Who are the “Traitors”?

by Dr. Ed Berry, aka Badass Berry

exb170

A Tea Party “patriot” circulated an email with this subject:

“Baucus among Traitors (46 of them voted to give up our 2nd Amendment Right to the UN)”

If you read my May 20 post, “There’s not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats”  then you already know this email is about the US Senate vote of March 23, 2013, on Senator Inhofe’s (R) Amendment #139 to the Senate Congressional Resolution 8, the Budget for FY 2014:

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

The US Senate approved Inhofe’s amendment 53 to 46. A close vote for freedom.

But I will tell you a little SECRET: Some Tea Party Activists DON’T READ PolyMontana … On purpose! 

Why? Because I tell the truth and they can’t stand the truth. They want me to support every right-wing extremist, irrational action they make or I am not in their club.

Note: Not all tea party folks are “activists.” There is a big difference. Many tea party folks mistakenly followed the music of their Pied Piper “Activists” to ultimately work against our Constitution by helping elect Democrats.

Well, I’m not in their club because I don’t support anyone’s irrational actions, such as,

“There’s not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.”

“Don’t not vote for the lesser of two evils.”

“Vote to make a statement rather than to win your freedom.”

Question: What good does it do to call the Democratic US Senators who voted against the Inhofe Amendment, “Traitors“?

Answer: Nothing! Especially when those calling them “Traitors” are the ones who helped elect them. Sometimes “Traitors” are called “Oath Breakers.

Fact: Senator Baucus is not even running again.

Fact: The real “Traitors” are those who did not support Republican candidates in the election of November 6, 2012. If you are among them, look in the mirror.

Fact: Montana Libertarian Dan Cox who ran for US Senator is a Traitor.

Fact: All self-proclaimed conservatives who voted for Libertarians are Traitors.

Fact: The vote on the Inhofe Amendment proves there is a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats.

In other words, don’t blame those whom the people elected. Blame the people who elected them, directly or indirectly. They are the real Traitors! And if they truly want to work for freedom in the future then they had better start supporting Republican candidates.

Question: Why did the email not praise the 45 Republicans who unanimously voted for the Amendment?

Answer: Because some Tea Party activists will not admit they should have supported Republicans. They have a dog in the fight against Republicans.

Question: Why, in the light of this US Senate vote, will these Tea Party activists not admit that Republicans as a group are much different than and preferable to Democrats?

Answer: Because either they have a single-digit political IQ and not realize the consequences of their actions, or they have a dog in the fight whereby they benefit personally when the people elect Democrats. And if you are politically savvy, you know who I am talking about.

By their works you shall know them.

Here are the US Senate votes on the Inhofe Amendment.

  • All 45 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted Yea
  • 44 Democrats and 2 Independents voted Nay.

Here are the 45 Republicans who voted for the Inhofe Amendment:

  1. Alexander (R-TN)
  2. Ayotte (R-NH)
  3. Barrasso (R-WY)
  4. Blunt (R-MO)
  5. Boozman (R-AR)
  6. Burr (R-NC)
  7. Chambliss (R-GA)
  8. Coats (R-IN)
  9. Coburn (R-OK)
  10. Cochran (R-MS)
  11. Collins (R-ME)
  12. Corker (R-TN)
  13. Cornyn (R-TX)
  14. Crapo (R-ID)
  15. Cruz (R-TX)
  16. Enzi (R-WY)
  17. Fischer (R-NE)
  18. Flake (R-AZ)
  19. Graham (R-SC)
  20. Grassley (R-IA)
  21. Hatch (R-UT)
  22. Heller (R-NV)
  23. Hoeven (R-ND)
  24. Inhofe (R-OK)
  25. Isakson (R-GA)
  26. Johanns (R-NE)
  27. Johnson (R-WI)
  28. Kirk (R-IL)
  29. Lee (R-UT)
  30. McCain (R-AZ)
  31. McConnell (R-KY)
  32. Moran (R-KS)
  33. Murkowski (R-AK)
  34. Paul (R-KY)
  35. Portman (R-OH)
  36. Risch (R-ID)
  37. Roberts (R-KS)
  38. Rubio (R-FL)
  39. Scott (R-SC)
  40. Sessions (R-AL)
  41. Shelby (R-AL)
  42. Thune (R-SD)
  43. Toomey (R-PA)
  44. Vitter (R-LA)
  45. Wicker (R-MS)

Here are the 8 US Senate Democrats who voted for the Amendment:

  1. Begich (D-AK)
  2. Donnelly (D-IN)
  3. Heinrich (D-NM)
  4. Heitkamp (D-ND)
  5. Hagan (D-NC)
  6. Manchin (D-WV)
  7. Pryor (D-AR)
  8. Tester (D-MT)

Here are the 46 US Senators, all Democrats or Independents, who voted against the Inhofe Amendment:

