Why My Christian Worldview

Prohibits Me from Voting For President

in the 2008 Election                                                        By William G. Radvansky

            I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in November of 1978. I began to study scripture so that I could correctly apply it to my life as instructed in 2 Timothy 2: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  It was many years before I allowed the Spirit of God to takeover every area of my life. Because of the wickedness and sin in my life that God saved me from, I was overwhelmed at His love and mercy in those areas and was slow to consider that He indeed wanted to be in control of every facet of my life. Acts 17: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; It was much later that I came to realize that the election of our public officials matters to God and we are to be diligent in exercising our right to vote in a discriminating manner. Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

            The first year that I voted in a Presidential election was 1980. I had received Christ as my Savior and began to develop a Christian worldview at that time. As a new Christian I slowly realized exactly what a Christian worldview was and how it must necessarily permeate every facet of both my outward life and my inward thoughts. This is in obedience to scripture in 2 Corinthians 10: 5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;  During the 1976 Presidential election I read and heard media coverage of Mr. Carter that indicated that he was a Born Again Christian. It naturally followed then, once I was saved, that it was my duty to support the “Christian” candidate against Ronald Reagan in 1980. My worldview had not matured to the point that caused me to look beyond labels at the candidate’s stance on issues of importance to Christians and the church. Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. It was only later that I realized how much of a wolf in sheep’s clothing that Mr. Carter was. I learned some valuable lessons during that time. First of all, just because a candidate claims to be a Christian doesn’t mean that his religious beliefs affect his political positions. Secondly, a candidate does not have to be saved in order for me to vote for him, provided that he is right on issues of importance to me. That said, my worldview became much more of a determinant in my actions as well as my votes. That Biblical worldview will not permit me to vote for any of the candidates currently in the field. Let me explain.

            On the Democratic side it is patently obvious that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have virtually no positions that I agree with. Therefore I cannot and will not vote for either one of them. On the Republican side at the time of this writing, John McCain is the presumptive nominee. Mr. McCain has long been known as a maverick Republican and seems to pride himself on compromising with the liberal Democrats. Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. I believe that this passage is a clear admonishment to us to use even our vote to prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. I see no indications in scripture that Christ or Paul or any New Testament saint used expediency to make important decisions. The lesser of two evils is not acceptable to my worldview, whether it be in voting, entertainment choices, dress standards or anything else.Mr. Bauer,

         I am shocked and dismayed that you would continue your slide away from righteousness and integrity and endorse Mr. McCain. Make no mistake about it, I am not a Huckabee fan and am totally disgusted that the party of Reagan cannot come up with a true conservative candidate at such a critical point in history. I am afraid that you and those like you in high profile positions within the  religious-conservative movement epitomize what has befallen our party. Apparently engrossed with the idea of being a spokesman for evangelicals in politics, and in a desperate attempt to remain relevant, you continue to compromise true conservative principles. What you fail to realize is that that this shifting  away from hard line conservatism, has long ago made you and your self proclaimed endorsements, totally irrelevant.

         I was a United Steelworker back in the 80's, carrying on a proud tradition of unionism in our family. I was very active within our local and was a delegate. After being so disappointed at the blind eye that USW leaders turned toward anything Republican, I alienated those in power within the union by publically affirming what most politicos quietly knew; that the political arm of the USW in no way represented the views of the rank in file members. I was also the Executive director of LifePac for Pennsylvania from 1986-1991. We endorsed Pro-Life candidates for office and supplied grassroots workers to campaigns. I met with a then unknown lawyer from Pittsburgh who was campaigning in the 18th Congressional district. His views on the abortion issue at that time were merely pragmatic, and in no way went fasr enough for our endorsement. He was more ProLife than Doug Walgren, the incumbent, but I said thanks but no thanks to Rick Santorum. He consequently rethought his position, we endorsed him and worked tirelessly within his campaign and the rest is history. Eventually the PAC began to cave in to external forces who simply wanted us to list all of the candidates who claimed to be Pro Life rather than endorse and actively support the ProLife incumbents.

       I left LifePac in 91 to take a job with the Pennsylvania State Police. During that time as a member of the FOP, I was elected as a state delegate as well. The reason I am providing you this little bit of background is to show that I am not just an outsider who doesn't understand how the system works. It is that very system that has poisoned the modern conservative movement and made it a shell of what it was 20 years ago. We have enough opposition from the liberals and the media, without wasting ammunition by shooting ourselves in the foot.

