Ted Cruz and the Oath Keepers

CruzOathKeepers500by Dr. Ed Berry 

Why did Ted Cruz speak at an Oath Keepers rally?

Ted Cruz is a smart man. He certainly knows the Oath Keepers are on the extreme far right of American politics. He certainly knows the Oath Keepers image is very negative among 80 percent of the Republican Party and 90 percent of all voters.

As a lawyer, Cruz must know New York State declared Oath Keepers to be “Far Right Extremists” where NY defines “extremists” as

“These extremists must be distinguished from law abiding citizens exercising their first and second amendment rights – namely extremists are those willing to use violence, rather than the democratic process, to further their cause.”

Before speaking at an Oath Keepers rally, Ted Cruz would certainly know Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers Founder and Leader, and Chuck Baldwin, Oath Keepers National Chaplain.

In Montana’s 2014 elections, some Republican candidates spoke an Oath Keepers rally in Kalispell along with Chuck Baldwin. I predicted all these Republican candidates would lose their elections except for Jerry O’Neil. I was wrong. O’Neil also lost.

On January 30, 2015, Harmon Leon wrote in alternet.org, “The Oath Keepers claim to be the “guardians of the republic” — but they’re largely nuts,”

The Oath Keepers were founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale-educated attorney, ex-army paratrooper and former staffer of Congressman Ron Paul. The “non-partisan,” yet libertarian-leaning organization claims to have active chapters in all 50 states, as well as an estimated 40,000 members—which, if true, would make the group one of the fastest growing far-right organizations in the world.

“It’s ridiculous to disarm the people and tell them they have to rely on the police when the police cannot possibly protect you in some of these circumstances,” Rhodes has stated. “The United States is on the fast track to economic ruin and Americans need to learn to protect themselves because the government soon won’t be able to.”

The Oath Keepers founder … fears a future where martial law will be instigated during future disasters and every American will be placed in a 24/7 government-run FEMA camp.

Rhodes said. “We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.”

On September 10, 2015, Manny Schewitz wrote in forwardprogressives.com, proof that Ted Cruz supports the Oath Keepers agenda:

Back on Tuesday, Mike Huckabee’s staffer physically blocked Ted Cruz from getting on stage at a rally Huckabee’s campaign held for Kim Davis, because Ted Cruz wanted to claim part of the attention for himself.

Now, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes has announced that he is sending armed members of his anti-government group to Kentucky to keep U.S. Marshals from arresting Kim Davis, if Judge Bunning orders her back to jail for failing to comply with court orders.

On October 21, 2009, Streiff wrote in redstate.com, “Oath Breakers Not Oath Keepers.”

At first blush, who can object to the 10 orders they say they will not obey. Until you start examining each of them in detail.

When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.

As a commissioned officer you are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate (yes, this is true for even second lieutenants), and you serve at the pleasure of the President.

If you want to make political decisions about how the military and police are used in this country, resign your position and agitate to your heart’s content.

If you remain in uniform your oath binds you to the government and absent clear reason to the contrary, and none of the ten reasons set forward by the Oath Keeper organization meet that standard, you have a legal and moral obligation to faithfully carry out the duties given to you.

On August 18, 2015, Peter Montgomery wrote in rightwingwatch.org,

At an abstract level, the idea behind the Oath Keepers sounds reasonable, almost noble – getting military and law enforcement officers to pledge to uphold their oath to protect the Constitution, and to declare that they will not participate in acts that would violate Americans’ constitutional rights, such as warrantless searches. Some members of the group have denounced excessive use of force by police.

In reality, though, the group’s lofty mission statement hides a far-right, anti-government ideology and a strong dose of race-based paranoia. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, promotes the kind of wild conspiracy theories that have thrived since the election of Barack Obama as president, including the idea that Obama is trying to provoke a race war as an excuse for declaring martial law and discarding the Constitution.

Do American voters want a president who supports the Oath Keepers?

My article, “Oath Keepers, JBS and the Lesser Evil,” reveals facts about Oath Keepers leaders. They do not support the Republican Party and they are not conservatives.

Chuck Baldwin introduced Stewart Rhodes at the Paul Fest in Tampa, Florida, on August 25, 2012. Ron Paul did not attend. Rhodes spoke:

[The Republican Party] “has yet again betrayed our trust, and yet again put forward another oath-breaking destroyer of the Constitution in Mitt Romney. He is another neocon traitor … (cheers). The very last thing you should do is to let FEAR drive you to vote for the lesser of two evils.”

In 2012, Stewart Rhodes wrote:

“Romney is an oath breaking traitor. You vote for him, or support him, you become one too.”

In 2012, Pastor Chuck Baldwin wrote:

“But the problem is a Romney-Ryan administration will do nothing to change the downward spiral of the nation. They will continue the fanatical interventionist, preemptive war policies of Obama and Bush.

