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.
Obviously.
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.
Nobody here thinks President Bush walks on water, and you negated any possible point you made with the above ludicrous statement (in bold).
I didn't insult you, as you have insulted everyone on this thread who doesn't share your distaste for the President. I just called you illogical and unwise........which you are.
The article didn't question Bush's faith in Christ did it? 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.
I thought you wanted a discussion within the context of the Chuck Baldwin article, and in that context I still say there's no point in what-iffing something Bush has not in fact done. Because he hasn't done it.
But if you want to do an off-topic purely hypothetical "what if", I guess I'll play. I'll go back and see exactly what your question was.
I wasn't talking about the Osbornes either, in my last reply. It's a petty matter (like the world would really come to an end if either Clinton or Bush had invited him right into the White House, imagine) and my only point in discussing it previously, in the context of this article, was that I simply couldn't understand why Chuck Baldwin would devote two whole paragraphs out of eight - yes, a whopping 25% - to bemoaning an event that never happened. And the answer kept coming back "to inflame". That leads naturally to questions about the motive to inflame, and sure enough, the other comparisons drawn to Clinton are revealed to be false in some cases and a real stretch in others.
It's the other accusations that are more important, so it's even more puzzling why he chose the Ozzy thing as his "big finish" in the article. Unless, as I said earlier, Baldwin just wanted to leave an image with his reader of a tattooed, foulmouthed, drug-addled rock star from a band with a satanic name pissing all over the Lincoln bedroom, with Bush's approval. Whether it happened or not.
Once I noticed that I was being propagandized, it put everything else in question, and made it impossible to take any part of the article at face value. And equally impossible to take seriously. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Again, I have been addressing myself to the article itself up to now, so apologies if I misunderstood what you were after.
I did not say he did anything wrong - never. I was just asking that everyone take a step back and examine their own judgement. But many aren't willing to use the same standard to judge Pres. Bush that you did Clinton. It would be a very good form of self-examination. To follow blindly is a scary thing.
Let me tell you for the third time - THIRD TIME - I did not say the picture was taken at the WH - I said it was taken at a fundraiser. Did you read any of my posts - I said FUNDRAISER - NOT WH.
The article I read said that he had come to the WH with a group of ME men - this was apart from the fundraiser. I didn't know the Bushes had fundraisers in the WH. Do they? They were two seperate and different occurrences. If you say he did not come to the WH I will check that out, but I saw the photo - and again what would you have said about Clinton.
But you know being a criminal is far different from being a part of a terrorist network that attack the US and killed 3,000 people. Surely you see that difference. You just made my point. Clinton has picture taken with criminal and that is same as having it taken with someone of a terrorist organization. YOu know, and I know you do, just reverse the men, and everyone on this site would still be screaming for his head. Whether anything wrong was done or not.
.So read the post - then reply. Please don't interpret what I say. I speak plain English (well Texan anyway).
Really no apologies necessary - but thanks very much.
I was wanting comment on the double standard in judging the two - not the particulars of the article.
Distaste? Kinda strong to use just because one actually questions some actions of the man we have hired to run this country. Distaste? That is my point. Question the President - disagree with the President and you better watch out - it translate in to 'distaste' - I don't know that anyone has accused me of hating him yet - that will probably come. I have no distaste for him - I have questions. And I have asked others to do some questioning. That is my right and my duty as a citizen. You surely wouldn't deny me those rights, would you?
Perhaps worship is too strong - but really I think I will begin to keep a file of all the gushy remarks about the President - truly it is mind boggling.
I haven't twisted anything. I haven't accused Pres. Bush of anything. I simply asked how would you have felt if Clinton had done it. It was an observation and question and by the way - I got no answers. No, I twisted nothing -
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.
There was no hint of any sinister motive - that must have been someone else or something you read into it. I simply asked that you take some circumstances (one you say didn't happen, I will check )and insert another person into those circumstances and ask yourself self how I would have reacted to it. The telling thing is - no one can answer it.
You think President Bush has earned your loyalty - he hasn't earned mine - in fact just the opposite. Perhaps it is because we have differing views on what is important and perhaps he has achieved what you wanted done. He hasn't for me - in fact - he has done just the opposite - so yes, I question him.
