Is Bush the Antichrist?

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.

OK....let's be factual here. In the first place, I didn't come up with that theory, I just agreed with it.......and the fact that it was on the DU first backs that up.

I've read a lot of your posts and you obviously have a problem with this President, and distort what those of us who respect and admire him say, and look on us with condescension, so, while this is probably a waste of time to do this, I will take this article point by point.

Number 1 - appointing qualified homosexuals to certain posts is not even remotely related to the xlintonian pro-gay agenda position. Besides which, it would be against the law (like it or not) to disqualify them on the basis of their sexual preferences. And have you noticed any love for this President coming from gay groups? I don't THINK so.

Number 2- Xlinton was pro-death to unborn babies. President Bush values life to the point where he is despised by abortion groups. He stopped new embryonic research and addressed the embryos as LIFE....something never done by a President. In addition, he has taken multiple steps to change our culture back to a culture of life. Another preposterous comparison.

Number 3 - Israel will experience more peace with a Palestinian state than they are now. President Bush knows scripture and prays for wisdom every day. I'm praying for the same......maybe you should consider that yourself.

Number 3 - No one is crying about his immigration policies??? The author obviously has never been NEAR Free Republic.

Number 4 - Ozzie Ozbourne at the WH....preposterous theory to begin with, that the President could be the antiChrist because of this, but it has been proven untrue.

The article is absurd, irresponsible, and dangerous, and you are neither logical nor wise to defend it.

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.

Maybe an analogy would help. What if we posted an article that was fully refuted over a year ago whose title was "Is Nanny's Husband Still Beating Her and Does He Have Good Reason for Doing So"? Then the article proceeded to talk about a recent trip you had made to the hospital and suggested it was for the beating you were given when in fact it was for childbirth.

The title has two wrong premises. One that your husband has been beating you and two that he may have had good reason for doing so. Neither of those would reflect well on you or your family but according to you, the poster only asked a question, why the fuss?

The article then goes on to talk in detail about your recent trip to the hospital and focuses on your blood loss, trauma, and pain but neglected to mention that you were giving birth, not suffering from a beating. That is like suggesting that someone was invited to the White House by the President of the United States because they attended a White House Correspondents Association Dinner at the Marriott where the President was an invited guest.

And what if after over 300 posts where the errors in the original article are explained in detail the poster and his friends continue to argue that you were beaten by your husband and the proof of that was your recent trip to the hospital?

Now sure there are things that could be debated in the article about Bush. As further proof of the fact that Bush was morally deficient like Klintoon, Baldwin says that Bush appointed gays high levels within his administration and that he approved the murder of little babies because he agreed to a compromise on stem cell research.

First of all as I said some 150 posts back. Bush hasnt appointed any gay to a high level post within the government unless that person is still in the closet. The few gays that he has nominated were to low level spots comparable to special assistant to the assistant secretary for Latin American Affairs. These people dont make policy and they certainly dont make it on gay related issues. And Bush didnt appoint them because they were gay, he appointed them because they had the skills and knowledge to do the job.

Similarly 150 posts or so back, I pointed out that the country was split 50-50 on stem cell research. Some, including high level Republicans, wanted the research for medical gains that were going to occur as a result. Others were aghast that these frozen cells would be used for research rather than just destroyed as they normally were. Bush's compromise to allow medical research on existing stem cells but not to create new stem cell lines was a reasonable decision. It certainly didnt deserve the suggestion that he was a secret baby killer.

Does any of this make it clearer to you why the poster got the reaction he did?

TV and national papers are where you hear the LEFT howling about how rough Bush is on the poor illegals and how wrong it is to do something so minor as to require people here on student visas to actually prove they attending classes. Any time the slightest effort is made to stem the tide, or keep track of people who should damned well be tracked, or deny illegals in-state tuition at colleges, you will be able to find oodles of sob stories masquerading as news stories. You can read those right here, no need to subscribe to anything.

If you meant "protest" as in on the streets, well, you're not going to get organized "protests" of much size on this issue from the right; we're just not like the peaceniks (there was one that the NY Chapter did, which I did not attend, but from the report I gathered there was a surprising amount of "yes, we have to get a handle on this immigration thing", even in a hard-left city like NY). The shouting from the right is mainly on talk (Sean Hannity is for pretty much closing the borders, Michael Savage is too I believe but I don't get to listen to him very often) and Bill O'Reilly believes we need the army down there.

The problem is that there's a division among conservatives on immigration. I was at C-PAC this year and happened in on a panel discussion featuring Grover Norquist and Michelle Malkin, and I will just say it's a good thing no alcohol was served at the event. People were primed to come to blows as it was. The large crowd clearly had a majority in favor of border controls, and when Grover made a bleeding heart speech about how "we're all immigrants" (a rather liberal ploy to make us all back off, IMO), the audience got downright hostile. I was quite disappointed in Grover.

