War Time Heroism. Tin Can USS Johnston vs The Greatest Battleship of all Time.

uss johnston

War is Hell.
What do you do when you, and a bunch of Sluggish minor Aircraft carriers you’re Guarding, are surprised by an Enemy (Jap) Battle Fleet baring down….which includes the Greatest Battleship ever built (the Japanese Yamato) , with the greatest Guns ever put to sea…and they start to Pound away at such a distance that your own puny guns are pitifully short on range?… and what’s worse… you are the only thing between this Enemy Fleet and your own Invasion force…which will be decimated if this Battle fleet succeeds in engaging the Invasion troop carriers and landing vessels????

This is a circumstance not in the training manual!
Well what Commander Evans of the USS Johnston, and a handful of other tiny ‘tin cans’ decided to do was not to run… not to abandon their Charges… but turned and drove headlong into Battle… against the Goliath…. And the Battle which ensued was the stuff of Legend!
She would not survive, and yet The tale of her exploits, and those of her companions effected World history by diverting the Japanese away from their objective of halting General Macarthur’s invasion of the Philippines.

Many rightly say that War should not be glorified.
War is indeed a disaster!
An evidence of Man’s Loss of God.
And yet despite all our hopes and prayers to the contrary…War… like so many horrible circumstances we can find ourselves enduring … is a reality…. and it is in such times of crisis that the Mettle of men is put to the test.

It is a time when Higher values (If you got em) come into play which inspire a Contempt for Death.
… I don’t know how I would fare under such conditions, having never face such a trial by fire, and yet I bow my head in reverence at hearing the of the truly heroic exploits as were the deeds of the Seamen aboard the USS Johnston and her Sisters in the Battle of Samar.
That such a tiny Vessel and her companions could against all odds put up such a fight…for so long …against such a formidible Adversary is the stuff of Legend… and WW2 was a time not only of great Tragedy, Great Brutality, and great waste…. but also an age of great Heroism, and great Humanity.

I just watched the Discovery’s ‘Ultimate Warfare’ coverage of this Historic Naval battle, and it was heart wrenching, and Glorious!
To appreciate what my Grandfathers generation went through to protect Western Civilisation from the Tyrannical Warmongering Axis powers.

It is in recalling such True stories of War Heroism in which the Thinking compassionate man will salute those who go into Battle for the sake of defending their Homelands from Foreign aggression, from terrorism, or as peace keepers attempting to establish order in lands of Anarchy, villainy, and Chaos.
Tim Wikiriwhi.

From Wikipedia USS Johnston Here:

…Engagement of Taffy 3 [edit]Main article: Battle off Samar
On the morning of 23 October 1944, American submarines detected and attacked units of the Japanese fleet coming in from the South China Sea toward the precarious Leyte beachhead. The battleship-cruiser-destroyer Southern Force was decimated as it attempted to enter Leyte Gulf via Surigao Strait the night of 24/25 October. The more powerful battleship-cruiser-destroyer Center Force under Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita had been pounded by Admiral “Bull” Halsey’s attack carrier planes and presumably turned back from San Bernardino Strait. Admiral Halsey then raced north with his attack carriers and heavy battleships to engage a decoy Japanese carrier–battleship task force off Cape Engano. This left Johnston and her small escort carrier task unit as lonely sentinels in north Leyte Gulf, east of Samar and off San Bernardino Strait.

As enemy ships fled the Battle of Surigao Strait at daybreak of 25 October, the powerful Japanese Center Force slipped through San Bernardino Strait and into Leyte Gulf. It steamed along the coast of Samar directly for Johnston’s little task unit and the American invasion beachhead at Leyte, hoping to destroy amphibious shipping and American troops on shore.

