Is Bush the Antichrist?

The Covenant News ^ | April 12, 2002 | Chuck Baldwin

[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.

[Consort]

However, I do believe that Bush possesses more deceptive qualities than Clinton did

That's an expression of the highest respect when spoken by a Liberal.

[Cate]

So lets see, if we follow the train of thought by the author.......bad icky people are actually GOOD, and good honest people are BAD... ah, I get it now... NOT. This dude needs to sit quietly and actually read the bible, not just carry it around spewing statements.

[LaineyDee]

We're wasting our time. They WANT it to be true.

Only the "D" Christians........and there are many. First of all.....the only people who "adore" Bush are the Pubbies. Crats hate him.......the rest of the world hates him....even tho they respect and fear him. The Anti-christ will be adored and able to deceive the whole world. This just ain't gonna happen with W.

[freebilly]

but Bush can actually grant limited amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and there is not the faintest whisper of protest.

What does this have to do with faith in Christ?

[cynicom]

cyn..

"Are you some kind of clinton fan, per chance?"

Now, you may call me any name you desire but to equate me with slick Clinton is a bit much.

[PaxMacian]

The anti-christ is not a person, but a spirit in opposition to Christ. However, there is a beast with a blasphemous name upon its head which is coming to give the mark. G7 gained its 8th head with Russia as prophesied to become G8. 'G'being the 7th and mystical letter representing God has been placed upon the head of an organization of the RICHEST nations of the world. Its ten horns sprang forth with the G10 and its efforts to make all money worldwide digital. So, technically Bush is just one head of the beast which will soon attempt to secure its grip upon your eternal soul with the mark of biometric identification linked to a completely controlled and monitored monetary system.

[MississippiMan]

I did HERE.

If you have a problem with it, present your learned opinion and back it up with a legitimate, logical refutation.

You talked about Bush not being antichrist. I don't think he is, either. Nor did the original poster, as he clearly stated in his last paragraph.

My problem is not in disagreeing with him, but with the inevitable string of mindless insults thrown out. I disagree with much of it myself, but the way to disagree is with intelligent discussion, not a bunch of childish insults that are so common here on FR.

MM

[MississippiMan]

I know exactly what a ping is. It's the "fundamentalist nutcase" part of the ping I was talking about, as should be clearly evident. As for the notion that Bush is the antichrist, did you even READ the post? Specifically, the end where the guy said that of course Bush is NOT?

MM

[Grampa Dave]

You, Chuck, and this POS hate attack against President Bush belong on the alternative site to Free Republic as pointed out by Jim Robinson this week.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/904323/posts

Free Republic Sucks
Free Republic Sucks ^ | May 1, 2003 | By Edgar Hall, Political Editor


Posted on 05/01/2003 11:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson


Well, well, well. And yet another anti-Freeper site springs up:

http://www.freerepublicsucks.s5.com/crackdownmay2003.htm


We must be doing something right to have so many Bush haters hating us so much.

Well, we wish you luck. You'll have plenty of competition from FR haters.

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/904323/posts

[Dane]

My problem is not in disagreeing with him, but with the inevitable string of mindless insults thrown out

BS, but you already knew that, MM.

When an article is titled "Is Bush the Anti-Christ?", the intial insult that is thrown out is by the writer of the article(Chuck Baldwin).

[Victorious]

where do you get he is to be of Jewish origin from?

[Grampa Dave]

Here is one of the Hate GWers using the Anti Christ slimeball posting that we discussed a few months ago!

[dpa5923]

You made an absolute statement. To disprove it, only one instance of a man or woman possessing power but not being corrupted by that power needs to be provided: I will provide a few:

George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Teddy Roosevelt, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, St Paul, St Peter.

So if some men are not corrupted by power, it must be something else that corrupts them. I believe people are corrupt at their core and power only makes it possible for them to exercise that corruption (on a greater level). So power itself does not corrupt. The corrupt man was already corrupt before he achieved power.

But we can agree to disagree.

[AmericaUnited]

Crats hate him.......the rest of the world hates him...

And the big reason they hate him is because he is a good, GOD-FEARING man.

[Search4Truth]

A moral relativist, devoid of moral distinction and judgement, trying to tell Christians, how to distinguish good from evil? Interesting!

[Victorious]

Think Butros Ghali
"And the Beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven.....Rev. 17:11
Butros Ghali was the 6th Secretary General of the U.N.
Annan is the 7th, he'll lose his position somehow and Ghali will take his place as an interim for 3 and 1/2 years. IMHO

[Search4Truth]

Our President, George W. Bush, personifies American masculinity. It is that character trait that the Socialists hate the most.

[hellinahandcart]

The insults weren't childish. The article is childish. It's a dishonestly-written whine from beginning to end.

And if no one is asking Chuck Baldwin if Bush is the antichrist, it's only because the folks at DU aren't seeking his counsel. Yet.

The article was written over a year ago, btw. I checked all of Baldwin's articles posted in the month after this one, and saw no correction of the Ozzy Osborne misinformation, which IMO took up an inordinate amount of space in his accusations against the president. Not exactly professional, to have researched his topic *not at all* before printing it, and not exactly ethical, to leave it uncorrected in the archives.

Does he merely want to conjure up an image of Ozzy pissing on the Lincoln Bed with his misconstruction of the facts? Even if it never happened? Just to get some people stirred up? Gee, that's not exactly honest, either...

Just how much respect do you figure we OWE a screed like this?

[deport]

What do you think?..... Is Bush the AntiChrist?.... You post an article dated 4/12/2002 so there must be some purpose.... Maybe you can give us your opinion of whether Chuck is onto something or just off base... and why.

[Trace21230]

"When an article is titled "Is Bush the Anti-Christ?", the intial insult that is thrown out is by the writer of the article(Chuck Baldwin)."

Exactly. I find it interesting that FReepers like MM attack the response to the title rather than the ridiculous title itself.

Says a lot about the poster.

Trace