June 6, 1944: D-Day-FDR Prayer

Monday, June 6, AD 2016

(The video inserts material not related to D-Day.  I will give it a pass.  D-Day, with the passage of the decades, has become a symbol of the entire US war effort in World War II, an effort which deserves to be remembered.)

 

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 good will 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 arrogancies. 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.

Continue reading...

Reagan on FDR

Friday, January 30, AD 2015

 

Today is my bride’s birthday, a birthday she shares with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  On this day, I think the remarks of President Reagan on the centennial of FDR’s birth need to be recalled.  Reagan of course supported FDR when Reagan was a New Deal Democrat.  As a Republican he attempted to correct the mistakes of the New Deal, but he never lost his admiration for the leadership shown by Roosevelt, many aspects of which Reagan during his Presidency shared.  Here are an excerpt of Reagan’s remarks:

 

We’re all here today to mark the centennial of one of history’s truly monumental figures, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Historians still debate the details of his intentions, his policies and their impact. But all agree that, like the Founding Fathers before him, F. D. R. was an American giant, a leader who shaped, inspired, and led our people through perilous times. He meant many different things to many different people. He could reach out to men and women of diverse races and backgrounds and inspire them with new hope and new confidence in war and peace.

Franklin Roosevelt was the first President I ever saw. I remember the moment vividly. It was in 1936, a campaign parade in Des Moines, Iowa. What a wave of affection and pride swept through that crowd as he passed by in an open car—which we haven’t seen a President able to do for a long time—a familiar smile on his lips, jaunty and confident, drawing from us reservoirs of confidence and enthusiasm some of us had forgotten we had during those hard years. Maybe that was F. D. R.’s greatest gift to us. He really did convince us that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Reagan on FDR

  • Happy Birthday Mrs. McClarey.
    Blessings and celestial warmth be yours.

  • What a lovely post for your wife and for all of us. I appreciate the sentiments expressed here by both of those presidents. God has blessed us with leaders in the past. I hope we can recognize and elect the leaders for today and for 2016 and after.

  • Thank you for the lovely birthday wishes, Philip & Anzlyne! I was born on Midway Island — and am extremely glad that the Battle of Midway was many years prior to my birthday! 😉

Smedley Butler and the Plot Against FDR

Thursday, January 29, AD 2015

 

In November 1934 Major General Smedley Butler made headlines by alleging that he had been in contact with businessmen since July 1, 1933 who wanted him to lead a coup attempt against FDR.  The allegations became known as the Business Plot.  Congressional hearings concluded that there might be some substance behind the allegations, but that they could not be confirmed.

 

 

Contemporary press accounts indicate a wide spread belief that Butler fabricated the whole thing. Butler was passed over as Commandant of the Marine Corp in 1931 because he publicly accused Mussolini, falsely, in a speech of having run over a child. He never got over it and he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1932 as a Republican. He then turned hard left, attacking capitalism and the military as being gangsters for the capitalists. That is what makes his entire idea of a fascist plot against FDR so laughable. By 1934 he was known as an ardent supporter of FDR and yet shadowy plutocrats wanted him to command a coup against Roosevelt? FDR obviously thought it was rubbish as there were no criminal prosecutions by the Feds of anyone named by Butler. Butler was a very brave man as attested by his two Medals of Honor. He was also a fabulist, to put it politely, of the first order.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Smedley Butler and the Plot Against FDR

  • An old French diplomat once told me that there would never be a military coup in the United States; there is no American embassy in the United States.

  • Well MPS, the French certainly have the expertise when it comes to military coups.

  • Ego and guts (arete and hubris in Greek tragedy) but, apparently, he had little or no moral courage/foundation. How could a morally grounded person flip from early-twenth-century Republican (unsuccessful Senate candidate) to uber-bolshevist – one more “useful idiot”? The conspiracy theory contra FDR may shed light.

    He remains a darling of the post-modern, American useful idiot, aka Obama-worshipping imbecile.

  • “Well MPS, the French certainly have the expertise when it comes to military coups.”

    Ouch! What a double edged dagger! The French may have one type of expertise overseas, but another at home! Considering the aftermath of the Dreyfuss Affair and the OAS attempts on De Gaulle, the home grown attempts look more like Inspector Clouseau on steroids.

  • Ah, but one of the first military coups was one of the most successful: Napoleon toppling the Directory.

  • True, but the Directory may have been easy pickings after all of its fratricidal violence and anarchy. As a relief, Napoleon Bonaparte then becomes the exception proving the rule, as the saying goes.

  • 🙂 I thought it funny Michael

  • TomD wrote, “Considering the aftermath of the Dreyfuss Affair and the OAS attempts on De Gaulle, the home grown attempts look more like Inspector Clouseau on steroids.”
    Who can forget the coup of 2 December 1851, when Prince Louis-Napoléon, then President of the Second Republic, organised a successful military coup to overthrow himself, leading to the establishment of the Second Empire?
    Marx sardonically observed, “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
    John Clerk’s words to the second Lord Meadowbank are equally applicable to the uncle and the nephew; on that judge doubting the distinction between “also” and “likewise,” Clerk retorted, “Your Lordship’s father was Lord Meadowbank ; your Lordship is Lord Meadowbank also, but not likewise.”

Seventy-Three Years Ago

Sunday, December 7, AD 2014

 

 

War is brutish, inglorious, and a terrible waste.

