harms all Americans.

    I do attack, and fairly so, Baldwin’s political claims and proclamations that are outside religion and therefore proper subjects for attack.

    In the political arena, Baldwin claims to support our Constitution but he gives his followers voting directions that work to undermine our Constitution. He claims falsely that voting for the “lesser of two evils” is the primary cause of the downfall of America, when just the opposite is true.

    Baldwin rejects the True Voting Principle that defines how we should vote to achieve the “greater good” for America and its people. In its place he promotes the false Voting Mantra, the false Moron Mantra, and the false Suicide Mantra. Baldwin even goes so far as to tell his people to vote for a Democrat who is the “greater evil” rather than for the Republican who is the “greater good.”

    I have written in previous posts how Baldwin's false Mantras are unethical, illogical, immoral, and evil and no one has been able to counter my arguments. I have shown how the True Voting Principle is the topmost principle that should guide how we vote morally, ethically, and logically.

    Baldwin’s actions prove him evil no matter how forcefully he proclaims his false political beliefs or how strongly he shakes his finger in the air as he makes his proclamations. The fact is Baldwin’s political claims are incorrect, illogical, unethical, immoral, and, yes, evil.

    It is the duty of all who attend a religious group to evaluate their leader according to how the leader tells people to act. Islam followers should reject a leader who tells them they must blow up or behead innocent people. So also should Christians reject a minister who tells them false and self-destructive conditions on how to vote.

    Fifth, we are debating politics, not religion, but they have some overlap.

    You are correct to say “America IS NOT THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD” in the religious sense but you omit the fact that America has produced great good in the world and that it is our duty to save her.

    You are correct to say “United States has for decades been actively at war with the Living God” but you omit the fact that we can help remedy this problem if we follow the True Voting Principle.

    You are correct to “call men to repentance” but you omit the fact that such repentance will not tell people how to vote according to the True Voting Principle unless you also tell them to follow the True Voting Principle.

    You are correct to say “Serving the false savior ‘Empire’ rather than the true savior Jesus Christ is the problem” at least morally, but you omit the fact we must also act and vote properly in order to solve the problem.

    As an example, I know “good repentant Christian” people who would not vote for Ryan Zinke because he was not “good enough for them” on abortion. He was only 90 percent good and they thought, improperly, that it would be immoral of them to vote for a 90 percenter. Therefore, they withheld their vote for Zinke and thereby acted to help elect the Democrat who rated zero percent on abortion.

    The True Voting Principle shows these “good repentant Christian” people are morally wrong in the way they cast their vote but these people do not understand this. So the mere fact of “being a good Christian” does not bring with it the proper instructions on how to act to achieve the greater good. This needs to be taught separately, as is done by the Catholic Church and five Protestant churches.

    But evangelicals, as a group, have not learned the True Voting Principle because their ministers do not teach it or, worse, preach against it like Baldwin does.

    While you may think you “know the difference between what is open to compromise and what is not” you would be incorrect if you agree with Baldwin on compromise. Baldwin’s error is he does not understand how to use “principle” in deciding how to act and vote, and far too many Christians are just as confused as Baldwin.

    The True Voting Principle does not allow non-negotiable conditions in our voting decisions because non-negotiable conditions can prevent the compromise needed to achieve a "greater good." Therefore, Baldwin’s non-negotiable voting conditions are immoral, unethical, illogical, evil, and a misuse of religion.

    I submit it is your duty as a minister to understand the True Voting Principle and to tell your flock to use it the next time they vote. In this manner, you and they will do a much better job of helping America become a better country.

  12. Ed, I will try to find time to craft a reasonable counter to you lengthy reply.

    Mr. Swenson, thanks for the first vote I ever got for President. E-mail me at steve@truthinliving.org if you want info on what I think is a better strategy to restore freedom.

    I have to do some reading about the "True Voting Principle." Quoting Catholic philosophers, although not always problematic, is a big "red flag" for me and should be for all lovers of liberty. Consider the polity of the Roman Catholic Church?…hello???? The other sources you quote are not much more appealing at first glance. As for the Evangelical….well, heck, you just as well quote me!

  13. Ed, Why should I have voted for a candidate who didn't support a constitutional government. Most just want less government (a Constitutionally limited one) except Ryan Zinke. He wanted much more government then, Fellows but probably just a little less then Lewis. The Republicans may have majorities but they can't deliver on those stated goals of reducing the size and scope of government. You can blame the president or everyone else for what the Republican don't accomplish.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.