Who Would Jesus Vote For?

[CVX]

Who Would Jesus Vote For?
By Edgar J. Steele


"I'd rather vote for something and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it."
--- Eugene V. Debs, Five-Time Socialist Candidate for President (1855-1926)

Shortly after George W. Bush first assumed office, I found myself driving down a rural Arkansas road, enroute to a speaking engagement. A small church stood alongside the road and, as I swept past, I noticed that it's readerboard said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." I nodded to the wisdom of that rural pastor in posting his commentary on things Presidential. I assumed he meant Bush, of course, as representing the lesser evil in the choice that America had just made.

That was before 9-11. Before the Patriot Act. Before the airport Gestapo-like crackdowns. Before so many Patriot community leaders were imprisoned on trumped-up charges. Before America had killed so many innocents in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Before the gutting of America's constitutional Bill of Rights had been undertaken with a vengeance. Before the coming worldwide Depression truly was set in stone by outlandish government spending and immoral fiscal policy.

Remember those days?

Amazing how far we have come. I never would have thought it possible to sit here, over three years later, and actually feel nostalgic about the Bill Clinton era. Ah, for the good old days when I merely was ashamed of America's President and thought governmental growth and spending to be simply grossly out of control.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

So many of us voted Bush into office with the conviction that voting for anybody other than Bush or Gore was wasting our votes. So many of us pulled the lever for Bush, thinking him the lesser of two evils. Ironically, even more of us pulled the lever for Gore, thinking the same thing.

Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice: Do we continue with the devil we know, or choose the one we don't? Bush or Kerry?

Who is the lesser of two evils this time around? The draft-dodging, National-Guard-deserting (30 days AWOL, by definition, is desertion), woefully-incompetent Zionist lackey? Or the pompous, self-inflicting-wound (three purple hearts and get a free Get-Out-of-Viet Nam card) Bluebeard opportunist Zionist lackey?

The debate rages on, as though this "choice" between Bush and Kerry makes a difference. Everybody agrees that it doesn't, yet few are willing to admit exactly why it doesn't. Who is the lesser of two evils?

That rural Arkansas pastor had it right, all along: The lesser of two evils is still evil. That's all we really need to know.

Bush must go because of what he has done. That is a given. In fact, Bush and his entire crew should be tried for treason. How anybody can vote for Bush after the past 3-1/2 years is beyond me.

That leaves Kerry. Or does it? Who would Jesus vote for? Not the lesser of two evils, to be sure. Jesus voted his conscience when given the choice, even after it was made clear that he would pay with his life.

What? You're not Jesus? Nobody asked you to climb up on a cross, you know. You don't have to pay with your life to vote your conscience. All you have to do is vote against evil.

Bush or Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If we all, every single one of us, voted against Bush and Kerry, we could change America overnight. Even with the substantial vote fraud that takes place all across America.

Ok, you might say - I'll play. Who do I vote for? That is where your responsibility as a citizen comes in. Find out who else is running and choose someone - anyone - that you honestly can say is not a lesser evil. You might even find someone you can support in good conscience. It could happen.

Ralph Nader of the Green Party? Perhaps. I've met and spoken with Mr. Nader a couple of times. He's a nice guy. An earnest fellow and an engaging conversationalist. A true believer in the things in which he believes. I just don't happen to believe in some of the things that he considers important. You might, however.

Are there any other candidates? Bet you can't name any. Ok, how about third parties, then? Find a political party that you can support without holding your nose and vote for its candidate. Go http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm here
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
for a pretty reasonable overview of existing American political parties.

The Libertarian Party? I used to be a member a long time ago. I have grown to see its open border and free trade policies as just plain wrong and certainly wrong for America, as is becoming painfully clear to so many Americans because of GATT, NAFTA and the WTO. Besides, the Libertarian Party today is riddled with Zionists and, in the final analysis, that is what is wrong with both the Republican and Democrat parties. Check my archives at www.conspiracypenpal.com for past columns that explicitly detail my antipathy toward Zionists of every stripe.