One of the pilots flying patrol after dawn alert that morning reported the approach of Japanese Center Force. Steaming straight for “Taffy 3” were four battleships (including Yamato), eight cruisers (two light and six heavy), and 11 destroyers. Johnston’s gunnery officer—Lieutenant Robert C. Hagen—later reported, “We felt like little David without a slingshot.” In less than a minute, Johnston was zigzagging between the six escort carriers and the Japanese fleet and putting out a smoke screen over a 2,500 yd (2,300 m) front to conceal the carriers from the enemy gunners: “Even as we began laying smoke, the Japanese started lobbing shells at us and the Johnston had to zigzag between the splashes…. We were the first destroyer to make smoke, the first to start firing, the first to launch a torpedo attack….”[2]

For the first 20 minutes, Johnston could not return fire as the enemy cruisers and battleships’ heavy guns outranged Johnston’s 5 in (130 mm) guns. Not waiting for orders, Commander Evans broke formation and went on the offensive by ordering Johnston to speed directly toward the enemy—first a line of seven destroyers, next one light and three heavy cruisers, then the four battleships. To the east appeared three other cruisers and several destroyers.

As soon as range closed to within ten miles, Johnston fired on the heavy cruiser Kumano—the nearest ship—and scored several damaging hits. During her five-minute sprint into torpedo range, Johnston fired over 200 rounds at the enemy, then—under the direction of torpedo officer Lieutenant Jack K. Bechdel—made her torpedo attack. She got off all 10 torpedoes, then turned to retire behind a heavy smoke screen. When she came out of the smoke a minute later, Kumano could be seen burning furiously from a torpedo hit; her bow had been blown completely off, and she was forced to withdraw. Around this time, Johnston took three 14 in (360 mm) shell hits from Kongō, followed closely by three 6 in (150 mm) shells—from either a light cruiser or Yamato—which hit the bridge. The hits resulted in the loss of all power to the steering engine and all power to the three 5-inch guns in the aft part of the ship, and rendered the gyrocompass useless. A low-lying squall came up, and Johnston “ducked into it” for a few minutes of rapid repairs and salvage work. The bridge was abandoned and Commander Evans—who had lost two fingers on his left hand—went to the aft steering column to conn the ship.

At 07:50, Admiral Sprague ordered destroyers to make a torpedo attack: “small boys attack”. Johnston, unable to keep position with her damaged engine, and with her torpedoes already expended, nonetheless moved to provide fire support for the other destroyers. As she emerged from a smoke screen, she nearly collided with fellow destroyer Heermann. At 08:20, Johnston sighted a Kongō-class battleship—only 7,000 yd (6,400 m) away—emerging through the smoke. The destroyer opened fire, scoring multiple hits on the superstructure of the much larger ship. The return fire from the battleship missed clearly.

Johnston soon observed Gambier Bay under fire from an enemy cruiser, and engaged the cruiser in an effort to draw her fire away from the carrier. Johnston scored four hits on the heavy cruiser, then broke off as the Japanese destroyer squadron was seen closing rapidly on the American escort carriers. Johnston engaged the lead ship until it quit, then the second until the remaining enemy units broke off to get out of effective gun range before launching torpedoes, all of which missed. Then, Johnston’s luck ran out; she came under heavy fire from multiple enemy ships, and right when it was most needed, the damaged remaining engine quit, leaving her dead in the water.

Under attack from all sides [edit]The enemy ships closed in for an easy kill, pouring fire into the crippled destroyer. Johnston took a hit which knocked out one forward gun and damaged another, and her bridge was rendered untenable by fires and explosions resulting from a hit in her 40 mm ready ammunition locker. Evans—who had shifted his command to Johnston’s fantail—was yelling orders through an open hatch to men turning her rudder by hand. Crewmen from the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts spotted Evans at the fantail, asking “isn’t that their captain”, waving to them with what they did not realize was his only good hand.

At one of her batteries, a crewman kept calling “More shells! More shells!”[2] Still the destroyer battled to keep the Japanese destroyers and cruisers from reaching the five surviving American carriers: “We were now in a position where all the gallantry and guts in the world couldn’t save us, but we figured that help for the carrier must be on the way, and every minute’s delay might count…. By 9:30 we were going dead in the water; even the Japanese couldn’t miss us. They made a sort of running semicircle around our ship, shooting at us like a bunch of Indians attacking a prairie schooner. Our lone engine and fire room was knocked out; we lost all power, and even the indomitable skipper knew we were finished. At 9:45 he gave the saddest order a captain can give: ‘Abandon Ship.’… At 10:10 Johnston rolled over and began to sink. A Japanese destroyer came up to 1,000 yards and pumped a final shot into her to make sure she went down. A survivor saw the Japanese captain salute her as she went down. That was the end of Johnston.”[2]

From Johnston’s complement of 327 officers and men, only 141 were saved. Of the 186 men lost, about 50 were killed out-right by enemy action, 45 men later died on rafts from wounds; and 92 men—including Cmdr. Evans—got off Johnston before she sank, but were never heard from again.

