Religion. The word by itself conjures up images in one's head based on one's background. When I wrote that word, religion, I had a mental picture of the black bible given to me as a child by the pastor at the 1st United Methodist Church. Other people may picture Christ on the cross, or the Virgin Mary, or the nun who hit their knuckles with a ruler in grade school. Other people think about religion and see only zealots and snake charmers. Still others see a waste of time, a black hole that conjures up no imagery whatsoever.
Liberal loons hate religion. They hate the fact that people have something to feel good about. As a certain progressive presidential candidate patronized, people "cling to" their religion. He said it like about people in depressed areas of Pennsylvania, I think in an attempt to show empathy for their plight, but he came off as an elitist. He made it sound like people are all drowning and will grab anything to survive. The subtext is that he views it as unnecessary - vote for him and you can quit clinging to religion. But a Harris Interactive Poll shows that 90% of people believe in God, so either there's a lot of bitter people in dire straights out there or not as many people are "clinging" to religion as some would have us believe. In times of trouble, people do turn to prayer for solace and comfort, and it's hard to find that a negative - unless you don't want people to have comfort, or don't want them to get it from God, but instead from some nanny-state entitlement.
The Founders established in this country freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution, only a provision that the state can't mandate the religion people will follow. Henry VIII created the Church of England out of personal desperation; there would be no Church of America. America has survived on faith based capitalism for 232 years. Godless Soviet Communism died in less than 70. The monstrous Nazi regime lasted less than a decade. In the Ardennes in 1944, do you think God was in the foxholes with our men? I'll put a sawbuck down that they would tell you yes (Dick Winters of Band of Brothers fame was a deeply religious man. His book Beyond Band Of Brothers goes into some detail about his beliefs.).
I'll close with a tale of divine intervention. In 1996 I was driving south out of Ft. Collins, Colorado in my 1984 Ford Tempo. I wasn't wearing my seat belt, and at the last red light at the edge of town, I was struck with a very powerful, specific sense of vulnerability. I've not felt anything like this before or since that afternoon, but on this day I had a vision of just how unprotected I was without my seat belt. I literally had chills run up and down my spine, I got goosebumps and I shivered. Almost compulsively, I fastened the seat belt and immediately the feeling went away. 20 minutes later I was in a head on collision with a small pickup truck that turned in front of me. The crash totalled both vehicles and sent the other driver to the hospital with multiple serious injuries. I walked away virtually unscathed, with only bruises on my hips and neck from the seat belt. The accident investigation unit, or AIU officer said that I most likely would have been killed had it not been for that seat belt. She was actually amazed that I was even able to stand under my own power.
Did God tell me to put the seat belt on? Was it Divine Intervention? I can offer no proof other than my own testimony. I believe without question that the urge to put on that seat belt came from outside of myself. The forcefulness of that feeling has never been duplicated in any situation since then, and I can't chalk it up to anything I can explain; nor can I believe, as skeptics will surely say, that it was a coincidence. Someone was looking out for me that day, and that's all I really need to know.
I will have upcoming blogs looking at the new religion the progressives have embraced, and why it has the capability to doom us all.
Question - have you experienced divine intervention in your life?
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Everyone Loves Ernie
Nancy Pelosi is up to no good again, and by that I mean spending time and effort on the wrong things, and showing some hypocrisy in the process.
Joey Cheek, American speed skater, is the founder of Team Darfur. Team Darfur is a group of athletes who are bringing attention to the plight of people suffering what some say is a carefully orchestrated genocide in the the African country of Sudan. Certainly it is a bad situation - over 200,000 people have died and over a million are homeless. Joey and a group of other non-competing athletes were planning on going to the Olympic games in Beijing to help spread awareness of the situation in Darfur. Less than 24 hours before his flight was to leave, his visa was revoked by the Chinese government. On his blog Cheek said "I find this very concerning because I believe that it is an effort to silence anyone who is even suspected of disagreeing with the Chinese government."