But I came away with the impression that far more were on the "anti" side of the immigration issue, and they're pissed, and they want something done. Just a matter of time.

I will ping you if I see anything of interest.

The article is meritless, IMO. I could go through it line by line to show you all the poison pills, if you insist, but the effort would be bestowing a bit too much merit on the thing. Besides you've read it, so I'm sure they leap right off the page at you too. Their existence, and their deliberate inclusion (because an author is responsible for the words he chooses), cuts the merit right out of anything he has to say.

But I don't think it was written for any reason other than to provoke an emotional reaction from his target audience. That's the conclusion I'm left with, after reading it several times. I don't believe it was asking "why is no one questioning Bush" so much as "why isn't everyone treating Bush like Clinton", and Baldwin very ineffectively sets up false comparisons between the two as his only evidence for his premise -- which is, of course, that Bush is probably even worse than Clinton because conservatives like him. By that standard, Reagan was even more dangerous.

And I am not a Bushbot, you can ask anyone. But it's kind of pointless to debate charges that are distorted or just plain inaccurate, even along general principle points like "what if it was Clinton doing this instead of Bush?" If Bush hasn't done it, there's no point in what-iffing.

OK - then let's really get factual here. I haven't commented on anything Bush did that was mentioned in the articles. You are right I have serious problems with some of the actions of the President. I have serious problems when supposedly thinking Americans follow anyone blindly and in lockstep and spend a lot of time spinning things into absurdity to try to make what he does seem right.

Now as I said - the article to me said - 'everyone asked is Bill Clinton is the anti-Christ - but no one has asked about Pres. Bush'. Whether you like it or not - that is probably factual. I know a lot of people discussed that - but I haven't heard anyone say it about Pres. Bush. Now it is a dopey article and I didn't actually look at it in terms of the actual anti-christ, but in terms of a double standard. He named some things - I didn't. I simply asked, and have before, that some thinking Republicans just think how they would have reacted if a fund raising picture of Clinton with a 'possible' terrorist had shown up. I did not mention those things. The only answer I have every gotten - is but Bush is a good man. That's no answer. He is a man. He does some things that are wrong. He does some things that are destructive.

But stick with me here - I haven't commented on any of the things in the article. I only mentioned Osbourne in response to another poster who said their parents were Christians and watched it. I can't imagine anyone wanting to bring that into their homes. You see - nothing - not one teeny thing in my statement about Bush.

Now I know you feel you need to post insults to anyone who doesn't worship the President - and if you want to slam anything I have said - use what I said - don't grab something out of thin air just so you can say something nasty.

But you are right - it frightens me that so many on here seem to think this man walks on water and could do absolutely no wrong. That's very scary thinking in a citizenry.

So you see, taking the article point by point was a waste of time - because my posts had nothing to do with the items in the article - so maybe you have me confused with someone else on that score.

"As for the tinfoil " globalist " garbage, you're just repeating the GREEN party line; being a " useful idiot " for a group of people you should loathe, as a Conservative."

Your lack of foresight and information is staggeringly appalling. Your ilk lay the charge "tin-foil" when you are blind to trends and the elephant in the living room.

The GREENs hate globalisim for economic reasons, globalism should be hated by consitutional conservatives because of it's degredation of sovereignty.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that natives from Mexico to the tip of Cape Horn are anti-American, as well as Canada. If recent events havn't made that clear to you then it's you that is the useful idiot. Remember after 9-11 Mexicans celebrating in the street and street vendors hawking Ben Laden masks and t-shirts?

Yet we have a President that wants to place us hip deep in these anti-American marxists who will be given the rights of citizens, and in many, many, far too many states that also includes the right to vote. Already in Texas whole areas are ready to be challenged by Mexican politicians ready to make a grab for congress. Texas is going the way of California, it is a domino effect. How do you think these anti-American communists will vote? Conservative? Already we have 50 members of the U.S. Congress that are known members of Socialists of America. Your blindness will insure a whole lot more of them.

I don't know what state you live in, but you need your nose rubbed in the problem. It will matter nothing what puny conservative gains are made by Bush or any other Republican President, when they will eventually be easily wiped out when our votes are negated. Tancredo is the only one with the brians and the guts to face up to it. I'm for writing in a man that actually deserves my vote unless Bush makes it clear he and the Party have changed directions on the part of "Free Trade Globalism" that includes open borders, floods of illegals, and citizenship rights for them.

We are being destroyed by two ploys, "Free Trade", and a phoney "compassion" that seeks to destroy America and it's freedoms. Wake the heck up.

Dave S, I agree with you. I think you have misunderstood me. I am for Bush. I was sounding the alarm that the notion that Bush might possibly morph into the antichrist due to his position of power in the world is becoming widespread, and could damage his Christian base of support. I tried to point out that Bush may be a powerful political leader, but he does not fit other biblical descriptions of antichrist.

Bush has used the enormous power of our military, but to what end? In order to rule the world? Or to liberate the Iraqi people?

