Only God Can Make America Great
In a tradition dating back to the Eisenhower administration, President Trump addressed the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, reminding Americans of our nation’s Judeo-Christian roots and the centrality of religious faith. From our citizen’s dreams, to the nation’s founding documents, to our monuments, our mottos and even our money, the president said that God rests at the center of all.
“Our rights are not given to us by man,” the president said. “Our rights come from our creator.”
As he did in last week’s State of the Union address, President Trump made ordinary people the heroes and heroines of his speech at the Prayer Breakfast. He again mentioned Ji Seong-ho, the North Korean defector who when acknowledged during the State of the Union speech dramatically thrust his crutches into the air.
The president also lauded members of our military, law enforcement and mothers and fathers rescuing babies from the clutches of opioid addiction.
In watching the president deliver his remarks, I was reminded of another American who once upon a time regularly invoked the Almighty and in doing so, captured the imagination of the nation’s heartland and, at times, irritated those in the social elite.
The late radio newsman Paul Harvey, who passed away in 2009, was a colorful and creative communicator who held court on our nation’s airwaves for over six decades across the ABC Radio Network. I got to know him when I had the privilege writing his official biography, “Good Day! The Paul Harvey Story,” published in 2009.
Just as President Trump did at the prayer breakfast, Harvey often referred to our Declaration of Dependence – our nation’s reliance on God for every good thing.
Now, in some ways, Paul Harvey was everything that President Trump is not – he was gentle, simple, sincere and humble, with no measure of braggadocio. He nicknamed his wife of 68 years “Angel,” and their storybook marriage shaped and assured his climb into the ranks of radio royalty. Harvey had the voice but Angel had the business acumen that helped make him a star.
In contrast, even by his own accounting, President Trump is a proud streetfighter with sharp elbows. He can be decidedly crass in conversation and blunt and bold in business dealings. Over the years, his high profile divorces have become tabloid fodder.
But setting stylistic differences aside, the parallels between Paul Harvey and President Trump are quite startling, and explain, in large part, how both men were able to garner such a strong and loyal populist following.
Consider that both men became famous for:
Being unapologetically pro-American. Before President Trump was touting his America First agenda, Harvey practically wrapped his newscasts in the American flag. When ABC asked him to change his signature opening of “Good morning, Americans!” to simply “Good morning!” in order to make international syndication easier, he adamantly refused, citing his patriotic allegiance.
Never fearing to be controversial. As the North Korean nuclear crisis heats up, it might be helpful to remember that a decidedly hawkish Paul Harvey often lamented the fact that “our best weapons” – code for nuclear – were being kept in their silos while our soldiers fought hand-to-hand combat on the ground. When the United States was accused of killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, Harvey empathized, but said that after the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks “there are no civilians anymore.”
Loving and highlighting American greatness. Harvey, like President Trump, championed mom and pop businesses as well as Fortune 500 companies. He regularly lobbied for the exploration and export of domestic energy, from oil and gas to coal and corn. And in the process, like President Trump, he was an unabashed raconteur who was often accused of being an un-objective “homer” cheerleader. It was a charge to which he proudly pleaded guilty.
Being proud salesmen and negotiators. Long before he ran for the presidency, Donald Trump was a bestselling author, whose book “The Art of the Deal” extolled his smart business skills. Likewise, Harvey garnered $40,000 for a 60-second spot on his radio program. His ads often blended into the broadcast. When he was accused of mixing sales with news he was defiant. “In a day of dark news,” he once said, “the commercial is often the best part of the newscast.”
Being white collar guys with blue collar sense. Though fabulously wealthy with numerous homes and estates, both men never lost touch with the common man and woman. Farmers listened to Paul on their tractors; cab drivers in New York City high-fived Donald Trump.
Being students of stagecraft: President Trump’s major speeches often play out like a reality television show. He loves to turn the focus on others, making them the heroes of the story. Harvey’s newscast was regularly filled with folksy and charming stories of regular people doing interesting things.
Being brief: President Trump’s ascent to the presidency was built upon 140-character tweets. Paul Harvey was known as the journalist who wrote an entire paragraph in a single sentence.
Paul Harvey’s charm and appeal never dimmed until the day of his death at age 90. It remains to be seen how the rest of President Trump’s presidential story will unfold. But, for what it’s worth, if he’s able to continue channeling the principles of the late broadcaster, there may be many good (though volatile) days ahead for our nation’s 45th president. https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/08/at-national-prayer-breakfast-was-donald-trump-channeling-paul-harvey.amp.html
Tags
Who is online
110 visitors
Trump is an accurate representation of the quasi religious scum that put him into office.