A couple of points: First, I'm sure what the implication is - does he think China is behind or supports the situation in Darfur? How exactly is he in disagreement with them on this issue? Second, China is a sovreign nation and their visas are issued and can be revoked at their discretion. If they don't want non-competing athletes there for the sole purpose of speaking out about human rights issues, so be it. Maybe this makes the freedoms we enjoy in America seem a little more free, no? Third, the Olympics are supposed to be a time to set aside politics and engage in the pure competition of sport. Now, everyone who watches is rooting for their nation, and victories in the games can have political overtones (1980 Lake Placid, anyone?) but for non-competing athletes to come for the express purpose of protesting is not, in my mind, in keeping with the spirit of the games. The 400+ members of team Darfur will disagree with me, but that's my stance. Lastly, the liberal left in America is still aghast that we toppled the Hussein regime in Iraq, which over the last 30 years has killed thousands of people with chemical weapons, systematically tortured and raped thousands more and attacked two neighboring countries...yet they're eager for us to get involved in Darfur and to tell the Chinese who they should and should not let into their country? You can't have it both ways, and yet like on most other issues, they want to play both sides of the fence.
Now segue to Nancy Pelosi. After she heard about the revocation of Cheek's visa, she urged President Bush to intervene, saying that the actions was part of an "orchestrated campaign to deny entry to individuals because of their political views." Hello? Pot and the kettle? This is coming from the same person who, the week before, refused to allow our elected representatives to vote on offshore drilling by turning off the lights in the senate chamber, shutting off the microphones, and running as fast as she could from Washington. Why did she do this? Well, I think it has something to do with denying individuals based on their political views.
There is some cause for celebration though. The book tour Pelosi fled Washington for was wildly unsuccessful. Her book "Know Your Power: A Message To America's Daughters" has not risen above a sales rank of 1333rd. It's worst ranking was 5226, and it currently is ranked the 3199th best selling book. Let's contrast that with Dick Morris' new book "Fleeced." It rose to number 5 on the best seller list, falling as low as 43rd and now is ranked 22nd. Even "Ernie - The Autobiography" written by Ernest Borgnine is currently ranked 969th. This means that, in terms of messages to America's daughters, America finds Ernest Borgnine's writing more relevant than Nancy Pelosi's. I know liberals think the average American is not very bright, but I think America got it right on this one!
Joey Cheek, American speed skater, is the founder of Team Darfur. Team Darfur is a group of athletes who are bringing attention to the plight of people suffering what some say is a carefully orchestrated genocide in the the African country of Sudan. Certainly it is a bad situation - over 200,000 people have died and over a million are homeless. Joey and a group of other non-competing athletes were planning on going to the Olympic games in Beijing to help spread awareness of the situation in Darfur. Less than 24 hours before his flight was to leave, his visa was revoked by the Chinese government. On his blog Cheek said "I find this very concerning because I believe that it is an effort to silence anyone who is even suspected of disagreeing with the Chinese government."
A couple of points: First, I'm sure what the implication is - does he think China is behind or supports the situation in Darfur? How exactly is he in disagreement with them on this issue? Second, China is a sovreign nation and their visas are issued and can be revoked at their discretion. If they don't want non-competing athletes there for the sole purpose of speaking out about human rights issues, so be it. Maybe this makes the freedoms we enjoy in America seem a little more free, no? Third, the Olympics are supposed to be a time to set aside politics and engage in the pure competition of sport. Now, everyone who watches is rooting for their nation, and victories in the games can have political overtones (1980 Lake Placid, anyone?) but for non-competing athletes to come for the express purpose of protesting is not, in my mind, in keeping with the spirit of the games. The 400+ members of team Darfur will disagree with me, but that's my stance. Lastly, the liberal left in America is still aghast that we toppled the Hussein regime in Iraq, which over the last 30 years has killed thousands of people with chemical weapons, systematically tortured and raped thousands more and attacked two neighboring countries...yet they're eager for us to get involved in Darfur and to tell the Chinese who they should and should not let into their country? You can't have it both ways, and yet like on most other issues, they want to play both sides of the fence.
Now segue to Nancy Pelosi. After she heard about the revocation of Cheek's visa, she urged President Bush to intervene, saying that the actions was part of an "orchestrated campaign to deny entry to individuals because of their political views." Hello? Pot and the kettle? This is coming from the same person who, the week before, refused to allow our elected representatives to vote on offshore drilling by turning off the lights in the senate chamber, shutting off the microphones, and running as fast as she could from Washington. Why did she do this? Well, I think it has something to do with denying individuals based on their political views.
