Volume 12, Number 2, September-October 2008
by Norman Scott Edwards
As this issue goes to press, the
this writer believes that there will be little difference in the government
1. On many issues, these men are not very different from each other—especially when compared with the candidates mentioned later in this article. While both candidates claim that they are in favor of “change”, most of their published literature does not actually describe their proposed changes, but rather simply claims that the candidate is, in lots of differing words, “a better guy for the job”. Most of their published “solutions” to problems involve more government control and spending. They mainly have minor differences in how and from whom they would tax or borrow the money.
2. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have an acceptable track record of doing what they promised. This writer has seen more than one study showing that there is usually little correlation between the campaign promises of both parties and what was actually done by the president who won. In other words, the winning president did some of things that he campaigned for, as well as about the same number of things that his opponent campaigned for and the winner campaigned against. On the other hand, the winner also made little effort to do a significant number of things that he promised when running.
Readers might remember voters in the 60s and 70s avoiding
the “hawkish” republicans to elect
“peace-loving” Democrats—only to find that Democrats greatly escalated
the Viet Nam War, and Republicans got
us out of the war—and eventually made peace with Communist China. In 1988,
voters avoided “tax and spend” Democrats to vote for “read my lips, no new
taxes” George Bush—only to get big new taxes. In 2000 and 2004, son of Bush
promised to preserve freedom and keep government small, but the
3. These men primarily serve the interests of
international corporations and bankers, not the interests of the citizens of
Please keep reading.
Our Country’s Lack of Wisdom in Voting
Now, it would be relatively easy for our modern media to present the varying views of all candidates on each of the important issues of the day. TV and radio could do it in a serial fashion, devoting 10 minutes to an hour segments to each issue. A large newspaper or computer DVD could cover everything in a single issue. Of course, the Internet is virtually unlimited in both flexibility and capacity. There is room to present as much additional depth as anyone would care to investigate.
But what does most media coverage consist of? It is much more like a popularity contest—such as one might find in a grade-school election or among entertainment figures. The occasional clever or foolish comment of a candidate gets the air time—not the significant policy decisions that we will all have to live with for many years.
What Does the Bible Say About this Election?
Many people will say, “You have to vote for one of the main two candidates because none of the others will win—even if it is just the lesser of the two evils.” But the Bible states:
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice (Ex 23:2).
My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent (Prov ).
It is really very simple! The Bible does not require us to pick the winner or even vote for a man who could win. It requires us to side with men who will follow what is just (Deut -20). If the righteous man loses and evil prevails, it is the fault of the multitude who chose the unrighteous, not the few dissenting righteous voices.
The Bible is utterly full of examples of not siding with multitudes that are evil (Ex 32; Gen 6; Gen 19; Num 14:1-10; Josh 24:1-15; 1Sam 15; 1Kngs 19:10). In Jesus day, there were several powerful political factions that sought the support of the people. But they united together in error to stir up the crowds to demand the death of Christ (Matt 27:24-26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:23-24). Would you go along with one of them? Or be an unpopular voice for truth?. When Christ was on trial, he lost the vote in the Sanhedrin and was crucified. But the Bible records that Joseph of Arimethea and Nichodemus did not vote along with the lesser of two evil parties (Luke ; John ).
None of the three men pictured above are on a par with Christ. They do not all agree with each other. But they were all 2008 presidential candidates that presented real choices, contrary to the multitudes, but largely in the interest of the citizens of the USA.These men should be the candidates that the press talks about. They are:
Chuck Baldwin, the candidate for the Constitution Party, is the only one of the three men still running for President. To show how important issues—as opposed to party politics—are to these men: I received multiple Constitution Party mailings sent at its expense asking me to help with the Ron Paul Campaign. Conversely, Ron Paul presently endorses Chuck Baldwin for president. Information is available at www.constitutionparty.org.
Ron Paul is a
Dennis Kusinich is a U.S.
Read the Issues
All of these websites for the five men in this article have an “Issues” or “Platform” section where one can find what they stand for. Obama and McCain look like twins compared to the other three. We will deal with just one issue:
It is clear that they all know about the Federal Reserve banking system and how it works (see lead article of this issue). Even so, Obama and McCain supported the September 700 billion bailout bill, and are likely to support more, even though they know that billions of dollars of that is going into the pockets of banking executives that helped to create that mess, and even though they know that there is no credible way that the overburdened taxpayers will ever be able to pay that off. Oh, they have fear tactics and excuses why we should stay with this failing system, but that is all they have.
Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are all strongly opposed to bank bailouts and the Federal Reserve Banking system. They all have plans to eliminate the Federal Reserve.
Download Full Issue in PDF:
Permission is granted to reproduce any article in its entirety