A favorite saying of the deluded believers of the god fariytale and EXACTLY the opposite of the truth even if there is a god. But then, truth is completely irrelevant to the godders.
Mr. Trumps only god is himself, for such a scoundrel to wrap himself in the shroud of righteousness only adds a layer to his mantel of hypocrisy. File this under Ad Hoc Nauseam.
"The National Prayer Breakfast" is held for and in honor of The Money Changers. Lucifer smiles.
Love Paul Harvey...
Trump's prayer breakfast..... I wonder how God feels about a guy that brags about sexual assault, cheated on all of his three wives, (admittedly so), paid a porn star 130k to shut up because he fucked her 3 months after his current wife gave birth to their son, Barron, has been sued for fraud 3,500 times, has exhibited blatant racism and has literally used every political tactic Hitler used.... My guess is that God....is not a fan...of Donald trump.
He has a fascination for so-called "strongman", both currently and in history. My wife says that when she sees him speak she sees him as Mussolini in the way he throws up his chin, crosses his arms arrogantly, looking down his nose back and forth, strutting while standing still and the similarity is amazing. He sure looks like that to me. Watch him next time and see. As for role models of today I think he looks more toward Erdoğan of Turkey because when he and has family was being investigated he simply fired the judges and of course Trump's dream is to be above the law. Or Duterte of the Philippines as he brags about disregarding the laws of his own country and having murdered people he suspected of being drug dealers himself and threatening to do the same to his press and Trump hates a free press. Still his main mentor has to be the one man he admires most in the world even more then himself, Vladimir Putin. Russia is much less a nation as it is a giant crime family, with Putin as the unchallenged Godfather. Trump sees Putin and Russia as the blueprint of his wet dream of how he would love to run America. Above the law, with a legislature that is nothing more then a rubber-stamp and all of the very rich as America's own oligarchs, all reporting to the Trump Crime Family. Trump wants nothing more..or less...then to be the head of an American National Mafia, just like Putin.
He already has the Legislature as nothing more then a rubber-stamp. They are no longer a third branch of government, but under the current cowardly GOP "leadership" they have capitulated completely and become just another division of the Executive Branch. He is already doing everything he can to destroy all law enforcement in America by attacking the FBI and CIA with conspiracy theories that are completely absurd on their face to any American with their eyes open, but are being slurped up unquestioningly, blindly, like kittens milk by his incredibly gullible sycophants and cult followers, being feed to them by FOX and his own tweets.
What's left is the Judicial Branch and the Free Press. Granted he is in full attack mode on the Free Press with his constant bleating of the words "fake news", but fortunately not enough people in America or around the world believe him. Also his attacks on the Judicial Branch have only been semi-successful...so far. What is also left are the real, patriotic, full time Agents in our Agencies like the FBI and the CIA or NSA. What's also left are the real patriotic, full time employees of the government Bureaucracy in Departments like the State Department, the Defense Department, Homeland Security, etc. What we also have left are the real, patriotic, full time men and women of our Armed Forces. I honestly believe that, if Trump makes a serious move toward an authoritarian state and I think many of his followers would go along with him into such a move out of blind cultism, it will be crushed. Not by Congress and maybe not but the Courts. But rather because the real, patriotic, government Bureaucracy, will step forward and say NO. Not in America. We don't allow people like that to succeed here! In the end we get wise to them!
I think there must be some common psychology to all dictators and wannabe dictators, whether it's sociopathy, narcissism or an incredibly fragile ego. There's definitely something bigly wrong with Trump, Duterte and their ilk.
Also, even though he derides him in tweets, his envy of Kim Jung Un's power in his home country could not possibly be more pronounced. This is shown in his desire for nothing less then a "Dear Leader" type parade. I am surprised that he has not instructed the Pentagon to order the troops to goose-step...yet. Not to give him any ideas. I am still waiting to see the final design of his "Commander in Chief" uniform and what rank he will give himself and what ribbons will be on it? The ones from his military prep school? His ribbon for avoiding catching VD during "his Vietnam" of dating in the 1970's? I wonder what that last one would look like anyway? A golden condom?
Donald and Kim have recently been comparing the size of their "buttons".
Then God can start by showing himself and stop hiding
"He is an absentee landlord." (Al Pacino - The Devil's Advocate)
"He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch! Touch, but don't taste! Taste, but don't swallow!"
Al Pacino stole the show with that scene.
