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.

We were all relieved and jubilant - no gushing. I guess we were raised differently.

Men most certainly "gushed" over Reagan, in their own fashion. Deal with it. I could say they "kvelled" (if you're familiar with the Yiddish term) for the entire eight years Reagan was in office and it would mean the same thing. There was not merely respect for the man, but also sincere gratitude and affection. No need to quibble over adjectives. That's how they felt. It did not lessen their manhood, it did not mean they were worshipping him, it did not mean they were following blindly. It didn't mean anything except that they really, really, really liked the man. He gave them reason to like him.

We were taught politicians were our employees and that to be a good employer, we should keep our eye on them. I have never felt any politician, President on down was worth of adoration, or love (except as a human being, one of God's creations) - perhaps I owe these people an apology - I just thought all conservatives and Republicans were like the ones I knew. Very tough taskmasters and very independent people.

Having positive feelings about a president does not necessarily lessen one's toughness or reduce one's independence.

Believe me when I tell you I thought the 'gushing' adoration, love, that was directed at Clinton was just Democratic nonsense.

It was. Again, I refer to the object the feelings were bestowed upon, and the reason for bestowing them. The feelings in themselves are rather value-neutral. I don't believe in moral equivalence, so the existence of similar feelings in both cases does not constitute "the same thing".

People who loved equality of outcome, catering to the lowest common denominator, multiculturalism, and on down the list of things I hate adored Clinton. Hell, they probably got big old lumps in their throats when Clinton and his 67-million-dollar entourage of parasites sailed into Vietnam with our flag lowered. The people that secretly or openly want America brought down to her knees just loved the guy, because he was giving them what they wanted. And he gave it to them over and over and over, while thumbing his nose at the rest of us.

I really thought the Republicans were an aberration - that is amazing.

Some Republicans are fairly giddy about Bush, for the same reason some people were giddy about Clinton -- because he is giving us some of what WE want. It does not mean it's the same thing! As I said, I don't believe in moral equivalence. Bush's agenda may not be all right, but Clinton's was objectively wrong.

Personally I could just kiss Bush on the face for picking a Secretary of State who will never, ever go dancing with Kim Jong Il (and I don't even like Powell) I was so sick of that crop of losers in Clinton's cabinet that I could have died. But are you sure? How long would it be before some people would begin asking questions? What do you think it would take to make them ask questions?

You persist in the assumption that no one "asks questions". I'm starting to think that when you say "ask questions" you really mean "renounce him because we're not supposed to like him so much". If so, the answer to "how long" and "what would it take" is the same --- he'd have to earn it, the same way he earned their respect.

Do you think people who post on these forums are different from people who don't post here? I find that I am not that different from other REpublicans, or conservatives, I know.

Why yes, they're different. Because unless they're plugged into a large acquaintance of conservative people some other way, they're isolated. Not much of a problem in the Red Zone, where most people have common sense. Big problem in the Blue Zone, where the liberal/conservative ratio is laughably asymmetrical and which also happens to be where the power centers are, and where elections are stolen...

it a need to have a 'leader' or some such?

No, in my case it's a need for company. Before I got a computer I thought you could fit all the conservatives in Manhattan into one booth at a diner.

There are some things you just can't share with liberal co-workers, and in this city that's about all anyone has.

It's also a need for information, which I might not get otherwise, and a need to compare notes.

I'm asking for you thoughts - it isn't meant to be insulting

It isn't, unless you were intending to cast a slur upon my father for "adoring Ronald Reagan...

- but I have never felt I needed a 'leader' - I certainly never felt I needed a President to be a leader - I wasn't raised that way.

Again with the "raising".

Listen. The nation was designed to have a leader, so you do in fact need one. The question is what sort of leader. The people chose disastrously in the case of Clinton and much more wisely in the case of Bush. That doesn't make him a Tiffany diamond, it just makes him a HUGE step up.