Rhodes promotes the “lesser of two evils” false Voting Mantra.

“I will call out elected officials who are oath breakers. It is our duty to root out all oath breakers by voting against them. If we vote for an oath breaker, we are breaking our own oath and oath breaking is a sin and treason.”

“What if we have only a choice of two oath breakers? We cannot vote for either one of them. Voting for the lesser of two evils is exactly why we are where we are now. Fear is why people vote for the lesser of two evils over and over again.”

Rhodes does not understand the illogic in his emotional claims. His reference to “sin” turns Oath Keepers into a religious cult. Maybe that is why Oath Keepers needs a pastor.

Rhodes and Baldwin helped elect Obama. Ted Cruz associates with people who helped elect Obama.

On election day, November 2012, Stewart Rhodes issued this proclamation to his believers:

[Montana Republican candidate for US Senate] “Denny Rehberg deserves to go down in flames just like Conrad Burns did in 2006. Conrad Burns lost to [Democrat candidate] Tester precisely because he lost the liberty vote in Montana. And Burns lost the liberty vote because he had abandoned the Constitution and violated his oath by voting for unconstitutional laws, such as the Patriot Act.”

As a result of anti-Rehberg promotion among Montana’s Tea Party, Rehberg lost to Tester by only half the number of Tea Party Libertarian votes.

Rhodes helped elect Democrat Jon Tester to the US Senate for another six years. So if you don’t like how Senator Tester votes, blame the Oath Keepers. Ted Cruz associates with people who helped elect Democrat Senator Tester.

On July 17, 2014, Pastor Chuck Baldwin  attacked Republican Ryan Zinke and told his followers to vote for Democrat John Lewis for Congress:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know how to say it any plainer: if you are forced to choose between a pro-war, pro-police state, neocon Republican candidate for federal office and a Democrat, and if you believe in voting for the “lesser-of-two-evils,” the Democrat is the one for whom you must vote.

“Unfortunately, that is exactly the choice that the citizens of Montana have this year in its lone U.S. House race. We have a Democrat, John Lewis, running against a pro-war, pro-police state, neocon Republican Ryan Zinke. Without a doubt, the Democrat John Lewis is by far the lesser evil than Ryan Zinke.”

I wrote a rebuttal to Baldwin’s invalid claims.

Ryan Zinke is just the opposite of what Baldwin called him. Zinke is the most honest, intellectual political candidate I have known. He is sincere and truthful. He has children who are in the military. He has seen war and he does not support war except when necessary to defend America.

Rhodes and Baldwin, and the John Birch Society, promote the irrational “lesser of two evilsfalse Voting Mantra.

Now Baldwin is at it again. On December 31, Baldwin attacked Congressman Zinke over his vote for the Omnibus Bill. Baldwin called Zinke a “phony conservative.”

Baldwin does not understand that every bill in Congress is a compromise. The compromise always favors the president. Oath Keepers Baldwin and Rhodes helped elect Obama and thereby tilted the Omnibus bill in the favor of the Democrats.

Baldwin does not understand that the alternative to the Omnibus bill was a “continuing resolution.” Obama’s “continuing resolution” would have cut $22 billion from our already depleted military. The Omnibus bill fully funded our military.

Zinke obeyed our Constitution that says our elected officials must “provide for the common defence.” Baldwin wants to help Obama decimate America’s military. Baldwin is a phony conservative.

The Omnibus bill helps prevent domestic attacks by Islamic terrorists. It lifts the ban on crude oil exports. It forces Obama to disclose his expenditures on global warming. When you compare the Omnibus bill with the “alternative resolution,” the good in the Omnibus bill exceeds the bad. Congressman Zinke is smarter than Pastor Baldwin.

Baldwin has finally come clean on who he supports for president: Rand Paul. Might as well support Mickey Mouse. Paul at 2 percent is already out of the race. Baldwin rejects all other Republican candidates. Therefore, Chuck Baldwin is for Hillary. This is not a surprise since Baldwin was for Democrat Lewis over Republican Zinke.

On November 19, 2005, Garland Byrum wrote in letstalknation.com,

Senator Ted Cruz … belong[s] to a select group of Americans who were and are dangerous to … our Republic. Why? Because they demagogue.

Ted Cruz is a Dominionist. His father, Raphael, is a prominent minister in this conservative sect of a fundamentalist branch of the Southern Baptist faith. Raphael Cruz claims his son has been anointed to be President of the United States, that he is part of “Purifying Fire International.”

See also here and here.

On January 5, Trump stroked the eligibility issue. Trump told the Washington Post, “a lot of people are talking about” Cruz’s “very precarious” eligibility issue. Trump said,

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?'”

“It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

Kelleigh Nelson and Paul Walter have given us more good reasons to vote for Trump.

