Archive for the democracy Category

Welcome to Post-Constitutional America

Posted in common sense, congress, democracy, Ethics, Government, politics, secularism, Uncategorized, worldview with tags , on July 2, 2012 by devilbloggger


What a great week I’m having, my good friends.  I know you all heard that the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the US’s “ObamaCare” is constitutional.  Right?  Did you celebrate?  So did I, my friends, so did I.  This was one time that I really thought my Supreme Reliables would let me down.  After a long history of finalegalitification of my kingdom goals, I knew (as did most others) this law to be so blatantly unconstitutional as to cause a losing setback.  But, by moi, if those trisksterific tricksters didn’t come through after all!

All is progressing well in my earthly kingdom, my servants.

I thought I would use the afterglow of this great victory to briefly let you in on how I got the Americans to a place where they let “limited government” become just “government.”  It is an exciting story, not only because it stars moi, but also because it was so easily preventable.  And this is not primarily about the wisdom, prudence, or tragedy (take your pick) of ObamaCare.  It is ultimately a story about sovereignty squandered.


Do you know what it means to be “sovereign” my friends?  Yes, you probably have a good idea.  It means the ultimate “who sez” in any sphere of human involvement and interaction.  Everyone obeys an ultimate “who sez;” humans will always be subject to (and subjected to) a “who” whether they like it or not.  Families, for example, were created with a definite “who” as the ultimate “sezer.”  The sphere of employment, the military, the church, and every other social structure functions properly only when there is a definite and proper “who” behind any “sezes.”

And what about government, my friends?  Well, let me key you in on some kingdom truths that have worked for me, my servants.

Listen up.

Remember, my friends, I started out that very first social structure by putting into that little pretty’s head one simple question: “who sez?”

And ever since my initial success under that fruit tree I have tried to ensure that every family, every church, every government, indeed, even every individual becomes divided over the issue of “who sez?”

Somebody will always rule over man’s life.

The question of government presents a particularly tricky problem for God and me (mostly God), because, of course, God and I both want to rule over man.

Yes, government (meaning the “state” or other municipal or national leaders to order society) has a proper place in the affairs of men.   But I know that the “proper place” is extremely difficult in a world of passionate human beings who love to lord over other human beings.  And I manipulate this difficulty to my advantage.

In fact, as you know from history, I actually experience little difficulty in eventually devolving every form of human government into some form of tyranny.

Kings, princes, rulers.  All eventually succumb to a sinful world’s demands to enforce tyranny, even if for supposedly noble purposes.

But tyranny nonetheless.

It’s a beautiful thing.

That’s why, my servants, I must confess that the American Experiment scared the . . . , well, the heck out of moi.

Yes, the living heck.

Do you know why?

If you are an American, you should.  But I bet you don’t.

I’ll tell you, even though even now it makes me shiver.

Those Americans served up a double whammy.  First, their Experiment was founded on a Biblical worldview.  That is to say, America was founded by and  among a people that largely believed in a true, transcendent, living God.  In time this foundation upheld what could be fairly described as a Christian nation.


Now, that first whammyfier is an undeniable truth that is often denied today.  But there can be no question that America was, at one time, a “Christian nation” in the sense that its traditions and culture, including its laws and government, were informed by a Biblical worldview.

Let the deniers deny.  I’ll soon set them down.

But it’s the second whammyfier that sent my kingdom into spasms of anguish.  You see, the American Founding Fathers knew that sovereignty must rest in someone.  Someone must be the ultimate “who sez?”

And do you know who America’s Founding Fathers made the ultimate “who sez?”


No, it was not God.

But in the case of the Americans it was the next most destructive thing, though.

Here it is.  This is key to understanding both the early success of America, and its now-sure demise:  the Founding Fathers structured their new government such that sovereignty rested with the people.

A free people!

Yes, the American Constitution set the governing law for a nation of free men living under a very limited federal government.  The American Constitution sets forth specific things the federal government was permitted to do.  Outside of these few enumerated powers, the federal government was to let a free people live free.

Government officials were to be servants of the people.

Even today, government officials are still called civil servants.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, that one always makes me chuckle.

Now, pay attention.  I see some of you only half paying attention.  Listen up.