Jesus didn't choose Zionists when he was alive and he surely would not sign on board with them today. Don't forget that Zionists brought you every single war of any significance during the past 100 years. Zionists literally are drenched in the blood of others - hundreds of millions, soon to be billions, of others.

The Reform Party? Pick a splinter group of what remains of Ross Perot's brainchild.

Today, I suppose that I personally most closely identify with the (http://www.constitution-party.net/) Constitution Party. Probably, I should join the Constitution Party and actively support its efforts. But, that's just me. Your mileage may vary. You might find more palatable choices elsewhere. And you should. Elsewhere than Democrats and Republicans, that is.

Regardless, I have sworn never again to vote for anybody running under either the Democrat or Republican banner. I commend that simple approach to you.

How about not voting, increasingly the choice made by a majority of eligible voters? Refusing to vote makes a statement, of course, but it is the statement of losers. It was Leon Trotsky (born Zev Bronstein) who quite correctly said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." The same can be said of politics. By not voting, you actually invest those who do vote with greater legitimacy, sway and control than they deserve. Control over you. By not voting, you choose evil, in other words.
Why, you could even vote for me (see
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/electme.htm
Two Eds are Better than One)! Honestly, though, I won't be writing my own name in, come election day.

Jesus would vote, believe me. And he would vote his conscience. And never for evil in any form.


"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth."
- Morpheus

Copyright ©2004, Edgar J. Steele

Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications. Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.

http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/vote.htm

[Warsai]

Well said! I encourage anyone who just read this thread to go to those sites learn about the different parties, and not just choose the lesser of two evils anymore, because that's what this unfair, two-party system has become.

[plazul]

I don't know who Jesus would vote for he'd make a good candidate.

[LottomagicZ4941]

Perhaps Jesus would vote libertarian?

Even if Jesus ran as the democratic candate most Republicans would not have voted for him. But if Jesus ran as a Republican I'm not sure how the democrats would vote.

Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-loc...gi?welcome-344
MagicZ4941A

[capt_buzzard]

I believe that Jesus was against republicism in all its forms. Roman or otherwise.

[Clint]

Originally Posted by capt_buzzard

I believe that Jesus was against republicism in all its forms. Roman or otherwise.

Unless I’ve missed something, Jesus didn’t mess with politics. He was into helping people separate religion and relationship so they could know God’s love. God the Father has set up a few theocracies though. One God, one vote.

[gmc]

He'd have been a liberal,

liberal // adj. & n.
adj.
1 given freely; ample, abundant.
2 (often foll. by of) giving freely; generous, not sparing.
3 open-minded, not prejudiced.
4 not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal.
5 for general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical (liberal studies).
6 a favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) Polit. of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
7 Theol. regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change (liberal Protestant; liberal Judaism).
n.

What happened in america that the word liberal meaning someone who believes in free soeech and individual liberty became an epithet implying the complete opposite. talk about newspeak

[hairygarden1]

I don't know who jesus would vote for, personally if I was in charge I'd elect Oprah president. She's been through poverty, sexual abuse and has balls for a woman. She also as a black woman has built an empire with Harpo Productions and is one of the wealthiest women in the world.

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by gmc

He'd have been a liberal,



What happened in america that the word liberal meaning someone who believes in free soeech and individual liberty became an epithet implying the complete opposite. talk about newspeak

if free speech and individual liberty where what liberals in the U.S. espoused, then it would be newspeak. sadly, it is not.

liberals in this country believe in restricting all speech they don't like. individual liberty? no, more power in the hands of government. socialism is the backbone of the modern liberal creed in the 'states.

am i generalizing? you bet. take the contrary - to liberals, conservative is an epithet. to liberals, conservatives want more government control, and want to restrict speech they don't like.

the biggest problem is the exaggeration of this polarization that modern electronic media promulgate.

why, some of my best friends are liberals. some of my worst enemies are conservatives.

i consider myself a liberal conservative.

may i have the next dance?

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by hairygarden1

I don't know who jesus would vote for, personally if I was in charge I'd elect Oprah president. She's been through poverty, sexual abuse and has balls for a woman. She also as a black woman has built an empire with Harpo Productions and is one of the wealthiest women in the world.

if she were a republican, would you feel the same way?