Vote Michael Appleby (ALCP) for Ikaroa-Rawhiti!

2013-06-04_alcp

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidates for next year’s General Election pictured (from left to right) Fred Macdonald (Otaki), Alistair Gregory (Rongotai), Richard Goode (Mana) and Michael Appleby (Wellington Central).

ALCP Leader Michael Appleby is also our candidate in the forthcoming Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election to be held on 29 June. Today Michael announced his candidacy and launched the ALCP campaign.

Labour slammed for terror campaign comment

David Shearer’s comment that the Labour Party will “terrorise our political opponents” during its Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election campaign is “reprehensible”, a candidate for the seat says.

In a press release announcing Labour’s candidate Meka Whaitiri’s official campaign launch, the Labour leader said: “Labour will campaign relentlessly to once again earn the trust of the people of Ikaroa-Rawhiti.

“We will organise, mobilise and terrorise our political opponents.”

The leader of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, Michael Appleby, who was at Parliament today to launch his by-election campaign, said Labour should apologise over the comment.

“Threatening terrorism against opponents is offensive and unacceptable in a democratic by-election and the comments are extremely insensitive to the Tuhoe settlement which occurred today at Parliament,” he said.

He said Shearer’s comments were “outrageous, offensive and unacceptable”.

“I do not want to be terrorised just for standing up for my political beliefs,” Appleby said.

Thanks, Michael, for standing up for Truth, Freedom and Justice! 🙂

10454_167750766728184_71716178_n

Who are you?

054 Derek Parfit

At tomorrow night’s meeting of the New Inklings, the paper for discussion is Derek Parfit’s classic Personal Identity, first published in The Philosophical Review in 1971.

Here’s a teaser from Wikipedia.

Parfit uses many examples seemingly inspired by Star Trek and other science fiction, such as the teletransporter, to explore our intuitions about our identity. He is a reductionist, believing that since there is no adequate criterion of personal identity, people do not exist apart from their components. Parfit argues that reality can be fully described impersonally; there need not be a determinate answer to the question “Will I continue to exist?” We could know all the facts about a person’s continued existence and not be able to say whether the person has survived. He concludes that we are mistaken in assuming that personal identity is what matters; what matters is rather Relation R: psychological connectedness (namely, of memory and character) and continuity (overlapping chains of strong connectedness).

On Parfit’s account, individuals are nothing more than brains and bodies, but identity cannot be reduced to either. Parfit concedes that his theories rarely conflict with rival Reductionist theories in everyday life, and that the two are only brought to blows by the introduction of extraordinary examples. However, he defends the use of such examples because they seem to arouse genuine and strong feelings in many of us. Identity is not as determinate as we often suppose it is, but instead such determinacy arises mainly from the way we talk. People exist in the same way that nations or clubs exist.

A key Parfitian question is: given the choice of surviving without psychological continuity and connectedness (Relation R) or dying but preserving R through the future existence of someone else, which would you choose?

Parfit described the loss of the conception of a separate self as liberating:

My life seemed like a glass tunnel, through which I was moving faster every year, and at the end of which there was darkness… [However] When I changed my view, the walls of my glass tunnel disappeared. I now live in the open air. There is still a difference between my life and the lives of other people. But the difference is less. Other people are closer. I am less concerned about the rest of my own life, and more concerned about the lives of others.

Needless to say, I’m with Parfit on this one. His view is both liberating and … dare I say it, Christian.
(Or, at least, conducive to a Christian way of life.) (But with some startling implications for some Christian views of salvation.)

chaospet-identity

Here’s the Parfitian question again.

Given the choice of

(1) surviving without psychological continuity and connectedness (Relation R), or
(2) dying but preserving R through the future existence of someone else,

which would you choose? (Hint: what matters is Relation R.)

Related links: What are you? | Are you lego or logos? | Swallowed up by life | God vs. AI

The Christian Fellowship is a voluntary private society, not a theocratic political movement.

0NOMADCOLISEUM
Christians face the Lions in Rome.

Pray for Liberty!…
“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
St Paul (1Tim2vs1-4)

A member of The Christian libertarians (new) facebook page asked the following question… supplying a Multi-choice answer format in which you could add your own answers.

“From what fundamental principle(s) do you base your libertarian political principles?”

The Golden Rule…27 votes.
Private Property …12 votes.
The answer I added….Grace gospel = individualistic self government and voluntary association…7 votes.
Argumentation ethics… 1 vote.
The Non-Aggression Principle….23 votes.
Jesus is Lord and Caesar is Not…4 votes.
Pragmatic (libertarianism is best for society)…3 votes.
The Constitution…3 votes.
Old Testament Law…1 vote.

I ticked the Golden rule, and Private property, and also added my own option… Grace Gospel… (see above)
I then qualified my answers in the comments…

“Paul’s Gospel of grace is a personal invitation to the individual sinner for salvation, in which he voluntarily joins the ‘private association’ of the ‘Fellowship of the mystery’, and chooses of his own freewill to make Christian values his own, thus all of his/her good works, charity flow from this voluntary basis, not from any form of legalistic compulsion. … threat of political punishments or prohibitions.
Thus ‘Religious liberty’ is the essential principle, so that we are free to follow our own conscience, and private property is necessary as giving us the place to practice and preach our faith in peace and safety.

This ‘free society’ is to be distinguished both from Jewish Legalistic Nationalism, and from Christ’s and Peters Political gospel of ‘National Salvation’ for Israel via the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom Rule… in which there is no Religious liberty, because the True God will be on Earth.

Contrary to the Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul’s gospel of grace and the Christian fellowship of the mystery do not require compulsory membership of others, or for us to impose our values upon others by force (or Law), and establishes the framework for Peace with others with whom peaceful Libertarian coexistence is possible, Equality, and freedom, and thereby naturally fulfills the Golden rule.

In this freedom sinners may choose to receive the gift of God’s grace, or to reject it and remain ‘outside’ the church and live in sin… as long as they don’t impinge upon our religios liberty, or threaten our lives and property. It is not for us to lock up Prostitutes, drug dealers, Homosexuals, adulterers, etc. They shall reap what they sow, and ultimately shall face the judgment of God.

It is for us to preach the Gospel of Grace, and to set an example of God’s love for mankind via charity and good works, and to prove the benefits of living by the Inner moral compass of Personal Christian ethics voluntarily imbibed, as superior to Anti freedom nationalistic Socially dictated/ imposed moral legalism
**********************************
Religious liberty is the fundamental principle of the Gospel of God’s grace, and we ought to be praying for freedom to live by our own convictions, and to peacefully practice, preach, and teach our faith, Print our Bibles, Build our schools and other charitible institutions, etc.
We are not attempting to establish Gods Kingdom on Earth, because we know that *Only Christ* can achieve that… at his second comming.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

The Late great Francis Schaeffer has this to say about Libertarian Rights and Liberties…

“Keep things in the shallow end… because I just didn’t want to know…”

945788_507567652646198_544694991_n

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
John 3:19

Ain’t nobody got time for dat!

Hayride to Hell!

Some people try and deny we have any freewill, or control over what we Believe or accept, yet I reject this.
I say that we are responsible for what we believe because we incrementally condition ourselves step by step, via our desire to know, or our desire to avoid knowing, and this grows into such an edifice that it can be a highplace from which the whole world can be Surveyed accurately… seeing it as it really is, or a self imposed ignorance can settle like a heavy fog completely blinding us from the truth.
This latter condition is all too common… the millions who have placed scales upon their own eyes so that the truth seems completely alien… completely ‘unreal’…. then they cry? How can I be blamed for not being able to believe?
They pretend they are the victims of circumstances… instead of being a victim of their own ignorant and foolish choices.