American liberals today fail to understand a fundamental truth that their Founding Fathers knew: a government where sovereignty rests in the people only works where the people can govern themselves under an inner morality and virtue.

Yes, my liberals predictably deny that religion and virtue (the two only go together for Biblical-based religions, which is the case in early America) are a necessary ingredient for freedom and liberty.  But both experience and the Founding Fathers (many of whom were not flaming fundamentalist Christians) weigh in (as usual) against present-day liberals:

Consider George Washington: “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”

Consider Benjamin Franklin: “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Consider Thomas Jefferson: “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”

Religion? Virtue? Right and wrong?


Now to the fun part, my servants.

I knew that to destroy America I had to undermine both of the whammyfications: the moral base of a Christian nation, and the sovereignty of a free people.

It was not easy, but we are almost there.

And, as you probably know, I used the one check and balance of limited government that was best suited to manipulation: the judiciary.

Over time I ensured that the very Constitution that was originally formed to order a free, moral people, was used to shackle and demoralize (in the truest sense of the word).

Prayer in schools, gone.  Teaching the scientific evidence of true creation in public schools, gone.  Dignity of life, liberty and happiness itself at the most vulnerable point of all three, gone–snipped as easily as the snip, snip, snip of a doctor-like person’s legally protected immoral, un-virtuous, corrupted practice permitted not by the people, but by the Court.

Oh, how I love the US court system.

Demoralizing people to render them largely without transcendent, meaningful moral compasses was the first step in destroying America.

But I did it; I nullified the first whammification and in less than two generations transformed America into a “post-Christian” nation.

Thank you.

Now for the second whammification.

Remember, everyone will be ruled by someone.  Either a man will be ruled by the mandates of a conscience informed by God, or he will be ruled by the mandates of another man.

Mandates?  Did I day mandates?

How convenient!

Yes, my servants, every living man (which includes those on earth and elsewhere) lives by mandates.  The mandates are either internally imposed from a free man’s heart to live in peace and tranquilly according to God’s law, or they will be externally imposed from another man on earth.

To get free Americans to bow under the mandates of other men outside the constitutionally enumerated powers of government was a little more difficult and time-consuming.  But I did it by slowly changing society’s notions of “fairness” and “justice.”  You see, the American constitution was originally based on a notion of fairness that sees outcomes based on individual achievement of individuals playing on a level playing field of laws designed to provide the justice of equal opportunity.

Some individuals succeed.  Some fail.  Equal application of laws protect them all.  That is, the laws of the land protect the life, liberty and property (the actual meaning of happiness; look it up) of the individual against all those who would seek to take it/them.

Of course, liberals cannot have this kind of equality.  For liberals, who imagine themselves compassionate, it is equality of outcome that matters.

And equality of outcomes requires that the life, liberty or property be taken one for the good of another.

I had to transform America into a nation of makers and takers.  I had to realign the thinking of sovereign people to believe it is just that government originally formed to protect property instead confiscate property so that envious others can shamelessly mooch in the name of fairness.

Just and fair, right?

Yes, if you have my sense of justice and fairness (as well as envy, jealousy, laziness, etc.), i.e., theft from one for blissful dependence of another!

So I had to slowly transform the Constitution’s foundational premise of equal opportunity to all into a premise of guaranteeing equal results to all.

And I’ve been almost completely successful.

Don’t believe me?


Ha ha ha ha ha.

But I’m ahead of myself.

ObamaCare did not happen overnight.  ObamaCare is the result of years of my effort to remove sovereignty from the people and put it into the hands of an ideologically driven ruling elite.

And I did this within the American system by slowly over time transforming an electorate that has become ignorant of the Constitution’s noble ideals of free men under God, to an electorate, a large part of which has succumbed to the post-constitutional ignoble ideas of dependent men under a ruling elite.

The siren call of a ruling elite fashioning “fairness” in the name of “justice” is too much for some to resist.

And when the moochers vote for more and more moochies, my job is done: America has become post-constitutional because sovereignty gets de-facto transferred to a ruling elite in spite of the people.

Don’t believe me?


I’m not the first to use the term “post-constitutional” but I’m the one responsible for it.  Mark Levin, for example, explains “post-constitutional”: It means that much of what the federal government does is not authorized by the Constitution.

Another writer uses the term to enlighten his proposition that “the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”

Get it?

I’ve successfully brought the American people to a place where the Constitution has little to do with America’s current form of governance.

As Michael Gerson put it, over time I’ve arranged that “conservatives” who usually do not like to lurch about as liberals do, tend to let liberal lurching go unchecked:

If the conservative response following every period of liberal activism is humility and continuity, then the ideological ratchet only turns leftward.

I am the racheter, my friends.

Paradoxically, because a large voting bloc votes their sovereignty to a ruling elite, this leftward racheting ensures that political power no longer resides in the hands of the American-by-idealogy electorate.

Welcome, my friends, to post-constitutional America, where a small band of un-American idealogues, lead by me and my chief beelzebud Obama, lead a large population of American idealogues who no longer have the votes for constitutional governance of free people by a limited government.


Proof of my success.  Again, as Mr. Gerson put it with respect to Chief Justice Robert’s ObamaCare opinion:

What initially seemed wise now smacks of mere cleverness — less a judge’s prudence than a lawyer’s trick. To find the health care law constitutional, Roberts reimagined it.

Judicial cleverness. Re-imagining the ruling elite’s oppression as liberty and freedom for all.

It’s what I do.

And I’m good.

I’m very good.

I’m ObamaCare good.

Welcome to post-constitutional America, my friends.  Where nothing is beyond the reach of the federal government’s mandate.  And where the federal government’s mandate can and will crush the mandates of conscience every time.

Where what theirs is theirs and what’s yours is theirs.

Where life, liberty, and property are no longer inalienable rights.

They have been alienated.

And I’ve succeeded in once again dividing into the Divided States of America.  This time the division is between those who believe the fundamental role of government is to apply just laws to protect life, liberty and property in the name of fairness, and those who believe the fundamental role of government is to redistribute life, liberty and property, also in the name of fairness.

In short, my Divided States of America are divided over the fundamental role of government: is government’s proper role to enforce a level playing field? Or is it to tilt the playing field?

The tilters are winning because now the ruling elite believes in redistributive fairness, and the “who sez” is “government sez” on everything whether or not the people like it, want it, or asked for it.




ObamaCare: Just a Spoonful of Snooker

Posted in christians, congress, democracy, Government, liberals, political correctness, progressives, worldview with tags , on June 29, 2012 by devilbloggger


Oh yeah.  Me and my beelzebud.  We done it.  We pulled off forcing the Americans to take their medicine–and all it took was a bit of snooker!  Even I didn’t see that one coming.  But it’s done.  Happy days are gone again, my friends.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Forward, my friends!

It’s a Riot! My Generation Coming of Age

Posted in common sense, democracy, freedom, God, liberals, political correctness, progressives, secularism, toleration, worldview with tags , , on August 10, 2011 by devilbloggger


Hey, do you know what you get when you raise a child with no noble expectations, no responsibilities, no moral bearings, and no truth about a God who matters in life?  You get what is called in today’s UK Mail a “feral child”.  Down here we call them “humans raised without knowledge of the true God.”

Yes, my servants, we are watching with delight down here as the world begins to reap what it sewed: irresponsible, dependent, lazy, conscienceless youth, raised to respect nothing and expect everything, except what they need.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

It’s a beautiful sight.

Max Hastings said it best in today’s UK MailOnline in an article entitled, “Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters.”

The title says it all. 

I couldn’t be more proud.

You see, my servants, let me impart some kingdom knowledge.   This is confidential, so keep it between you and me.  Mr. Hastings is exactly right; liberal dogma is my lie, and my lie is like candy–sweet to the mouth but it will make you sick.  Liberal policies always seem right, fair, and noble.  But in the end they produce, well, amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalized youngsters.

Yes, it’s a beautiful thing.  And it’s coming to a town near you.

You see, my servants, it is too late to stop the tidal wave of violence bearing down on Western societies.  At least two generations of people have been indoctrinated in liberal policies, meaning at least millions upon millions of people expect something for nothing and will use violence to protect the status quo.

It’s too late, UK. 

It’s too late, Europe.

It’s too late Central and South America.

And, my favorite, it’s too late America.

You believed my lies.  Only prayer and repentance to God can stop my agenda now, and Western societies are beyond such backward remedies.

Like I said, I couldn’t have said it any better than Mr. Hastings, so let’s look at some of his observations and see if you can see me in all this (I”ll help). 

Speaking specifically of my work in London over the last few days, he remarks:

The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame.

(That’s me.)

They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.

(That’s me.)

They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong.

(That’s me.)

They respond only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others.

(That’s me.)

Their behaviour on the streets resembled that of the polar bear which attacked a Norwegian tourist camp last week. They were doing what came naturally and, unlike the bear, no one even shot them for it.

(That’s me, except for the failure to shoot them.)

The depressing truth is that at the bottom of our society is a layer of young people with no skills, education, values or aspirations. They do not have what most of us would call ‘lives’: they simply exist.

(That’s me.)

The notions of doing a nine-to-five job, marrying and sticking with a wife and kids, taking up DIY or learning to read properly, are beyond their imaginations.

(That’s me.)

These kids are what they are because nobody makes them be anything  different or better.

(That’s me.)

From an early stage, feral children discover that they can bully fellow pupils at school, shout abuse at people in the streets, urinate outside pubs, hurl litter from car windows, play car radios at deafening volumes, and, indeed, commit casual assaults with only a negligible prospect of facing rebuke, far less retribution.

(That’s me.)

The breakdown of families, the pernicious promotion of single motherhood as a desirable state, the decline of domestic life so that even shared meals are a rarity, have all contributed importantly to the condition of the young underclass.

(That’s me.)

This has ultimately been sanctioned by Parliament, which refuses to accept, for instance, that children are more likely to prosper with two parents than with one, and that the dependency culture is a tragedy for those who receive something for nothing.

(That’s me.)

They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so.  They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.

(That’s me.)

You get the idea.  Liberal ideas, as Mr. Hastings points out, makes victims of a “perverted ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.”

And best of all, Mr. Hastings, for all his insight, misses one key point: the proper solution.  Mr. Hastings says:

Only education — together with politicians, judges, policemen and teachers with the courage to force feral humans to obey rules the rest of us have accepted all our lives — can provide a way forward and a way out for these people.

But it’s not education, at least not the kind of education served up in the West these days, that will change the human heart.  And it’s not politicians, judges, policemen and teachers “forcing” feral humans to obey that will solve this problem. 

After all, isn’t that what we have today — policemen forcing feral humans to obey?

Can’t everyone see that the West is headed for life in a police state?

Yes, a police state can control the actions of feral humans.  But a police state can never change the heart of a feral human.  And until hearts are changed, no amount of “education” will help.

Well, I’ve probably said too much now.  Again, keep this confidential, my servants.  But know that absent a moral compass in the heart of a child, the child will make his or her own right and wrong.  Combine this amoral person with a generation of like persons, most of which enjoy the luxury of being a tax-funded freeloader on society, and you have the makings of a riot.

I hope the non-feral humans never find this out.

Keep it quiet, please?

God, Man, and the Rule of Law: A Primer

Posted in democracy, Ethics, Government, multiculturalism, politics with tags , , , , on May 25, 2011 by devilbloggger

Rule of Law.

Two stories today, my servants, that seem unrelated but are actually intricately bound up in a societal dynamic of my making.  I am so proud.  You will be too.  Let me explain.

I first read in my morning reading by the fire a story from Religion Dispatches entitled, “Christocrat Competition” about US presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s choice of former US senator Zell Miller as his campaign’s co-chair. 

Remember Zell Miller? 

As Sarah Posner reminds us in her piece, Mr. Miller gave a speech in 2004 on the floor of the Senate asserting that America was on the road to moral ruin because of the separation of church and state.

I know, my servants. I know.

Of course Mr. Miller is self-evidently right, but fortunately self-righteous fools like Ms. Posner do not see self-evident truths. 

I do all I can to ensure blindness to the obvious. 

In this case, Ms. Posner recounts with measured horror that Mr. Newt’s choice said in the same 2004 speech:

Everyone today seems to think the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. I guess you could ask any 10 people if that is not so and I will bet you most of them will say, well, sure that is so. And some would point out that is in the First Amendment. Wrong.