There is some cause for celebration though. The book tour Pelosi fled Washington for was wildly unsuccessful. Her book "Know Your Power: A Message To America's Daughters" has not risen above a sales rank of 1333rd. It's worst ranking was 5226, and it currently is ranked the 3199th best selling book. Let's contrast that with Dick Morris' new book "Fleeced." It rose to number 5 on the best seller list, falling as low as 43rd and now is ranked 22nd. Even "Ernie - The Autobiography" written by Ernest Borgnine is currently ranked 969th. This means that, in terms of messages to America's daughters, America finds Ernest Borgnine's writing more relevant than Nancy Pelosi's. I know liberals think the average American is not very bright, but I think America got it right on this one!
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home!
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has morphed into Eric Cartman. When she was being pressured to go to an up or down vote on the topic of energy strategy, rather than debate the topic she did the adult thing and turned off the lights and left the room.
The House Republicans issued an open letter to her (read the whole thing here). Here's an excerpt:
"In protest of you and your Democrat majority not allowing an up or down vote on producing more American energy, we and our House Republican colleagues were prepared to take to the floor on Friday, August 1, 2008, and speak to the nation. Rather than allowing that to happen you and your Democrat majority adjourned the House, turned off the television cameras, shut off the microphones and turned out the lights. Nearly 50 House Republicans remained on the floor of the House in defiance speaking to those citizens gathered in the galleries and to the media."
Is that what our elected officials have sunk to? They'll kill the power and run rather than face a conflict? No wonder the Dems want to get out of Iraq...they can't even stomach a debate in the halls of Congress!
Even George Stephanopoulos was tough on her in an interview (read the transcript at the end of the open letter). After asking her 4 times why she won't allow a vote and receiving non-answers, he finally just says "So you won't allow a vote." I particularly like this exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as speaker, you promised in your commitment book, A New Direction for America, let me show our viewers, you said that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives. If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?
PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote, and they may get a vote. But I have tried, you know, we have serious policy issues in our country.
I completely agree. We do have serious policy issues in this country when one person can make unilateral decisions to keep our elected officials from doing their jobs.
In a final twist of irony, Pelosi scampered off to her 5 week vacation to promote her new book. Yes, that's right, rather than trying to help out her constituency, she is out trying to make herself some money. And what of the planet she's so desperate to save by not allowing us to use more fossil fuel? Apparently that matters little to her as she's traveling from Boston to Philadelphia to Miami to Michigan over the next few days. I guess carbon footprints only matter when they're not hers.
The House Republicans issued an open letter to her (read the whole thing here). Here's an excerpt:
"In protest of you and your Democrat majority not allowing an up or down vote on producing more American energy, we and our House Republican colleagues were prepared to take to the floor on Friday, August 1, 2008, and speak to the nation. Rather than allowing that to happen you and your Democrat majority adjourned the House, turned off the television cameras, shut off the microphones and turned out the lights. Nearly 50 House Republicans remained on the floor of the House in defiance speaking to those citizens gathered in the galleries and to the media."
Is that what our elected officials have sunk to? They'll kill the power and run rather than face a conflict? No wonder the Dems want to get out of Iraq...they can't even stomach a debate in the halls of Congress!
Even George Stephanopoulos was tough on her in an interview (read the transcript at the end of the open letter). After asking her 4 times why she won't allow a vote and receiving non-answers, he finally just says "So you won't allow a vote." I particularly like this exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as speaker, you promised in your commitment book, A New Direction for America, let me show our viewers, you said that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives. If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?
PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote, and they may get a vote. But I have tried, you know, we have serious policy issues in our country.
I completely agree. We do have serious policy issues in this country when one person can make unilateral decisions to keep our elected officials from doing their jobs.
In a final twist of irony, Pelosi scampered off to her 5 week vacation to promote her new book. Yes, that's right, rather than trying to help out her constituency, she is out trying to make herself some money. And what of the planet she's so desperate to save by not allowing us to use more fossil fuel? Apparently that matters little to her as she's traveling from Boston to Philadelphia to Miami to Michigan over the next few days. I guess carbon footprints only matter when they're not hers.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Will race be an issue? Does the Pope wear a funny hat?
