Barack Obama is trying to copycat the Antichrist/Mahdi

OK first of all, Obama is not a Muslim. He was sworn into office on the Bible. Not only the Bible, but his own personal Bible: http://www.politifact.com... He was not "raised in Islam". In fact he wasn't raised in much of a religious household at all. His own autobiography states that his mother (who raised him since Dad was absent) was far more interested in bringing him up with liberal politics than any religion. http://www.ontheissues.org... -As to my point that there have been plenty of religious leaders who reject Christ, you stated the following: "Not that had their followers bow to an image who are commanded and do execute Christians by beheading. The followers of Antichrist in Revelation bow to an image, behead Christians, and renounce Jesus Christ. " Forcing others to bow to an image, behead Christians, and renounce Jesus Christ was the basic methodology for every Roman leader for the first couple hundred years of the Christian religion. OK, not all were beheaded. Many were fed alive to lions. When it came to persecuting Christians, Muhammad wasn't fit to clean Nero's sword (or his fiddle for that matter). https://en.wikipedia.org... -Let's move on to your claim that Obama's foreign policy somehow indicates he's the antichrist courtesy of Daniel 11:43. Here's the actual text: "But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels." 1. Obama has gained no control over "hidden treasures of gold and silver". If anything, since the government has abandoned the gold standard and Obama is racking up debt (and thereby devaluing the dollar) he's losing gold, not discovering hidden treasure troves of it. 2. The Libyans are definitely not "following at his heels". If anything they hate him. 3. How exactly does Ethiopia pertain to Obama? He's had virtually no high-profile foreign policy regarding that country. So Daniel 11:43 doesn't apply here. -"They never went after North Africa in aggression, cause an Islamic invasion of Europe, or be declared as some type of "world savior". Obama did" 1. No, they were just accused of war crimes and shady financial dealings 2. This is far from the first time the Islamic world has attempted to invade Europe. 3. No one is declaring Obama a "world savior". That includes Obama. -"I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest." This is just ridiculous. Show me a picture of Obama on a white horse, wearing a crown and holding a bow. Unless of course it's not meant to be taken literally, in which case it could apply to any number of people. Richard the Lionheart would probably be a better fit since he actually HAD a white horse, crown, and bow. Also Obama's foreign policy has been to avoid fights. He's retreating, not conquering anybody. -"The Antichrist attempts to rule the world." You made this point in regard to my pointing out that even IF Obama became the Secretary General of the UN it doesn't mean he's the Antichrist. The SG/UN's powers are fairly limited. Just ask Ban-Ki Moon. You've been reading the Left Behind books too much. A couple more points you made: "All whites on Earth are descendents of the Roman Empire. Obama's mother is white. " First of all, not all whites are descendants of the Roman Empire. The Romans never conquered Russia, Scandinavia, or most of Britain. People (white people) from all three eventually ended up in America. And even if your statement were true, it would mean that anyone with a Caucasian ancestor would have as much claim on being the Antichrist as Obama. So this point is moot (not to mention wrong). The problem with your argument is that you need to show intent by Obama to establish himself as both the Antichrist and the Madhi when in reality his ineptitude and massive failures are a result of his left-wing extremist political ideologies. He's certainly a bad President (possibly the worst in our nation's history) but everything he does can be much more logically traced to the fact that he's a left-wing radical intent on establishing government control over every aspect of our lives. He's far from the first totalitarian dictator the world has known, and as bad as he is there have been far worse in the last two millennia. Everything you've established to further your point that he's somehow trying to be a religious figure could be equally applied to many other historical figures (Hitler knew a thing or two about religious oppression and invading North Africa, for example). On a side note, I'm not usually a grammar or spelling stickler, but it's spelled "emulate" not "imulate".