       I am afraid that endorsements like yours are no different in their affect on voters, than those of the USW had on its members.  As LifePac director I got sick and tired of hearing how we had to "understand" the way that politics works. Now I am what every voter should be, one who votes for the person who I feel would be someone who exemplifies what conservatism is, and doesn't assume a conservative posture to attract our votes. If our candidate for President falls short of the standard of conservatism, I refuse to vote for him as the lesser of two evils.

      I have long ago decided to not compromise my values and my integrity for the sake of relevancy. I sleep much better now knowing that when I stand before our God in that last great day, I will not have played political games with his truth. It is a shame that our national leaders such as your self, cannot come to that same position.

                 Respectfully,

                         William G. Radvansky

                         Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Mr. Bauer,

         I am shocked and dismayed that you would continue your slide away from righteousness and integrity and endorse Mr. McCain. Make no mistake about it, I am not a Huckabee fan and am totally disgusted that the party of Reagan cannot come up with a true conservative candidate at such a critical point in history. I am afraid that you and those like you in high profile positions within the  religious-conservative movement epitomize what has befallen our party. Apparently engrossed with the idea of being a spokesman for evangelicals in politics, and in a desperate attempt to remain relevant, you continue to compromise true conservative principles. What you fail to realize is that that this shifting  away from hard line conservatism, has long ago made you and your self proclaimed endorsements, totally irrelevant.

         I was a United Steelworker back in the 80's, carrying on a proud tradition of unionism in our family. I was very active within our local and was a delegate. After being so disappointed at the blind eye that USW leaders turned toward anything Republican, I alienated those in power within the union by publically affirming what most politicos quietly knew; that the political arm of the USW in no way represented the views of the rank in file members. I was also the Executive director of LifePac for Pennsylvania from 1986-1991. We endorsed Pro-Life candidates for office and supplied grassroots workers to campaigns. I met with a then unknown lawyer from Pittsburgh who was campaigning in the 18th Congressional district. His views on the abortion issue at that time were merely pragmatic, and in no way went fasr enough for our endorsement. He was more ProLife than Doug Walgren, the incumbent, but I said thanks but no thanks to Rick Santorum. He consequently rethought his position, we endorsed him and worked tirelessly within his campaign and the rest is history. Eventually the PAC began to cave in to external forces who simply wanted us to list all of the candidates who claimed to be Pro Life rather than endorse and actively support the ProLife incumbents.

       I left LifePac in 91 to take a job with the Pennsylvania State Police. During that time as a member of the FOP, I was elected as a state delegate as well. The reason I am providing you this little bit of background is to show that I am not just an outsider who doesn't understand how the system works. It is that very system that has poisoned the modern conservative movement and made it a shell of what it was 20 years ago. We have enough opposition from the liberals and the media, without wasting ammunition by shooting ourselves in the foot.

       I am afraid that endorsements like yours are no different in their affect on voters, than those of the USW had on its members.  As LifePac director I got sick and tired of hearing how we had to "understand" the way that politics works. Now I am what every voter should be, one who votes for the person who I feel would be someone who exemplifies what conservatism is, and doesn't assume a conservative posture to attract our votes. If our candidate for President falls short of the standard of conservatism, I refuse to vote for him as the lesser of two evils.

      I have long ago decided to not compromise my values and my integrity for the sake of relevancy. I sleep much better now knowing that when I stand before our God in that last great day, I will not have played political games with his truth. It is a shame that our national leaders such as your self, cannot come to that same position.

                 Respectfully,

                         William G. Radvansky

                         Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

 Mr. Bauer,

         I am shocked and dismayed that you would continue your slide away from righteousness and integrity and endorse Mr. McCain. Make no mistake about it, I am not a Huckabee fan and am totally disgusted that the party of Reagan cannot come up with a true conservative candidate at such a critical point in history. I am afraid that you and those like you in high profile positions within the  religious-conservative movement epitomize what has befallen our party. Apparently engrossed with the idea of being a spokesman for evangelicals in politics, and in a desperate attempt to remain relevant, you continue to compromise true conservative principles. What you fail to realize is that that this shifting  away from hard line conservatism, has long ago made you and your self proclaimed endorsements, totally irrelevant.

