There's an interesting article by Tom Mullen over at BreakTheMatrix.com.

I think he's right—most people don't even fully understand the implications of what is happening with this "bailout," or the real reasons we wound up here.

I'm sure everyone is aware of that both Republican and Democratic candidates for President are strongly in favor of this bailout. It's a great example of why I can't vote for either—if the only choices are socialism or socialism, I have to vote "none of the above."

Of course, you hardly ever really have to vote none of the above. There's pretty much always somebody else you can support.

Some claim that "a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain." To which I say—utter nonsense! I'm not responsible for what others do, I'm responsible for what I do. If I vote out of faith and a clean conscience, and everyone else votes out of their fears, it's not my fault that they voted for the lesser of two evils. I didn't "vote" for either one of the evils, and I didn't help either one of them get into office. The people that voted for the evil (lesser or greater) are the ones responsible!

I've heard the excuse that "everyone is a sinner, therefore you are always picking the lesser of two evils." This is a silly excuse. If you really believed it, your conclusion would be one of two things:

1) You can never vote for any human being, ever
2) Moral considerations are not of primary importance, since everybody is "equally a sinner." You can vote for anyone you want, and the highest moral standard that you should ever hold any leader to (if you use one at all when determine your vote) is "are you slightly less corrupt, less depraved, and less hideously evil than 'the other guy?'". If the answer is yes, you could vote for them.

It disturbs me that many Christians today seem to have unconsciously embraced the second option. These Christians are gripped by fear, not by faith in the Word of God. Their primary reason for voting in a slightly-less-evil socialist is not that they have analyzed the candidates position and come to a conclusion about who meets their minimum criteria for a civil magistrate—it's fear, plain and simple, that if they don't vote for this evil, that other (possibly worse) evil will get elected.

Christians should be lead by the Holy Spirit, not by a spirit of fear. And "being lead by the Spirit" starts with the Word of God. I don't need to say a quiet prayer and be meditative to hear the Spirit's "promptings" in order to determine whether or not I should be faithful to my wife! The Holy Spirit wrote a book to tell me that already! The same Spirit that can prompt a believer has already given me a guidebook in black and white, and that's the first place I should look for guidance.

So if someone claims to be lead by the spirit to a certain decision, but that decision does not line up with the Word of God, then while they may have been lead by a spirit, it was not the Holy Spirit.

By the way, have you heard the discussions on how many votes you need to get to win the Presidency? I believe current statistics put it around 16% of the US population.

So, all those people who say "Chuck Baldwin will never win"—it's only true because you won't vote for him.

If all the people who say "I'd vote for him, but he'd never win" would just vote for him—he would win! You've been deceived by the two major parties into think that you have to vote Democratic or Republican. No, you should vote your conscience.

But in the end, electability is not the primary criteria for a believer, nor is fear of the other guy—it's the Word of God. My biggest disappointment is not that Christians disagree with me on what those standards are, it's that they disagree that those standards exist!. They have no higher standard than fear of the "other guy."

p.s. if you haven't read the article on the Socialism Bubble, you really should. It's more interesting than my blog post.