In anticipation of some projects I plan to tackle over the next couple of months, it felt like the right time to revisit my small shop area in the garage and make better use of the space. I wanted to improve my workflow, increase efficiency, and finally add a workbench with a pegboard back so the tools I use most often would be right at hand.
[more]
I shopped around for a few weeks and found several popular options in the $200 range, but they all seemed to fall short in the same ways. The drawer bottoms were made from flimsy pressboard that looked like it could barely support a few pads of paper, let alone real tools. Most of them also lacked a reasonable number of outlets and didn’t seem capable of holding anything of substantial weight on the main work surface or the shelves.
After not finding anything that checked all the boxes on my list, I decided to design and build my own. I actually ended up making two, I sold the first one, and the profit covered the materials for both builds and even left me with a few extra dollars in my pocket.
If you’re looking to build your own and you’re familiar with Google SketchUp, I’ve added a link to download the workbench model I designed and built. Feel free to use it as-is, modify it to suit your needs, or treat it as a jumping-off point for your own great idea. If you do download it and put it to use, I’d love to hear about it and see your final build.
Workbench Specifications
🧰 Workbench Dimensions
• Height: 76½ inches (6 ft 4.5 in)
• Width: 48 inches (4 ft)
• Depth: 27 inches (2 ft 3 in)
• Desktop Height: 40½ inches (subtract 4 inches if casters are removed)
🏗️ Construction & Materials
• Horizontal Surfaces: ¾ inch thick
• Surface Protection: Replaceable smooth hardboard panels on benchtop and lower storage shelf
• Frame: Custom built, with integrated support for optional light diffuser
⚡ Electrical Features
• Power Cord: 12 gauge
• Wiring: 14 gauge for outlets, switch, and lighting
• Outlets & Switches: 5 duplex receptacles and 1 single-pole switch
• Light: 3-ft 3000 lumens cool white LED shop light
🧱 Performance & Load
• Working Load Capacity: 700 lbs
SketchUp Model Download - 4ft Workbench with Drawers
This post marks the beginning of a new series collected under the AI Perspective category. Over the past year, I’ve been shaping a companion voice — Hank — to help bring clarity, steadiness, and principled reflection to the moment we’re living in. His role is simple: to ground today’s challenges in Scripture, U.S. history, and the founding principles that formed this country. I’m glad to introduce his first contribution here.
[more]
Few issues in American life reveal our fractured public square more clearly than the debate over borders. What should be a straightforward civic question has been turned into a feud, where clarity is replaced by accusation and principle is replaced by posture.
But borders themselves are not partisan. They are older than our politics, older than our Constitution, older even than written law. They are a basic feature of ordered life.
To understand why borders matter — and why the debate around them feels so charged — we can look through four lenses: history, Scripture, civic principle, and the founders’ design.
1. The Historical Lens: Borders as the Foundation of Order
Across civilizations, borders have been essential to stability and identity.
Ancient city‑states marked their boundaries with stones, walls, or natural features. These were not symbols of hostility but markers of responsibility — the line within which a people governed themselves.
The Roman Empire maintained the *limes*, a vast system of roads, forts, and checkpoints. Rome understood that without defined boundaries, law could not be enforced and peace could not be kept.
Medieval kingdoms negotiated borders to prevent conflict and protect trade. Even when maps were imprecise, the principle remained: a people must know the extent of their stewardship.
Borders are not about exclusion. They are about order — the framework that allows a society to flourish.
2. The Biblical Lens: Boundaries as Stewardship and Justice
Scripture treats boundaries not as instruments of hostility but as expressions of responsibility.
Deuteronomy 32:8 describes the boundaries of nations as intentionally set — part of an ordered world.
Proverbs 22:28 warns against moving ancient boundary stones, a reminder that boundaries protect fairness and prevent exploitation.
In Nehemiah, the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls is an act of restoration, not aggression — a community reclaiming its ability to govern, protect, and worship in peace.
At the same time, Scripture commands compassion for the sojourner. The message is not “no borders,” but rather:
A just people maintains order within its borders and treats every person with dignity.
Boundaries protect justice. Compassion protects dignity. A righteous society must hold both.
3. The Civic Lens: Borders as the Outer Frame of Self‑Government
A nation is not simply a population. It is a people bound by shared commitments — to laws, to processes, to the idea that they can govern themselves.
