If I Were the Devil (1964)

If I Were the Devil

If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.

I'd have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree.

So I should set about however necessary, to take over the United States.

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whispers to you as I whispered to Eve, "Do as you please."

To the young I would whisper "The Bible is a myth." I would convince them that "man created God," instead of the other way around. I would confide that "what is bad is good and what is good is square."

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be "extreme" in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.

And the old I would teach to pray - to say after me - "Our father which are in Washington."

Then I'd get organized.

I'd educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.

I'd threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa.

I'd infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.

I'd peddle narcotics to whom I could, I'd sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction, I'd tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.

I'd designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I'd get preachers to say, "She's right."

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.
Thus I would evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, then from the Houses of Congress.

Then in his own churches I'd substitute psychology for religion and deify science.

If I were Satan I'd make the symbol of Easter an egg.

And the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work.

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.

If I were Satan I'd just keep doing what I'm doing and the whole world go to hell as sure as the Devil.

- Paul Harvey 1964, verified by Snopes

If I Wanted America To Fail

This is the most powerful video I've seen in a while.

Under 5 minutes.  Please watch.

"If I Wanted America To Fail"

Luxury? Really? How about Sacrifice?

The arrogance.  The condescension.  The gall.

Obama says in the article below that his family didn't have the "luxury" of Michelle being a stay at home mom, presumably like Anne Romney.

This from a Law Professor, a state legislator, and who knows what else?  His family couldn't squeak by on those incomes so his wife had to take a job (doing God knows what) at a hospital making $316k per year just to make ends meet?  Those are some pretty big ends.  What happened to all that money from his TWO autobiographies... the ones he (supposedly) wrote before he was 45?

My wife has been a stay at home mom for 20 years and is only now re-entering the work force after our youngest child is turning 12.

Has it been a life of "luxury" for us?  NO!  We've sacrificed and scrimped to get by like most people can't even conceive of.

All Obama is doing is trying to paint Romney as aloof, when every thing he says just proves to me over and over that HE'S the one who doesn't really get it.

This statement, this attitude... I cannot begin to convey how much I'm insulted by it.

And whats that I hear from the MSM... crickets.

Obama on Why Michelle Was a Working Mom (at $316K Per Year): ‘We Didn't Have the Luxury for Her Not to Work’

And So It Begins

I honed my political teeth in the early nineties.  Very distinctive in my memory is the Democrat claim that Republicans wanted to starve school children by cutting the school lunch program.  Never mind that the program was actually going to increase in the coming year and that the "cut" was in the rate of growth not an actual cut (see earlier post).  All it took was for the Democrats to make the claim and every reporter in the world ran to the nearest Republican, shoved a microphone in his face and yelled "Why do you want to starve school children?!!"

I don't know what's worse, believing without question every single thing a Democrat says negative about a Republican or completely ignoring (or at least as long as possible) every glaring shortcoming of an elected Democrat.  Fill in the blank here on any one of Clinton's many scandals and how the media had to be drug to them kicking and screaming.

So jump to today.

Romney is now the Republican nominee for President.  Obama has artificially created, thru George Stephanopolis, this supposed "war on women" being waged by Republicans.  It's all pure, unadulterated hogwash.  So, to defend himself, Romney quotes the statistic that since Obama took office 92% of all job losses have been women.

Now, I looked it up.  That statement is 100% accurate.  From the day Obama took office until today 92% of jobs lost belonged to women.  Even the stories I'll link below admit that.  BUT, they then start going outside of what Romney said to defend Obama.  They start talking about context and timeline and when job loss really started and non-farm jobs and so forth and so on.

Funny.  Where does all of this analytical firepower come from when, by contrast, anything Obama says is just written down and accepted as if it were chiseled with fire onto two stone tablets?

The media will do any and everything they can to prop this failed President up.  It's so glaringly obvious it churns my stomach.  And the uninformed masses that just take what the one-sided media spoon feeds them scare me to death.

I'm sure they will defend Romney and the Republicans the next time Obama says they want to poison the air and water and kill more people.  Yeah, right.

It's going to be a long seven months.

MSNBC: "That is accurate, according to BLS. But Brian Davidson, an economist at BLS, told First Read: “The math they use is correct; the terminology is completely wrong.”

CNN: "An analysis of federal labor statistics shows that the claim is technically true but is missing important context."

What's Good for the Goose...

This statement today just cracked me up...

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

It would not be "unprecedented" or "extaordinary" for them to overturn a law... that's what they do.  This coming from someone who supposedly taught the Constitution.

It was not passed by a "strong majority" of Congress.  That is an outright lie.  Does he think we have no memory?  You do remember that this monstrosity of a bill had to be passed through reconciliation because they didn't have enough Senators for a cloture vote.  Please tell me you do.  If not, that's exactly the memory lapse this man is counting on for re-election.

I'm not convinced the court is going to overturn this thing.  But here are two thoughts:

First, all my life liberals have gotten through the courts what they otherwise couldn't get through at the ballot box.  When they can't defeat "proposition X" in California, they run to their buddies in the judicial branch and have an injunction put in place to stop it.  This one time the court "may" actually render a verdict in line with the Constitution and THEY DON'T LIKE IT!

Second, who does this guy think he is?  What happened to separation of powers?  He already talked smack during one of his State of the Union addresses towards the Justices and them sitting there.  Unprecedented.  So over the top that the Chief Justice said they might not return.  If this issue wasn't already settled last Friday during the Supreme Courts closed door vote, he is directly trying to coerce the outcome.  That's really ethical, isn't it.

Way too much power has been given to the judicial branch.  Way too much.  But, liberals have loved it.  Until now.

What's good for the goose...