I know, my servants.  I know

This kind of talk scares the you-know-what out of me.  If ever the Americans catch on to my “separation of church and state” lie my American kingdom of secular folly will crash, reducing the Americans back to their original moral order. 

And their original moral order was not my moral order.

Let me share some kingdom knowledge with you my servants–knowledge that will tie in with the second story I mentioned above.  Please, if there is anyone who can see your screen right now, casually switch to this website, read it carefully while you wait for the potential eavesdroppers to leave, and then continue reading.  The following is for your eyes only.

Are they gone?


Here it is: everyone in the universe is under the authority of someone.  The “someone” on earth will necessarily be either God or man.  The American founders clearly contemplated a society imbued with a moral order originating in a belief in God.  The Founding Fathers knew that a well-functioning society was one that worked according to the rule of law, and the rule of law stemmed from a transcendent Rule of Law from a transcendent Lawgiver.

Don’t believe me? 

Good.  The more who don’t believe me, the better for my kingdom.

But consider this, my servants.  What will control men if not the conscience of a heart under the authority of a transcendent God?

Yes, other men.

Did you ever wonder why third world banana republics have so many strongmen around?  Conscripted kids with automatic weapons casually strolling city streets?  Highly visible police forces intruding on every civil liberty?

Have you noticed the steadily increasing use of strongmen to police American society?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

All this because it is the Rule of Law that suffers when men reject the ultimate authority of God and trade it for the more attractive authority of man.  No longer does each person in society subject himself or herself to an objective set of rules; each person feels free to do what is good in his or her sight, unless constrained by the hand of a stronger man.

The rejection of the Rule of Law in America is illustrated in the other story today–Michael Barone’s piece in the Washington Examiner entitled, “Obama skirts rule of law to reward pals, punish foes.” 

You see, President Obama’s actions and policies represent a pinnacle of centuries of my labor in America to mold societal thinking into a secular society.   America has become a nation looking to government as provider and protector, a role that used to be held by God.  Government is nothing more than Mangod; Americans have effectively subjected themselves to the ultimate authority of Men, which is to say without overstatement, to me.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Mr. Barone illustrates America’s new authority by taking the example of Obamacare: everyone wants to get out of the requirements of Obamacare.  But coincidently only a select few do: those who were Obamacare’s biggest political supporters.  Barone notes, for example:

Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers. 

This is only one example of many; I suggest you read the entire article.  But aside from the specifics, Mr. Barone very insightfully realizes:

One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says “No Parking,” you’re not supposed to park there even if you’re a pal of the alderman.

But of the Obama administration, after noting many other examples of Obama’s rule of man, Mr. Barone notes:

Punishing enemies and rewarding friends — politics Chicago style — seems to be the unifying principle that helps explain the Obamacare waivers, the NLRB action against Boeing and the IRS’ gift-tax assault on 501(c)(4) donors.

Do you see what is happening, my servants?  Americans have traded the Rule of Law for the Rule of Man, and the Rule of Man rules as men do: impetuously, arbitrarily, selfishly, and unfairly.  Mr. Barone concludes:

They look like examples of crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government.  One thing they don’t look like is the rule of law.

No, they don’t. 

Because they can’t.  The Rule of Law necessitates the Lawgiver.  And the Lawgiver is not only not welcome in America, he is illegal.

When one separates “church and state” one necessarily ends up with “secularism and state,” and secularism is a religion having no objective, transcendent anchor for the rule of law. 

Enjoy, America, the Rule of Mangod.

Because it’s all you have when you reject the God man.


Multiculturalism? Turn off the alarm and go back to sleep.

Posted in democracy, multiculturalism, political correctness with tags , , on February 13, 2011 by devilbloggger


I hate stability.  Unless it comes at the hands of a dictator who stifles human freedom in an oppressive society closed to news, especially the good news.  For most of history I watched as one oppressor was exchanged for another, always amazed that human beings would so willingly exchange freedom for security.

Life was good.

Then came Western democracies.  Blechhhh!

I watched in measured horror as people woke up to the idea of an open society governed by a free and satisfied people.  Human freedom is alway dangerous to my kingdom.  But things really heated up when freedom began to include religious freedom.