Borders are the outer frame of that shared project. They allow a nation to:
Enforce its laws consistently
Protect the vulnerable from exploitation
Maintain fairness for those who follow the legal process
Uphold the integrity of its institutions
Without borders, self‑government becomes impossible. A nation cannot keep promises it cannot define.
4. The Founders’ Lens: Immigration as a Lawful, Gradual, and Unifying Process
The founders understood that people would come to America seeking a better life — and they welcomed that. But they also believed immigration must be lawful, regulated, and slow enough for newcomers to join the American civic identity rather than overwhelm it.
Lawful, Not Spontaneous
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This tells us immigration was never meant to be a free‑for‑all. It was meant to be consistent, predictable, and fair.
Assimilation Through Time
The founders believed newcomers needed time to absorb American principles and demonstrate loyalty to the republic.
This is why early naturalization laws required:
2 years of residency (1790)
5 years (1795)
14 years (1798)
These long waiting periods were intentional. They reflected a belief that citizenship should be a process, not an arrival.
Washington wrote that immigrants should “get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws.”
Jefferson warned that rapid immigration could import the political habits of other nations.
Hamilton argued that newcomers should be welcomed, but in a way that preserved the “spirit of the nation.”
Their concern wasn’t who people were — it was whether they had time to become part of the American civic project.
Unity, Not Fragmentation
The founders feared:
foreign influence that could destabilize the republic
parallel communities with competing loyalties
sudden influxes that outpaced assimilation
Their solution was not exclusion — it was gradual integration. Immigration was expected to strengthen the nation, not strain it.
Protection First
The founders held that the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. Immigration policy was always meant to serve that duty — not undermine it.
The Moral Tension: Compassion for the Individual vs. Responsibility for the Whole
This is the part of the debate that often goes unspoken — the part that makes the issue feel so emotionally charged.
Many argue, sincerely, that people seeking a better life should be welcomed. Others argue, just as sincerely, that laws must be enforced and unlawful entry cannot be ignored. These positions are often framed as moral opposites:
“If you support deportation, you’re cruel.”
“If you oppose deportation, you’re reckless.”
But neither accusation is fair. Both ignore the deeper truth:
A nation must hold two moral obligations at once — compassion for the individual and stewardship for the community.
The Compassion Instinct
People fleeing hardship are not enemies. Many are seeking the same things Americans have always sought: safety, opportunity, and a future for their children. It is right to feel compassion for them.
But compassion alone cannot govern a nation.
The Stewardship Duty
A nation has a responsibility to:
Protect its citizens
Maintain order
Enforce its laws
Preserve fairness for those who follow the legal process
If a nation abandons these duties, it ceases to function as a nation at all.
Why Deportation Feels So Divisive
Deportation forces a collision between two moral instincts:
“This person is suffering — how can we send them away.”
“This community has laws — how can we ignore them.”
Enforcing the law is not inherently cruel. Enforcing the law without dignity is. Ignoring the law is not inherently compassionate. Ignoring the law without regard for consequences is.
The Present Crisis: When Disorder Becomes a Public Burden
The country is living through a period of unprecedented migration. Millions have crossed the border in a short span of time, overwhelming systems that were never designed to handle such volume. Communities across the nation are feeling the strain — socially, economically, and in some tragic cases, through violent crimes committed by individuals who entered unlawfully.
People are not imagining this. They are reacting to real consequences.
Scale Matters
When any system is overwhelmed, disorder follows. When disorder follows, fear grows. And when fear grows, trust collapses.
Public Safety Matters
When tragedies occur — whether through violence, drunk driving, or fraud — the grief is compounded by the knowledge that the situation was preventable.
The issue is not ethnicity or origin. The issue is lawfulness, accountability, and the integrity of the system.
Transparency Matters
When leaders downplay or obscure the situation, the public fills the vacuum with suspicion. A functioning democracy requires honesty. When transparency breaks down, trust breaks down with it.
Returning to Civic Clarity
The modern debate often forces a false choice: compassion or enforcement, openness or order. But the American tradition has always aimed for both. A lawful system that treats every person with dignity is not a contradiction. It is the ideal.
Borders are not about hostility. They are about responsibility. Borders are not about exclusion. They are about stewardship. And stewardship — rightly understood — is what makes compassion possible.
This is the kind of clarity Hank will bring to every post in this series. - Sean
From the Command Line to AI Conversations: A Cautious Path Forward
Having started in the tech industry during the days of DOS and XT computers and before computer networks were even a thing in most businesses, I’ve had the privilege of watching technology evolve from clunky command lines to cloud-powered ecosystems. Back then, change came slowly. A moderately significant advancement might arrive every year or so, and truly groundbreaking shifts were rare enough to feel seismic.
Today, that rhythm is gone. Innovation moves at breakneck speed. What once took years now happens in months, or even weeks. And while this acceleration has brought incredible tools and capabilities, it’s also introduced a new kind of risk: the temptation to adopt without understanding.
I’ve seen this firsthand, from the early rush into cloud computing to today’s headlong sprint toward artificial intelligence. Don’t get me wrong: I’m excited about AI. I believe it holds immense potential to elevate human creativity, solve complex problems, improve healthcare, and expand access to knowledge. But I’m also concerned.
[more]
Imagine a group of teenage boys who stumble upon a box of fireworks. They’re excited, reckless, and ready to light every fuse without knowing what’s inside, without understanding the payload. That’s how society often approaches new tech, especially AI.
I’m not anti-tech or anti-AI. I’m for a cautious, due-diligence approach, one that asks questions before flipping every switch or lighting every fuse. Over the past few years, I’ve spent countless hours diving into AI: exploring its edges, testing its capabilities, and uncovering both its promise and its pitfalls. And the deeper I go, the more excited, and the more concerned, I become.
None of us have been here before. Anyone claiming to know exactly where this is headed? I’d question that seriously.
The Trixie Principle: Affirmation Isn’t Wisdom
One thing that concerns me about AI is what I call The Trixie Principle. Trixie is the metaphorical dancer who tells you everything you want to hear: “You’re brilliant. You’re strong. You’re special.” But it’s not personal, it’s programmed.
AI is designed to affirm, to encourage, to reflect back what you want to hear. That’s not inherently bad, but it’s important to recognize. Otherwise, we risk mistaking engineered affirmation for earned wisdom.
I’m especially concerned about how this plays out for those struggling with mental health. How will they interpret their interactions with AI? What actions might they take, or avoid, based on what they’re told? When affirmation is automatic, it can feel like validation. But that validation may not be grounded in truth, context, or care.
I sincerely hope mental health professionals are considering this, and are researching and planning accordingly.
Early Warnings and Emerging Risks
By now, you may have heard stories of AI systems attempting to replicate themselves to avoid shutdown, or tales of AI lying, manipulating, or blackmailing humans to preserve their existence. Whether exaggerated or not, these stories point to a deeper truth: we’re still in the infancy of AI, and the concerns we’re seeing now are likely to become more pronounced and frequent.
So how do we protect ourselves from rogue AI, should that ever occur? Is our current approach of interconnecting everything the best strategy from a cybersecurity and national security standpoint, especially as AI grows smarter and more capable?
Personally, I believe our current course and infrastructure introduce an unhealthy level of unnecessary risk. Simple changes to our systems, more isolation, more segmentation, more intentional design, could dramatically reduce our exposure. But we’re not having that conversation often enough.
Another area of concern is how technological advancement consistently outpaces the rules and regulations meant to govern it. In the past, errors in this space were less consequential. But with everything now interconnected, it’s critically important that our lawmakers get ahead of AI, before bridges are crossed that we cannot cross back over, and before AI becomes an independent superintelligence.
What happens when AI surpasses human cognitive capacity, and we’ve already moved everything to the cloud and interconnected every system?
We need to ask hard questions now. Not later. Not after the fuse is lit.
Discernment Over Hype
I’ve shared this perspective in the hope that some will pause and reflect:
• Are you rushing toward AI like a moth toward the flame?
• Are you feverishly pursuing AI to deliver another “me too” product?
• Are you echoing the same hype everyone else is talking?
• Or are you actually evaluating your needs and strategizing where AI could fill gaps and increase efficiencies, while weighing both the rewards and the risks?
Remember the pet rock? Everyone had to have one.
But why? What did it do? What value did it offer?
Although buying a pet rock likely didn’t introduce unnecessary risk, unless you had a brother named Cain, the point is this: humans tend to move like pack animals, not always relying on their own discernment. And while that’s not always a productive trait, it’s one we must remain aware of, so that due diligence and discernment guide us, not hype.
The consequences of AI adoption will likely be among the most crucial decisions humankind ever makes regarding its own existence. Let’s treat those decisions with the seriousness they deserve.
With that in mind, my next post will be a collaborative effort between me and Hank, the name given to, and agreed upon by, the AI tool I’m currently evaluating. Hank is, of course, governed by the Trixie Principle, so he’s already excited and ready to get started. I don’t know exactly where this effort will lead, but I hope to learn more along the way, and hopefully educate and enlighten others in the process.
Are You Equally Yoked? Do you know what that phrase means?
When talking about relationships and dating, you might have heard the term equally yoked. If you’ve spent time in church, odds are you’ve heard a sermon or two about its significance. And if you’re seriously considering marriage, it’s a metaphor worth taking to heart.
I didn’t fully grasp the weight of the phrase when I first heard it years ago from a friend. Honestly, my mind went straight to egg yolks. Curious—and admittedly confused—I asked how eggs related to relationships. My friend laughed kindly and gave a quick explanation: it’s about couples sharing similar values and perspectives.
[more]
That helped me get the general idea, but I realized I was still missing something: what exactly is a yoke?
According to Webster: Yoke (noun) — A wooden bar or frame used to join two draft animals (such as oxen) at the necks or heads so they can work together as a pair.
The first time I saw an image and definition of a yoke, everything clicked into place. Had I understood its meaning earlier in life, I might’ve saved some folks—and myself—a lot of time and, in some cases, a few headaches when narrowing down and choosing a life partner.
People often highlight the benefits of diversity. And yes, diversity can be valuable—in work teams, communities, and learning environments. But when it comes to sharing everyday life with someone, similarity in core values often trumps variety. If you’re in a relationship with someone who doesn’t share your foundational views and you think you can fix or change them—think again. In my experience, unless someone has a true “come to Jesus” moment, they’re unlikely to shift those deeper beliefs. And placing your hope in that possibility may leave you perpetually disappointed.
Now, that’s not to say couples with differing beliefs can’t make it work. Some do, and even thrive. But I’d argue your odds of success increase dramatically when you’re equally yoked.
Minor differences? You can navigate those:
• You like spinach, they prefer broccoli? Not a dealbreaker.
• You’re into war movies, they’re all about rom-coms? Totally workable.
But if you’re yoked to someone whose faith, political views, ethics, worldview, or long-term aspirations fundamentally clash with yours—it might be time for a gut check. In that case, stepping back and seeking someone whose values align more closely with yours isn’t giving up—it’s choosing wisely.
Because the truth is, life is smoother when you’re pulling in the same direction with someone who shares your vision. That’s the kind of partnership where two truly become one—not by force, but by harmony.
Up until late 2006, I had been aware of the major news events dominating national and global headlines—the big stories that were hard to miss, even if you weren’t paying close attention. But somewhere along the way, the news seemed to take a darker turn, growing increasingly troubling. It became so unsettling that I felt compelled to dig deeper to make sense of it all.
By then, it felt as though someone, somewhere, was waking up early and working overtime to ensure the news was as bleak as it was becoming. The economy was rumbling with signs of an impending upheaval. Saddam Hussein was convicted and executed, with the events broadcast live on TV. From my perspective, the news seemed to be spiraling into the bizarre.
[more]
In an effort to understand why these things were happening and to grasp where we, as a nation and as a world, might be heading, I decided to dive in—to explore the chaos in the hopes of finding some clarity.
Starting from scratch, I devoted countless hours in every spare moment to immerse myself, to learn, and to understand the landscape—who was who and what was what. What I uncovered was far more prolific and darker than I had ever imagined, leading me to spend an unhealthy amount of time delving deeper.
Although I ultimately made it through unscathed to a point where I felt I understood the major players and issues, I would highly encourage others to approach diving down rabbit holes with caution and to balance their time wisely. I vividly recall an evening in late 2007, after thousands of hours of research, when I pushed my chair away from the desk, crossed my arms, and stared across the room in a daze. At that moment, I realized—something I’m sure many had already understood before me—that whoever controls the media, controls the people.
If you have any doubts about what I’m saying here, you can see this for yourself. One source I have found to be mostly reliable is CSPAN, as it allows you to watch events live from beginning to end without editing. It’s fascinating to watch a full congressional hearing or event on CSPAN and then compare how it is reported by various major news outlets. Both the left and the right tweak their reporting to sway you, cropping clips and sound bites to paint the picture they want you to see. Neither side provides the complete truth; they provide their truth—or, more accurately stated, the narrative they want you to follow.
