Strange Things Happened in the Colorado Primary Election This Week – Part 1
Up is down. Down is up. Much more to come on the Secretary of State election as well as the inversion of GOP candidates from Assembly to Primary…
Things that I find and strike me that others might find interesting and/or informative
Up is down. Down is up. Much more to come on the Secretary of State election as well as the inversion of GOP candidates from Assembly to Primary…
In 1965, an unforgettable warning was broadcast for all to hear.
Over half a century later, it’s sadly come true, and it’s chilling to hear.
Paul Harvey, a conservative American news commentator and talk-radio pioneer whose staccato style made him one of America’s most familiar voices, reached tens of millions of listeners at the peak of his career. His “idiosyncratic delivery of news stories with dramatic pauses, quirky intonations, and many of his standard lead-ins and sign-offs” made him extremely recognizable on the radio.
Although he was very accurate in his reporting, no one could imagine that his famous words from decades ago would be prophetic, describing the reality of today. Indeed, over half a century ago, the legendary ABC Radio commentator, who was born Paul Harvey Aurandt in 1918, seeming predicted how the United States is right now during a broadcast that aired in 1965.
Once most of us hear the famous line that’s also the title of the
speech and is repeated throughout the essay, we recognize the broadcast
almost immediately. “If I were the Devil,” Paul Harvey famously said in
1965 before discussing issues we are faced with today. However, although
Harvey’s words have an undeniable truth, they may not be as prophetic
as some might believe.
Yes, Paul Harvey originally wrote his famous “If I Were The Devil” essay
in 1964. The broadcast of the essay aired in 1965, and it is still
popular today. But, the current rendition that often circulates the
internet was updated by Harvey to reflect current events throughout his
life, which sadly ended in 2009. The oldest genuine Paul Harvey version
of this piece we’ve found thus far appeared in his newspaper column in
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.
[Source: Harvey, Paul. “If I Were the Devil I Would Pray, Our Father Who Art in Washington.” Gadsden Times. Oct 13, 1964 (p.4).]
A 1996 newspaper version of Paul Harvey’s “If I were the Devil,” which actually seems to be what’s heard in the video above, is often what’s heard today and mistakenly believed to be the same piece from the 60s. However, there are key differences.
Although it kept the concept and structure of the original essay, the 1996 version evolved the content to include the current events of that time. Even so, this version is still over two decades old and very on point with what our nation is experiencing now:
If I were the prince of darkness, I would want to engulf the whole world 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 — thee.
So, I would set about however necessary to take over the United States.
I’d subvert the churches first, and I would begin with a campaign of whispers.
With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”
To the young, I would whisper that the Bible is a myth. I would convince the children that man created God instead of the other way around. I’d confide that what’s bad is good and what’s good is square.
And the old, I would teach to pray 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 and uninteresting.
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’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed.
And with promises of higher ratings, I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.
If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellect but neglect to discipline emotions. I’d tell teachers to let those students run wild. And before you knew it, you’d have drug-sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
With a decade, I’d have prisons overflowing and judges promoting pornography. Soon, I would evict God from the courthouse and the schoolhouse and them from the houses of Congress.
In his own churches, I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science. I’d lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls and church money.
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.
What’ll you bet I couldn’t get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?
I’d convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging
is more fun and that what you see on television is the way to be.
And thus, I could undress you in public and lure you into bed with diseases for which there are no cures.
In other words, if I were the devil, I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.
[Source: Harvey, Paul. “If I Were the Devil.” Reading Eagle. July 1, 1996.]
Whether it’s the 1965, 1996, or even another adaptation, the bottom line is that Paul Harvey’s words have never been truer. He was an incredible man with even more incredible insight. But, perhaps it’s another Harvey quote that best explains how he could seemingly so easily predict decades ago what America would look like today.
“In times like these, it’s helpful to remember that there have always been times like these,” Paul Harvey said. Regardless of whether you find his words to be actually prophetic, they are undeniably powerful, and it is a warning to our nation that we should finally begin to heed. Rather than accepting we will always have “times like these,” maybe it’s time to right our ship and throw the Devil
OUR RATING: Good Journalism, no obvious errors!
