What Michael Delgiorno says on a daily basis on the Nashville powerhouse talk radio station 99.7 WTN is so offensive that it can make your insides ache. If you’re a patriot, you know it is offensive. If you’re rational, you know it’s offensive. If you’re a real Christian, you know it is offensive.
Yet, day after day, week after week, he gets away with calling the President of the United States the ‘antichrist.’
These are just two instances of many. First, on August 19, 2009 he said:
MICHAEL DELGIORNO: Like I said, he’s the most failed one-term president or he’s the antichrist. But I can tell you this right now, he’s pro-Palestinian, he’s anti-Israel, he’s anti-Christian. That much I know for sure.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Then, on August 20, he said:
MICHAEL DELGIORNO: Ken, on dating.
CALLER: I was just going to say that even if Tommy is a complete moron all he’s gotta do is the exact same thing Barack Obama did and he’s in the saddle.
MICHAEL DELGIORNO: Ice cream? Oh, I’m thinking literally on his first date with Michelle.
CALLER: Heh heh heh heh.
MICHAEL DELGIORNO: Take her for ice cream and reveal that he’s the antichrist.Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
I’ve been trying to analyze why this is especially offensive and also work on a message to counter it, but I had nuthin’.
So I asked several friends of mine who self-identify as Christians.
One friend suggested I read “Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession (Paperback)” (it’s on my wish list) of which publishers weekly wrote:
While the word “antichrist” – the figure who ushers in the apocalypse of Christian end-time – appears but briefly in the Bible (1 and 2 John), the term has been all too frequently used throughout history by one group as a means of vilifying another group that appears to threaten the accusing group’s worldview. Fuller, professor of religious studies at Bradley University, argues that naming the antichrist became a prevalent custom in the U.S. first because of the Puritans’ apocalyptic tradition and subsequently because of feelings of vulnerability fanned by Native Americans and later by waves of immigrants who seemed to threaten the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. Fuller robustly explores the writings of those who at various and sundry times have railed against Catholics, Freemasons, and Jews (and even rock music and bar codes, for that matter) and seen them all as signs of the beast from the sea. He offers cogent psychological and sociological explanations for the hold of the idea of the antichrist upon the American imagination. If those explanations do not seem quite conclusive, however, it is because the extraordinarily arcane reasoning in naming the antichrist, so ably discussed here, ultimately itself escapes explanation.
So that made me feel a bit better. I mean, if a professor of religious studies can’t explain it then how can I?
Then my friend said:
DelGiorno’s attitude is responsible for 2,000 years of religious warfare. During the Reformation, Martin Luther called the Pope the Antichrist, sparking a feud between Catholics and Protestants that lasted for centuries. The Pope, in response, excommunicated Luther.
A certain subgroup of Evangelicals are rabidly Zionist, believing that the restoration of Israel (with the Old Testament borders!) is essential, and that all non-Jews need to be cast out of the region.
To get honest about this… Fundamentalist Christians are interested in starting a war on Islam, and they are afraid and angry that Barack Hussein Obama is trying to stop them.
This kind of religious elitism divides Christians, and creates the kinds of schisms, divisiveness, and hatred that is condemned repeatedly in Scripture.
So DelGiorno is part of a elitist fringe group of extremist faux-Christians who will stop at nothing to further their own agenda, which is to more quickly usher in the second coming (the rest of us be damned.) Or, as as Josh Marshall puts it, “because its existence will hasten the apocalypse when God will vanquish the Jews en masse in hellfire and turn Israel into a vast evangelical theme park is to usher in the end of the world and ensure that they go to heaven at the expense of the rest of us.”
Fringe? Check. Extremist? Check. Selfish? Check. Un-Christian? Check. Elitist? Check, check and double-check. Mr. DelGiorno is all of these.
But how does he get away with it? And any theories on why his advertisers are irresponsible enough to still support him?
Obama can’t be the Antichrist, because I am!
Remember: “I’m Spartacus!”
- Paul Reilly
[...] a racist†and Rush Limbaugh’s “Barack the Magic Negro†and Michael DelGiorno’s “Obama is the antichrist†address? Which policies are they arguments for or [...]
[...] you know from reading about his proclivity to falsely label President Obama the “antichrist,” DelGiorno lies to further his agenda (which, by the way, is to scare the living daylights out of [...]
[...] you know from reading about his proclivity to falsely label President Obama the “antichrist,” DelGiorno has a tendency to lie to further his agenda (which, by the way, is to scare the living [...]
People use loopholes on a daily basis, and also illegally avoid taxes. It would be much MORE difficult to avoid taxation if you were taxed on consumption. I would argue it would be almost impossible.
People would still pay more in taxes who made more, because they consume more. Taxes wouldn’t be complicated anymore, and the IRS would be obsolete after the first couple of years.
We can’t promote government accountability when they don’t answer to the people. We can’t even get a clear answer on what has happened to the TARP money, or where it went. Our federal government is out of control. The federal government shouldn’t be deciding who gets access to resources.. they should build roads, protect our country, and be a common place for states to discuss policy.
I’m glad a liberal, for once, can discuss policy without talking about President Bush, and blowing me off as disqualified because my views differ from their own. The second and subsequent drinks are on me, sir.
I agree with a large amount of what you are saying, and certainly respect your opinions. I mostly agree with your statement about taxes, but Consumption taxes always seem like they are too regressive, no matter how you slice it. Especially if people use loopholes or shelters (or just illegally) avoid taxes for very large purchases. Perhaps if you exempted food and clothing from those taxes it would start to even out more. But I always felt that there should be a flat rate for income (work or investment), starting after a certain base level. Like, $30,000 for an individual, then start factoring in dependents. Obviously tax policy get pretty complicated
And you are correct on your last paragraph, we’ll just chalk this up as a basic disagreement. While government does promote, um, I’ll call it inefficiency, it does provide accountability. And the more we can do to promote accountability, the better we will be. I think we’ll all agree on that. A good trick would be to find ways to increase accountability that most Americans could get behind. Because in the end, government is basically about how we as a society decide who gets access to what resources.
Dan, I agree that people who make more should pay more in taxes. I don’t think they should pay a higher percentage, though. If 33% is the base rate, everyone should pay that. It’s unreal how much of the tax burden is put on the rich people in our society. I can’t remember the exact numbers but it’s something like 90% of the taxes are paid by 8% of Americans. These are the people that create jobs, and donate money to help people. 4-6% is alot of money when you make millions of dollars.
The problem, I believe, with government being the provider to charities is a conflict of interests, of sorts. When government is in control of who gets what, and how much.. votes are expected in this process. I know, in a perfect world that wouldn’t be true, but this isn’t a perfect world.
We are the most generous society in the world, and it’s not the proper role of government to get involved in this. When people need help they should exhaust all resources (church, family, friends) first. Then, when all else has failed the government should be there with TEMPORARY help. This is what welfare should be. A temporary help to people that really have no where else to turn. It has become an institution that people live off of, and have no intention of changing. This is what I meant by welfare only hurts people.
We need less government, not more. I know we aren’t going to agree on this, but it’s the only way to hold government accountable. We can’t do it when they are running ever aspect of our lives. Our founding fathers intended on the citizens being able to hold the government accountable. It’s all in our constitution. We can’t forget what made us the country we are, or we will turn into an inferior country… then who will we blame? We won’t be able to blame anyone but ourselves for what we let happen to OUR country.
Mary, you’re right, I shouldn’t have said that. I’m sorry for beginning on the wrong foot. I was angry, and sometimes I get out of control.
I’m a conservative. I did not agree with what President Bush did toward the end of his term. President Bush was far from a conservative. I did, and still do, agree with the war on terror. He stood for very little that I stand for (as did McCain), but I’m not going to sit at home on November 4th.. I’m going to pick the candidate that agrees most with what I do, and who has a chance.
President Bush didn’t begin his big government trip until he decided TARP was a good idea, and he lost most of my respect then.
I must ask you since you are against W’s out of control spending, what is the difference now? Why can President Obama spend trillions of dollars and not be held accountable?
President Bush isn’t the president anymore, so why can’t we move past that on to what the current administration is doing? I do, truly, believe he is ruining our country. And it’s not because he’s a democrat. It’s because of the policies he is trying to enforce.
There is no need for you to question my sincerity. I care about my country, trust me, I’m not just here to fire up you liberals (even though it is fun sometimes).
I won’t claim to be any better than anyone else here, but I will say that I was interested in knowing more about the reasoning behind your posts. And I think that you felt the same. I truly thank you. First beer is on me!
I especially want to thank you for your agreement that we want the country to get to similar places, but have different ideas on how to get there. Not that process doesn’t matter a lot, but this common understanding that everyone wants to make America better place is a good starting point for mutual understanding and civility.
For instance, I think that if I make significantly more than the rest of my neighbors, I should do my part to help make the community better. And my part is bigger than others. I’m not saying that they deserve to straight-up get my money (I’m not crazy, man!), but that we’re all better off if there is a good school system and plenty of police, firemen, even lower-rate college loans. An organized noblesse oblige.
I understand that you might rather have a charity do some of these things than a government agency. I think that’s why Republicans have higher rates of charitable donations than Democrats do. And I respect that people are putting their money where their mouths are. I just think that government agencies are more accountable to the community-at-large than charitable organizations are. And I work for a non-profit!
I’ve been lucky enough to progress through tax brackets through the years. While I haven’t made it to the $250K level yet, it would have to be REALLY onerous work for me to stop working because of a difference between a 35& or 39% tax bracket. Besides, I could just reinvest my earnings and get those taxed at 15%. I’m sure there’s a limit that would influence me, but it’s not 39%.
Ryan, I would be happy to discuss policy with you but when you begin your comments with “You people here obviously have your head so far up your own rear ends that you can’t see what Obama is doing to our country” it makes me question your sincerity.
Also, if you could just show me one piece of writing you did that condemned the out of control spending or pork projects funded by the previous administration I could take you bit more seriously.
Or did you simply wake up to the problems with “big government” on January 21, 2009?
Dan, I must commend you on actually discussing the issues. You are in a league above your peers, as they are obviously absent from this blog now.
You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Dan, government institutions don’t just go away when they don’t work. Medicaid hasn’t worked. Welfare hasn’t worked. Social security hasn’t worked. Social medicine WON’T work (look at TennCare for an example of why), but it will be too late to take it away when it passes. People have became so dependent on these institutions that they feel they have a right to them, and to take them away would be stealing. They never stay small as they begin, and they always end up costing tax payers more and more.
I’m not sure I follow you on the corporation thing. A corporation is formed to remove some risk from the person that began the company, but not from the company itself. That’s the same as a LLC. It simply removes the business owners’ personal assets from being able to be taken when/if the business fails. A corporation spreads risk (along with reward) between its stock holders. No one is at risk, other than the people that invest in the company (including the owners as most of their worth will be tied up in the company). Corporations are taxed at a outrageous rate, and this is passed on to us as consumers. That should be what we are worried about.. having to pay more for goods and services that would cost less without the government intervention.
Are you saying that in some way there isn’t equal opportunity, already? This is the most free society in the world. You can do anything you want. It may not be easy, but nothing worth having is going to just drop in your lap out of thin air. Why would you need a government-subsidized loan? There are hundreds of thousands of companies ready to give student loans on a daily basis. If you become a wealth producer, the government is going to tax you to death at a rate that is not equal to the person that sits beside you.
Tell me, Dan, why should someone who makes more money pay a higher percentage of their income to the government? If everyone was taxed at the same rate, they would still pay more money in taxes… in a fair way. They would also have more money to hire people, and pass savings on to the consumer. President Obama wants to raise the tax rate even higher on people that make over $250k to pay for all of the nonsense. Do you really think people are going to keep earning more and more to pay the government? No, they are going to make just below $250k (or whatever the cut off may eventually be) and then there will be no money to pay for the programs we have already committed to. Then, what do we do? Borrow more money from China?
Better yet.. what if we did away with the current tax system all together. No more IRS. Let’s have a flat tax on consumption. What I mean is, we are taxed on what we buy, ONLY. Not income tax, not capital gains tax, not inheritance tax, not all the other garbage taxes, but only what we consume. How much easier would life be?
I think we have a lot of the same ideas on what would work for our country, but we are trying to make them happen in totally different ways. Remember this, even if you don’t get anything else from the post. What government gives, it can take away. The borrower is slave to the lender, and you don’t want to be the government’s slave.
Okay, I respect that and feel the same way. Many of my friends are conservatives and I have become more conservative over the years through these conversations. I thank you for contributing.
Lets get down to brass tacks, because I don’t think we’ll agree on the rationale behind whether something is making this country better or worse. If I say that government investment is good, I think you’ll say it’s bad. If there are areas where the markets are doing way better than a government institution in a similar field, get rid of the gov’t institution.
But in general, these institutions are created due to the failure of free-ish markets. One paradox that has always confounded me about the current Republican model is this: Personal responsibility is the foundation for a better country. People make up corporations. Corporations will do the right thing because it is in their best interests for long-term profitability. But the whole idea behind the corporation is to limit responsibility. That removal of risk turned out to be great wealth generator because it changed the risk-reward equation. Unless you were the family of the poor sap whose liability the corporation is limiting.
I think that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people can use the power of masses to provide a solid foundation for every American to have an opportunity. Not equal results, but equal opportunity.
I’m sure that it comes down to a view of freedoms. Where some want “freedom from”, I think that a better future lies in “freedom to”. Freedom to go to a decent school, regardless of who your parents are. Freedom to earn my own chance. If my government helps me get there, how is that a bad thing? If I get a government-subsidized student loan and become a wealth producer, isn’t that good for everyone?
Respectfully,
Dan
Obama earths face worst evil Has nukes Pulled Mankind’s history worst scam
That called SINGLE NAME ANTICHRIST
Got Beast’s Marks IL Lotto 11/08
sorry, that was a response to eldano, not Jeff.
Jeff, I do not hate liberals or PresBO. I hate the idea that the government should be responsible for controlling our lives. I hate the notion that anyone should be responsible for you other than you. I hate that you liberals have it in your head that the government is the solution to our problems, but I don’t hate you as a person. I believe everyone has a right to believe what they want, no matter how wrong it may be.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s point of view, and yes, I’m interested in why you believe this is the proper role of government. The problem is, like Jeff said, I went through your list of what President Obama has done right, and you didn’t respond to one thing I said.
That’s how I’m different than you. I’m not going to resort to name calling (unless you truly deserve it, like Beth). I’m not going to give you anything but truth, regardless if Mary wants to call it a “lie to further my agenda.”
Facts are facts, and history is history. Socialism doesn’t make prosperous countries. Social programs only hurt the people they are “helping” by making them dependent on others. People that aren’t credit worthy shouldn’t be forced into buying a home for the “good of the economy.”
We are quickly taking the American dream and turning it into a nightmare, and you liberals are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
Jeff, I actually appreciate that we were having a discussion. But then, as the conversation slowly started to devolve into questions about the education levels and intelligence of certain posters, I questioned whether it was worth any time continuing. Please note, I did not specifically call anyone a troll, I asked about their intentions. It is apparently you who called me a loser and some editors narcissists. There, now I’ve owned you? I don’t think that I have. Also please note, I asked you an honest question about your interests. I think you answered it indirectly.
It is a shame. I genuinely enjoy talking policy and political philosophy with those who have different ideas than I. I was hoping that this could be one of those situations. I still do.
Blayne – I’d love to read the articles on clarksville online but Bill Larson banned me for calling the editors narcissists! LOL!!
LOL… Mary, eldano, Beth — Ryan just OWNED you!!
eldano – Ryan hits you point for point and you call him a troll. (when a debater starts to name call and can’t argue the points – he is the loser)
I don’t hate Barak Hussain Obama/Barry Statoro I actually respect the office that he holds.
All I ask is that you look at the people who surround Obama (Czars). Many of them are self proclaimed communist or communist supporters. Is that what liberals want?
Are you posting in here because you think you will change the minds of regular readers of this blog, because you want to understand why those who think differently than you believe the things they do, or are you just trolling? I ask because I’m genuinely interested in why you hate Obama and liberals. But if you would rather just troll, I can feed the trolls, too.
“uh.. uh.. uh.. their’s don’t have a picta on ‘em.. the picta is what makes it unconstitutional…”
then the moron in the backgroud.. “actually, the first amendment is different on school property and at churches.” That was probably someone posting on here..
Well said Ryan. Here is proof that this is not America anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKPKjl0-pg