Any movie that has Charlez Theron nude in it is a winner.
I couldn't agree more. Although Connie Neilsen nude is also a winner.
ndeepnow claimed that the universe was only 6000 years old, but he accepted the speed of light as .. a fact, probably, not "a theory". So .. I pointed out that his view of god throwing out the stars as a shower curtain meant that after they went far enough away from earth, we'd no longer see their light. Or, if there was a big bang, they still wouldn't be close enough to see their light after all this time. People got popcorn to watch this discussion (our friend Val among them, in a former persona). Then, he proudly announced he'd found a new way to "reconcile science and his faith" - I can't remember what it was, but it was creative yet phenomenally stupid. His brain couldn't cope.
I'm tempted to try it on my nephew, but my sister would kill me if I introduced him to logical thinking and geology, much less astronomy. He could write off geology from Noah's flood, but I don't think he could reconcile the astronomy part.
I remember that. Everytime he posted something, it caused me to do an eyeroll.
Indeed. What's god so scared of anyway? Is he shy? Or is like the child's monster friend that only the child can see?
And not once have either you or anyone else ever been able to prove anything. But some of us are supposed to take your claims seriously? So when someone makes an affirmative claim, is not requiring proof of the claim a logical expectation? Or do you not deal with logic?
You don't "know" anything! You only believe. That's not the same as knowing. That's just convincing yourself that you're right. The other term for that is delusion.
Because when you can't answer a challenge or are proven wrong, it's best to just ignore it, right? Such intellectual cowardice is not surprising.
One of the greatest contributions that America made to the world are the words in the Declaration of Independence. It proclaimed that certain basic rights come from God and, as such, cannot be abridged by any man, even a king. With those words flying as a banner, 13 tiny colonies went to war against the mightiest nation on earth and won.
Words are great but greatness is not determined by words alone. Yes, Trump speaks for those who have no voice and I give him credit for that but he disrespects others in the process. He is vain, self-centered, greedy, and boastful. He frequently speaks without regard to whether his statements are true or false. These are vices not virtues. He seemingly has no real moral compass or guiding principles and sees diplomacy as some mixture of bullying and bribery. He probably didn’t even read the Art of Deal let alone write it.
I have met many men of all faiths and in all walks of life. The truly faithful have an inner light that cannot be dimmed. They practice virtue rather than wallow in vices. They help others rather than mock them.
Trump is a champion for those he represents but he cannot lead the nation to greatness until the day that he himself understands what it is to be great.
Not often I agree with you but....very well said.
Actually the DOI was a secular argument for the loyalists to side against the guy who claimed his authority came from an invisible sky fairy.
Secular arguments do not rely on God as the source. If they thought basic rights stemmed from man and could be granted or denied on the whim of a king, then they it would make more since for them to drop to their knees and beg rather than declare their independence. Think as you like but the DOI speaks for itself.
You might want to learn what "nature's god" actually refers to in Enlightenment-speak since Spinoza's concept isn't even remotely like your concept of a "god", but regardless the DOI's argument was against someone who claimed his authority derived from an invisible sky fairy. Jefferson and the continental congress were making the argument that the authority of government derives from the governed, not from a sky fairy. You've fundamentally misunderstood what the DOI is all about.
Nature’s god and the Creator (God) are addressed as one concept in the DOI. Why? Because the Declaration is on behalf of 13 Christian colonies, not 13 colonies of deists. Your focus on the consent of the governed, reads out a clear statement that the rights derive from God. Every Christian knew exactly what was meant since the words “God” and “Creator” have been used interchangeably in churchs for centuries (which is why “creator” is capitalized in the Declaration).
If you actually read the document, it says that to secure these God-given rights, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” When you read this language in conjunction with the language above it, they state quite clearly that the rights come from God but are secured by men. These God-given rights cannot be abridged by any man whether it be a king or men acting collectively in “any form of government.” It specifically says “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (referring to either abridging God given rights or the right to secure them through the governance of men), then it is the right of the people to abolish it (by force, if necessary).
So I think it’s you who fundamentally misunderstands the DOI.
If your argument were correct than the colonists should have remained loyal to the king whose authority came from your sky fairy.
.
Sorry but nowhere in the DOI is the phrase "God-given rights" used. And what the DOI means is that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, not from the authority of the particular sky fairy Christians follow or the divine king who enforces the orders of the Christian sky fairy.
Actually, it was on behalf of the 13 colonies of Great Britain.
Your interpretation of it is flawed.
"Creator" can refer to any number of god/s. The DoI regarding “god” reference:
No, references to deity/ies
1.Laws of Nature and of Nature's God (can be any deity attributed with the creation of the world)
2.endowed by their Creator (definatively not just the Christian God since it is talking about an individual person's Creator)
3.Supreme Judge of the world (many deities are describe thusly)
4.protection of Divine Providence (every deity)
the Declaration of Independence is the document by which we declared ourselves a completely separate nation from Great Britain -- nothing more. It was put in terms that the British king would be able to understand, which is why a "Creator" is referenced therein. It is NOT the basis of our laws and government.
The Constitution, on the other hand, IS the basis of our laws and government, and it -- very deliberately -- does NOT mention God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or deity, and the Founding Fathers evidently had a specific purpose in mind in doing so.
See previous statement.
Speak for yourself.
The point of the DOI was to cease to be colonies of Great Britain. They remained Christian.
My interpretation is based on the words in the document.
It referred to the Christian God. I doubt you could find a single colonial reference where anybody thought it could possibly mean anything else. Every adult and child on two continents knew what it meant.
You are apparently unfamiliar with colonial America.
It doesn’t need to be a “law” for people to understand what it means. It says clearly and unequivocally that our inalienable rights come from God, the Creator.
Which does not, to any degree whatsoever, make the language in the DOI rewrite itself.
I did.
If inalienable rights stemmed from the king, then he would be God. He’s not God and, therefore, could not abridge those rights. Hence, the revolution.
It says “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .” God is the Creator. In the English language, to be “endowed by the Creator” means God-given.
It means just what it says and it says that inalienable rights come from God, that those rights cannot be abridged by any man (even a king) and that governments are organized not to create inalienable rights but to “secure” them through powers derived by the consent of the governed. Look, we can beat this back and forth forever but I will never see it your way and you won’t see it mine. IMPASSE.
The king is just the spokesman for your sky fairy and his authority to govern comes directly from your sky fairy.
.
My "creator" is my parents, not your sky fairy. If the DOI meant to say that your sky fairy was the "creator" it would have said so, but it didn't.
.
The big problem with that is that your sky fairy is completely silent and has never said anything, much less what inalienable rights there are. Only diving kings like King George can speak for your sky fairy.......which is why the governed decided on their own to state what rights they had and state that they were no longer willing to be ruled by theocrats and invisible sky fairies.
And if rights came from a god, then those rights could not be abridged or altered by any man. Unless god was not omnipotent. Besides, the King was the head of the church, so he claimed to speak for god. Does the phrase "divine right of kings" mean anything to you?
I have read the document, and it does not say "God" or "god-given rights."
I already addressed that. Here, once again:
"Creator" can refer to any number of god/s. The DoI regarding “god” reference:
No, references to deity/ies
1.Laws of Nature and of Nature's God (can be any deity attributed with the creation of the world)
2.endowed by their Creator (definatively not just the Christian God since it is talking about an individual person's Creator)
3.Supreme Judge of the world (many deities are describe thusly)
4.protection of Divine Providence (every deity)
Nope. It says rights come from a "Creator." See above. Of course, that was an attempt to appeal to the King of England as the head of the church. See above again. Not to mention, for any statement claiming anything comes form a god or creator or any deity, one has to first prove such a deity exists. Which I highly doubt you can do.
Sounds like a surrender to me.
And your interpretation is still flawed.
Funny how such an important document does not explicitly say the Christian god. But rather the more vague term "creator."
Quite the contrary.
You're the one injecting "god."
I didn't say it did. But it does show the intentions of the Founding Fathers when they created this nation.
And you're still wrong!
May the forum god lock this thread.
That seems to be this author's go-to strategy after getting beat up for this crap.
So when the economy crashes, it's Gods fault. Got it, good talk.
Always enjoy the high dudgeon of rightwingers when they or their godawful shitbag of a president gets roughed up for being the lying glob of pus he is. It's made even more enjoyable for the fact that they must think we don't know who they are: the purveyors of the most despicable, rancid, lie-filled attacks on politicians (or anyone else) their debased morality and massive hypocrisy dictates.
Yep, and then they turn around and tell everyone how moral they are. Idiots.
Only God Can Make America Great
Did you have a particular god in mind?
Why, the Flying Spaghetti Monster of course. What other "god" is there? RAMEN! LOL
That's right. And lots of noodly appendages to bless you with.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
I'm still waiting for you to show proof your god exists. So you first!
I accept nothing on faith. I prefer facts and evidence.