Indicted Outlet: Bradford Betz | Fox News | Link | Archive | 5/30/22
Joe Biden’s response to the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas has been to propose various forms of gun control.
Part of that response has illuminated the shallowness of left-wing elite understanding of what guns are, as politicians like Biden trip over their words to try and regulate something they don’t know or understand.
Here, Fox News is reporting that Biden classified 9mm handguns as ‘high caliber’ weapons, and he did say that, and it is substantially wrong, among other erroneous Biden statements.
Major Violations:
The first question is whether Biden accurately said this statement:
“They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” Biden said.
“So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting,” Biden added. “Remember, the Constitution was never absolute.”
“You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed,” Biden said. “You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.”
It’s a common reporter trick to string together disconnected statements, in an act of so-called ‘selective editing’ to get a subject to say something they did not intend.
So we looked for Biden’s actual verbatim transcript or video from this utterance and compared it to what Fox News was reporting.
Here is Biden’s actual statement: [1]
Joe Biden suggests he wants to ban “high caliber” 9mm handguns.
“There’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection.” pic.twitter.com/lPITAN5kEU
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 30, 2022
Biden’s statement here contains so many obvious untruths, so many lies, it’s tough to capture them all:
Some are trying to defend this paragraph of errors by saying that Biden meant ‘high capacity’ and not ‘high caliber’ [2] but that ignores all the other mistakes he’s making in this statement.
Seconds later after this clip ends, Biden also said that nobody needed to own cannons either which is why the 2nd amendment didn’t allow for cannon-ownership, which has been debunked even by friendly Biden-obsequious outlets like the Washington Post. [3]
The Biden mental mistake here seems to consistently be that he wrongly thinks the early American Republic did not federally allow guns of any type or private cannon ownership. And while there are arguments to be made by left-wing academics that Indians were treated differently in terms of gun ownership, by and large that Biden claim is completely false.
But this statement wraps up all of these errors in a relatively short paragraph.
Let’s take these in the order written above, 1-7.
First, a 22 caliber bullet does not always ‘lodge in the lungs’ of a victim. The actual ‘power’ of a bullet upon impact depends on many things:
Generally understood, in shooting sports this is known as the ‘power factor’. [4]
Biden’s hypothetical is hard to parse accurately because he’s not clarifying what range the shooter is at or defining the other characteristics. Different firearms and calibers operate differently at different distances.
Because a 22 round is smaller, it actually has a higher velocity than larger bullets. Meaning that, in terms of actual energy delivered to the shooting victim, if the 22 round hits, and can deliver tissue damage, more extensive than larger caliber bullets. [5]
Second, a 9mm handgun bullet does not ‘blow the lungs out of the body’ as Biden claimed. Breitbart did a good takedown of this clearly false claim by Biden. [6]
Third, few people consider a 9mm caliber bullet to be a ‘high caliber’ bullet. The caliber of a bullet is the width or internal diameter of the bullet, [7] measured in inches or millimeters.
There is some imperial to metric conversions that provide helpful context here.
The actual difference between a 22 and a 9mm is slight: a 22 converts to a 5.59mm, whereas a 9mm is obviously larger.
As you can see, Biden’s definition of a 9mm being ‘high caliber’ would render almost all handgun ammunition other than 22’s as effectively ‘high caliber.’
Handgun Cartridge | Bullet Diameter in Inches | Bullet Diameter in MM |
.22 LR | .223″ | 5.66mm |
.357 Magnum | .357″ | 9.1mm |
.380 ACP | .355″ | 9mm |
.38 Special | .357″ | 9.1mm |
9mm | .355″ | 9.02mm |
.40 S&W | .40″ | 10mm |
.44 Magnum | .429″ | 10.9mm |
.45 ACP | .452″ | 11.5mm |
.50 AE | .50 | 12.7mm |
Biden’s statement then is doubly nonsensical, since it would render all ammunition as worthy of banning as ‘high caliber.’ If a politician uses a definition to refer to something as extreme or unique, that is in fact the most common type, then it’s a type of wordplay and sophistry that educated reporters ought to point out to their readers.
I’m not going to ding Fox News for this violation, but this is a form of missing context in their story covering Biden’s lies: they ought to show how foolish his statements are.
Fourth, ‘high caliber’ bullets are needed for self-protection. They generate what some call ‘stopping power’ in the target. [9] There is considerable debate on this topic, but it is the rationale for some to purchase larger weapons: they want the blunt force of the bullet to knock down a violent intruder. [10]
Fifth, there’s very little serious debate anymore that the text and intent of the second amendment was to give a fundamental individual right to American citizens to own guns. The text even includes exclusive and absolute commands, “shall not be infringed” so as to make the meaning very plain: the government, especially the federal government, is not to chip away at gun rights even in seemingly small ways.
It’s frankly ridiculous that political leftists like Biden will invent abortion rights within the ‘penumbras’ of the Constitution but are grammarian historians of the early Republic when it comes to the second amendment. In one breath they will say that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ meant to change with the times and then the next moment they will hypocritically say a ‘militia’ must be what was understood in 1780’s Virginia. This odd dichotomy to avoid the plain text of the second amendment.
To be fair there are certainly right-wing hypocrisies when it comes to constitutional interpretation, but none are as egregious as the politically left-wing ones when it comes to the high profile constitutional issues. Ignoring this, as most generally center-right outlets do to avoid arguments about their objectivity, is a form of missing context and permitting the politicians to engage in doublespeak.
Sixth, high calibers are needed for hunting, [11] but this is some serious Biden doublespeak again because very few people are victims of rifle violence in America. Almost all so-called ‘gun violence’, which too often over-includes data such as suicides, is committed by handguns. Handgun violence is the most common form of injuries from guns [12] in America, even though most (69%) gun owners also own a rifle. [13]
Seventh, the rational basis for what Biden refers to as ‘high caliber’ ammunition is because of the before-mentioned ‘stopping power’ of a bullet. [15]
The belief is that a high-velocity, small mass bullet such as a 22 might do significant damage to an attacker, but that it lacks the necessary mass to ‘put someone down’ who is highly motivated to hurt the victim.
Though there is a lot of dispute whether this is a real thing, or whether one caliber is better than another, [16] there is a perception that the stopping power is necessary for personal defense. A rational belief can still be factually incorrect. There is a rational basis for using larger calibers for self-protection, contrary to what Biden has said.
The Fox News article by Bradford Betz accurately relayed Biden’s comments, put them in proper context, and frankly even underplayed them. Biden’s repeated gun gaffes and errors
Among Biden’s many documented medical problems, it’s clear he unfortunately suffers from Hoplophobia, [17] common among left-wing elites and notorious degenerates:
OUR RATING: Good Journalism, no obvious errors!
Bibliography:
1 ] https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1531301347508862979
2 ] https://twitter.com/Cincinnatus56/status/1531408485992353792
3 ] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/28/bidens-false-claim-that-2nd-amendment-bans-cannon-ownership/
4 ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor_(shooting_sports)
5 ] https://legionary.com/the-real-danger-of-a-22-caliber-round/
6 ] https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/30/fact-check-biden-falsely-claims-9mm-bullet-will-blow-lung-out-of-the-body/
7 ] https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/what-is-caliber/
8 ] https://backfire.tv/caliber-mm-conversion-chart/
9 ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power
10 ] https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/handgun-stopping-power-sizing-up-your-options/
11 ] https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/big-game/ask-meateater-what-are-the-best-big-game-rifle-calibers
12 ] https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?id=78689504
13 ] https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
14 ] https://www.silencercentral.com/blog/the-best-hunting-rifle-calibers-for-each-type-of-game/
15 ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power
16 ] https://www.fieldandstream.com/guns/handgun-stopping-power-truths/
17 ] https://psychtimes.com/hoplophobia-fear-of-firearms/