  1. Baldwin (D-WI)
  2. Baucus (D-MT)
  3. Bennet (D-CO)
  4. Blumenthal (D-CT)
  5. Boxer (D-CA)
  6. Brown (D-OH)
  7. Cantwell (D-WA)
  8. Cardin (D-MD)
  9. Carper (D-DE)
  10. Casey (D-PA)
  11. Coons (D-DE)
  12. Cowan (D-MA)
  13. Durbin (D-IL)
  14. Feinstein (D-CA)
  15. Franken (D-MN)
  16. Gellibrand (D-NY)
  17. Harkin (D-IA)
  18. Hirono (D-HI)
  19. Johnson (D-SD)
  20. Kaine (D-VA)
  21. King (I-ME)
  22. Klobuchar (D-MN)
  23. Landrieu (D-LA)
  24. Leahy (D-VT)
  25. Levin (D-MI)
  26. McCaskill (D-MO)
  27. Menendez (D-NJ)
  28. Merkley (D-OR)
  29. Mikulski (D-MD)
  30. Murphy (D-CT)
  31. Murray (D-WA)
  32. Nelson (D-FL)
  33. Reed (D-RI)
  34. Reid (D-NV)
  35. Rockefeller (D-WV)
  36. Sanders (I-VT)
  37. Schatz (D-HI)
  38. Schumer (D-NY)
  39. Shaheen (D-NH)
  40. Stabenow (D-MI)
  41. Udall (D-CO)
  42. Udall (D-NM)
  43. Warner (D-VA)
  44. Warren (D-MA)
  45. Whitehouse (D-RI)
  46. Wyden (D-OR

 

  (1449)

Copyright (c) 2013 by PolyMontana LLC or by the author. All rights reserved.

Comments

  1. 1

    There’s not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats” . All most politicians care about getting reelected . They will vote for the people who keep on putting them in office.This is a good reason to repeal the 17 Amendment, and elect senators by the States, and the same thing for the States senators they should be appointed by the Counties, This would remove Republicans and democrats ie. politics from the senate. As it stands now , the House and the senate are all elected by the people. To make things worse , more people are depended on government jobs, then those working in the private sector , paying all the taxes. I would not be surprise if 70 percent of all Americans are on the government welfare and this includes all government employees.

  2. 2

    I find this writing offensive and belligerent, which in combination distills to ignorance .

    From a man who as earned a PhD. in physics, the failings of your logic defies description.
    From your website: …”always test your assumptions against data. If your assumptions don’t match the data, its time to change your assumptions”, and… “This is the key to science: If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong.” “Many otherwise good scientists have not learned this principle.” Please apply the above to the logic your writing laid out; the answer is “Error”. Your hypothesis is wrong.

    Your diatribe used a word without definition, i.e., traitor. Define traitor. Traitor to what?? Country, cause or to your opinion? You exercised freedom of speech and took poetic license with “FACTS”, so shall I:

    FACT: A “Bad Ass” Physicist that assumes superior knowledge in the realm of fantasy Island, politics, is a ego maniac of highest magnitude and thus, his opinion carries no more weight than my neighbors, the local dog catcher.

    FACT: My neighbor has a PhD in Applied Mathematics, but due to the economy, plies his wares with the furry set.

    FACT: “The Game of Thrones” is being skillfully played by both elephants and jackasses.

    Question: Why, in the light of this US Senate vote, will these Tea Party activists not admit that Republicans as a group are much different than and preferable to Democrats?

    A DIFFERENT ANSWER: One vote for a principle that upholds the letter of OUR Constitution does not make an individual of integrity and honor no matter which party they belong to. “The Game of Thrones” is all consuming and the “small people” pay the price.

    The King is dead, long live the King……………

    Rhoda Cargill

  3. 3

    @2, Dear Rhoda,

    Clearly, I am using the same definition of “Traitor” as used by the person who called the Democrats “Traitors.” I am saying if an elected person is a “Traitor” then those who helped elect that person must also be “Traitors.”

    That is rather clear logic. And it is not offensive or belligerent.

    Regarding your “Different Answer” – What, really is a vote for “Principle”? Those who take this position do not agree among themselves on what this means. It only means their own personal definition of “principle”.

    You have taken the position (a) that you should vote for the candidate who seems to best represent your desired principles in character and platform, etc., no matter if that person has zero probability of winning. The problem with this position is your vote will likely produce the exact opposite result of what you desire, e.g., if you vote for a Libertarian and get a Democrat as a result.

    I take the position (b) that “By their works you shall know them”, which means results are what count. This position means I should vote in a manner that will help elect a candidate who will best support my principles. If you follow the scientific method, you must take this second position because science is all about testing results of a hypothesis and not about evaluating the “principles” of a hypothesis.

    Examples:

    Person A supports our Constitution and gun rights. But person A votes Libertarian because he thinks the Libertarian best represents his principles. The result, however, is he helps elect a Democrat who then acts to destroy his desired principles.

    Person B also supports our Constitution and gun rights. But person B understands that a vote for a Libertarian rather than a Republican will help elect a Democrat, who will not be the best supporter of his principles. Therefore, person B wisely votes for a Republican which is the only logical way to vote if he wants to support his principles.

    In politics, only results count. Voting only on principle without consideration of the outcome is bad politics, irrational, and I believe immoral.