If Gordy seriously claimed that the FSM exists then you should challenge his claim. To my knowledge, there is no evidence to support the claim of a FSM. Belief in a FSM would thus be an act of faith - believing something is true simply because others have said (or wrote) that it is true.
Do you claim to have facts and evidence to support the existence of your god? Because you have often made claims regarding your god.
You do realize you are DESTROYING your own argument right?
I have always said that is nothing more than your mere belief.
Because you simply have none. And no one has any rational inclination to accept anything you say.
No doubt you can point to some made up BS or make more empty claims as "proof." That doesn't mean god exists.
Which is nothing more than your religious brand of BS.
Because some of us prefer evidence or proof rather than blindly accepting your BS, no questions asked.
Of course not, as that is neither my attempt nor are you open minded to the possibility that your belief is wrong or that there is no god.
Sure you can: you can provide proof. That'll work wonders. But not everyone is gullible enough to simply accept your empty claims or gospel nonsense, no questions asked.
Which means that those of your faith can do whatever they want, no matter how immoral, and pull the Jesus get out of hell free card. Kill someone, cheat on your spouse, and no worries - as long as you claim your god has forgiven you. Forget the people you've wronged, they don't matter. Not if you rape them, not if you cheat on them, not if you do whatever to them.
Thank goodness I have better morals than that. I have to be a good person because it's the right thing to do, and if I screw up, I don't get some magical free ride and have what I did "washed away" by being delusional. If you act right, who or what you believe in doesn't matter. it's only those who can't act decently who need that crutch, so they can think they can get away with their evil deeds.
I get why immoral people need to think they get a free ride to do whatever they want, by claiming belief in some god. I just don't get why they hate those of us who have morals, and who hold ourselves personally accountable for what we do. Or maybe I do .. they can't handle the comparison with moral people.
In other words, you've got nothing. Duly noted. Although, that nonsense is quite comical.
As gordy said ... try providing a shred of evidence.
And then, if you get us to believe . try convincing us to worship an evil being who commits mass murder when it's pissed off because its ego is bruised. No god worthy of worship would epitomize the worst emotions .. anger, jealousy, rage, pettiness .. of humans.
Well said kat. And good to see you too.
Good to see you too!
Thanks kat. Just like old times, eh? See a BS article or posts and call it out as such. Some things don't change.
Sometimes it does make a difference, as we've heard from others in here who haven't been exposed to anyone else who isn't a fanatic, until they find a blog site where they find logic and reality.
Shepboy apparently left when he finally had to face his special type of stupidity. It's a shame .. apparently he is going to college near my town (if anything he said can be believed) - Sandy and I would have had so much fun meeting him in person
I really wanted him to meet my friends, some of whom are devout Christians, some of whom are of other religions, and some of whom don't believe in any gods.
How do I write an article in here? I can't figure that out yet.
I think he'll be back.
Sounds like a premise to a new reality show.
Go to the 'Topics' page. Select a particular Topic headline, i.e. "News & Politics, World News, ect." This is where your article will appear. Once you select a particular topic, click on the "New Discussion" tab on the top right. That will bring you to the "Create a discussion" page. Once there, you can write your article and title. You can also cut & paste or link to other articles. When you're done, click on the "create a discussion" tab at the bottom of your article. That will post your article in the particular topic heading you selected. If you're still not sure, message Perrie and ask her. She can also provide you with information. Hope that helps. I look forward to reading any article you write.
We are working on dramatically improving this. In the meantime, one method is:
Wow, America has been reduced to waiting for a god to make us great? Well, we may as well just disband as a nation because as far as any remotely sane person can tell, if a god does exist it REALLY doesn't care what goes on down here. Nothing happens unless we actually take action. Thoughts and prayers everyone, lol.
You mean you aren't concerned with an ant's sex life? We are vermin according to the bible ... we're like ants to the biblical god .. but we're supposed to believe it gives a crap about what we do in bed with consenting adults. Do believers really believe their god is so inane?
If there were a god, and it really answered my prayers to save one specific human while letting atrocities go on all over the planet, wouldn't that god be kind of a dick? And would't I be an ass if I wanted it to .. say, save the industry in my town .. while not interfering in what's going on in Venezuela?
Gee, where have I heard that one before?
Heh. I don't think ndeepnow is in here; I was talking to a religious friend the other day about our discussion of the speed of light, and how it should have affected his viewpoint. The delusions are deep in that one.
He wasn't the only one I was thinking of.
Dare I ask, what is his viewpoint regarding light speed?