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.
As I said to the other's - good grief - get a grip. Read the sentence - it meant he had supporters, followers, whathave you - reread it - with the intent of seeing what it said - not what you want it to say or what you thought it said.
I stand by the entire statement-----
I don't believe anyone as intelligent and rational as you are (and I mean that sincerely) would do something so utterly foolish, and harmful to this great country that we both love.
I'll be so glad when the mind-control satellites are updated with mind-reading capabilities. The aliens say it will be a few more years, but I think they're just holding out for us to offer more love slaves.
Sorry you don't like it that Bush's supporters on here are reasonable and not manipulable with unlikely scenarios, surely you can find other people on FR who are to talk with.
What is false is the notion that Bush is somehow evil, or supports anything of the kind.
BTW, I love Black Sabbath! One of the greatest bands ever!
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Fair enough - I am not quite ready - but if he doesn't do something about the borders and illegal immigration soon and I mean really soon - I don't know.
I do think you are giving this some thought and not just throwing out insults and I appreciate that.
The things I care about such as immigration, land use (which is very scary) and I was not pleased with his actions post 9/11 - but that remains to be seen - maybe it will work out right and he was doing what was best - just can't see it. I don't like some of the powers that are being even more concentrated in the federal government. I still don't know what John Ashcroft was doing here in Texas to kick of a Texas bill regarding no parole for gun crimes (whatever that might be). That should be strictly a state matter - nothing to do with WAshington. It would seem he had plenty to do in WAshington - why is he participating in a state matter?
The disagreements I have with President Bush are really biggies - they concern our very existance as free citizens, a free country, or even a sovereign nation at all. We can overcome the things Clinton did, I think. But if we loose the country and allow a foreign nation to dictate our laws and continue to destroy American citizens to support foreign citizens, leave our borders open for anything and anyone to come across - while we use precious manpower and resources to 'teach a lesson' to any citizen who would try to do something on their own - those things can't be fixed for generations to come.
As for land use, I either heard or read a statement from Pres. Bush saying kind things about the program that is setting aside land so it can't be developed and after a certain period of time will revert to some organization. I assume that is the nature conservancy - don't know for sure. If you take away our ability to own private property, (and taking it out of circulations, so to speak, does that) , especially land, we are no longer a free nation.
People are thrilled with Pres Bush because we won the war - I don't have an opinion whether we should have gone or not. That Hussein was a madman, I have no doubt. That the world is better off that he is out of there, I have no doubt. Just wish we knew where he is. But that we could win a war with Iraq never was a question in my mind. I just could not understand why you would go around the world to fight a madman that might/probably had some connection to Al Queda when we have ME men paying 35,000 to cross the American border and we aren't doing anything substantive about it.
As I said, my misgivings about PResident Bush are biggies. It is good he professes his faith, it is good he appears to be faithful to his wife, he won a war with Iraq. I know there have been some arrests here, haven't heard what is going on with them. They are making some foreigners register - I think they should make them all like they once did. I do like his stance on partial birth abortion - now that's a biggie. - but I want other big things taken care of - the things that are a threat and are eating away at us each and every day. That is what makes me wince when I see people not willing to question Pres. Bush on anything. It nice they think he is a good man, a family man, a Christian man - but this country has many of those - I want a man to have the backbone to be willing to take it on the chin to do what is right and cleaning out this country and allowing Americans to once again work is a big, big necessity if we are to survive.
One of the things that does frighten me is the rhetoric in support of Pres. Bush (yourself excluded) is almost a verbatim to the remarks made by Clinton supporters.
YOu want to run that one by me again?
I have no distaste for the President - read that - just for some of his actions or inactions. I don't like many of the things he does - I respect the office of the Presidency. Now other than love for another human being, I just never thought 'love' entered into the picture.
Why wouldn't the troops show respect for the President? What exactly does that have to do with anything? So no one should question what he does? What in the world are you trying to say?
I thought it was Molly Ivins that coined 'shrub' - not me either.
Please make some sense.
I don't see why it should frighten you. To me, it's not the support, but the object of it that matters. It's not People Liked Clinton + People Liked Bush = Bush is the Same as Clinton.
Just doesn't compute.
You're welcome.
No, No, No. That's not what I said or even near what I meant. But Pres. Bush is a politician - he has tremendous power - he has the power to do great things or terrible things. The rhetoric bothers me because I wonder should suddenly he begin to do bad things, would anyone question him? I think there are many who would not and that frightens me.
Now I just had a thought and I am very new to the give and take about politics on a national level. I admired Ronald Reagan - not because I think he did everything right - but because he made me and a lot of others feel that we were Americans again and that we were capable of doing for ourselves. He is the only President in my lifetime - Don't remember Roosevelt - but do remember Truman on - that I felt that way about, and a lot of other Americans did too. But I just did not see the gushing, adoration for him. I heard many nice things, many respectful things - but it seemed to me - it was respect and admiration only - and was kept in perspective. As I said, perhaps because I didn't communicate on a national level, and on sites like these.
My grandfather told of people talking that way about Roosevelt - and I saw it with Clinton - so I just assumed that was, forgive me, but the mindless following of Democrats - you know the ones they called 'yellow dog'. I have never, ever, in my life heard conservatives or Republicans speak in those, can't think of a better word, worshipful words - I just haven't. Now maybe that is the new way of speaking of political leaders and I just missed it - if so, I apologize - but I was really shocked when I first read Republicans uttering them. As I said, maybe my age is showing, maybe it is my naivete, or just my lack of knowledge about political thought on a national level.
We country people just always seemed to have a little healthy distrust of politicians - perhaps that is dead.
You REALLY don't understand what I was saying? Really?? Wow! (btw, how old are you, anyway?)
You have nailed everyone to the wall who defends the President as 'worshiping' him or being 'blind followers.' I'm just trying to get you to be consistent in your accusations.
The troops don't just RESPECT him.....they LOVE him, whether you understand that or not. If you watched their reaction to him on Thursday, it should have made you furious that anyone was showing a politician so much 'blind' adoration.
btw, why don't you go back and read your own posts, nanny, trying to be objective, if you are able, and you will see how quick you were to make false accusations of (many) others with no cause whatsoever. And while you're at it look at how hyper sensitive you are about what others observe about you (from your own posts).
You are one of those poor souls who dishes it out liberally, but can't take it.....even in small doses.
Oh, and I am sorry about the 'shrub' line. I just thought the post about your being Ann Richards was pretty funny.........she shares your 'distaste' for the President. :o)
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.