         I was a United Steelworker back in the 80's, carrying on a proud tradition of unionism in our family. I was very active within our local and was a delegate. After being so disappointed at the blind eye that USW leaders turned toward anything Republican, I alienated those in power within the union by publically affirming what most politicos quietly knew; that the political arm of the USW in no way represented the views of the rank in file members. I was also the Executive director of LifePac for Pennsylvania from 1986-1991. We endorsed Pro-Life candidates for office and supplied grassroots workers to campaigns. I met with a then unknown lawyer from Pittsburgh who was campaigning in the 18th Congressional district. His views on the abortion issue at that time were merely pragmatic, and in no way went fasr enough for our endorsement. He was more ProLife than Doug Walgren, the incumbent, but I said thanks but no thanks to Rick Santorum. He consequently rethought his position, we endorsed him and worked tirelessly within his campaign and the rest is history. Eventually the PAC began to cave in to external forces who simply wanted us to list all of the candidates who claimed to be Pro Life rather than endorse and actively support the ProLife incumbents.

       I left LifePac in 91 to take a job with the Pennsylvania State Police. During that time as a member of the FOP, I was elected as a state delegate as well. The reason I am providing you this little bit of background is to show that I am not just an outsider who doesn't understand how the system works. It is that very system that has poisoned the modern conservative movement and made it a shell of what it was 20 years ago. We have enough opposition from the liberals and the media, without wasting ammunition by shooting ourselves in the foot.

       I am afraid that endorsements like yours are no different in their affect on voters, than those of the USW had on its members.  As LifePac director I got sick and tired of hearing how we had to "understand" the way that politics works. Now I am what every voter should be, one who votes for the person who I feel would be someone who exemplifies what conservatism is, and doesn't assume a conservative posture to attract our votes. If our candidate for President falls short of the standard of conservatism, I refuse to vote for him as the lesser of two evils.

      I have long ago decided to not compromise my values and my integrity for the sake of relevancy. I sleep much better now knowing that when I stand before our God in that last great day, I will not have played political games with his truth. It is a shame that our national leaders such as your self, cannot come to that same position.

                 Respectfully,

                         William G. Radvansky

                         Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

         I am both disappointed and dismayed, though not surprised, that the party of Reagan cannot come up with a true conservative candidate at such a critical point in history. I am afraid that Christians in high profile positions within the religious-conservative movement epitomize what has befallen our party. Apparently engrossed with the idea of being a spokesmen for evangelicals in politics, and in a desperate attempt to remain relevant, they continue to compromise true conservative principles by nominating someone who has not stood solidly with the party on key issues, and has actually worked against it. What they fail to realize is that that this shifting away from hard line conservatism in a pragmatic attempt to win the presidency, if successful, will destroy the conservative movement as an alternative to far left liberalism. This will result in a disconnect with the Republican base and in the Christian Right being marginalized in all national elections.
         I was a United Steelworker back in the 80's, carrying on a proud tradition of unionism in our family. I was very active within my local and was a delegate. After being so disappointed at the blind eye that USW leaders turned toward anything Republican, I alienated those in power within the union by publicly affirming what most politicos quietly knew; that the political arm of the USW in no way represented the views of the rank and file members. I refused to stand quietly by as family values were trampled by such far left candidates as Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.  I was also the Executive Director of LifePac for Pennsylvania from 1986-1991. We endorsed Pro-Life candidates for office and supplied grassroots workers to campaigns. I met with a then unknown lawyer from Pittsburgh who was campaigning in the 18th Congressional district. His views on the abortion issue at that time were merely pragmatic, and in no way went far enough for our endorsement. He was more Pro-Life than Doug Walgren, the Pro-abortion incumbent, and clearly would be considered the lesser of two evils, but I said thanks but no thanks to Rick Santorum. He consequently rethought his position, we subsequently endorsed him and worked tirelessly within his campaign and the rest is history. He became one of the most vocal opponents of abortion in either house of Congress.
       I left LifePac in 1991 to take a job with the Pennsylvania State Police. During that time as a member of the FOP, I was elected as a state delegate as well. Even in that position, I would not work for or endorse a candidate who was not strong on Christian principles. This background information is to show that I am not just an outsider who doesn't understand how the system works. It is that very system that I know all too well that has poisoned the modern conservative movement and made it a shell of what it was 20 years ago. We have enough opposition from the liberals and the media, without wasting ammunition by shooting ourselves in the foot.
       I am afraid that appeals to true conservatives to support a moderate like McCain will have no more of an effect on voters, than those of the USW had on its members.  As LifePac Director I got sick and tired of hearing how we had to "understand" the way that politics works. Now I am what every conservative voter should be, one who votes for the person who I feel would be someone who exemplifies what conservatism is, and doesn't assume a politically expedient posture to attract our votes.