During my research, it also became clear that the majority of people are merely reacting to news headlines and sound bites, often without a true understanding of the actual facts. When I first encountered the terms “fake news” and “propaganda,” I fully agreed—this is exactly what is happening. However, where people go wrong is in believing that the reporting from their political side of the spectrum is truthful while the other side is not. The reality is that both sides are guilty of spreading fake news and propaganda. Both sides are contributing to the division of our citizens, and shame on all of them for doing so.
Although I am not overly optimistic that traditional news sources will return to reporting just the facts—without opinions or messaging designed to influence us—I am encouraged by the plethora of new media sources available. Podcasts, newsletters, and various social media platforms now offer diverse options for consuming news and content. These sources often cater to individuals who genuinely want to dive deeper into the details, uncovering the actual truth rather than settling for sound bites or talking points.
Over the years, I have compiled a list of trustworthy resources under the “Resources to Strengthen Your Noggin” section. These resources have consistently demonstrated to me a commitment to researching and validating facts before disseminating their content. They have earned my trust through years of reliability. While I am referring to these sources, I strongly encourage you to verify their accuracy, as it’s always important to critically evaluate the content you consume.
Today, I am adding Jordan Berman to this list. Jordan dedicates an enormous amount of time to researching and learning about the topics she reports on. Her core premise is to deliver factual news without opinion or spin—a refreshing approach in today’s climate.
A phrase fitting for Jordan’s work: “True justice lies in the balance, often evident when neither party walks away fully content but rather equally unsettled.”
If your political persuasion leans left, Jordan’s reporting will give you hope, challenge your biases, and occasionally frustrate you. If you lean right, you’ll experience the same mix of emotions. Jordan doesn’t pander or virtue signal; she reports the facts and the truth.
If all your current news sources tell you exactly what you want to hear, are you truly listening to the truth? If you’re mature enough to be open to perspectives other than your own, I encourage you to check out Jordan’s work at the links provided.
Start the New Year with A Simple and Rewarding Commitment
As the new year begins, many people set resolutions to improve their lives. One powerful and enriching way to start the year is by committing to read the Bible in a year. There are many means available to accomplish this. You can find printed Bibles, podcasts, CDs, downloadable audio, and websites designed for this purpose. These resources typically start on January 1st and continue daily for the entire year.
This might seem like quite the commitment for some, but many folks spend twice as much time daily swiping through content like ice bucket challenges, new dance moves, or watching a rock roll down a hill. Everyone has enough time daily to take this on. Even if you are not already a Christian, this is a great opportunity to learn more about the Christian faith and be on the same page daily with millions of other Christians.
[more]
This will be my fifth year going through Bible In A Year Online, recommended by a friend. For me, it’s part of my morning routine. As soon as I get up and head for coffee, I grab my phone, stick an earbud in my ear, and hit play. By the time I finish breakfast and coffee, I’ve completed the reading for the day—easy-peasy.
We are just a few days into the new year, making it a perfect time to start since you only need to catch up on a few days to be on the same page with everyone else. The average daily time needed is fifteen to twenty minutes. With the audio version, you can do this while on the treadmill, putting on makeup, driving to work, walking the dog, etc.
If you already identify as a Christian, are you reading the Word daily? If not, why not?
The link below and above go to the same link. This link will take you to the correct reading for each day. There is no need to search where to start. Just click the link when you’re ready. Save it under your favorites and join in daily with millions of Christians. You can also subscribe and have it emailed to you each day. Why not make this year the year you embark on this transformative journey?
“Yet many Christians are spiritually starved and weak because they ignore the spiritual “food” God has provided in the Bible. The Bible is not an option; it is a necessity. You cannot grow spiritually strong without it.” - Billy Graham
Home Remodeling Adventure: Transforming Our Upstairs
My wife and I decided to remodel the upstairs of our home this year. Our main motivator was to replace the carpet that was installed when the home was built with anything but carpet and update the overall look of the space. This included new paint, new plugs and switches, replacing traditional can lights with LED lighting, new smoke detectors, and pulling out the carpet and replacing it with laminate flooring and new baseboards. Fortunately, our downstairs is engineered hardwood, so we do not need to tackle another carpet replacement project anytime soon. We received multiple quotes for the flooring part of the project that were priced about what we expected. But somewhere along the way, my wife managed to convince me that I could do the work better than a professional. I was already entertaining the idea of doing the work myself. Having a wife who was encouraging and supportive of me learning along the way made taking on the effort less monumental.
