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 don't know what Chuck's excuse is, though. His article's dated a week later than the MTV article. Unless this is one of those deals where the next weeks article is actually released the previous week, like some magazines are. That is possible, I suppose.
My other beef is with this passage:
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.
First of all it's not true. That's all I hear on some days, not whispers but roars of protest. Immigration is one of Bush's weaker issues. Strangely, there are equally loud issues from the left whenever this administration takes the tiniest baby steps toward tightening up the borders or deporting anyone at all.
No matter. I would have no quarrel with Baldwin if he had merely said "but Bush could actually grant limited amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and there would not be the faintest whisper of protest." It would still be incorrect, IMO, (at least from the protest standpoint) but it would no longer be a deliberately untruthful statement. Amnesty had not been granted last April when it was written, and it hasn't been given since. It did not happen, but he writes as if it had.
Matthew, son, can you read?? That's not what I said.
What the article DOES is imply that Bush is no better than xlinton......doing the same things only absent the criticism from Christians. You DO see that don't you??
I mean if they're both in the running for the anti-Christ...... kind of 'even Steven' in this author's eyes, the unstated purpose is to make us think either that xlinton isn't as bad as we said he was, and/or that Bush is a whole lot worse.
It could very well be Rat inspired......but even if it's not, it has the same goal.....to make preposterous and evil accusations against a good man, and thus make a really evil man seem not so bad.
Keeping in mind that the dem debates are NOT prime time tonight, They will be when miss tragedy victim Hitlery appears.
It can't be done.
This author knew exactly what he was doing......to plant in the readers' minds that George W. Bush is evil, and then say he's not doing that.
No matter what one's political perspective is, this article is irresponsible.
You don't say. Hmm. I was wondering how this old article came to be resurrected here today...
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
You hear that, Matthew?? DU likes this garbage too!
::::shudders::::
OH you got it!!
Hillary is the ever-hated true-life abusive mother
wielding a wire hanger and a can of Ajax Cleanser as she
storms violently and intimidates innocent children
into running for cover!
America doesn't respect Hillary, the Media doesn't respect
Hillary, in truth, Hillary's power comes from Fear.
No one in authority stands up to Mommy because they fear
her.
And President Bush is the Father-Figure who is trying to
keep his Family (the Nation) on the right-path despite
the raving lunatic he's married to (Clinton
presidencys' past and future!).
Will WE, the children, side with Father or Mother?
WHO will Win Custody of America in 2004?
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.