The same can be said of Hardness of heart.
As we go through life we all face times of horror and hurt, and one of the ways people seek to survive on this earth is to ‘harden up’… to stop themselves caring so much about things which they cant control, ..etc, yet this process is very dangerous… It is Dehumanizing, and we can build such ‘A Wall’ about ourselves that we become completely insensitive to the plight of humanity, and incapable of perceiving the real Moral issues and dilemma’s of life. And this hardness also blinds the individual to the need to seek Personal salvation, or to reform the world.
Yet again We are not victims of the world.
Our hard hearts are of our own creation, and we are morally responsible for our own lack of conscience and Narcissism.
We have freely created ourselves.
When you admit this to yourself you can then choose to awaken and walk with your eyes open and your heart restored.
This can be painful and taxing, yet it is the moral thing to do, as opposed to shirking morality and truth.
Dare You stand in the light of day?
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

Read more…
Hiding in the Dark….

Seether: Know Thyself. How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? Part 5.

Comfortably Numb : Confessions of a Nyctophilliac.

Banana republicans

logo

Republicans are bananas!

New Zealand Republic is the website for the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Let’s check out the case for a New Zealand republic.

(But first, check out the Republican Movement’s logo above. What is it? A stylised letter ‘R’? A misshapen black nodule? Or a badly drawn smiling frog-face? Whatever it is, our people do not want it disgracing our national flag.)

The case for a New Zealand republic sets out the main arguments for why New Zealand should become a republic. They fall into three categories:

Independence — New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state;
Nationhood — the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand’s national identity, culture and heritage;
Democracy — New Zealand should have a democratic and accountable head of state.

In this post, I’ll take a look at the Republicans’ argument that we need a New Zealander as the head of State, under the heading “Independence”.

Independence

New Zealand will not be fully independent until we have a New Zealander as head of state. New Zealand likes to think of itself as an independent country. However, it cannot objectively be argued New Zealand’s current head of state represents this.

Never mind the head of state. New Zealand will not be fully independent while half of its citizens are dependent on state welfare. That’s a much bigger problem to address.

As the United Kingdom’s one-time head of state, Margaret Thatcher, once said, “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.” How are we to look after our neighbour when we, ourselves, are reliant on government largesse? New Zealand society will never be independent until such time as its men and women and families are no longer reliant on state welfare handouts and “tax breaks”.

Add to this the fact that the New Zealand’s external debt is the vicinity of $90 billion dollars. We have a long way to go before we can declare our financial independence from foreign lenders.

A republic means a New Zealander as head of state

“Is New Zealand to continue to have an appointed Governor-General… or should we move to an elected president? This will not happen because of any lack of affection or love for our Queen in London, but because the tide of history is moving in one direction.” – former Prime Minster Jim Bolger.

Do we really want someone like Jim Bolger as our head of state? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or John Key?

7568_10200839859735270_1831438992_n

I’m not a stalwart royalist like my mum, but I’m more than happy with the Queen. Next to spending time with my family, Her Majesty’s message is the highlight of my Xmas Day. (BTW, Happy Birthday Your Majesty!)

Our current head of state is not a New Zealander and does not represent New Zealand. When the Queen travels overseas, she does so in order to represent Great Britain.

The Queen works to strengthen British economic and political ties, and does whatever the British Government asks of her. In fact, whenever “our” head of state visits New Zealand, the Queen has to ask for permission from the British Government to leave Britain.

You have got to be kidding. She’s the Queen! Her subjects answer to her, she doesn’t answer to them!

If the Queen wanted to be a citizen of New Zealand, she would not meet the legal requirements to become a citizen. The Citizenship Act 1977 requires an applicant for New Zealand citizenship to have been resident in New Zealand for five years before citizenship is granted. The Queen has spent a total of no more than six months in New Zealand.

