Posted on 05/03/2003 9:47:29 AM PDT by MatthewViti
During the eight years of Clinton's presidency, I was repeatedly asked, "Chuck, do you think Bill Clinton is the antichrist?" (Of course, I answered no.) Therefore, it is more than interesting to me that since G.W. Bush became president no one has asked if I thought he was the antichrist. Not one single person! Instead, many people attribute to Bush god-like qualities, which actually makes him a better candidate than Clinton was.
You see, one of the chief characteristics of the coming antichrist is that he appears "as an angel of light." Therefore, an obvious reprobate such as Bill Clinton is immediately disqualified. The antichrist, by very definition, is a master deceiver. He must be someone who appears as good and benevolent. The bite is in his tail not in his tongue. In reality, Bush's angelic persona makes him much more dangerous than bad boy Billy.
For example, while Clinton was in the process of appointing numerous homosexual activists to his administration, copious letters from Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and D. James Kennedy flooded America's Christian community. Appeals for protest and resistance were heard from pulpits throughout the country. A massive media campaign began against Clinton.
Today, however, President Bush is in the process of copying Clinton's numerous appointments of open homosexuals to high positions of government, but there are no letters, no warnings from pulpits, and no media campaigns opposing it. Just the opposite. Bush is being defended, lauded, and glorified for everything he does, no matter how unconstitutional or unscriptural it might be.
When Clinton only talked of legalizing embryonic stem cell research, he was castigated and condemned. Bush actually made the procedure legal, and yet, he was praised and honored. Clinton was denigrated when he tried to convince Israel to give up land for peace. Now, Bush is in the process of actually trying to create an independent Palestinian state for Israel's enemies (with Jerusalem as its capital, no less), yet continues to receive glowing adulation. If Clinton even suggested that America's immigration laws might need to be liberalized, he was denounced in the harshest terms; but Bush can actually grant limited amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and there is not the faintest whisper of protest.
Do you recall how Clinton was criticized for the "low lifes" he invited to the White House? Well, Bush recently invited wild man rocker, Ozzie Osbourne, to the White House. Have you heard any notable Christian leader take Bush to task for that?
You remember Ozzie Osbourne, don't you? He is the former front man for the heavy metal band, Black Sabbath. He is famous for stage antics such as biting the heads off birds and bats. His abuse of drugs and alcohol are also well known. Furthermore, Ozzie Osbourne desecrated The Alamo by pissing all over it. In spite of this, George W. Bush is said to be one of Osbourne's biggest fans. As such, Osbourne was recently invited to the White House for dinner. Have you heard any criticism of Bush for this?
Obviously, I do not believe President Bush is the antichrist any more than I believed Bill Clinton was. However, I do believe that Bush possesses more deceptive qualities than Clinton did and, therefore, is more dangerous. I also now understand more clearly how even "the elect" can be deceived. Bush' s acceptance by the overwhelming majority of Christian people proves the country is ready for the antichrist, whoever he is.
I am unaware of this. Any sources available?
The Bush Administration has made a handful of low level appointments of individuals who happened to be gay. What administration hasnt? The only reason we know that they are gay is a gay newspaper outed them as proud examples of gays making it.
The individuals appointed were selected because of their expertise and knowledge, not because they were gay. Further, the individuals appointed dont work on gay issues and they were hired to push Bush's agenda not the nut case gay agenda. So whats your point? You seem to think being gay is an automatic disqualifier of government service.
Obviously that's exactly what happened.
Poor Ozzy can be forgiven for receiving an invitation to the White House Correspondents Dinner and only comprehending the words "White House" and "Dinner". I have a little problem with freepers who can't seem to understand that it is not Dinner at the White House but A Dinner For White House Correspondents. You know. People like Helen Thomas who clutter up the White House and ask dumb questions every day. Those guys. That's who the dinner is for. People are allowed to bring guests. That's how Al Franken got in this year. >:@
It's like they've never heard of the thing before, even though there have been live threads for the C-Span coverage of the dinner every year since I joined, and newsreports showed Ozzy right there at a table in a setting which was clearly NOT the White House. And they also aired Bush's quip to Ozzy, which if I recall correctly was not that HE was "a big fan" but that his mother (Barbara) was. It was a JOKE. Can anyone really see Barbara Bush listening to Black Sabbath? Jeez.
Anyway, I was at this year's freep of the White House Correspondents Dinner, and it wasn't anywhere near the White House.
The whose with you and who isn't crowd are the movers which remain in place when different Political parties change in the Whitehouse...this being members of the U.S. State dept...Council on Foreign relations..Federal Reserve.
Clintons admin had many many CFR members slotted....Bush has many aswell.
Some CFR members have stayed around thru both admins...some go back to Bush 41.
There is a rift in the CFR and State Dept...you can read the complaint..even at the CFR's website as thinktank types critique and lambaste Bush on Policy descisions.
Theres tension within Pentagon too.
Its not just a Rep/Dem polarization...it goes way beyond that....it goes to those whose vision for America's primacy has been strategized long ago..implimented in phases...from Bush 41 thru today.
A man with an inside slot wrote a book on GWB's entrance and followon into the Presidency...[sorry do not have his name on hand]...some of his comments of what occured have upset the Whitehouse.
One recorded event was a meeting..where many of the Giants of Americas politcal/economic power gathered to give GW a picture of how the world is....intererstingly..the theme..."We have unfinished business to tend to in regards to Iraq".
Brokers like Henry Kissenger may not speak for the Bush admin..but they are around..their input very much embraced as America moves forward in her Geostrategic Imperatives.
I was just reading on Yahoo that Brown is 70 years old and has been invited to entertain Bush.
I also punched in a bio on google. His rap sheet and prison time is enough to stagger most people.
I recall these same people here on FR, decrying everything clinton did or said. They were correct, however, it does show blind partisanship when they find absolutely nothing wrong with Bush. Bush is just another human, putting him into a cult of personality is dangerous.
Do facts mean anything to you? Bush can not grant limited amnesty to thousands. Even your evidence above points out that its congress that has to pass a law legalizing the status. Bush can sign or veto, he cant make law. Thats congress. Where where you in Civics class?
Okay, but the point is where is "there"? If you're talking about the White House Correspondents' Dinner, it is not held at the White House and it is not, as I understand it, hosted by the White House. The reason that it is referred to as the White House Correspondents' Dinner is because it is a dinner for journalists whose job it is to cover the White House. It is a press dinner; not a White House dinner.
Osbourne was invited by Greta Van Sustern.
As another poster pointed out above, what difference would it make if the president had invited Osbourne to the White House? None. But it would be nice if people who wrote articles raising questions about Bush being the antichrist and other such nonsense would at least get their supporting facts straight.
Did you perhaps see the prediction by Clinton that was printed yesterday, concerning the fate of the US within 30 years????
Well said.
As a fundamentalist religious wacko (just ask any of my friends), I resent having this guy put in the same category as me. Some people can't handle the fact that sometimes, despite our nation's problems, a man of great integrity does get into office by God's grace and for God's purposes. This is one of those times.
So, you think God's got some businesses running on the side? Maybe he's embezzling from the Strategic Heavenly Ether Reserve?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.