Combat leaves an indelible mark on those who are forced to endure it. The only redeeming factors were my comrades’ incredible bravery and their devotion to each other. Marine Corps training taught us to kill efficiently and to try to survive. But it also taught us loyalty to each other – and love. That esprit de corps sustained us.”

 

Until the millennium arrives and countries cease trying to enslave others, it will be necessary to accept one’s responsibilities and to be willing to make sacrifices for one’s country — as my comrades did. As the troops used to say, “If the country is good enough to live in, it’s good enough to fight for.” With privilege goes responsibility.

Eugene B. Sledge, “With the Old Breed

Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Seventy-Three Years Ago

1944 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Friday, November 28, AD 2014

 

Thanksgiving 1944 saw Americans fighting around the globe, with their families back home praying for their safety.  FDR recognized this with his 1944 Thanksgiving Proclamation:

By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

 

In this year of liberation, which has seen so many millions freed from tyrannical rule, it is fitting that we give thanks with special fervor to our Heavenly Father for the mercies we have received individually and as a nation and for the blessings He has restored, through the victories of our arms and those of our allies, to His children in other lands.

For the preservation of our way of life from the threat of destruction; for the unity of spirit which has kept our Nation strong; for our abiding faith in freedom; and for the promise of an enduring peace, we should lift up our hearts in thanksgiving.

For the harvest that has sustained us and, in its fullness, brought succor to other peoples; for the bounty of our soil, which has produced the sinews of war for the protection of our liberties; and for a multitude of private blessings, known only in our hearts, we should give united thanks to God.

To the end that we may bear more earnest witness to our gratitude to Almighty God, I suggest a nationwide reading of the Holy Scriptures during the period from Thanksgiving Day to Christmas. Let every man of every creed go to his own version of the Scriptures for a renewed and strengthening contact with those eternal truths and majestic principles which have inspired such measure of true greatness as this nation has achieved.

Now, Therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in consonance with the joint resolution of the Congress approved December 26, 1941, do hereby proclaim Thursday the twenty-third day of November 1944 a day of national thanksgiving; and I call upon the people of the United States to observe it by bending every effort to hasten the day of final victory and by offering to God our devout gratitude for His goodness to us and to our fellow men.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

DONE at the City of Washington this first day of November in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and forty-four and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and sixty-ninth.


FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

 

 

Continue reading...

Art Imitating Life and Life Imitating Art

Sunday, September 21, AD 2014

I finished watching Ken Burns, The Roosevelts:  An Intimate History.  A fair amount of liberal hagiography for FDR and, especially, Eleanor, but on the whole I liked it, and I will review it in a future post.  However, I was struck by a vignette that occurred in the final episode last night.

By 1944 FDR was in visibly failing health.  Diagnosed with congestive  heart failure, Dr. Howard Bruenn, a Navy Lieutenant Commander and cardiologist, followed him everywhere.  He recommended extended bed rest which was an impossible diagnosis for a Commander-in-Chief during a World War.

At the Quebec Conference with Churchill, in the evening for entertainment, FDR had the film Wilson (1944) shown.  A film biopic of the life of Woodrow Wilson from his election as Governor of New Jersey in 1910, the movie is largely forgotten today.  It won several Oscars, but was a financial flop, people being too preoccupied with the current World War to want to see a movie about the first one.  Alexander Knox, relegated through most of his career in character actor roles, does a good job in the role of Wilson.  Making the dessicated, pedantic Wilson into a heroic figure was difficult, but the film, taking a fast and loose approach with much of the history of the period, and with the help of a majestic musical score, accomplishes the feat.  It is definitely worth watching.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Art Imitating Life and Life Imitating Art

  • The only mensch in the bunch was TR’s son: assistant div commander through North Africa, Sicily, and D-Day.

    I only watched the last half hour last episode.

    I am truly elated I didn’t waste any more eyesight on 100% liberal propaganda/spucatum tauri.

    One thing struck me. I’m as old as the man when went to judgment. My grandfathers passed in their late 40’s and early 50’s. Only the good die young.

    Major take-away. The Roosevelts are representative of the elites that have run this country at least since 1913 – IRS/income tax and the Federal Reserve System. And, N.B. in their 24/7 work to impose their progressive pipe-dreams. They have done such a good job of progressing us.

  • “The only mensch in the bunch was TR’s son: assistant div commander through North Africa, Sicily, and D-Day.”

    All four of FDR’s sons served in combat during World War II.

  • I noticed that one historical tidbit was glossed over at the end of the series. The Eleanor Roosevelt – JFK meeting was such a love fest in the show. However, I do recall an account of JFK telling his aides how she had put him through the ringer over his reluctance to nominate Adlai Stevenson to be Secretary of State. Oops, another one just went down the memory hole.

  • Although she became supportive of him eventually, Eleanor initially had disdain for Kennedy as a conservative Democrat, which is what she perceived him to be, and which, in some ways he was from her point of view.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=erpintrob

    Of course FDR and Joe Kennedy cordially despised each other, so there was probably some carryover from that.

  • I remember as a young man seating in my maternal grandfather porch lamenting about the situation in my beloved Cuba, I will never forget my grandpa’s words to me:
    SON,THE REASON WHY COMMUNISM IS SUCCESSFUL IN THIS HEMISPHERE WE OWE TO FDR HE SOLD US DOWN THE TUBES BY DEALING WITH STALIN, THUS PERMITTING THE SOVIETS TO INFILTRATE DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES.
    I could not believe what I heard. Later on as I became an AMERICAN I studied and learned Granpa was right.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA.