The protype of antichrist in the bible is Antiochus Ephiphanes. A political animal, a moral pervert, a Bill Clinton type individual. Antiochus used the military to exalt himself and his pagan, humanistic, one world religion. He despised anybody who had devout faith in God, and he persecuted them. None of which fits Bush.

Does any of this make it clearer to you why the poster got the reaction he did?

Once again, I don't think anyone read my posts. They just read that I am question the President - often - so that was enough.

You wasted a lot of space on you reply - since I never commented on any of those particular things in regard to Bush. I posted on the nature of the double standard in judging Clinton and judging Bush.

Someone has told me that the watch list terrorist never made it to the WH - I will have to check that out, for my self. But really by the time you check something out and get back - no one is reading.

My question if you had seen a picture of Bill Clinton with a terrorist on the watch list at a Democratic fundraiser and he had been President during 9/11 - what would your reaction have been? No answers - just silence on that score. Now I thought - and still do - that the man was invited and came to the WH - someone has said no - I will check it out so won't m ake that assertion - but I saw the picture so unless someone is going to tell me it was a doctored photo, I will accept the picture. Now what would your reaction have been? Don't atttack me for goodness sakes, I just asked a question. I have received two, so far, with a long list of the points in the article and refutation of them. I never commented on either of the articles in connection with the President.

Now stick with me here - in response to a post that said their parents were Christians and they watched Osbourne - I replied I didn't know why anyone would want to pollute their home and mind with such. Some of the Pres. Bush rabid supporters someone twisted that into Osbourne int he WH - far from it.

Now I do have a problem with those who believe this President can do no wrong - that frightens me - it is so dangerous to be so blind. We need to always be a little cynical about someone we have given the job of running this country. That is our job - not to blindly follow. That is falling down on the job.

If you want to debate me on what I said - please do that - but just on what I said - not what you thought I said - not what you need to pull out of thin air so you can support the PResident.

I did not comment on anything in this article in relation to Bush. My comment on Osbourne was about some Christian family watching it.

My other question, and I have asked it many times, (with no answers) is what if Clinton had done this? No there is nothing wrong with what-iffing - it is a very good way to examine your actions or your stand on things. Are you treating President Bush with a double standard? It would be natural for most any Republican to give the President a little leeway - but for some - it is a mindless repetition of blind loyalty.

As I said there is a very good reason for what-iffing - it makes you take a good, hard look at your actions and thoughts. It might be quite painful - but it is a good thing. If it is possible for some to do it - it might open some eyes - I don't think it is possible.

It is simply saying am I judging President Bush by the same standard I did Clinton? For many, the answer is decidedly NO - that is scary - I don't understand it.

We don't have to "what if", clinton was pictured with lots of criminals and spies. The difference was that their company was sought and encouraged by the clinton administration, not so with the Bush administration.

There is no comparison.

Also, in my post #382 I explained that al-Arian went to the WH (in June 2001---that would be BEFORE 9/11 please note), did not meet with President Bush, and the photo you are thinking of was taken during the presidential campaign and was taken before President Bush became president. The picture, by the way, was taken in Florida at a strawberry festival.

But I came away with the impression that far more were on the "anti" side of the immigration issue, and they're pissed, and they want something done. Just a matter of time.

That is pretty much the way I have seen it played out. I do see the 'poor little illegals', 'the illegals add so much', 'the illegals paid upteen billions in unclaimed taxes',etc. Now this is what I read here on FR!!!

I did not know Sean Hannity was speaking to it. I haven't listened to him in a while and I had never heard him mention it. That is encouraging because he seems so calm. I have never heard Michael Savage, my husband listens to him in his car, and I do know Bill O'Reilly has taken a stand. Now the last two, while I am ever so grateful because they might spur the conservatives to speak up. So many conservatives are quiet and nice and kind and they have been made to feel by the media AND A LOT OF POSTERS ON THIS SITE that you are just an old bad nasty if you say anything about the detrimental effects of illegal immigration. But to have Sean Hannity speaking is also encouraging. He seems a little calmer and maybe he will get to the meeker ones on the anti-side. How does Rush LImbaugh stand on it?

I think our real problem is the White House. I don't think the big contributors, therefore, the President intend to really do anything about it - so the WH is where a lot of pressure needs to be brought.

But thanks, do let me know if you hear anything encouraging - I just cannot understand why it hasn't just exploded on the national scene. It must take a lot of effort to keep this as hidden it is. It effects, badly, so many areas of our country -

Thanks

We need to always be a little cynical about someone we have given the job of running this country.

It is one thing to by skeptical, another to take stories and twist them and then present those as your reasons for not trusting President Bush.

You accuse people who correct the record by presenting facts as "thinking the president can do no wrong". That is rather extreme. It is that President Bush has earned the trust (not blind faith) of many and he has demonstrated he operates from an honorable base. Your hints of some sinister motive similar to clinton's clearly corrupt way of doing business falls by the wayside.

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.