In Summary

Ted Cruz supports the Oath Keepers and Dominionist agendas.

Oath Keepers leaders are phony conservatives.

Rhodes and Baldwin helped elect President Obama. Rhodes helped elect Democrat Tester to the US Senate. Baldwin tried to elect Democrat Lewis to Congress. In 2016, Baldwin still won’t support a Republican candidate who can win the presidency.

Do American voters want a president who supports the Oath Keepers?

 

8 thoughts on “Ted Cruz and the Oath Keepers”

  1. "Hillary would need only to file an eligibility lawsuit to win the presidency." I guess you mean because either a.) she's Hillary, or b.) she's a democrat. Because…hordes of people filed eligibility lawsuits against BHO, to NO avail.–either legally or politically.

    And, based on the precedents set (or perpetuated) in those cases, Cruz would not be ruled legally ineligible. Which leaves "politically"…which would top all the crazed political bizzarities we already face.

    I don't see why Oathkeepers "lesser of two evils" mantra, which is anathema, tars Cruz if they support him.. What would be a problem is if they apply this illogic to Trump/Clinton.

    But Trump would be good, too.

  2. Dear Duane,

    Good points. Because she's Hillary and she just might have more legal pull than those against Obama to get her complaint filed. Doesn't matter if she wins because it won't be decided before the election. Its only influence would be to discourage some Cruz or Rubio voters from voting, and energizing the Hillary campaign.

    The lawsuits against Obama do not set a precedent for determining the eligibility of Cruz or Rubio because they did not define "natural born citizen." It's the lack of a legal ruling on that definition that causes the debate.

    Certainly the "lesser of two evils" mantra has no direct effect on Cruz. However, Oath Keepers use of this mantra raises the question of whether Cruz believes in this mantra. Most in the "Very Conservative Evangelical" Tea Party face of the Republican Party believe in this mantra but other evangelicals do not. Cruz seems to be a Very Conservative Evangelical. If Cruz believes in this mantra it would indicate a flaw in his otherwise good legal logic.

  3. Newsmax today:

    Trump told the Washington Post in an interview published Tuesday that Cruz's Canadian birthplace and his holding a double passport was a "very precarious" issue that "a lot of people are talking about."

    "Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: 'Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?' That'd be a big problem," Trump said in The Washington Post interview.

    "It'd be a very precarious one for Republicans because he'd be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don't want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head."

  4. Frederick Colbourne

    Lower courts would follow the law as it stands at present, that a person born abroad with one American parent is a natural-born American.

    If there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, all the SCOTUS has to do is refuse the case.

  5. Pingback: How Trump put Cruz in eligibility check

  6. The first four Presidents were not American citizens, and by your own eligibility requirements Trump would also not be eligible, his father was from Scotland. . .I know its all a lie right?. . .because Trump said so. . .well Oathkeepers are just as advertised, not about anti Government, they are about Government staying within the bounds set by the US Constitution.

    Apparently you have never read or understood the true definitions of the document, it was written to place limits on Government, not to allow authoritarian tyrants to use it toilet tissue as you would be suggesting. Just because the Government points guns at people kicks in doors and kills people just because they can, no one will ever be held accountable unless we the people step in and say enough, the slow erosion of our Bill of Rights needs attention. It belongs to we the people, not left wingnuts who think Government is the say all end all. . . You may want to consider Bernie Sanders, he at least has admitted he is a Socialist.

    Our Nation is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy as many Politicians seem to think, (Wish you could ask Ben Franklin, but he is no longer with us, but his words are) all laws should be derived and in line with the Document, not legislated on a whim because it feels good, say anything on a college campus and you are likely to be arrested for "Microaggressions" or how you wear your hair, what you say or what you believe.

    All the work of left wing installing the parts to complete the Socialist Police State, if that is what you want, maybe you should move to a real Socialist Country and experience what is beginning to happen here. Socialism, Fascism and Authoritarianism is the coming fad, if you buy into it, and our Nation turns, there will be no turning back.. . . Democracy = 51% can vote away the 49% Rights. . .

    1. Dear David,

      I invite you to read the posts under the Ineligible menu.

      The first four Presidents qualified under a special provision because they were already born before our Constitution was signed. Likely no one who was born before our Constitution is still around.

      Cruz tried to pull that stunt on Trump in the debate, and made a fool of himself because he is supposed to know our Constitution. Here's how it works. If your father and mother came from another country and became US citizens (obviously not natural born citizens) before you were born, and if you were born in the USA then you are a natural born citizen.

      Cruz is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Canada. You may comment on that issue here.

  7. A person born abroad could become a citizen, not a natural born citizen.

    Cruz might be a citizen of the U.S. He is certainly not a natural born Citizen and, as such, is not eligible to serve the Presidency.

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.