A majority of the 60 million evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in the country voted for Geo. W. Bush in 2004 because they believed he was the morally superior candidate.
How is he morally superior? He said he was against abortion, partial birth abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research that destroys human embryos, and for traditional values and Jesus Christ.
On those issues he is probably in tune with the majority of clear thinking American voters. Killing babies isn't exactly kosher with people who possess a sense of moral balance, and Jesus Christ cannot be found in the same lineup with Osama, Mao, or Saddam. If these issues were all that mattered then Geo. Bush would probably be deserving of his time in office.
Unfortunately for evangelical Christians the story doesn't end there. Christianity is not concerned only with today's morals and issues, but also with the future's values. Christianity is a religion with a prophetic element that cannot be easily dismissed. As briefly as it can be put, the following must be understood:
Almost all evangelical and fundamentalist Christians believe that the end of this age will be dominated by one referred to as the Antichrist. This individual will be empowered by Satan and is known in Rev. 13 as the “beast from the sea” and his number is 666. This individual will for a short time become a world ruler who controls all commerce to the point where no one can buy or sell unless they have the mark of the beast on their hand or forehead. In other words-do it his way or you starve!
The point here is that in order to have this individual wield so much power, there must be, at this time, a one-world government. But you cannot have a one-world government with 150 or so nations all doing their own thing. Power must be consolidated, a perfect example being the European Union where nations are banding together supposedly for economic reasons. Already there has been mentioned the possibility of a president of this European Union. When this happens, then instead of having to control 12 or 15 individual nations, a would-be world dictator has to control only one individual. When the rest of the world is also broken up into different economic areas (some have figured this to be 10 areas) the situation then becomes ripe for one individual authority to run the whole show.
The Bible predicts this person to be the one-world dictator known as the Antichrist, Satan incarnate, who will demand to be worshipped before he makes war with the saints of God (Rev. 13:7). (If this is not true, evangelicals believe it is, and that's what matters.)
Enter President George W. Bush.
At the present time the world is rushing headlong toward globalization and a New World Order. Trade agreements are being pushed that are detrimental to the USA but seemingly good for third world countries. Borders between countries are slowly being abolished, planned by those who want the world identified not by countries but by economic zones. This explains the reluctance on the part of the last two administrations in this country to even address the problem of illegal Mexican immigration. These manipulators are not looking out for the best interests of the people who live in the American southwest. Their main concern is the development of the coming New World Order, the merging of economic regions--and if the American people have to get short-changed in the process, so be it, as the one-world gangsters figure it will be worth it in the long run.
(On the June 9, 2005 telecast of the Lou Dobbs CNN newscast a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, speaking to a Senate panel, advocated the abolition of borders between the USA, Canada and Mexico and the free flow of goods and people between all three countries. In short-he advocated the destruction of the United States as we know it, to be replaced by what is known as the North American Union.)
In the early 1990s Clinton adviser Strobe Talbott outlined that administration's preferred approach to world affairs:
“Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete. All states will recognize a single global authority.”
A chilling statement if there ever was one. It is the equivalent of saying “Goodbye America and everything you ever stood for.” This “preferred approach” is not endemic to the Democratic Party. At the present time it is the “approach” of both parties, neither of which has been given an OK for this by the American people.
Consider the words of President Bush Sr. in his state of the union address on Jan. 29, 1991 referring to the first war with Iraq:
