Quarter of Republicans think Barack Obama is 'the Antichrist'

[xav]

One in four Republicans in America thinks President Barack Obama "may be the Antichrist," according to a startling new poll.

The survey showed that 24 per cent of Republican respondents agreed with the statement that the president might be the Antichrist, and 38 per cent thought he was "doing many of the things Hitler did."

According to the poll 67 per cent of Republicans thought President Obama was a socialist, 57 per cent thought that he was secretly a Muslim, 42 per cent believed he was "racist," and 61 per cent thought that he wants to abolish gun ownership.

It also found that 51 per cent of Republicans thought that he wants to turn over the US to a single world government, and 22 per cent believed "he wants the terrorists to win."

The poll was carried out by Harris Interactive in an online survey of 2,320 adults.

Overall, including Democrat respondents, it found that 40 per cent thought President Obama was a socialist, 32 per cent that he was a Muslim, and 25 per cent that he was not born in the United States.

The poll was carried out to measure extreme views following the publication of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America, a book by John Avlon.

Respondents were asked to say whether they believed various extreme statements about President Obama were true or false.

Mr Avlon said: "These new numbers are shocking but not surprising. This poll should be a wake-up call to all Americans about the real costs of using fear and hate to pump up hyper-partisanship.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7517186/Quarter-of-Republicans-think-Barack-Obama-is-the-Antichrist.html

:cantbeli: How can they be serious??? I mean come on now!!!

[Dominique]

OK, where did they conduct this poll? As teh results seem a bit, skewed to me. But I also remember a good little number of liberals thought GWB was the Antichrist.

[xav]

Here's the percentage breakdown of respondents' views of President Obama:

* 38 percent say he wants to take away Americans' right to own guns.
* 32 percent say he is a Muslim.
* 29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government.
* 29 percent think he has done many things that are unconstitutional.
* 27 percent say he resents America's heritage.
* 27 percent say he does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do.
* 25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president.
* 25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitutions speaks of.
* 23 percent say he is a racist.
* 23 percent say he is anti-American.
* 23 percent say he wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.
* 20 percent say he is doing many of the things that Hitler did.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/obama-anti-christ-100325.html

http://i42.tinypic.com/kalrgk.jpg

[xav]

OK, where did they conduct this poll? As teh results seem a bit, skewed to me. But I also remember a good little number of liberals thought GWB was the Antichrist.

"Poll conducted "online" within the US between..." see bottom of the chart picture.

That may be the problem. And I see how they are getting to their conclusions... Obiviously Democrats are less likely to answer "true" to any of these.

But regardless of the political sides... how somebody comes to the conclusion that he (or Bush for that matter) is muslim, racist, anti american, hitler or just the anti christ is beyond me.

[JBH22]

haha but i thought they use to target PUTIN for being the anti-christ

http://revelation13.net/Putin.html

[Zoomie]

"Poll conducted "online" within the US between..." see bottom of the chart picture.

That may be the problem. And I see how they are getting to their conclusions... Obiviously Democrats are less likely to answer "true" to any of these.

But regardless of the political sides... how somebody comes to the conclusion that he (or Bush for that matter) is muslim, racist, anti american, hitler or just the anti christ is beyond me.
And how you actually believe an online poll as being the truth is beyond me. . .

[budgie]

OK, where did they conduct this poll? As teh results seem a bit, skewed to me. But I also remember a good little number of liberals thought GWB was the Antichrist.

Actually they thought GWB was an A...well, something else beginning with A.

[muttbutt]

Actually they thought GWB was an A...well, something else beginning with A.
Arab?....aardvark?....atheist?.....abominable snowman?


don't leave us hanging man!!

[Scriptable]

Actually they thought GWB was an A...well, something else beginning with A.
Airsofter?

[IconOfEvi]

I dunno about that, but I do know this is true

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Nightmare24148/Funny%20and%20etc/GodsOfWarhammer.jpg

[Wimbly]

60% of Democrats think Bush let 9/11 happen, or was behind it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

[szr]

How can they be serious??? I mean come on now!!!I'm not particularly religious by any standard, and yet if presented with a poll that asked if I thought the President "was the anti-christ" I might just in fact answer in the affirmative for the sh*ts and giggles, alone. Sometimes goofy questions warrant a goofy answer. Sounds like you need to get out more.

[BlackFlag]

Online polls aren't the most accurate, or the most objective.

[Glaz]

60% of Democrats think Bush let 9/11 happen, or was behind it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance
On the left, on the right...the masses are asses.

[Connaught Ranger]

They were only responding to loaded questions.

[muttbutt]

I dunno about that, but I do know this is true

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Nightmare24148/Funny%20and%20etc/GodsOfWarhammer.jpg
Warhammer.....nice.....

[11B101ABN]

Not the anti christ, but a raging douche bag for sure.

[budgie]

60% of Democrats think Bush let 9/11 happen, or was behind it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

Let it happen willingly or by negligence? Behind it as in planned it? Which is it?

[Rictor]

Funny how both Bush and Obama flagrantly violated the Constitution (by starting and continuing undeclared wars, enforcing the PATRIOT Act etc), yet Dems are suddenly ignorant about the issue, just like Republicans were before. See, it's not unconstitutional if your guy does it!

As for the people who think he is a socialist, they clearly have no grasp of what that term means. And the one who think he's the Antichrist...well, that doesn't really need comment.

[Jobu]

Not the anti christ, but a raging douche bag for sure.

this.









......

[California Joe]

60% of Democrats think Bush let 9/11 happen, or was behind it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

There's a big damned difference between let it happen and planned it for chrissakes.

People that read Richard Clarke's book may believe that the administration dropped the ball, and frankly, right or wrong, it happened on W's watch. That's just the way things work. I've never been one of those people that dropped the blame on him, personally I thought he acted very Presidential in that grade school classroom when he was told, he didn't freak the f*ck out and scare the kids or anything. I thought that was class. Just like the WMD arguement in Iraq. I know some of the men that gathered that humint, behind enemy lines, conducting very dangerous snatch and grab missions on Iraqi officers and they were convinced that it was there and it would be used.

All of that is a far cry from believing that the CIA or the Juice or any other group blew up our own citizens for their own nefarious agendas.

[Wimbly]

There's a big damned difference between let it happen and planned it for chrissakes.
There isn't a difference unless you feel defensive about it and want to play semantic games. If you knew it was going to happen and did noting as the country's leader, its as good as pulling the trigger. If you beleive either, than you deserve the same treatment as the birthers.

Does the OP poll bother you at all CJ, or is it just that I dared post a poll that suggest Democrats might have some corn nuts on their side?

[California Joe]

There is a huge difference, are you high? "Let it happen" can mean a whole lot of things, from benign neglect to didn't read the goddamned intel correctly Wimbly, it ain't all that black and white. I'm not being defensive at all, I actually worked in the frigging intelligence community at the time.

Of course the initial poll is skewed as hell, you can always find a couple of thousand inbreds to interview.

[Wimbly]

There is a huge difference, are you high? "Let it happen" can mean a whole lot of things, from benign neglect to didn't read the goddamned intel correctly Wimbly, it ain't all that black and white. I'm not being defensive at all, I actually worked in the frigging intelligence community at the time.


Uhhh, we aren't talking about the intelligence community CJ. We're talking about a poll of Democrat voters. I guarantee you when they say Bush let it happen, they mean he knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Its been a popular opinion of the left for quite a long time now. This is not a secret. Jessie Ventura said that very thing on HardBall with Chris Matthews! Obama's green Jobs Czar believed it! I cant beleive you're seriously making this argument. Oi vey.....

[California Joe]

And I can't believe that you are seriously claiming to know what people believe when they're answering vague poll questions.

Personally, I don't think there was enough attention payed to a credible threat. But hindsight is always 20/20.

[LineDoggie]

I love this question: "He did many things Hitler did"

Quite sure Hitler had highways built, does that make them comparable if Obama has them done also?

What kind of retarded ground squirrel makes these questions?

[Glaz]

Funny how both Bush and Obama flagrantly violated the Constitution (by starting and continuing undeclared wars, enforcing the PATRIOT Act etc), yet Dems are suddenly ignorant about the issue, just like Republicans were before. See, it's not unconstitutional if your guy does it!

As for the people who think he is a socialist, they clearly have no grasp of what that term means. And the one who think he's the Antichrist...well, that doesn't really need comment.
It doesn't? And why not? Is there proof that he is not the antichrist? Has anybody actually checked him for the telltale 666 mark? I think not. I believe you're jumping to conclusions.

[Clear_blues]

he wants terrorists to win? some one with more world experience please explain.

[Wimbly]

And I can't believe that you are seriously claiming to know what people believe when they're answering vague poll questions.
.

I'm not claiming anything, the poll is. I just posted in in response to the OP. Its clear from the media's reporting and main stream believers, that 9/11 conspiracies are definitely more acceptable than say, birthers. I beleive this is due to the coverage, or lack there of during the Bush years. My guess is that they didn't mind such a conspiracy floating about and helping to bring down Bush's approval numbers. Now the same tactics are working against Obama, so they'll have none of it.

[LineDoggie]

Funny how both Bush and Obama flagrantly violated the Constitution (by starting and continuing undeclared wars
Both Afghanistan and Iraq were authorized by the Congress, so there was no violation in law.
IRAQ:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/content-detail.html
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Congress yes votes

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
****s
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)


Senate Yes votes:

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)



Afghanistan:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/content-detail.html
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html

Congress Yes Votes:
420 yes
Senate Yes Votes:
98 yes

[Rictor]

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but is there not debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality) as to whether the Constitution requires that a formal declaration of war be issued beyond a specific, very limited, engagement?

With Iraq specifically, the authorization was given by a Congress that believed Saddam possesed WMDs and (here I question their intelligence) would use them at the drop of a hat. Whether that's the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign or an incorrect assessment of intel depends on how charitable you are, though I'm personally inclined the give the gov't as little credit as possible. However, I would argue that it did not authorize a 7+ year occupation who's mission has changed from finding WMDs to the overthrow of a the Iraqi government to nation-building to ending the civil war etc etc.

[LineDoggie]

There's no debate, Congress authorized both actions and there hasn't been one credible attempt to say those actions weren't within the constitutions meaning.

Don't like it take it to SCOTUS

[Chulo]

I wonder if the both the reporter (pollster) and responders know the theological difference between anti-Christ and "The Anti-Christ"?

[Chulo]

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but is there not debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Questions_regarding_constitutionality) as to whether the Constitution requires that a formal declaration of war be issued beyond a specific, very limited, engagement?

With Iraq specifically, the authorization was given by a Congress that believed Saddam possesed WMDs and (here I question their intelligence) would use them at the drop of a hat. Whether that's the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign or an incorrect assessment of intel depends on how charitable you are, though I'm personally inclined the give the gov't as little credit as possible. However, I would argue that it did not authorize a 7+ year occupation who's mission has changed from finding WMDs to the overthrow of a the Iraqi government to nation-building to ending the civil war etc etc.
There is always a debate on every aspect of the Constitution. But you never enter a war saying "Ok guys, we will fight you for x number of days, then after that its not backsies"

[budgie]

Its clear from the media's reporting and main stream believers, that 9/11 conspiracies are definitely more acceptable than say, birthers. I beleive this is due to the coverage, or lack there of during the Bush years. My guess is that they didn't mind such a conspiracy floating about and helping to bring down Bush's approval numbers. Now the same tactics are working against Obama, so they'll have none of it.

Oh poppyc*ck. The 9/11 conspiracy appeals to far more conspracy theorists because it's got all the good stuff: a spectacular event, 'unexplained' circumstances, long-term ramifications (OEF and Iraq). It's an easy sell to such people. The birther conspiracy however is distinctly small-fry (one family lying about a birth certificate) and is fed not by the usual anti government paranoia, but I personal bias (damn Muslim furriner in the whitehouse). People will be going on about 9/11 for decades, but Obama's birth certificate will be forgotten once he leaves office.

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are genuine nuts who hide out ion their mother's basements and wear tinfoil hats and worry about government spying on them and black UN choppers. The birther movement so much more personal: they're not crazy, they're just being ****s. The media is not protecting Obama by underreporting the birthers any more than coverage given to the truthers advocates their anti-bush sentiment. Each story has had it's proportionate share. But in the news, crazy sells better than ****.

[IconOfEvi]

I love this question: "He did many things Hitler did"

Quite sure Hitler had highways built, does that make them comparable if Obama has them done also?

What kind of retarded ground squirrel makes these questions?

Someone who wants to provoke a reaction...

[XShipRider]

Three words: Ronald (6) Wilson (6) Reagan (6)

People thought RWR was Lucifer too. I haven't seen him on the world stage lately. You?

Always trust the Telegraph to give the straight skinny.

[JoaMei]

So this proves my theory pretty much that >50% of all people are Idiots.

[Scriptable]

So this proves my theory pretty much that >50% of all people are Idiots.
Democracy's Achilles heel :-(

[Wimbly]

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are genuine nuts who hide out ion their mother's basements and wear tinfoil hats and worry about government spying on them and black UN choppers. The birther movement so much more personal: they're not crazy, they're just being ****s. The media is not protecting Obama by underreporting the birthers any more than coverage given to the truthers advocates their anti-bush sentiment. Each story has had it's proportionate share. But in the news, crazy sells better than ****.

Yeah, because nobody suggest Bush or McCain weren't legitimate or natural born citizens....Oh wait.

Also, by reading the other thread I made, anyone can easily compare MSM interviews with birthers and truthers. Truthers are treated with smiles and laughter, birthers are treated with contempt and anger. Now I think its deserved, but I'd like to have some consistency.

[Kit]

Looking at those poll numbers, I refuse to believe that many people think Obama is the antichrist. I go to a conservative baptist church in South Carolina. Obviously, most of them are Republican, but I have NEVER come across anybody who thinks Obama is the antichrist. Did I mention I go to a church in South Carolina?

This poll seems loaded. What trash.

[Kant]

I'm surprised that 5% of Democrats think the big O wants the terrorists to win.
Shows how silly this poll is.

[deagle]

dang, last administration was worse, so that makes them satan ? lol