History Heroes: Winston Churchill

Dinner Topics for Thursday

Winston Churchill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

churchillSir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill KGOMCHTDDLFRSRA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British politician and Nobel laureate who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. Widely regarded as one of the greatest wartime leaders of the 20th century, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army, a historian, a writer (as Winston S. Churchill), and an artist. Churchill is the only British Prime Minister to have won the Nobel Prize in Literature since its inception in 1901, and was the first person to be made an honorary citizen of the United States.

Churchill was born into the aristocratic family of the Dukes of Marlborough, a branch of the Spencer family. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a charismatic politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer; his mother, Jennie Jerome, was an American socialite. As a young army officer, he saw action in British India, the Sudan, and the Second Boer War. He gained fame as a war correspondent and wrote books about his campaigns.

churchill-on-socialismAt the forefront of politics for fifty years, he held many political and cabinet positions. Before the First World War, he served as President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty as part of Asquith’s Liberal government. During the war, he continued as First Lord of the Admiralty until the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign caused his departure from government. He then briefly resumed active army service on the Western Front as commander of the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers. He returned to government as Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War, and Secretary of State for Air. In 1921–1922 Churchill served as Secretary of State for the Colonies, then Chancellor of the Exchequer in Baldwin’s Conservative government of 1924–1929, controversially returning the pound sterling in 1925 to the gold standard at its pre-war parity, a move widely seen as creating deflationary pressure on the UK economy. Also controversial were his opposition to increased home rule for India and his resistance to the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII.

Out of office and politically “in the wilderness” during the 1930s, Churchill took the lead in warning about Nazi Germany and in campaigning for rearmament. At the outbreak of the Second World War, he was again appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. Following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain on 10 May 1940, Churchill became Prime Minister. His steadfast refusal to consider defeat, surrender, or a compromise peace helped inspire British resistance, especially during the difficult early days of the war when the British Commonwealth and Empire stood alone in its active opposition to Adolf Hitler. Churchill was particularly noted for his speeches and radio broadcasts, which helped inspire the British people. He led Britain as Prime Minister until victory over Nazi Germany had been secured.

After the Conservative Party lost the 1945 election, he became Leader of the Opposition to the Labour Government. After winning the 1951 election, he again became Prime Minister, before retiring in 1955. Upon his death, Elizabeth II granted him the honour of a state funeral, which saw one of the largest assemblies of world statesmen in history.[1] Named the Greatest Briton of all time in a 2002 poll, Churchill is widely regarded as being among the most influential people in British history, consistently ranking well in opinion polls of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

Related Post

Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and President Obama

 

Advertisements

History Facts: Trump, Churchill, and Future of America

History Facts:

Trump, Churchill, and Future of America

keySo….is DT good for America?  I honestly believe that he has been  already.Do I agree with all he says?  Not at all.  Is he a “Cyrus” that is being raised up by God to preserve  America ?  Time will tell. This I know.  I will vote for the best chance for America .  I  will pray for our leaders as I have already.  In the end….God will continue to be my source  and my hope.   I do believe that God has had a hand in  America ‘s history.  I hope He also will have a hand in its  future. 

From a Pastor

Is Trump good for America ?  I mentioned Sunday that I would speak on this next week.  Unfortunately, I felt I was shoehorning this topic  into my planned message.  To properly present what I want to speak on Sunday, I may have to leave the Donald out of it!  Let me take a  minute for those that wonder and give some thoughts.
When I first heard that DT was entering the race last year, I told my wife that I felt that it was a good thing for the party and America .  I knew that he was not a “saint,” but I knew that he would be like a bull in a china shop.  He is a disrupter and I believe America could use a fresh thinker especially in the political arena.  I didn’t think he  would get the nomination, but felt it would shake up politics as  usual.  I was correct  on the shaking up part.
Lance Wallnau likens him to a biblical Cyrus.  Someone who is dynamically used of God even though not perceived by many as a God  follower.  God has used many people in history that I would probably not like or agree with.  I’m not sure I would have liked the disciples, or David, or Moses.  Somehow, God did not seem compelled to consult with me!
churchillI have always liked Winston Churchill.  He is seen as one of the  greatest national leaders in the 20th century.  Last year, I had the privilege of going through the War Museum in London. Winston is  a key feature.  His life is controversial.  He was not always celebrated as a great leader.  He was a bombastic, cigar smoking, at times crude, even misogynistic leader.  It is alleged   that he told off color stories to his children before bedtime!
A woman once told him he was disgustingly drunk.  His response was, “My dear, you are disgustingly ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you  will still be ugly!”
There are many websites that discuss the outlandish comments and activities of this great world leader.  He had exactly what was  needed to stop Hitler at the Channel, to rouse a nation to never give up and to partner with America to find final victory in Europe .
You  wouldn’t want him as your pastor, maybe not even your father, but he was the right leader for that moment in England ‘s history.  Such a brazen man that would go up to the roof of his quarters in central London and smoke cigars as Hitler’s air force bombed all around him.  I’m  not sure I would have voted for him….but he was the right man
I think it would be awesome to have a righteous leader, that understood  the intricacies of the economy, health care, defense, immigration, with  great sensitivity to religious institutions, a heart for the poor, a  vision for the future.  If that leader was a praying person,  formidable in the word of God and loved the local church, I would  rejoice! 

I do not think that is the choice we will have in November.           
Instead….we will look for someone who is imperfect, yet will fit the times we are living in. Particularly, that ‘whoever’ we vote for will be someone who might possibly have the opportunity to appoint up to  three supreme court justices.  That could shape our culture in America for the next 30 years…radically. 

Trump-Make-America-Great-MAPThe America of our  grandchildren could be very different….and that may not be good.

We cannot stay still.  A non-vote is a passive vote for a direction  we may regret.   

So….is DT good for America?  I honestly believe that he has been  already.  He has shaken the political system.  Do his comments  offend me?  At times.  Do I agree with all he says?  Not at all.  Is he a “Cyrus” that is being raised up by God to preserve  America ?  Time will tell.
        

This I know.  I will vote for the best chance for America .  I  will pray for our leaders as I have already.  In the end….God will continue to be my source  and my hope.   I do believe that God has had a hand in  America ‘s history.  I hope He also will have a hand in its  future. 

 

Presidential? Man for our Times?

Trump Heads to Flood-Wrecked Louisiana… Obama Golfs, Hillary Rests


Shocks with ‘Regret’ Speech… I May Say the Wrong Things, but ‘I Will Always Tell You the Truth’ 

 

 

 

 

Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and President Obama

Dinner Topics for Monday

Churchill thought free men were morally obliged to believe it [in liberty], in order to go down fighting if necessary. But beyond that, he calculated what the advantages were. And there was a fundamental advantage that is especially important for us to recall today.~ Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College

Time to Give Up or Time to Fight On?

An Interview with Dr. Larry P. Arnn

The following is adapted from an interview by Hugh Hewitt for the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show, conducted on the day after the election, November 7, 2012.

Hugh Hewitt: My guest is Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College. Several weeks ago, when I was at Hillsdale, Dr. Arnn warned me that yesterday’s election might well go badly for the cause of constitutional conservatism. And I wanted to review the results of the election with him today on the radio show. Larry, welcome.

Larry P. Arnn: It is certainly true that the vast majority of our nation’s elites today—those who welcome the results of [the] election—are creatures of modern historicist thought, which explicitly rejects the kind of objective principles—equality under God, inalienable rights—on which America was founded.

According to modern historicism, the only objective truth is that one can’t know an objective truth. President Obama embraces this view in no uncertain terms in his book The Audacity of Hope: “Implicit . . . in the very idea of ordered liberty,” he writes, is “a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or ‘ism,’ any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single unalterable course . . . .” So much for individual rights and limited government.

Progressivism

barrymarxThis view, which drives modern liberalism or Progressivism, has been on the ascendant. But remember when you quote Strauss that his works were intended to constitute a revival of the West. The West is heavily besieged from within, but it’s not dead. We are obviously a house divided right now, and I think it’s safe to say that conditions are going to get significantly worse before they get better. But we need to remember why Churchill thought that Hitler could be defeated even when the British had ten or twelve divisions and the Germans had 200, plus three times the air force, and the British stood alone.

For one thing, Churchill thought free men were morally obliged to believe it, in order to go down fighting if necessary. But beyond that, he calculated what the advantages were. And there was a fundamental advantage that is especially important for us to recall today: Churchill believed that Hitler’s kind of government could not work, and thus that it would not work. In other words, he looked at Hitler and he saw weakness—despite Hitler’s great military advantage.

Similarly, Churchill and Ronald Reagan are the two statesmen I know who regarded the Soviet Union as weak, even at the height of its power, because it was built on self-contradictory propositions and its system led to obvious and repeated injustices. Churchill believed that also of the socialist government to which he lost in 1946.

Hugh Hewitt: Now Larry, I’ve got to break in here, because I know the media-industrial complex, and someone will go and get the transcription of this and say that you are comparing Obama to Hitler, which you are not doing. What you are talking about is a relative advantage of political forces today, comparing that to the relative advantage in military forces of Hitler vis-à-vis Churchill. You aren’t comparing our government today to the Third Reich.

Larry P. Arnn: No, and I don’t mean that. What I mean is that the principles of Progressivism that animate our government today, which are antithetical to the principles of the American Founding, lead to policies that cannot work, will not work, and result in obvious injustices. That is its weakness, and that provides cause for hope. But by the way, there is a parallel with the great twentieth century tyrannies: The modern bureaucratic form of government cannot remain accountable to the people, so in the fullness of time it will become despotic. That’s not the intention of anybody who runs it today, or at least not very many people. But that is its direction.

Hugh Hewitt: You mentioned Reagan, who always seemed to know, as Solzhenitsyn knew, that it was all papier-mâché in the Soviet Union—that you could poke a stick through it and it would fall apart. It was held together by fear. But modern bureaucratic government operates in such a way as to gain people’s allegiance and trust. Isn’t that a significant difference between the two?

Larry P. Arnn: The experts who run the modern bureaucratic state think they are architects of a perfectly rational society. They think of themselves as scientists, and of the running of government as something more like science—the science of administration—than politics. They think they can coordinate society comprehensively so that no one is left out. That’s why they think of their work as something good and as something high. The problem is that what they are trying to do defies human nature—the human nature that led James Madison to write famously that men are not angels, and that led the Framers of the Constitution to divide government in order to limit government—and so what these experts are doing will ultimately lead to despotism.

Churchill_HU_90973But let me close with a word about Churchill. The service that he did in 1940, when his nation stood up against Hitler alone, was preceded by a service equally great. In the 1930s, British politics were ugly and ill-directed. Churchill’s own party leaders conspired to deprive him not only of his seat in Parliament, but of his livelihood writing for the public. One of his colleagues, an official in the Foreign Ministry named Ralph Wigram, was threatened with transfer to a remote place without medical care—his son had birth defects—if he continued speaking with Churchill. Churchill, Wigram, and Wigram’s wife Ava stood up to this kind of thing, year after year. First a few, and then many, and then legions joined them. Finally the British people realized the truth, and then all over London billboards appeared with the words in large black letters, “What Price Churchill?” He was called to lead in 1940 because he proved in the 1930s that he could do so.

That same year, Churchill asked one of his assistants, John Colville, to find him the precise text of a prayer he remembered from the siege of Gibraltar. It reads:

Fear not the result, for either thy end shall be an enviable and a majestic one, or God will preserve our reign upon the waters.

We might follow Churchill in saying that prayer in hard times. We might cultivate the strength that it can give.