The Governor-General is not a proper head of state. While the Governor-General may increasingly act in ways that befit a head of state, the reality is that New Zealand is still not regarded as being fully independent of Great Britain. Appointing the Queen’s representative in New Zealand is inadequate. A New Zealand head of state will make it clear that New Zealand is an independent country. It will signal New Zealand’s independence and maturity to the world.

I’ll be honest. I don’t actually know who the current Governor-General is. And that’s exactly how it should be. A head of state so off the radar that only Wikipedia knows his or her true identity.

Deciding the rules for ourselves

In recent years, the British Parliament has attempted to amend the succession law. The problem is the Statute of Westminster 1931, the law which granted independence to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Oops! Looks like the Republicans just shot themselves in the foot. By their own admission, New Zealand has already been granted independence!

The Statute requires “consultation” on changes to the succession before any changes to the succession law. While this provision is not binding, it is still an important constitutional convention. The most recent attempt in 2008 failed for this reason: the British Government did not want to have to consult with all the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms. New Zealand’s Parliament could change the law of succession unilaterally, but that would go against the convention established by the Statute of Westminster. Change can only be enacted if the governments of all the 15 Commonwealth realms are consulted, probably by Britain. In a republic, the rules governing New Zealand’s head of state will be made solely by the New Zealand Parliament. They will change as New Zealanders decide they need to, not because of events in Great Britain.

Er, well, that’s it. Pretty lame, huh. (Part 1 of 3.) So far, I’m fully not convinced that New Zealand needs to become a republic. And, as I commented on Facebook yesterday

Why do we need “a New Zealand republic with an independent head of State.” I can’t think of a good reason. Change? Why change? Haven’t you people got more pressing concerns?

If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.

Republic of New Freeland

[Reprised from beNZylpiperazine, February 2005.]

richard9

Should the design of the New Zealand flag be changed? That’s the question the people at the NZflag.com Trust would like to see on a referendum at the next election. It’s all a bit of a hullubaloo. The right time to change the flag is when we become the Republic of New Freeland. Bring to light that day of joy!

Meanwhile, here is my proposal for our new flag. The new flag has the virtues of elegance, simplicity and respect for our history and traditional values.

Black, red and white are the colours of Māori, discoverers and first inhabitants of New Zealand. The black represents Te Korekore, the realm of potential being, as well as signifying Rangi, the Heavens. The red represents Te Whai-Ao, the realm of coming into being, and signifies Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother. The white of the stars represents Te Ao-Marama, the realm of being and light.

The new flag retains the red, white and blue of the Union Jack, recalling our nation’s origins as a British colony. In the stars of the new flag, a thin border of red separates the inner blue from the outer white. The Southern Cross itself is retained in recognition of our nation’s strong Christian heritage.

The new flag shall be known as the New Zealand stars and stripes, paying homage to the Western heritage of democracy and freedom we share with our friends and allies.

Self-serving Susan

8735967_64n

Would there be a Race Relations Commissioner if no one complained to the Human Rights Commission?

‘Racist’ cartoon slammed

Speaking with Sean Plunket on RadioLive, Devoy called for people to send in their complaints. “It’s caused an understandable fury out there.”

She said that although no official complaints had been lodged, she encouraged people to complain.

When Plunket asked her to clarify whether she was soliciting complaints, she said she hoped that people who had expressed their displeasure on social media would do the same through official channels.

‘Racist’ cartoon slammed

Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy said the cartoons were offensive and appalling.

Her distaste for them has spurred her to question the high threshold required for a finding of racism within the commission’s inquiries and complaints process. The threshold under the law was “very high” and was about inciting racial disharmony.

“Perhaps it is not right that the threshold is that high,” but that was a matter for the Government she said.

Asked why anyone should make a complaint about the cartoons when the threshold for what was considered racism was so high, she replied: “I ask myself that all the time”.

Despite that, the Human Rights Commission could still address the issue, and she encouraged people to complain to the commission, the editors of the newspapers, and the Press Council.

It would not be any more acceptable if just white people were depicted.

O ye of little faith

matt-17-20

(P1) If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. (NIV)

(P2) You cannot move mountains from here to there.

Therefore, (C) Your faith is smaller than a mustard seed.

And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. (KJV)

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!