            If our candidate for President falls short of the standard of conservatism, I refuse to vote for him as the lesser of two evils. I am a Christian conservative first, and as such I choose to be a Republican. It is my understanding that a worldview is an integrated system of beliefs and concepts about the universe (natural and/or supernatural), society and the self, which inculcates cultural and religious aspects that give value, meaning, and order to the experiences of life. Therefore, my actions should reflect my belief that God will hold us accountable for the choices that we make. Our worldview comes from the indwelling of His Holy Spirit and to not allow Him to lead and guide me is quenching the Holy Spirit. 1 Thessalonians 5: 18,19 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. We are to be separate from the world and its ways. 2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

              I have long ago decided to not compromise my values and my integrity for the sake of relevancy. I sleep much better now knowing that when I stand before our God in that last great day, I will not have played political games with his truth. Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. It is a shame that our national leaders and the rank and file Christian voters cannot come to that same position.
 
         

The Masonic Lodge is the Devil’s Clubhouse

When I was about 9 years old and living the carefree life that 9 year olds were permitted to live in the 60’s, a boy judged his status in life by who he hung around with. If you were a normal kid, you hung around with guys who were your own age and in the same grade as you were. You could distinguish yourself as a “mover and a shaker”, a mini “man about town”, if you could pal around with the “older kids”. If you were a 9year old boy and a 12 year old even knew your name, you were “the man”.

There was a boy who lived a few doors up from me named Mark. He was several years older than I was and I was fortunate enough one summer, to consistently be in his presence. Mark had 2 passions. The first was his little green plastic Army men of which he had a standing force of about 900,000. We would spend hours setting them up on the sandbox battlefield. I learned terms like Bivouac, reconnaissance, special ops, and other terms that I think he just made up. But the real love of Mark’s life and the envy of every kid in the neighborhood was “The Cabin”. Mark had built a two story wooden tree house in a huge tree that was right at the edge of his yard. It was amazing. You had to climb up a rope ladder and give the secret knock. Then Marrk would open the trap door from inside , and you could climb in. He had a table and chairs, bunk beds, and a BB gun. When Mark allowed me to join his secret club, and gave me access to the “inner sanctum”, it made me feel like I was better than every kid in the neighborhood.

But alas, you don’t stay 9 years old forever.

            As summers came and summers went, the cabin and my interest in it faded away, and I realized that my worth did not come from belonging to some secret club, or having access to a special place. In other words, I got on with my life.Unbelievably there are grown men (physically speaking) still pretending that they are 9 years old. They have their secret club and special meeting place that no one is allowed to enter if their not a member. They even have a secret handshake! They where stupid hats and special aprons!!  I kid you not.  They are “The Masons”.

It would be funny if it was not so deadly serious. Free Masonry is a demonic perversion of Christianity and to Jesus Christ. The name and nature of the Masonic deity is an offense to the one true God. It is taught in the Royal Arch degree that Masonry draws its teachings and powers from three great teachers and Gods. The combined deity is represented as a three-headed god, whose name is JoaBulOn, which stands for Jehovah, Baal, and Osiris. Every time Masons pronounce that name in the Masonic prayer of worship, they have defiled the Holy name of God.  Hard to believe isn’t it?

History is being revised even as it is written!

The American people are being deliberately tricked, by those who have something to gain by manipulating us with misleading appearances. As a result, we find ourselves in a new kind of surroundings, in which we can no longer always rely on the evidence of our senses to tell us what is real. Indeed, society is now governed by various groups that use deceptive means to gain and hold on to money and power. These insidious deceivers have permeated business, entertainment, politics, news, and religion. And their most important tool of deception is our society's primary source of revisionist truth, Mass Media, which allows them to create complex simulations that can trick people en masse. Our attempts to avoid confusion are also generating a new problem: We increasingly suspect the real and the authentic of being fake. We are thus witnessing one of the many ironies of the age of duplicity: Fakes are being mistaken for the real thing and the real thing is in danger of being mistaken for a fake. This points to one of the central principles of contemporary life: The ability to manipulate reality is a form of power and the inability to see through those manipulations is a form of powerlessness. Those who manipulate appearances, today, exercise power over those who are taken in by appearances.        