  • One more comment on the Roosevelt documentary: the account of FDR leading the nation in prayer on the evening of June 6, 1944 was refreshing and positive, without a hint of anti-religious sentiment. I was surprised and even impressed. FYI the text of the prayer can be found here: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-prayer.htm

The Roosevelts: An Intimate History

Sunday, September 14, AD 2014

A new series beginning on PBS tonight:  The Roosevelts:  An Intimate History.  A seven part Ken Burns history marathon it will examine the lives of Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt.  Burns is a fairly strident liberal Democrat so it will be interesting to see if FDR and Eleanor are treated as plaster saints, or if we will sight any meaningful analysis of those complex figures.

Theodore Roosevelt was a cousin of Franklin and an uncle to Eleanor.  He loomed large over their lives, Theodore acting as conservator of the drunken, suicidal Elliott, his beloved black sheep brother, the father of Eleanor, and Franklin seeking to model himself and his career after his famous fifth cousin.  Ironically, the contrasts between Theodore and Franklin are stark.  Theodore’s brand of progressive Republicanism was rejected by his party, while Franklin was successful in remodeling the Democrat party into the embodiment of the progressive nostrums of his time.  Theodore was an extremely moral man who exercised absolute fidelity to his two wives, his first wife having died on the same day as his mother.  Franklin Roosevelt was a precursor of such bounders as JFK, LBJ and Bill Clinton who exercised the moral probity of low rent Casanovas.  Theodore Roosevelt, a man made to be a war president, was president in a time of profound peace for the nation;  FDR achieved his lasting fame as commander in chief during World War II.  Theodore’s political career ended in defeat in 1912, the Grim Reaper preventing a possible resurgence in 1920, Roosevelt having mended political fences with the Republican Party by his constant criticism of Wilson during World War I.  FDR knew unprecedented political success as President, setting the dangerous precedent of being elected four times to the office, and only the Grim Reaper ending his grip on the White House.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to The Roosevelts: An Intimate History

  • Theodore Roosevelt was certainly no liberal. He wrote that “pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free trade seems inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fibre” and insisted that “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” A more trenchant rejection of the cardinal liberal doctrine of laissez-faire it would be difficult to imagine.

  • The Colonel, as he liked to be called, defies our modern categories of political analysis. He held political opinions that would inspire, and enrage, all sections of the political spectrum today. His views were also often complex, and snippets taken from his voluminous writings and speeches often do not give an accurate portrayal of his view on an issue.

    Setting that aside, he was a force of nature in human form, a ceaseless whirlwind of activity throughout his life as he accomplished more in 60 years than most men could if a life span of 600 years were granted to them. He was TR and leaders of his calibre are rare indeed.

  • “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”
    .
    “Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

  • “In some ways Eleanor is the most significant figure of the trio for our contemporary world. She set the model for those who find personal fulfillment in ideological activism. Her embrace of a laundry list of the ‘good’ causes of her day helped establish the concept that being a good person requires having beliefs that are ‘politically correct’. ”
    Will Ken Burns mention that she had a NY pistol permit and regularly carried a revolver? Teddy would have proud.

  • “Will Ken Burns mention that she had a NY pistol permit and regularly carried a revolver? Teddy would have been proud.”

    True Tom and that demonstrates how liberalism has morphed over the years. Reagan used to say that he didn’t leave the Democrat party, but the Democrat party left him, and there was a fair amount of truth in that statement.

  • Burns is a fairly strident liberal Democrat

    Do not know about ‘strident’. Richard John Neuhaus once described the editor of The Christian Century as a man who fancied his sectarian opinions were just something ‘everybody knows’. My personal favorite among illustrations that Burns’ mind is bloody incapable of critiquing or even perceiving certain narratives was his summary of the Duke rape case of 2006. You will recall that three young men had been subject to a campaign of vilification for months (in which the HLN network, the New York Times and the Durham Herald-Sun as well as over 120 Duke faculty members were participants), each of their families was compelled to pony up a six figure sum in legal fees (which reportedly cleaned one family out), and we learn at the end the whole mess was a fraud to assist the re-election campaign of the prosecutor who knew within 20 days of the incident that there had been no rape, much less one committed by Duke lacrosse players. This was Ken Burns take on it: “Do you remember in 2006 the white Duke lacrosse players that somebody had falsely charged? Remember that? Do you know what happened? The prosecutor was fired. The prosecutor was disbarred. The prosecutor went to jail for inconveniencing for a few weeks these white kids from Duke. I rest my case.”

    After you got bathed in Socialist Realism in his national parks series you got yet another rendition of the standard narrative with his series on prohibition. And now we’re going to get an infomercial for the Democratic Party. Burns, like Bill Moyers, Frontline, and POV is just another manifestation of what George Will once called the PBS formula, “seven parts propaganda, one part balance”.

  • His op ed in support of Obama in 2012 leads me to conclude that he is correct in calling himself a yellow dog Democrat:

    That op-ed piece is not strident. It is cretinous.

  • Pingback: Art Imitating Life and Life Imitating Art | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Art Imitating Life and Life Imitating Art | Almost Chosen People

FDR’s D-Day Prayer

Friday, June 6, AD 2014

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 good will 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.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to FDR’s D-Day Prayer

  • Words that that godless man of sin and depravity Barack Hussein Obama would never pray:
    .
    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.
    .
    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.
    .
    And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade.
    .
    With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.
    .
    Thy will be done, Almighty God.

