Who Would Jesus Vote For?

Readalot · Aug 8, 2004

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

Who Would Jesus Vote For? by Edgar J. Steele August 8, 2004 "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 <a href="http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm">here</a> (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 <a href="http://www.conspiracypenpal.com">www.conspiracypenpal.com</a> 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 <a href="http://www.constitution-party.net/">Constitution Party</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/electme.htm">Two Eds are Better than One</a>)! 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. New America. An idea whose time has come. <center> -ed </center>

Ought Six · Aug 8, 2004

Since Jesus was a Jew and believed that Israel was the homeland for his people, then Jesus was a Zionist.

bigwavedave · Aug 8, 2004

"Jesus was a Zionist"

only in modern terminology, at best. he wouldn't have known what the H you were saying.

"Judaism and Zionism are by no means the same. Indeed they are incompatible and irreconcilable: If one is a good Jew, one cannot be a Zionist; if one is a Zionist, one cannot be a good Jew."

"Judaism could exist two thousand years with out Zionism, but Zionism could not exist one generation with out Judaism."

Morton298 · Aug 9, 2004

I agree about the observation that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Meanwhile....

Jesus Christ was a Judahite by virtue of his mother and a Judean by virtue of being born in Bethlehem, although He lived in Gallilee (Samaria) - north of Judea, but He was in no ways a Jew, nor a zionist. He opposed the zionist ways (i.e. Pharisees and Saducees) as well as Judaism.

"Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and religious subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been [resolved] by him during those silent thirty years when he was pondering his future mission? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud. Here, say they, is the source from whence Jesus of Nazareth drew the teaching which enabled him to revolutionize the world; and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian, What is the Talmud? …

The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions."

- Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson [The History of the Talmud, Vol. II, page 70 available at http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/rodkin_ii3.html#p70]

"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.

Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism."

- R. Travers Herford, writing for The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. Pharisees, Volume 8, page 474, available at http://www.come-and-hear.com/uje/uje_474.html

"Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew reads his prayers, he is reciting formulae prepared by pre-Maccabean scholars; when he dons the cloak prescribed for the Day of Atonement and Passover Eve, he is wearing the festival garment of ancient Jerusalem; when he studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies."

- Rabbi Dr. Louis Finkelstein, Instructor of Talmud, and later president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, page xxi, available at http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/finkelstein.html#xxi

Morton

OddOne · Aug 9, 2004

To directly answer the question asked by the article's author.

Jesus would not vote for ANYONE.

Jesus was completely and totally neutral in all sociopolitical affairs of his day. In fact, he actively resisted attempts to place him in a position of political authority.

Which part of "my kingdom is no part of this world" don't people get? Mankind will NOT provide an adequate solution for its own problems. We've tried, oh Lord how we've tried. Every possible combination of governance system from dictatorship to anarchy and everything in between has been tried, and ALL of them have failed in some grand way. Jeremiah was right - we're not fit to command our own footsteps, and we as a species keep proving so over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

Personally, I'm not voting for anybody because my hope is elsewhere - in God's Kingdom, not any contrived nonsense of man's.

oO

Who Would Jesus Vote For?

Readalot

Membership Revoked

Ought Six

Membership Revoked

bigwavedave

Deceased

Morton298

Inactive

OddOne

< Yes, I do look like that.