I didn’t mind Greece and Rome too much.  Yes, democratic freedoms were forming, but religious freedom remained limited.  Romans throughout the vast and spreading kingdom were free to keep their indigenous cults and religions, as long as they also acknowledged the Imperial Cult, identifying the emperor as divinely sanctioned. 

Then Christianity exploded onto the Roman peace.  Blechhh again!

At first I knew the centurions of the heavy-handed Roman Legions could control this band of misfits.  I even used  a Jewish revolt as the pretext for emperor Vespasian sending the Roman Legions under his son Titus to destroy Jerusalem in 70AD (whoops, I mean CE) where the Christian troublemakers first gathered.  He burned the city to the ground and slaughtered thousands.  All I ended up accomplishing was scattering the rascals!  Gospel-spreading Christians (the worst kind!) ended up in Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth!

I continued persecution, including persecution to the point of death, with mixed results.  Yes, blood flowed.  But it seemed that martyrs produced more martyrs to the point where I finally realized that persecution was counterproductive to my kingdom goals. 

So I let off persecutions and tried accommodation, realizing that comfort and complacency could stop the march of Christianity better than persecution.

And things were going OK until “the ends of the earth” included a land to be called America.  I watched with less measured horror as history unfolded, where events converged to send religious dissidents and religious freedom-seekers to a land of plenty.

Could this be true?  An entire country large enough to sustain a population of millions of religiously free world-changers?  A country where religious freedom would flourish under a government that recognized a higher power to which all men ultimately answer? 

Yes, it was true, my servants.  And I have suffered for over two hundred years of America’s religious freedom.  For over two hundred years America welcomed outcasts from around the world into a melting pot culture that valued freedom with personal responsibility, the personal responsibility being understood in the context of a moral order instituted by that invisible higher power.

And that “higher power” was commonly understood in a common culture–you might say a monoculture–to be the God of the bible. 

And freedom rung.  And rung and rung. It practically shattered my eardrums.

My strategies had to change to stop the incessant ringing.  It took over two hundred years, but with some experiments in Europe I perfected the solution to America’s greatness: I would ruin America’s “monoculture” with a multiculture that invaded the American peace shouting “screw the God of the bible and his followers; we’ll remake the culture on our own terms, thank you.”

Of course, multiculturalism didn’t really shout anything.  It came in on cat’s feet, meekly using America’s capacity for tolerance and openness against her.  Tolerance became the vehicle for uncritical acceptance of every destructive belief and evil behavior, on the presupposition that morality is relative and there is no absolute truth. 

Who are you to judge?

I’ve ruined Europe on the altar of multiculturalism, where today Britain, Germany, Holland and many other European countries have nurtured more than one generation of citizens who seem to feel no loyalty toward God or country and who, on the contrary, despise both.

Ha ha ha ha ha. 

America is on its first generation.

That’s why, my servants, I must issue a Level 2 devilbloggger Alert for an alarming trend coming out of my European laboratory.  The trend continued last week when British Prime Minister David Cameron uttered out loud to a group in Munich: ‘Multiculturalism has failed.”   His statement was reported by Douglas Murray in the a Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Cameron’s Multicultural Wake-Up Call.”  You can see why it got my attention.

As the article states, this is not the first time a world leader caught on to my gig:

“Last October German Chancellor Angela Merkel (sitting onstage with Mr. Cameron when he gave his speech on Saturday) said the same. Finally, Europe’s mainstream party leaders seem to be realizing what others have long noticed: Multiculturalism has been the most pernicious and divisive policy pursued by Western governments since World War II.”

What am I to do?

I’m running out of ideas, my friends.  I thought multiculturalism would usher in my kingdom on earth–a kingdom where everything is right and nothing is wrong!  What could be better than, as the article states, a system in which,

“State-sponsored multiculturalism treated European countries like hostelries. It judged that the state should not “impose” rules and values on newcomers.”

And here’s the real problem, my servants.  Mr. Murray is right on when he states:

“The first step forward is that from school-age upward our societies must reassert a shared national narrative—including a common national culture.”

I’ve outsmarted myself again, my servants.  I knew that multiculturalism would bring conflict, and I expected the conflict to result in loss of freedom as governments brought stability by cracking down on politically incorrect dissidents.  Without a population of God-believers who manage their lives based on an internal force for good, governments must impose an external force for bad. 