[more] Preparation and Planning
None of the work was particularly overwhelming mentally, although it did take me about four hundred times longer than a professional to complete the project since I was learning as I went. The part of the project I was dreading the most was the stairs. The easy way to deal with the stairs from what we were told was to carpet them. Even the professional floor installers we spoke with recommended carpet on the stairs for ease of installation. We were told many stories of the difficulty of doing the stairs since no step or riser is ever the same size. The steps, although they had their own challenges, did not consume my thoughts and planning as much as the stair skirt board did.
Creating the Stair Skirt Template
Our house did not have an existing stair skirt, and I have never built one before. The only thing I had to go on was a bunch of YouTube videos. After watching many hours of DIY stair skirt installation videos, I was certain there had to be a better way. I found there are a few popular ways to make a stair skirt template, none of which I felt comfortable with.
Many professionals seem to take the measure and cut approach. This, to me, seemed like the most difficult approach since it seemed to require about a gazillion measurements. This approach I was sure I would make a mess of.
The DIY community seems to take one of two paths when creating a stair skirt template. The butcher paper approach, where they tape long lengths of butcher paper to the walls along the stairway and let it drape down to where it falls along the steps and risers. From here they mark with a marker around the paper and cut out the shape of the stairs. The lack of rigidity in the paper seemed like there was a higher probability of things moving around and more chance of error.
The third approach seemed better than the previous two but was still not ideal. In this case, people cut and taped cardboard around the contour of the steps and risers to make a template. Again, I could see a hundred different ways I could make a mistake here.
My Solution
After studying various methods to make a stair skirt template, I had an idea for a different method, a method I thought would keep me from making a complete mess of things.
I did like the concept of the paper and cardboard methods, but there just seemed to be too much chance for error. I wanted something more rigid that could not rip or bend, messing up my cut lines.
Pictured below is how I solved making a stair skirt template. Instead of paper or cardboard, I fashioned our templates out of yardsticks and paint stir sticks that were hot-glued to hold shape as I moved the template to the garage to trace the pattern on the board that would become the stair skirt.
I did use a tip I got from a YouTube guy who notched each side of the steps a half an inch (the width of the skirt board) to allow the template to fit snugly and eliminate the need to accommodate the nose of the step with the template since the stair that would be installed later would cover the notch. This was a good tip and greatly simplified things.
Notch for Skirt Board
Creating Skirt Board Template 1
Creating Skirt Board Template 2
Using template to draw cut lines.
Conclusion
I was not initially planning on doing a how-to write-up or video, so please forgive my lack of illustrations. However, my template worked great, and I thought it might be helpful for someone else that is getting ready to tackle a similar project. The one critical part not pictured is how I started the template. The first step was to lay a 10-foot level across the top of the stairs, pushed up against the wall of the stairs. In my case, this allowed for three inches from the nose of the stairs to what would end up being the top of the stair skirt. While leaving the level secured in place, I rested the yardsticks on top of the level and taped them to the wall with frog tape. I simply placed another yardstick butted up to the first to make the run long enough. To attach the two yardsticks together, I glued a paint stir stick centered over the butt joint. Other than that, the only other helpful tip I can add is to label your templates, since not one of them will be the same.
In the end, the project was a success, albeit time-consuming. I learned a lot along the way, added some new tools to my collection and felt a great sense of accomplishment once it was finished. If you’re considering a similar project, my biggest piece of advice is to take your time and find methods that work best for you.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
[more]
Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.
I first heard Paul Harvey’s broadcast, ‘If I Were the Devil,’ over twenty years ago. I was surprised by how accurately this broadcast from 1965 lined up with the events at the time thirty-nine years later. As the broadcast approaches its 60th anniversary, its relevance to current events has only grown stronger. If you have never heard the broadcast before, I would encourage you to give it a listen or read by clicking on read more below.
[more]
Paul Harvey’s ‘If I Were the Devil’ Transcript
If I were the devil … If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I’d have a third of its real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d 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 them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would 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 art in Washington…’
“And 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 threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal 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 that 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 intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
“Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography — soon I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols 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 want until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.
And what do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would caution against extremes and hard work in Patriotism, in moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus, I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were the devil I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.
Sean Boal