If, when you say you don't need a leader, you really mean you don't need an idol, then I agree.

"and sending this country back on a road to total destruction."

We disagree on this point, we are still headed down the road to total destruction at break neck speed.

I see conservatives as being in a dark dangerous alley in a knife fight. We have three choices, be stabbed in the chest by democrats, stabbed in the back by Republicans, or we can turn on the Republicans with a shock and awe attack that makes them fearing the possibility of their own extinction.

Conservatives are not going to come out unscratched, but putting the fear in the Republican Party might cause them to finally fight the Democrats, and that is not going to happen on the path the party is on now.

The Republican Party, a la Rove, has charted it's path away from conservatives, they make no secret of it. So look at what we have now, RINO's in the Senate holding up any small progress. It does zip to elect the RINO's that the Party obviously prefers to put forward as candidates, it is winning us nothing.

What is the Republican agenda and how much of it have they been able to implement since the elections? The Democrats don't seem to have a problem installing their agenda in short order. We can't even get megerly conservative judges passed through the Senate.

I see no profit in being a slave on the plantation with no place to else to go. I don't know what profit there is to being a hard to handle independent, but someone needs to fight for the soul of the Republican Party.

I know you are going to say I am expecting too much too soon. We have a Republican President, House and Senate, when, then, can I expect much on the critical issues?

Both parties are riding hell bent for leather over the globalist, free trade, cliff. Both parties flaunt our immigration and sovereignty and have placed us hip deep in the astronomical costs of illegals with marxists histories that hate us, and who will eventually kill our votes. Both parties have subjected us to abusive U.N. agendas regarding our E.P.A., Agenda 21, local communities, resources, private property rights, while they vote against us on international affairs. There may have been a thrill in seeing Bush tweak their nose, but that appears to be the end of it, there will be no pull out from this nest of vipers. Neither party is concerned about the hemmorage of jobs and manufacturing in the name of free trade that has left us with a growing 8 to 10% unemployment. How about some Fair Trade?

The Democrat party likes all of the above and will do nothing about it. Those few conservative in the Republican Party can't do anything about it because they have to battle both RINO's and Democrats. We are still in serious trouble and it disturbs me that so many are so content right now with the status quo. Someone should make the Republicans fear losing a vote over these critical issues, so I guess that would be me.

Obviously you don't use the word 'love' lightly, and obviously you are offended by and look down on others who don't have your precise understanding of the word's usage (and do more than your share of 'lecturing' I might add).

I happen to say that I love pizza, and everyone I know understands what I mean by it........and not a single person has been offended by it that I know of (except you)........ just like everyone I know understands what I mean when I say I love this President.

They know that what I mean is that I love what he has done for this country, I love him as a brother in Christ, I love his honor and dignity, I love his love for and fidelity to his beautiful wife, I love that he is preaching abstinence to young people, talking about personal responsibility, and saving the lives of the unborn. I love that he respects the military (and those of us who sacrifice by having family members in the military), I love that he puts America first overseas, and that he is making the entire world safer because of his wise use of American strength abroad.

And frankly, I find it a bit odd that you cannot understand this at all.

I don't know if it's because those things aren't important to you......honor, dignity, respect, strength......or if you are hardened into thinking that NO politician can be an honorable person, or if it's just that you are so angry about immigrants around you, and the weak position he has taken on illegal immigration that it makes you dislike him so much that it doesn't matter to you what else he does that is good.

Regardless, I feel badly that you are going to spend eight glorious years angry because you 'can't understand' how deeply grateful millions of Americans are that God gave us this President, and that you will continue to misjudge and condemn good and thoughtful people because they use words differently than you do.

I'm sure you'll go on believing that you are superior to others, but I do sincerely hope that someday you'll wake up and see how petty and wrong you were.

In the mean time, my husband and I, my family and friends, will go on 'loving' President Bush, and being thankful for his life and service to the country we love.

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.