  • The opening line reminds us of how pivotal June 1944 was, and especially June 5th. That day saw not only the fall of Rome to the Allies but also the sailing of two massive invasion fleets, for the Normandy invasion and the Marianas invasion.

December 6, 1941: FDR writes to Hirohito

Friday, December 6, AD 2013

untitled

An historical oddity.  The day before “the date which will live in infamy” President Roosevelt wrote a letter to Emperor Hirohito.  Here is the text of the letter:

[WASHINGTON,]

 

December 6, 1941

Almost a century ago the President of the United States addressed to the Emperor of Japan a message extending an offer of friendship of the people of the United   States to the people of Japan. That offer was accepted, and in the long period of unbroken peace and friendship which has followed, our respective nations, through the virtues of their peoples and the wisdom of their rulers have prospered and have substantially helped humanity.

Only in situations of extraordinary importance to our two countries need I address to Your Majesty messages on matters of state. I feel I should now so address you because of the deep and far-reaching emergency which appears to be in formation.

Developments are occurring in the Pacific area which threaten to deprive each of our nations and all humanity of the beneficial influence of the long peace between our two countries. These developments contain tragic possibilities.

The people of the United States, believing in peace and in the right of nations   to live and let live have eagerly watched the conversations between our two Governments during these past months. We have hoped for a termination of the present conflict between Japan and China. We have hoped that a peace of the   Pacific could be consummated in such a way that nationalities of many diverse peoples could exist side by side without fear of invasion; that unbearable burdens of armaments could be lifted for them all; and that all peoples would resume commerce without discrimination against or in favor of any nation.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to December 6, 1941: FDR writes to Hirohito

70 Years Ago: A Date Which Will Live In Infamy

Wednesday, December 7, AD 2011

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the
United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air
forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation
of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking
toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the
American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his
colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent
American message. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to
continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of
war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it
obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago.
During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to
deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for
continued peace.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to 70 Years Ago: A Date Which Will Live In Infamy

  • In 1902 Great Britain and Japan concluded an alliance which led indirectly to the ententes with Russia and France. During the First World War England could safely leave the defence of the Far East to her ally. Fast forward to the Washington naval agreements shortly after that war. The US wanted an end to British naval hegemony at the least cost to herself; the British wanted to cut their defence expenditure. America insisted on British abrogation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance as a pre-condition; already she was seeing Japan as a dangerous rival in the Pacific. The British government shamefully aquiesced. The Japanese had always set great store by the alliance, as it demonstrated that they were recognized as a Great Power by Europe.

    By the 1930s the US had retreated into isolation and Britain had the nightmare of what is probably the greatest strategic overstretch since Charles V in the 16th century. Not only had we to hold the Mediterranean with Italy as a potential enemy, we faced a hostile Japan. The surrender at Singapore in February 1942 is the greatest defeat for British arms in our entire history, and there were many in the USA who exulted over it. Roosevelt believed that the greatest threat to world peace was the British Empire, not the Soviet Union.

    In the 1950s John Foster Dulles was determined to remove all British and French influence from the Middle East. Ten years later America was embroiled in Vietnam and you were asking what Britain and France were doing to prevent the increase of Soviet inluence in (wait for it) the Middle East.

  • ” Not only had we to hold the Mediterranean with Italy as a potential enemy, we faced a hostile Japan.”

    In regard to Italy John I do not think that was much of a challenge. I think Churchill’s reaction after the Italians entered the War on the side of Germany says it all. He said it seemed only fair since the Brits had been saddled with them in the First World War! In regard to Japan I think the abrogation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance had little to do with Japan’s desire to seek lebensraum in China and to dragoon all of East Asia into a Co-Prosperity Sphere under the hegemony of Japan. That was all a product of the internal political struggles within Japan as detailed in David Bergami’s magisterial, albeit garishly titled, Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy. Japan embarked on the path of conquest because Hirohito sided with the militarists. Japan went on a path of conquest because the War in Europe, gravely weakening all the Western powers except the US, seemed to afford Japan a golden opportunity. I doubt if any piece of parchment with Great Britain would have caused the Japanese to act any differently, since the Emperor was intent on war.

    http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Imperial-Conspiracy-David-Bergamini/dp/0688019056

  • “Piece of parchment”? Don, you’re starting to sound like Bethmann-Hollweg in 1914. I read Bergamini’s book when it came out in 1972, and although it has attracted adverse criticism from scholars then and since, I agree it is a considerable achievement. However, as David Steed pointed out in a paper delivered to the LSE in 2003: “The Alliance was renewed in 1911, it continued to work, it was the cornerstone of Japanese foreign policy, it delivered in the First World War, and both Allies accepted the need for further renewal in 1921.” He goes on to say: “The beginnings of an American hegemonic approach to the Pacific-Asia region can be seen in the years before 1921, and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was identified as an obstacle to that approach. American opposition to the Alliance had a limited effect before 1918; by 1921 it can be seen as the most important factor in the destruction of the Alliance.”

    As a footnote, American foreign policy seems to me to have tended to be confrontational and driven by populist rhetoric (the ‘war on terror’ being a good example). During the Cold War this paid off; but Lord Palmerston showed that the best way to thwart a potential enemy is often to co-operate with him. This does not necessarily imply appeasement in the derogatory sense it only acquired after 1938.

Are The Rules Changing?