One of the questions that the media has been throwing around is that is "will race be an issue?" in the coming election. Maybe not as much as people think. Pat Buchanan in an article "Whitey Need Not Apply" asserts that blacks are favoring Barack Obama over McCain 90% to 10%. While that certainly points to a bias, it's about the same percentage of blacks that voted for Al Gore in 2000. The bias is probably solidified by race, but can be traced to political party as well, and that should not surprise anyone.
If you read the rest of Buchanan's article, what is disturbing is the continuing trend of the left in America to continue to try to legislate a change in the dynamics of business. The group UNITY wants to have a forced number of racially diverse people in leadership positions in the media. That means anyone not white. They even go so far as to demand that the candidates be given the proper training for the leadership positions. Rather than hiring the most qualified candidate, which is how hiring should be done, they want to place someone in the role and then train them. Isn't that like putting someone on the Olympic team and entering them in 100 yard dash before knowing whether they can run or not? In business, as in sport, you can't afford to put the wrong person in a key position or the results suffer. That is why a proper vetting process - one that selects the strongest candidate, regardless of race, religion, or any other factor outside of capability - is so important. But Obama would have it otherwise.
From Buchanan's article:
"On Sunday, McCain came out in favor of an Arizona civil rights initiative that would outlaw any state discrimination either for or against folks, based on race, gender or national origin. Barack said he was "disappointed" with McCain and told UNITY he favors affirmative action "when properly structured."
The Arizona referendum banning preferential treatment based on race is also on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado. It won in California in 1996, in Washington in 2000 and in Michigan in the great Democratic sweep of 2006. It has never lost, and may just win McCain Colorado, and with it the nation."
Obama favors affirmative action "when it is properly structured" but doesn't explain what that structure is. Does this mean he favors one race or group of races over others? Given the audience to which he was speaking, I think it's a fair bet he does.
McCain wants to outlaw any bias based on race, gender or national origin. In other words, the best man (or woman) wins. I can only hope - and pray - that the same holds true in November.
If you read the rest of Buchanan's article, what is disturbing is the continuing trend of the left in America to continue to try to legislate a change in the dynamics of business. The group UNITY wants to have a forced number of racially diverse people in leadership positions in the media. That means anyone not white. They even go so far as to demand that the candidates be given the proper training for the leadership positions. Rather than hiring the most qualified candidate, which is how hiring should be done, they want to place someone in the role and then train them. Isn't that like putting someone on the Olympic team and entering them in 100 yard dash before knowing whether they can run or not? In business, as in sport, you can't afford to put the wrong person in a key position or the results suffer. That is why a proper vetting process - one that selects the strongest candidate, regardless of race, religion, or any other factor outside of capability - is so important. But Obama would have it otherwise.
From Buchanan's article:
"On Sunday, McCain came out in favor of an Arizona civil rights initiative that would outlaw any state discrimination either for or against folks, based on race, gender or national origin. Barack said he was "disappointed" with McCain and told UNITY he favors affirmative action "when properly structured."
The Arizona referendum banning preferential treatment based on race is also on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado. It won in California in 1996, in Washington in 2000 and in Michigan in the great Democratic sweep of 2006. It has never lost, and may just win McCain Colorado, and with it the nation."
Obama favors affirmative action "when it is properly structured" but doesn't explain what that structure is. Does this mean he favors one race or group of races over others? Given the audience to which he was speaking, I think it's a fair bet he does.
McCain wants to outlaw any bias based on race, gender or national origin. In other words, the best man (or woman) wins. I can only hope - and pray - that the same holds true in November.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Change - you can believe in! (if you believe you have it too easy now)
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.... That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
That's Barack Obama in his own words. The problem isn't supply, or too little refining capacity, or OPEC gouging the free world, it is...you guessed it, US. This is the typical liberal battle cry - Blame America First. So if you like to drive something other than a Prius and live in comfort, you are the problem. And Barack is NOT going to help you. Remember that when you go to the polls.
In fact, remember this; Barack and the rest of the Democratic party WANT US TO SUFFER. They would love it if gas hits $5, $6 or $7 per gallon - as long it does it before November. The worse off we are going into the election, the more they get to blame Bush and everyone who supports him. Mark my words - the Democratic Congress (who get to take all of August off and will only "work" for a maximum of 160 days this year) WILL DO NOTHING until after the election. Even then, what they do will be to make the situation worse.
Obama and everyone in congress make over $160,000 per year. That's just salary. That doesn't take into account just about everything they spend money on is probably a deduction on their taxes so they pay less than the average person. It doesn't take into account book royalties or appearance fees for speeches. Do you think they give a shit about the price of gas? They can afford it. Remember that when you go to the polls.
Remember that in addition to making your energy costs worse, Barack will actively reach into your pockets for more tax money. Not only will everything cost more, you'll have less take home pay to cover those costs. But remember, if you like to live in comfort, drive an SUV, then you get what you deserve. So says Obama.
That's Barack Obama in his own words. The problem isn't supply, or too little refining capacity, or OPEC gouging the free world, it is...you guessed it, US. This is the typical liberal battle cry - Blame America First. So if you like to drive something other than a Prius and live in comfort, you are the problem. And Barack is NOT going to help you. Remember that when you go to the polls.
In fact, remember this; Barack and the rest of the Democratic party WANT US TO SUFFER. They would love it if gas hits $5, $6 or $7 per gallon - as long it does it before November. The worse off we are going into the election, the more they get to blame Bush and everyone who supports him. Mark my words - the Democratic Congress (who get to take all of August off and will only "work" for a maximum of 160 days this year) WILL DO NOTHING until after the election. Even then, what they do will be to make the situation worse.
Obama and everyone in congress make over $160,000 per year. That's just salary. That doesn't take into account just about everything they spend money on is probably a deduction on their taxes so they pay less than the average person. It doesn't take into account book royalties or appearance fees for speeches. Do you think they give a shit about the price of gas? They can afford it. Remember that when you go to the polls.
Remember that in addition to making your energy costs worse, Barack will actively reach into your pockets for more tax money. Not only will everything cost more, you'll have less take home pay to cover those costs. But remember, if you like to live in comfort, drive an SUV, then you get what you deserve. So says Obama.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Will the Dems Listen to the people?
Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of drilling for oil in ANWR and the OCS as well as extracting oil from the oil shale reserves and Canadian oil sands. However, the Democrats in congress have blocked every attempt to increase our domestic supply of oil. Here's a video describing the situation:
http://video.newsmax.com
I think the party that will win in November is the one that will make this the issue. Listen, if you want to pay $4, $5, $6 per gallon for gas, if you want your tax rates to increase by as much as 20% (7% for Social Security, 13% for the top marginal tax rate), if you want to pay double the taxes on capital gains (retiree's, listen up - that will hit you hard!!), if you want to see babies killed as they're being born (partial birth abortion) then maybe you're an Obama man. If you woke up this morning and thought to yourself "You know, I get to keep far too much of the money I work for. I wish there was a way I could give up more of it while never seeing anything in return," then you probably will vote for Obama. However, if any of these things don't sound good, then go with McCain. It's pretty simple, really.
http://video.newsmax.com
I think the party that will win in November is the one that will make this the issue. Listen, if you want to pay $4, $5, $6 per gallon for gas, if you want your tax rates to increase by as much as 20% (7% for Social Security, 13% for the top marginal tax rate), if you want to pay double the taxes on capital gains (retiree's, listen up - that will hit you hard!!), if you want to see babies killed as they're being born (partial birth abortion) then maybe you're an Obama man. If you woke up this morning and thought to yourself "You know, I get to keep far too much of the money I work for. I wish there was a way I could give up more of it while never seeing anything in return," then you probably will vote for Obama. However, if any of these things don't sound good, then go with McCain. It's pretty simple, really.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Remember D-Day!!
I am a fan of history, particularly the first and second world wars. I find it fascinating to see the machinations that moved so many countries to send tens of millions of people to their death. World War Two, in particular, is fascinating because of the incredible acts of evil that were perpetrated by the Nazis. What could drive people - mothers, fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, working class men and women - to ignore the atrocities at the least, or participate in them at the worst? I don't know that a satisfactory answer can be derived from that question.
What I do know is that World War II was the last time the nation was united and committed to a cause. Even a few years later, in Korea, the people at home were deeply divided by the war. It grew worse in Vietnam and war has only served as polarizing issue since then. Attempting to explain the divided mindsets, John Keegan, in the book The First World War (it took me longer to read it than America was actually involved in the war!) postulates that the media has created this wedge. Had the media, with all the access to battlefield, the photographic and video technology of today, existed in 1918 no one in modern society would have ever considered going to war again.
There are differing philosophies espoused about war. Without doing any research, I believe it was Gandhi who said that you cannot simultaneously achieve peace while preparing for war. Another perspective - was it Sun Tzu? - holds that to have peace you must be prepared for war. I believe that war is not just a possibility, it's inevitable. As long as people want what other people have - land, wealth, or most of all, power - there will be conflict. If enough people want the same thing that conflict will become a war. Maybe I am a pessimist on this topic, but if all "civilized" society laid down it's arms, someone else will pick them up. But I digress.
During World War II the Allies had two very dynamic leaders at the helm. Winston Churchill was the prime minister of England. He was pushed out of politics after World War I and labeled a "war monger" by the more appeasement minded party. Many believe that if Churchill had been in power rather than Chamberlain in 1936 the war would have been averted. Churchill's way of plain speaking and rallying his country preserved it during the long Battle Of Britain. He kept the Nazi war machine in check long enough for the isolationist America to get pulled into the fray in 1941.
On the American side, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was beloved by the nation, having led us through the depression. Historians today dispute his true value to the future of our nation, but at the time he was America, being elected to four terms as President. His "Fireside chats" kept the nation calm - or at least informed - during the depression and the war. One of his chats was on June 6th, 1944 - D-Day. The tide of war changed this day, and the defeat of Nazi Germany became more certain from this point going forward. In fact, because of this mission the world would be forever different. On the 6th FDR broadcast a short message of prayer that served to inform the nation of the invasion and rally their support at a crucial time of the conflict. I've pasted the text of the broadcast below. To hear the audio in FDR's voice click here.
“My Fellow Americans:
“Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
“And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
“Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
“They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
“They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
“For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
“Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
“And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
“Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
“Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.
“And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.
“And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
“With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
“Thy will be done, Almighty God.
“Amen.”
What I do know is that World War II was the last time the nation was united and committed to a cause. Even a few years later, in Korea, the people at home were deeply divided by the war. It grew worse in Vietnam and war has only served as polarizing issue since then. Attempting to explain the divided mindsets, John Keegan, in the book The First World War (it took me longer to read it than America was actually involved in the war!) postulates that the media has created this wedge. Had the media, with all the access to battlefield, the photographic and video technology of today, existed in 1918 no one in modern society would have ever considered going to war again.
There are differing philosophies espoused about war. Without doing any research, I believe it was Gandhi who said that you cannot simultaneously achieve peace while preparing for war. Another perspective - was it Sun Tzu? - holds that to have peace you must be prepared for war. I believe that war is not just a possibility, it's inevitable. As long as people want what other people have - land, wealth, or most of all, power - there will be conflict. If enough people want the same thing that conflict will become a war. Maybe I am a pessimist on this topic, but if all "civilized" society laid down it's arms, someone else will pick them up. But I digress.
During World War II the Allies had two very dynamic leaders at the helm. Winston Churchill was the prime minister of England. He was pushed out of politics after World War I and labeled a "war monger" by the more appeasement minded party. Many believe that if Churchill had been in power rather than Chamberlain in 1936 the war would have been averted. Churchill's way of plain speaking and rallying his country preserved it during the long Battle Of Britain. He kept the Nazi war machine in check long enough for the isolationist America to get pulled into the fray in 1941.
On the American side, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was beloved by the nation, having led us through the depression. Historians today dispute his true value to the future of our nation, but at the time he was America, being elected to four terms as President. His "Fireside chats" kept the nation calm - or at least informed - during the depression and the war. One of his chats was on June 6th, 1944 - D-Day. The tide of war changed this day, and the defeat of Nazi Germany became more certain from this point going forward. In fact, because of this mission the world would be forever different. On the 6th FDR broadcast a short message of prayer that served to inform the nation of the invasion and rally their support at a crucial time of the conflict. I've pasted the text of the broadcast below. To hear the audio in FDR's voice click here.
“My Fellow Americans:
“Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
“And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
“Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
“They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
“They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
“For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
“Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
“And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
“Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
“Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.
“And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.
“And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
“With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
“Thy will be done, Almighty God.
“Amen.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