    In summary, I have applied the proper scientific method to this example in politics (and you have not).

    1. I use hard data to prove there is a significant difference between Rs and Ds, which clearly negates the null hypothesis of those who claim they are the same.
    2. I use hard data to prove Democrats are more likely to vote against the principles of those who support our Constitution.
    3. I use hard data to prove voting for Libertarians as a matter of fulfilling one’s principle, overwhelmingly results in the election of a D over an R, as it did in Montana in 2012.

    The only conclusion you can draw from the data is a vote for a Libertarian is NOT a vote for your Constitutional principle.

    So whether you like it or not, you are wrong. This is not belligerent. It is fact.

    Sincerely,

    Ed

  4. 4
    redbone59 says:

    Dr. Ed,

    I just want to know why you have so much vitriol towards your fellow man when all they are doing is exercising their right to vote for candidate of their choice? I understand your passion; however, when passion reaches the level that you are displaying it becomes scary.

  5. 5

    @4, Dear Redbone,

    I do not write against your freedom to choose. I write against irrational, suicidal voting and not taking responsibility for our actions.

    If you want to elect a Democrat and you vote for a Democrat, then that is at least a rational vote. But if you want to elect a conservative but you act to help elect the most liberal candidate, then that vote is irrational and suicidal.

    Example:

    Some “conservative” Montanans supported the Libertarian governor candidate when it was obvious that (a) Republican Rick Hill was far more conservative than Democrat Steve Bullock, (b) the Libertarian candidate had no chance to win, and therefore (c) the only rational conservative voting option was Rick Hill.

    When Governor Bullock predictably vetoed many conservative bills passed by our Republican-dominated legislature, then conservative, Libertarian voters have only themselves, not Bullock, to blame for Bullock’s vetoes.

    We must take responsibility for our actions and “conservatives” who supported Libertarians have no right to complain about the results. They wasted their voting right and they got what they voted for.

    In summary, I do not write against your freedom to choose. I write against irrational, suicidal voting and not taking responsibility for our actions.

  6. 6
    frederick J. Hammel says:

    Millions of voters wanted Ron Paul as President, Mr. Paul was a Republican,but he was also a Libertarian. Libertarian is someone who believes in the doctrine of free will.

  7. 7
  8. 8
    d_g_89@hotmail.com says:

    Dr Ed.

    Reading this blog left distaste in my mouth. You exhibit everything that is killing the Republican Party.

    FACT: If the GOP doesn’t get with the times, it is gone. That’s 2 in a row presidential elections lost. Montana is a Blue state.

    FACT: Tester beating Rehberg DID send a message. The message being “We aren’t going to vote status quo because there is an R next to their name.”

    FACT: Liberty is contagious. The longer you cling to this 1980’s idea of GOP, the more out of touch the GOP gets with constituents.

    Also, why do you have Dr. in your title on a political blog? Your doctorate has nothing to do with your level of knowledge on the subject.

  9. 9

    @8, Dear d_g_89,

    You have no idea of where I am coming from nor where I am going.

    My goal is to help restore the Republican Party to its roots. It has a good platform but it has some bad people in charge, but it also has some very good people who do their best to support our Constitution and to save America and Montana.

    We must restore the Republican Party because, at present at least, it is futile to begin or support a third party.

    How do we restore the Republican Party?

    We do it by these steps:

    (a) Remove the influence of the liberals who control RINO end of the party, locally, statewide, and national.

    (b) Market the Republican Party Platform, state and national, to all conservative voters, telling them the liberals are removed from party influence and all true conservatives now have a home in the Republican Party.

    (c) By means of (b), encourage approximately 66% of those who voted Libertarian or third party to support the Republican Party, realizing we cannot get 100%.

    (d) Realize the Republican Party, indeed no successful party, can have a big enough tent to accommodate the extremes of the political spectrum because the extremes scare away everyone else and disrupt the party unity. The Republican Party does not need them nor does it want them.

    (e) State clearly that the goals of the Republican Party are to support conservative candidates and to win elections. It is not to make a statement. It is not to include every social conservative agenda because that is impossible. It is not to expect people to agree on everything because that is impossible. It is to change America by putting more and more conservative people in power by electing them and appointing them.

    The best description of where I am going is contained in the 2013 National Call to Action “Americans” by MG Paul Vallely. Read it and you will know my goals.

    Paul Vallely is a true patriot and I support what he is doing. I also defend him from right-wing extremists who wrongly accuse him of not being a true patriot.

    Finally, I object to your claim my doctorate in physics has nothing to do with politics. My studies of and experience in math, engineering, physics, philosophy and business are of significant value and importance to politics. There are numerous examples of people with similar education and experience to mine who have made significant contributions to politics.

    There are far too many citizens who make bad decisions solely because they lack a good understanding of logic and how to separate truth from fiction, which understanding is necessary to make the best political decisions. I bring this to the table for all who will listen.

    If you agree with the goals I have outlined, then we are on the same side and let’s move forward together.

Speak Your Mind

captcha

Please enter the CAPTCHA text

%d bloggers like this: