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.
Oh yes. Hillary wouldn't send out her comrades without some training in subversive hostilites.
If we react to these "hooks" with emotion, they'll have us good. The key is to hit them with TRUTH.
Again, and again and again.
I played many rounds with "them" in the Pre-2000 election and I guess my little rest is about over.
I think we Freepers better get going to my local gym and get in shape for the 2004 election! :)
My Post to the post - I confess I have never watched the Osbournes - but can't imagine I would want to pollute my mind and home with that kind of stuff. Now, however, it is a far cry from hating someone and just not wishing to watch, thereby supporting and perpetuating such trash. Just my thought.
Now you find any criticism of Pres. Bush in that. Like I said - get a grip.
Please reread - I didn't say he had a picture made at the WH - please read first - the attacks can wait believe me.
Who did go to the WH? I don't have time to check it out now - but I am sure you have the absolute truth of the matter. But please read my posts before jumping - this is the second time.
If you don't have an answer or would rather not - just ignore my posts. I asked what would you have said about Clinton in the same situation? If you don't want to answer - fine -
Actually, I would suggest you read the None-Dare-Question-Bush posters and tell me who is emotional, for goodness sakes.
You tell me you would have had the same response to Clinton under exactly the same situation. Oh, yes, as one person did tell me once - but Bush is a good guy! I did forget that one.
Oh sure, of course he is, just like Raquel Welch is my grandma too....I pity this writer, more than I can express at this time.I'll have to read the whole thread tomorrow,that should be glorious.
Whether the article has any merit or not - before everyone gets to screaming and carrying on - read the article. It was asking why no one was questioning Bush. Why can there never be a discussion about Bush on this site. Any question or discussion, unless it is just gushing praise - brings out the big guns and vile insults. The man is the President of the United States - he works for us - not the other way around. He is a man. He is a politician. Nothing more and nothing less. Sometimes I think there may be a little too much 'identifying' with the President.
I said the name plainly in the very post you are replying to:
Sami Al Arian
But please read my posts before jumping - this is the second time.
Yes, it is the second time you make a post and then deny the clear meaning. Another wide-eyed poster who makes charges then pretends otherwise. I'd ask what you meant by all of this then:
Just imagine if Clinton was in office when 9/11 occurred and a picture of him at a fund raiser with someone who was on the watch list and later charged? (not sure what his status is) - What would have been said by the Republicans? The why or wherefor would not have mattered - but if it had been Clinton - he would have been guilty per the Republicans and innocent per the Democrats - that doesn't speak well for this country.
But I don't expect a straight answer.
George W. Bush is a male, he is the PResident of the United States - that is all. Now he may be a dreamboat for some women and a yardstick for some men. But to a lot of us - he is just a man. Maybe more manly than some - and less than others. He is not that special. This does frighten me - goodness gracious.
Sorry, that isn't the way it works here on FR. If an article is not just sugar sweet and sickening adoring about Bush - the writer will first be attacked, then the forum, then the one who posted it - then of course, anyone attempting to discuss it. They will be no discussion as such - just insults to the ones who might just question something Bush has said or did.
That would be great. I don't think he has much chance as big money would drown him but at least he might get his message out.
Duh! None of us knew that. Boy, is that right? Geesh.
You do understand that Bush is the only President we have right now don't you? You also understand he has been pushing amnesty since almost day one and it would have been a done deal if not for 9/11 - so now I think it will be done incrementally and without having to actually go before the people.
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.