Stability by oppressive force.  It’s just the way it is in countries that ditch God but want security.  Look around, America.

And I fully expected Western governments to slide into effective dictatorships where security among a diverse and unassimilated population can be maintained only by force, and religion plays no role but to be quietly ineffective.

 The radical Islamists ruined it for me.

Fortunately, the United States of America shows no signs of understanding the threat.

I may have a few more years, which is enough to bring irreparable ruin by the true Great Satan.

Help me out here, folks.

Progressives defined (easily)

Posted in democracy, liberals, politics, progressives, Uncategorized with tags , , on November 10, 2010 by devilbloggger

The blind leading the blind.

You know what’s better than leading entire populations astray into a desert of relativistic confusion?  I’ll tell you: blinding them to their plight, so that they don’t even know who they are.

Ha ha ha ha ha.  And it’s so easy!  Ha ha ha ha ha.

Someone brought me yesterday’s article at the Daily Caller entitled, “Can progressives define what to be a ‘progressive actually means?” and I just had to smile.  I’m good.  I’m really good. 

You see, as the title indicates, the article explores what it means in the evolving United States political landscape to be a progressive, and specifically seeks out so-called progressives for their point of view.  The bottom line?  Nobody knows!  As the article states:

There’s no question Democrats are now a progressive party. The only problem: nobody can agree on what the word “progressive” actually means.
One guesser fully invested in the progressive political machinery bluffed that the term “strikes him as opaque” and then retreated to the obvious: “I think it’s kind of the new ‘liberal’.”
Kind of?  Ha ha ha ha ha.

Let me help out, my servants.  You can count on me to make the seemingly complex simple and the confusing plain.  When studied with clear thinking for mere moments it becomes evident there is no real question about what a “progressive” is.  It’s not that nobody knows; it’s that nobody wants to admit it.  So I will.

In the United States a progressive is anyone who’s worldview is not built on a firm belief in a creator God who is interested in the world, interacts with it, and will hold people responsible for their actions.  Period.  And “progressivism” is merely the activity of progressives who hold that worldview.   
Go ahead, argue with me.  But first, find one admitted progressive who does not fit my definition.  No progressive wants to admit it, but the entire liberal/progressive agenda can be derived from a religious/philosophical starting point that says man is the measure of all things.  God, if he exists, only matters to the extent he accomodates man’s desire.  And best of all, government gets the coveted spot God used to hold. 
And remember, it’s not what one says, but what one does, that shows his or her true worldview.  I know these people.  Progressives have existed all through history.  Often they will say they believe in a God, but when pressed it becomes clear that it is not the God of the Bible, but some other God made in man’s image in whom they believe. 
In fact, true progressives are mine.  I own them.  I love them!
And what’s not to love?  I am a liberal’s liberal.  Abortion?  I love it (especially the partial birth kind)!  Same-sex marriage?  I love it (especially with children involved)!   Weak national defense?  I love it!  Free condoms at school (for good ol’ safe sex)?  I love it!  Tolerance for all religions (except possibly Christianity)?  I love it!   Sex education for elementary school kids?  I love it!  Evolution as unchallengeable fact?  I love it! 
And of course there are things I hate:  Prayer in schools?  I hate it.  Nativity scenes on public property (or anywhere, for that matter)?  I hate it.  Pledge of allegiance (with under God)?  I hate it.  Christ in Christmas?  I hate it!  Israel?  I hate it!  Rush Limbaugh?  I hate him.
You see?  I know liberals.  I am Liberal One.
So don’t be confused by labels.  Even my MAIN MAN in politics, recently defeated (by Daniel Webster, ptuii) Alan Grayson can be confusing on this issue.  He answered “I don’t know” when asked the difference between liberals and progressives, but then he went on to define the term progressive as:
“. . . the same impulse to be good to your fellow man that has been animating people for over 3,000 years. People have understood the need to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and to heal the sick. After 3,000 years that job is not done. So we keep at it. Progressivism is rooted in human nature. When people see other people in trouble they want to help. Progressivism is the objective manifestation of that impulse in politics.”