            Americans, glued to their television sets, or with noses buried in the newspaper, are exposed to hundreds of examples of subterfuge in an average day, which are fabricated in an effort to falsify their view of the world and control their behavior. All of the deceivers use some combination of the same techniques, relying on scripts, staged performances, "creative" narration, video editing and electronic image manipulation. And all end up telling stories that include the same elements described on other pages: most having no idea of the methods of ruse and artifice being employed against them. But here, an effort is made to lead people to believe that the story accurately depicts people and events. As a result, all end up profoundly falsifying what they portray, once again mixing faithful and manipulated images, and fact and fiction in seamless ways so that it can be hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. As these trends become more pronounced, we will need more people like this author who will take a principled stand against this duplicity. We also need educational institutions that teach children to see through these historical emandations.

            Fortunately, as revisionists and deceivers increase in number and influence, a learning process is taking place in which we are developing new ways to unmask this political shiftiness. One might say that humanity is involved in a game of catch up: every year they are becoming more convincing and every year, we are getting better at not being fooled. The same technology and human ingenuity that are causing revisionist confusion are also providing us with ways not to be fooled - for those willing to search for the truth behind appearances. The author sincerely believes that his work will be of monumental importance by giving the average American the necessary tools to detect deception and to insist on “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Ivegotatheoryaboutthat.com

People of my generation as required reading in school read George Orwell’s classic novel 1984. As we got older between the early 70’s and the approaching decade we were keeping our eye on the year1984. When the year came and the prophecy apparently didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of democracy had survived the approaching notion of “Big Brother”. Whatever other terrors that had been foist upon society, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another-slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling book: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. In fact, these two futuristic proponents could not be more diametrically opposed.

George Orwell warned that we would be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision ... people will come to love their oppression, and to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.

What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.

Orwell feared that there would be those who would deprive us of information.

Huxley feared those who would give us so much useless information that we would be reduced to passivity.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.

Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.

Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with the touchy feelies, the “I reject your truth” mentality and finally, “there can be no absolute truth” crowd.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by causing pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by an endless appetite for pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ultimately destroy us. So which prognosticator was right?

Hate Speech

In the United States there is no law on the books anywhere saying that it is forbidden for its citizens to tell the truth; not in as many words that is. Yet “Hate Speech” is a term for that verbal communication which is increasingly being forbidden and punished by law. It is speech that someone deems to be intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.(There’s a catch all phrase if I’ve ever heard one). In other words, if you think that someone looks down on you in anyway and somehow publicly communicates that disdain, you can have him arrested and jailed in the United States of America! The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on factors such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical health or mental health. Preachers are being arrested and sued for preaching Gods word straight from the Bible in their own pulpits.There has been an increase of prohibition of terms regarded as "hate speech" based on socio-economic class in the United States. But for many North Americans, hate speech has become unacceptable (at least in public) and downright immoral. Isn’t it the height of irony that the mere act of labeling immorality via the spoken word, is in and of itself now deemed to be immoral?  In Lewis Carroll’s Alice In Wonderland, Alice states,

“ If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

My friends, we are living in that world. It is taboo to use certain words or discuss certain subjects that the”Thought Police” fear may be offensive or illegal. In some contexts it may also be offensive or illegal to challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria. Where does it end? It ends at the same place that it began and that is anyone who rejects what others think or say about them can cry “Hate speech” and have the truth teller arrested. Why do I say “Truth Teller”? Because if an individual makes statements saying that he thinks all “Vulgarians” are lazy, that is to be considered a true statement because he Does consider that to be true. Remember we are talking about expressing through communication what you believe to be true.This is merely one small step from hate thought. George Orwell in His prescient classic 1984 wrote:

"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed--would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper--the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 1

You say “That would never happen. You can’t be punished for what you are thinking”. Let me remind you that there are and long have been, varying degrees of murder ranging from involuntary manslaughter to “Premeditated murder”. To premeditate means to think about something before you actually engage in the activity of which you thought. If you kill me as I am walking down the street, for no apparent reason, you will be charged with murder. If you kill a homosexual and law enforcement can show that you did not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, you will be charged with the more serious offense of “Hate Crime”. In other words, the Homosexual’s life has more value than mine does in the eyes of the law. Why? I suppose it’s because you killed me because you didn’t like me, but you killed him because you hated him. Doesn’t any attitude towards a human being that causes you to kill them indicate hate on your part? And why is hate a more serious portend of culpability than robbery, or sexual deviance? That’s the $64,000 question.