Monday, July 19, AD 2010

 

Jonah Goldberg has put into words what I have been thinking and feeling since the financial meltdown of 2008.  We have turned a page and entered a new era in American history.  He wonders if, as a result, the political rules have changed.

But what about when the rules change? For nearly a century now, the rules have said that tough economic times make big government more popular. For more than 40 years it has been a rule that environmental disasters — and scares over alleged ones — help environmentalists push tighter regulations. According to the rules, Americans never want to let go of an entitlement once they have it. According to the rules, populism is a force for getting the government to do more, not less. According to the rules, Americans don’t care about the deficit during a recession.

And yet none of these rules seem to be applying; at least not too strongly. Big government seems more unpopular today than ever. The Gulf oil spill should be a Gaiasend for environmentalists, and yet three quarters of the American people oppose Obama’s drilling ban. Sixty percent of likely voters want their newly minted right to health care repealed. Unlike Europe, where protestors take to the streets to save their cushy perks and protect a large welfare state, the Tea Party protestors have been taking to the streets to trim back government.

Go here to read the rest at Townhall.  When Obama won election there was much talk among his giddy acolytes in the media that he was the second FDR and that Obama would usher in a Second New Deal.  The cover of Time magazine that graces the top of this post is a prime example of the millennial fever that gripped the Left in this country at the beginning of the Obama administration.  Now it has all turned to dust and ashes for a large section of the Left.  In exchange for years of effort on their part they have an administration that has roused an angry electorate against it.  This bemuses the Left since many of them view the Obama administration as a failure because it has been too moderate (Yeah, I do find that hilarious), as noted by Eric Alterman in The Nation:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Are The Rules Changing?

  • Is it possible, thanks be to God, Obama and the Marxists who have guided his rise to power and supported his progressive agenda were so overwhelmed with the thrill of victory in 2008 and the desire to implement all of their “crisis” driven agenda upon America as quickly as they could that in their arrogant haste the cycle of propose, pass, sign, and implementation of their ill willed socialist hope and change fast forwarded public awareness of what was happening to our country before our very eyes and awakened our senses to where we (i.e. the Tea Party) have demanded a halt to their victory charade?

  • Obama did try the nostrums of the New Deal in 2009. He passed the huge stimulus. He has increased government regulation. It hasn’t worked. The Great Recession continues. Unlike Roosevelt, Obama lacks the salesmanship to convince the American people that a manifestly bad economy is on the mend.

    Just wish to point out that domestic product had, by early 1937, come close to returning to 1929 levels and that per capita income was perhaps 5% below its peak. Both metrics exceeded 1929 levels by 1941. The economy was mending in this most salient respect, and mending rapidly. However, the labor market remained severely dysfunctional, with about 15% of the workforce either unemployed or stashed in low productivity jobs in the Works Progress Administration and other agencies.

    The problem with B.O. is that he is quite unlike Mr. Roosevelt. FDR had 11 years under his belt as a public executive at the time he was sworn in and (through recommended legislation and executive order) engineered effective and immediate first aid and surgery to the financial system. Obama turned the task over to Bwaney Fwank and Friend-of-Angelo Chris Dodd, who produced a 2,400 page bill (which has in it God-knows-how-many bon bons for people on the patronage of these two characters). The original session law erecting the Social Security system was 28 pages long.

  • I wouldn’t blame Obama, at least not primarily. The electorate has changed. FDR won in 1932 by 18 points and 413 electoral votes which is still the largest margin ever against an incumbent. Obama won by 7 points and 192 electoral votes. Congress was to the left of FDR and passed spending bills that FDR vetoed. As you mentioned, austerity is much more popular these days.

    I was recently wondering whether it’s possible to take advantage of this anti-big-government public opinion while still applying Keynesian policies. I think it’s possible, but probably not now. During good economic times, it would be possible to enact automatic stabilizers which may not do much at the time but which would really kick in during recessions. Things like expanded unemployment insurance (preferably individual savings accounts backstopped by subsidies). They’d have to be designed as individual accounts or entitlements so they don’t get axed in recessions. During bad times, let austerity run rampant. Government would slow its growth or even shrink while the automatic stabilizers keep spending up temporarily.

  • I don’t know that the rules are changing. We just found a new group of really cool friends with a lot of the same interests, and there are a bunch of cute boys, and we’re hoping that one of them will be Mr. Right. When we actually get into a relationship, though, we’ll find out that he has other friends, and he doesn’t want to be changed, and there are a lot of things we don’t have in common. It’s too early to tell if we’ll find love.

    (Apologies for the prolonged analogy.)

Reagan and FDR

Saturday, February 6, AD 2010

Happy birthday Gipper!  Reagan and I share the same birthday.  My beloved bride has the same birthday as FDR, January 30.  My daughter’s birthday is February 9.  This time of year is a good time for cake at the McClarey household!

It will come as little surprise to faithful readers of this blog, that I consider Ronald Reagan to be one of the great American presidents.  My views on him are sent forth in this recent thread.  He restored our prosperity and brought the Cold War to a successful conclusion.  His radiant optimism was a tonic for the nation’s shaken morale.  He deserves to be on Mount Rushmore if there were room.

It will perhaps stun faithful readers of this blog to learn that I have similar feelings for Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Although I believe much of the New Deal was counterproductive and completely wrong-headed, FDR understood that raising the nation’s morale was absolutely critical.  His sunny ebullient optimism, and his ringing phrase, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” were just what the nation needed.  His fireside chats, which Reagan emulated in his Saturday radio chats, were a brilliant stroke which helped forge a personal bond between FDR and much of the nation.  (Although not my Republican shoemaker grandfather who remained impervious to the charms of FDR to his dying day!)  During the war his leadership was masterful and greatly aided the US in winning in 3 and a half years a global conflict.  Prosperity was restored to the US on his watch, although it was due to the War and not the New Deal.

Reagan was a supporter of FDR.  He used to say he didn’t leave his party, his party left him.  Looking at Reagan side by side with FDR, it is hard not to believe that Reagan learned many valuable leadership lessons from FDR.

Reagan and FDR  were both ardent patriots with a deep love for this nation.  Their optimism was based on their belief that the US could overcome its present difficulties and go forward to a brighter future.  I find this personally appealing.  Optimism and courage are necessary both in our lives here on Earth and in our spiritual lives.  I have always agreed with Saint Francis, “Let gloom and despair be among the Devil and his disciples.”

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Reagan and FDR

  • Happy Birthday to you and Ronaldus Magnus!

    It would be quite interesting to hear your thoughts in another post on how FDR was the right man at the right time for WWII. I had always thought that America would have been better off if FDR had never been born (based on the epic failure of his economic policies which 70 years later continue to be a moral/financial plague on this nation).

  • Try as I might I can’t gather up the admiration for FDR the way I can for RWR. Leaving aside his economic mistakes, his complete misunderstanding of Stalin had truly horrible consequences. Stalin rolled him.

    That said, I agree that it is important that a leader display confidence and grace under fire, and both Reagan and Roosevelt did that.

  • As a practical matter Mike there was absolutely nothing that FDR could have done regarding Soviet control over Eastern Europe after World War II short of igniting World War III. FDR and Churchill merely recognized a fait accompli. Whether they recognized it or not, the Red Army wasn’t going to move from East Germany, Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria unless they were driven from it. I think precious few Americans would have been willing to pay the price to accomplish this. Truman was much harder edged than FDR regarding Stalin, but he never considered the type of war to drive the Soviets back into the Soviet Union that Patton supported. Other than Patton I can think of no high ranking American civilian or military who thought such a war would be a good idea.

  • Don,
    I don’t disagree that FDR had limited options. But the fact remains that the record is clear that he trusted Stalin — he really did! His statements at the time (including private statements to advisors) reveal an appalling naivety that greatly disturbed those with better judgment including Churchill. And Truman was a slow learner himself. After the famous iron curtain speech Truman was so angry at Churchill he called Stalin to apologize. Finally, while we may have had limited options regarding the eastern Europe the forced (and that is a mild word for it) return of thousands of Russian prisoners to the USSR against their will was an inexcusable moral lapse on the part of FDR. It was one of the saddest episodes in US history.

  • “He restored our prosperity and brought the Cold War to a successful conclusion. His radiant optimism was a tonic for the nation’s shaken morale.”

    As a retired military who served almost my entire career during the cold war, I would have completely agreed with these statements – back then.

    21 years later I don’t think they completely stand the test of time. Let me break it down:

    1. On “restoring prosperity” – he may have restored temporary (immediate) effects from the “Carter Malaise”, but the long term effects of Reaganomics of deficit spending and deregulation started us on the glide path of crushing debt we are in today.

    http://tinyurl.com/yht234h

    The other reality is it was the brutal austerity by Paul Volker and the Fed that stopped the rampant inflation. Reagan was his cheerleader, but he had no say in that decision as the Fed acts independently of the government.

    2. Regarding the “Cold War” – again he a a PART in this but there were two other factors that played a much bigger role, the first being Pope John Paul II, the second was that with or without Reagan, the Soviet economy would have collapsed (in fact already had) because it was always destined to collapse. Reagan just happened to be in the chair when the music stopped.

    To his credit he had to work within the confines of the system as it was in his time, and I do believe that he knew that the unbridled capitalism he unleashed would have to be reigned in at some point as evidenced by this speech:

    Ronald Reagan’s Speech on Project Economic Justice

    3. Regarding his optimism, There I’ll agree. At times I wanted to jump off a tall building after listening to “Jimmah” and his constant whining and droning, and Reagan could deliver a speech like no other in my lifetime – I think that was his biggest contribution, getting people to believe in themselves and America again.

  • In regard to Stalin Mike, FDR was already sending cables to Stalin in March of 1945 accusing him of breaking his Yalta commitments over Poland, Germany, prisoners of war and other issues. The Grim Reaper prevented us from knowing how FDR would have dealt with Stalin post war, but I assume he would have followed a similar path to that taken by Truman. The forced repatriation of Soviets who were captured by the Western allies while serving the Nazis is something that should not have been agreed to at Yalta and not something carried out in 1946, long after FDR’s death. I would note however, that not all of the Soviets so repratriated were innocent victims. More than a few had commited atrocities while serving with the Nazis, including cossacks who served in the Waffen SS. They however should have been tried in the West rather than turned over to the Soviets. I would note that Britain and the US did refuse to turn over to the Soviets displaced persons from lands annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II, including the Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Western Ukraine and West Byelorussia. A good article on the subject of the forced repatriations is linked below.

    http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=25050

  • Jim, in regard to Reagan I respectfully disagree. He supported the anti-inflationary policies of Volker at a high political cost. These policies led to the recession of 81-82 which cost the Republicans quite a few seats in Congress. Reagan had the nerve to stay the course and reappointed Volker in 83. The deregulation movement initiated by Reagan was also very important in starting a wave of prosperity that went on for two decades. The deficit spending was a huge problem that Reagan failed to address, but the return to prosperity, at the time, was more important than balancing the books, which Congress was simply not going to do in any case. We always have to remember with Reagan that he never had a GOP house, and for his last two years he faced a Congress completely controlled by the Democrats.

    In regard to the Soviet Union, their economy had been collapsing since 1917, by Western standards. The Soviets nonetheless maintained their empire. The Reagan military build up, and especially his bringing the Pershing missles to Europe and his much derided Star Wars proposal, convinced enough Soviet leaders that they simply could no longer keep up with the US and they needed to bring the Cold War to an end. John Paul II and his support for Solidarity in Poland was of course very important, but it was Reagan and his build up that came at precisely the right time to topple the Soviet Union. A good article on the subject is linked below.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

  • I can’t imagine anyone who could have done a better job executing that war – from marshaling resources to putting the best people in the right roles. The world owes thanks to FDR for that. On the flip side, FDR deserves the world’s scorn for the sellout of Eastern Europe. Millions and millions of people suffered or were murdered because of that. Look how many subsequent wars were waged because the USSR was empowered. Shameful. I get the pragmatism of assisting the USSR and allying ourselves with them for the objective of defeating Hitler, but one would think that considering Stalin was just as bad or worse and just as guilty for the starting that war that aid would be limited to such a degree as to keep the USSR in the game and no more. I can’t help but to think that it all may have turned out differently if FDR wasn’t such a statist to begin with.

  • Must disagree, RL. Via-a-vis the post-war situation in Eastern Europe, I think Mr. McClarey is correct, for the most part. There is one qualification, and that concerns the situation in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Competitive and passably fair elections were held in these countries (in November 1945 and February 1946, respectively) and the means the local Communists used to seize power involved industrial actions and the staffing of the government departments over which they were given control in the coalition ministries of the immediate post-war period. One might at least give some thought to counter-factual scenarios in which effectively implemented clandestine operations might have disrupted certain of their activities and given elements of the civil society enough power to resist that the Soviets might have accepted a Finland solution for one or the other.

    The situation that FDR inherited in 1933 was far more dire than that which Mr. Reagan inherited in 1981, so I think an analogy between the two is of limited utility. Between the last quarter of 1929 and the first quarter of 1933, the country had seen a fall in real domestic product of nearly 30%; forty percent of the banks in the United States had failed, and depositors could only get their money back in time-consuming bankruptcy proceedings; equities had lost 85% of their nominal value; the body of business corporations were posting a collective loss; fully half the homeowners with mortgages (a proportionately smaller group then) were delinquent on their payments; and a quarter of the formal-sector work force was unemployed. The principal policy problem that Mr. Reagan faced was currency erosion; the year-over-year decline in domestic product from 1979 to 1980 was 0.2%.

    I do not know how much of the prosperity of the last three decades I would attribute to Mr. Reagan’s policy preferences. That aside, there is the question of how prosperous this era has been in relation to cross-sectional or historical means. If I am not mistaken, the last thirty years have seen a mean growth of domestic product per capita of 1.4% per annum. The United States is about at the technological frontier, so it does not reap the benefits of economic dynamism from the application of technologies developed elsewhere (as does South Korea); it has also grown faster than western Europe (since 1980) and Japan (since 1990). Still, it has grown more slowly than it did during the period running from 1929 to 1980, when mean annual improvements in real income per capita were on the order of 2.0%. It is difficult to tease out the sources of spatial and temporal variation in economic dynamism.

    Deregulation is a good thing when it acts to bust up state-administered cartels and dispose of price controls; it is also a good thing when there are other policy instruments which are as effective or more effective toward certain ends than command-and-control regulation. It is a good thing when regulations have collected like barnacles and lead to perverse results. It was also not exclusive to the Reagan Administration. The deregulation of the transportation sector was an initiative of the previous administration, and Mr. Carter did his best (against Congressional opposition) to sell decontrol of oil prices. However, deregulation of the financial sector and the evolution of the culture of financial institutions has led to four separate crises over the last thirty years. It has not been a successful enterprise.

    One should point out that the country began running deficits on the current account of the balance of payments in 1981/82 and was a net debtor by the end of 1984. If one looks at Federal Reserve figures, one can see a secular increase in the propensity of households to make use of debt over that time. These are aspects of the Reagan legacy as well, though to be sure, it is difficult to imagine the U.S. Congress consenting to the consumption taxes necessary to stanch the accumulation of household debt (or, in fact, doing anything at all other than feeding their favored client groups).

    Did you catch Henry Paulson on PBS the other night? Noting that a year after a hideous banking crisis Congress had still not crafted legislation to create an institutional architecture for rapidly winding-down firms in the capital markets like Lehman Brothers, he said he had to conclude they do nothing unless a crisis forces it. Mr. Carter, Mr. Reagan, and everyone after them have had to confront the same problem: Congress is rotten.

Moving Halloween to Saturday: Treat or Trick?

Thursday, October 29, AD 2009

In recent years Halloween has gone from a primarily child-oriented holiday to an occasion of commercial importance comparable to Christmas or Easter. National retail sales figures indicate that Halloween is the 6th biggest holiday for retailers — behind Christmas, Valentine’s Day, Easter, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day — and rapidly gaining ground, particularly among young adults.

The trend has now sparked a movement of sorts — led by the Spirit Halloween retail chain — to move Halloween permanently to the last Saturday in October. Their online petition at this link (http://www.spirithalloweekend.com/ ) asks Congress to lend its official endorsement to the change, although that would not be strictly necessary since Halloween is not a federal or national holiday.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Moving Halloween to Saturday: Treat or Trick?

  • Darn, I wish Spirit Halloween had a combox. Darn, darn, darn!

  • I vote (B) a concession to worldliness and indifference.
    Vigils, feast days, birthdays… the actual dates count for something. I enjoy a movable feast as much as the next guy, but it should have a better excuse behind it than grubbing for cash or extending the weekend.

  • Remember that they then consolidated both Abraham Lincoln’s and George Washington’s birthdays to “President’s Day”.

  • Halloween and All Saints have a particular significance for me since my wedding anniversay falls on All Saints. If they change it, I will have to come up with some other way to remember, so I vote no. Or maybe I can convince my wife to celebrate the solemnity of our marriage along with All Saints, rather than the actual day of our wedding?

  • I think you make a compelling argument overall. Actually changed my mind, as a matter of fact.

    As to changing the date – I actually find it to be more confusing. When I’m looking at my calendar, it’s so much easier to assess the fixed-date holidays as compared to the floating ones. “Which weekend is that on this year?”

  • For the record, I also would vote “no”.

  • Pingback: Vatican Condemnation of Halloween False « The American Catholic
  • Also, I really need to give credit here to Todd Aglialoro, now a writer for Inside Catholic, who many years ago when he worked for the Peoria Diocese Family Life Office, wrote a column for The Catholic Post titled “How Halloween Is a Very Catholic Thing.”

    It was in that article that I first came across the quote from Chesterton on paganism and Christianity. Unfortunately, I cannot find this article online anywhere, and I no longer have print back issues of The Post to refer to.

    If you happen to be reading this, Todd, thanks for the inspiration, and can you tell me where to find that article?

  • Instead of moving Halloween to Saturday, it needs to be moved right off the calendar. There is nothing good about it- junk food for kids, wild parties for adults, strangers ringing your doorbell all evening, drunks in the ER all night. Once again, America has taken a religious day and turned it into a mockery.

  • I understand your concerns, Annie, but by your standards, St. Patrick’s Day should probably be “moved right off the calendar” too.

    It lacks only junk food for kids and strangers ringing your doorbell… although strangers in an adjacent apartment who start their St. Paddy’s Day party at 2 in the afternoon are just as annoying 🙂 Likewise, it too is a religious holiday that has been pretty much turned into a caricature of itself, at least in the U.S.

    Also, I read somewhere many years ago that the government of Ireland, back in the late 50s or early 60s, briefly considered moving St. Patrick’s Day to September so there would be better weather for outdoor celebrations! Needless to say, that didn’t fly.

  • And speaking of moving holidays to weekends — if I remember correctly, students at U. of Ill. in Champaign observe something called “Unofficial St. Patrick’s Day” on the Friday or Saturday closest to the actual St. Paddy’s Day. The observance consists entirely of hanging out in bars and getting as drunk as possible.

    I suppose that no matter what happens to the Spirit Halloween petition drive, the preceding Saturday will become, if it hasn’t already, “Unofficial Halloween” for adult partying purposes anyway.

  • Goodness, perhaps someday the secularists will wish to ensure “Christmas,” which they will call “The Winter Holiday,” always falls on Friday so everyone gets a 3 day weekend.

    Awfully pesky the way things are now, when Dec. 25 can fall on a Wednesday. Once you remove the religious significance of these holidays, there’s no point to keeping to a set date.

  • Some of you should read up on history a bit.

    The reality is that the Church chose Dec 25th for Christmas in an attempt to add religious meaning to an already existent pagan holiday. There is circumstantial evidence that Jesus was actually born in April.

    Back to the holiday at hand…Halloween is and always has been a pagan holiday. The religious holiday that the Church attached to it (once again, in order to add a religious meaning to it) is All Saints Day. This petition doesn’t mention moving All Saints Day. In fact, you might end up with more people in the pews on Nov. 1st if they haven’t been out trick or treating and then stuffing themselves full of candy all night the night before.

  • Martha,

    I wasn’t aware that the Hebrews were pagans. Wasn’t Dec. 25th the date the temple was re-dedicated? It seems like a religiously significant date for the temple in Jerusalem and since Jesus refers to Himself as the temple – it makes sense, don’t you think?

    As for Halloween – move it, don’t move it – it doesn’t matter – for most of us, including the secularists, it is just a fun night to dress up act silly, beg for candy and share some frivolous entertainment with each other. There is a danger that the occult becomes cool, but I think for most people this is innocent fun. As for all the drunks, rowdy morons, witches and satanists – they are going to do what they do, with or without secular Halloween and they’ll do it on Oct 31 and/or the last Sat in Oct – do they really care?

    People are not skipping Mass on All Saints because of Halloween – how else do you account for all the other days they skip Mass?

    Holidays have the significance we give them. Christmas can be just a day to drink egg nog and get gifts. Easter can just be about chocolate eggs. We are not forced to worship God; we are just as free to worship ourselves – at least for a little while – then Bam! Halloween won’t mean a thing although some of the imagery might be familiar in hell.

  • Thanks for sharing with information. now i know more about holloween..please keep posting. I will visit again.