Now, let me clarify a bit, as Grayson is doing a good job of obfuscating for a purpose.   But I want you, my servants to be completely clear about the progressive agenda.  Please keep this between us; if this gets out it could destroy the entire movement and kill my momemtum.  Here it is:  it is not the ends one wishes to achieve, but how the ends are achieved that defines a progressive. 

By Grayson’s definition above, almost everyone is a progressive–the “impulse to be good to your fellow man” is universal (but I’m working on it), as is the desire to “feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and heal the sick.”   So Grayson’s definition is merely a progressive”s smokescreen to hide the liberal means behind the universal ends.  Now you know.  Do not be fooled. 

But on one point Grayson (my MAIN  MAN) is right: Progressivism is rooted in human nature. 
And that’s why I love it best.  Ha ha ha ha ha.

Great Satan? (Good God!)

Posted in democracy, Devil, Great Satan, Uncategorized with tags , , on November 6, 2010 by devilbloggger


That’s what those crazy-fun Iranians were doing (again) this week.  Yes, my servants, as reported by AFP here, thousands of Iranians were recently on the streets again, railing  in mass protest against the “Great Satan” United States to mark the 31st anniversary of the capture of the American embassy by Islamist students.

Great Satan?  Moi?

Now I’m a little conflicted here on this one.  You see, on the one hand I’m flattered and honored, because I also hate the United States.  Many of my best fireteams have focused exclusively on the United States over the last 250 years, and they’ve made great progress. 

Go Iranians!  We’re with you!

But on the other hand, I must admit I feel a bit slighted at best, and blasphemed at worst.  Let’s face it, I AM the Great Satan!  Look at ME!  Pay attention to ME!  I am a jealous being and don’t wish to share my name and true evil nature with anyone.  It’s OK for people to imitate me, follow me, serve me, but to be me?  I must draw the line. 

To be frank, just between us, I resent that a country built on God’s truth carries my label.  Calling the United States the “Great Satan” only draws attention to the sharp contrast of cultures and the distinct differences in society between a country built on God’s principles of freedom and liberty and countries built on, well, other principles.  If no one knew of America’s Godly heritage it would be different–then maybe calling the U.S. the Great Satan might fool people into believing that I was responsible for America’s greatness.  But until all vestiges of America’s Godly heritage are erased, my name should not be attached to the United States except in honor as the agent of its sure and steady destruction. 

Of course the day is quickly approaching when America’s Godly heritage will be forgotten.  I have a timetable, and I’m right on track.  One day.  Soon.

Not only is the United States clearly not me, calling the United States the Great Satan takes away from who I am; it dilutes my franchise.  It fosters the growing belief globally that the REAL Satan doesn’t exist, but “Satan” is merely a metaphor for evil.  When you call someone else a Great Satan you take away from my true existence in the world, and my real evilness in the minds of men.

Imagine if men used God’s name so loosely to express outrage at things they dislike!  Imagine if people went around exclaiming outbursts like “Good God!!!” or “Oh my God!!!” or “Gawd!!!!” or “Godd_mnit!!” or “Jee-sus Christ!!”.  What if?  Ha ha ha ha ha! 

Hey, just because God sits patiently by while men get away with blasphemy doesn’t mean I must.  It’s time my servants use the term Great Satan to address me or to describe me.  I am the Great Satan.  Those Iranians have turned my lofty, puffed up name into a self-serving political tool.  And as a result I’m ridiculed among the very object of their attack.  At least two blasphemous websites, and Great Satan’s Girlfriend (Uggggg!)  play off my name to promote American exceptionalism of all things!  Enough! Stop already!

My ego is fragile, my pride is boundless, and my time is limited.  So, you must understand, my Iranian servants, that you do not please me as greatly as you could by blaspheming against my name, distracting from who I am, and generally drawing unwanted attention to my enemies instead of to me.  I know that to you I am not even a fallen angel, but a creation of “smokeless flame.”  And I know that your ability to know the truth of my real existence and true nature is hampered by your cultural and spiritual conditions.  I know all this, and for this reason I have a small measure of patience.

And even though I have blinded you to the truth that sets you free, I will not forebear forever with your ignorance of who I am.

Or, on second thought, maybe I will.

%d bloggers like this: