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.
Hillary even named her child in anticipation of the Battle.
Chelsea Victoria Clinton
"Shall-See Victory"
Hillary Rodham Clinton
The ENEMY Within
Posting a Chucky Baldwin rant is not healthy debate, IMO. It is an invitation for the perpetual "conservative" malcontnets to imitate the self-flagellation of the radical shite muslims in thier wallow of victimhood.
You did no such thing. You posted a mistaken article from over a year ago from the BBC which claimed that Ozzie had been invited to the White House. The invitation was never made. The only invitation that Ozzie got was to the White House Correspondents Dinner which is not a White House function and its not at the WHite House. The BBC was confused. What do you expect when they are reporting on something from 4000 miles away. So how can you continue to say that Bush did invite him?
Your source the BBC. They were broadcasting last month that the US and Britain were losing the war in Iraq. So much for credibility. They also are far left in their editorial. They make Tony Blair a conservative.
Bill Clinton: The First Black President
(How much more deceptive can you get then that?)
Bill and Hillary have studied Hitler's Mein Kempf and play by the rules of his rise-to-power.
Deception: It's the CLINTON Way
Bill Clinton has the ability to suck-up admiration from Nation Leaders and Communist Regimes world wide.
Also, he can LIE and the Media still follows this piped-piper where ever he wants them to go.
That's why Bill Clinton is on 60 Minutes each Sunday night pulling in more "children" for Hillary.
"Ozzy thinks he's at the White House!" NEW YORK TIMES op-ed queen Maureen Dowd declared. "He really does. He did an interview where he said he was going to meet President Bush at the White House."
It was the White House Correspondent's Dinner.
When the lion lies down with the lamb, when those from all opposing sides start to bow down to the same power, it's time to think anti-christ. Picture someone who appeals to both athiests & many of the devout (all faiths) and you will find yourself looking at the anti-christ.
No he didn't.
Before one can have a "healthy debate", one must be in possession of facts and the ability to comprehend what they read and what is true vs. a rumor.
Sorry, you are as wrong, and by harping on it your whole motive and credibility go bye-bye.
Hey, we're all allowed to have bad taste in something. I liked Beavis and Butthead and I watch the Anna Nicole show, and I'm a pretty nice person!
Your sources made the same mistake a lot of other people made: They heard "Ozzy Osbourne, White House, and dinner" and jumped to the conclusion that President Bush invited OO to dinner at the White House, when what happened is that Greta VS invited him to a dinner sponsored by the media at the Marriott.
That said, this article raises one interesting point that I have been thinking about recently: "The more honest someone is upfront, the less I trust them; what better way to hide stuff then to be completley honest about everything outsiders have access. Overload them with worthless information so they overlook the important issues laying just under the surface.
It is an idea I have been working on in my personal life to keep my private life, private.
Just a thought.
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.