But I don't care how much faith he has earned - it is dangerous to take on face value what any politician does and that is what he is - a politician. We need to keep that in mind.
The event to which you refer was not an "invite only", it was a strawberry festival. No, the Republican party did not seek him out and invite him. You mixed up your comparisons and certainly implied pictures and who should have known what, etc. when taking your stand that clinton is judged one way and President Bush another.
I have excellent comprehension ability and your protestations that you didn't mean this and didn't say that speak for themselves. I've read your posts and completely understand what you are saying: But many aren't willing to use the same standard to judge Pres. Bush that you did Clinton. It would be a very good form of self-examination. To follow blindly is a scary thing. Nonsense.
God has absolute power. What exactly are you trying to say???
My money's on Hillary!™...
Bill and Hillary Clinton have been working to destroy this nation since before the Vietnam War Era when both of them actively apread Communist Propaganda to undermine the United States efforts to defeat the spread of communism.
They may have wormed their way into the White House, and now the Senate, but this does not negate their ultimate plans to topple our Free Land.
For a clue to their true motives...see here what they named their daughter...
Chelsea Victoria Clinton
"Shall-See Victory"
Your mistake is seeing the Clinton's as just "two more" government employess...
Open your eyes, the government they pledge allegence to isn't the United States of America.
That pretty well does it for me.
So many people try to interject all kinds of agendas into it - but it is just a matter of survival - if I let anymore in this lifeboat - my children and grandchildren will drown. It is just that simple.
The point I try to make to people is we can help them on their side of the border much cheaper than we can here. We won't destroy our country in the process. If we send them home now - they are richer, healthier, and better educated than when they came. So they have lost nothing, actually gained.
If we don't send them home and get a grip on this country, we will go down - we won't be able to help anyone - including ourselves.
Very profound. Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton plays us like the Snake-Charmer she is.
Hillary = Bait-And-Switch
And America gets suckered again.
No, it is not that simple. One must consider the character of the persons involved and not one event in isolation, but the context and preceding and future events involving, say a person who ends up getting arrested for suspected terrorist activities. Clinton cultivated such ties, President Bush did not. The fact that a picture was taken of Al Arian and his family with then candidate Bush and his wife does not show any equivalence.
Your accusation that the event and others has not been discussed, considered and examined by Bush supporters is wrong. There is no merit to your constant refrains of "blind faith".
Your questions have been answered here and you don't care for the facts. That seems to indicate a distaste.
My reaction would have been "It F***KING figures!", naturally, but that reaction would also have been predicated on eight years of previous bad acts, in the fundraising department alone - which I would not have had in 2001 with Bush.
Even Clinton received a year's grace period from me before I was forced to admit that he was an even WORSE president than I could ever have imagined in my wildest dreams, and I can imagine a lot...
But I digress. Rage level on above scenario? I'd give it a seven. Higher than the Buddhist temple, lower than the wholesale pardoning of ACTUAL FALN terrorists during his wife's election bid.
Questions I would still have asked, even if it was Clinton in a nightmarish third term in 2001, because they are pertinent - 1. How much money did the terrorist sumbitch donate? 2. What's the nature of the acquaintance? 3. Did the donor appear to GET anything out of the ordinary for his donation in terms of access or 4. Was he merely a face in the crowd or a body on the handshake line when the picture was snapped?
And yes I would still give Clinton that benefit of the doubt until those questions were settled. He nearly alwasys "sank" to the occasion just as expected, but I'm just a stickler for accuracy. Besides, there was enough "real" stuff to pin on the guy without reaching for phantoms.
If you're trying to ask whether I would be outraged if a person on the FBI watchlist turned out to be a major Bush donor and that Bush could not have helped knowing the donor's watchlist status and the reasons for it at the time of the fundraiser, yet courted the donor and his money anyway, the answer is yes. And if there was any lying involved after the disclosure, I'd draw the inevitable comparison to his predecessor.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton are working overtime to destroy America.
Regardless of what prompts them into action (be it power, greed, revenge, orders-from-hell) the truth is they are on a mission.
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.