Draining the Swamp a Work in Progress

Did “cultural erosion” help Donald Trump become president as some claim? There may be some truth to that. But even more than "cultural erosion," do you suppose it was a “confidence erosion”? American confidence in Washington’s ability to solve problems had seriously eroded. Many Americans saw Donald Trump as a breath of fresh air, a non-politician, a businessman who would put America first. His “buy American, hire American, defend American” stance was music to millions of voters’ ears as was his promise to “drain the swamp.”

In all actuality, Trump’s winning the presidency may prove to be easier than “draining the swamp.” You heard me correctly. Trump taming the swamp and its alligators may be a bigger challenge than he ever imagined. With demonstrations clamoring for his impeachment, leftists in Congress doing all they can to delay, oppose and contest his every move, leaks sharing politically troubling material like a sifter. America’s new president seems literally surrounded by swamps and a media ready to protect it and attack his every move.

In summation, my three-point opinion follows: First; The swamp is the DC establishment. Second: The alligators are made up of the left and main stream media. Lastly, alligators like crocodilians sometimes eat their own. Now, let’s order off the menu.

Recaptruing the Federal Government's Role

In times past, American citizens of were taught from early childhood to rely upon their own toils or efforts to resist iniquity and misfortunes of life; they looked on the societal authority with an eye of skepticism and apprehension and they claimed assistance only when they were unable to do without it. Self-sufficiency characterized the early settlers in America, and the United States Constitution typified that spirit by establishing a federal government of separate and limited powers. Those early settlers desired a federal government strong enough to represent a new nation to the world, but weak enough to allow states and individuals to thrive. The times, they have changed!

It has become apparent that federal bureaucrats have almost zilch probability of resolving issues relevant to their specific department’s oversight accountabilities. This being the case, it is clearly unrealistic to necessitate that the federal government straightaway withdraw from education, health care, and all the other areas in which its current mammoth presence is, to the minds of many conservatives (myself included), manifestly unconstitutional. As unfortunate as it may be, it is too late, as well as politically not viable to endeavor to bolt that proverbial barn door. The gatecrashers are now acting like proprietors. Nonetheless, we can, and are obliged to try to preserve the remaining horses under provincial control. With determination, tenacity, and constituent participation, it should even be conceivable to recapture some of the pilfered steeds and help reestablish the federal government’s appropriate role.

Easter Message: A Life Lived Backward

Think about this; Jesus was the only person who came into the world to die. “Death,” writes Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen, “was the goal and fulfillment of His life, the gold that He was seeking. Few of His words or actions are intelligible without reference to His Cross. . .  The story of every human life begins with birth and ends with death. In the Person of Christ, however, it was His death that was first and His life that was last. . . It was not so much that His birth cast a shadow on His life and thus led to His death; it was rather that the Cross was first, and cast its shadow back to His birth. His has been the only life in the world that was ever lived backward.”

Is not Sheen’s assertion a somewhat revolutionary theological thought, or is it? A life lived rearward! Though Jesus Christ was born to die and He intended from the beginning to do just that, His death would be in Jehovah-God’s time. Before He and the Father would allow Himself to be apprehended, He had to finish His ministry. He came to preach a message of, liberation, salvation and life. Now, did Jesus say to Himself, “I am going to say the most controversial things I can to antagonize the religious powers that be into killing Me?” No! His message was what it was (and is and always will be) and some would accept it and others would rebuff it. Why reject it? In this case, as in many cases, truth can cause consternation, disunity, dissention and alienation. Yet His message is precisely why the religious leaders wanted Him dead. He contested their jurisdiction, practices, and elucidations of their sacred Law, including the right to heal on the Sabbath. He blasphemously claimed to be the Messiah and the King, and made a triumphal entry into the Holy City. He claimed to be the Son of God who had the authority to forgive sins, and He had the fearlessness to cleanse their Temple.

In summation of Jesus ministry and substitutionary death; God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right; The message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of Satan, because God was with him. They killed him by hanging him on a cross. He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. He arose from the grave on the third day just as He had foretold. For the next forty days, He makes many appearances to His followers and others, then ascends into heaven, promising to send His disciples the Holy Spirit, who would empower them to carry on His ministry.

In light of what has been stated one could reasonably conclude there is some validity to Sheen's declaration or assertion. It was rather that the Cross was first, and cast its shadow back to His birth and not Christ's birth that cast a shadow on His life and thus led to His death. Regardless, we live because He gave us life by spilling His lifeblood on Calvary's cross.

Rise of Islamism Foreshadows Downfall of West

Based on what I know about immigration of non-Western peoples in Europe, I am convinced the current situation in Europe foreshadows what America will soon look like unless there is a course change. Do you not realize Western Europe is less than a peer group ahead of us in how far their culture is devolving downward?

This being the case, can we help restore Western civilization for the world? If we can’t defend it here in the United States of America, it can’t be defended anywhere. Has the reader of this post not seen news feeds depicting Muslims rioting, raping and setting fires in cities across Europe? If not, watch the news. Better yet goggle it.

This is what we can expect in America if we duplicate the archetype that Europe has, and the archetype they have is ethnic enclaves that limit economic opportunities, do not encourage the development of host country language, and keep immigrants in their own culture that have not experienced adaptation. Instead, they re-erect their home country’s culture within the host culture, and that’s a formula for insurrection, partition and violent behavior. The calamities that you’re seeing there are calamities that are coming to a community near you. Are we not seeing more and more racial division in the streets of America? Are we not seeing an uptick in Muslim demonstrations and radical Islamic terrorism?

What we need is more people with resolve to stand up for Western Civilization. Should we not begin by exposing the radical liberal left, advocates of Islamism and those activists who promote non-assimilation within immigrant enclaves as assailants of Western society itself? If the West should meet its demise, which seems to be what they are striving for, what’s next? Is it extinction of freethought, democracy, human rights, need for equality?

BLM in Light of ALM

The other day, while discussing a concern that is common among those in the political arena, and academia or interacting with the secular left reference; “Black Lives Matter (BLM), it became apparent to me the use of “All Lives Matter” (ALM) is disagreeable to the liberal left. Unsurprisingly, liberals object to the term ALM by implying the term is racist. Really!

Now this being the case, my brain began churning. How do we as conservatives confront those who espouse such ideologically inane or mindless suppositions. Those who know me or in the least are familiar with my weekly posts know I am not reticent to express my views.  Given the importance of the issue, I will write a response that when tactfully used will benefit others who find themselves confronting liberals who support BLM's activist ignoble rhetoric.

The first thing to remember about responding to a deceptive accuser is what not to do. Above all, resist the temptation to accuse the purveyor of the accusation or of harassment or of …this, that or the other. That is what the liberal left does and it is wrong. The best way to respond to ignoble speech is with enhanced speech, not bowdlerization or censorship. Furthermore, you need to respond to accusations of racism with questions rather than assertions. Whether addressing crowds, writing papers, teaching impressionable minds or simply arguing a point with a counterpart, these are lessons that have served me well over the years.

When being confronted by a social faultfinder simply ask: What do you mean by racists? One needs to realize that “run of the mill” die hard liberals and especially academician ultra-leftists rarely understand the terms they are using when they attack conservatives. Racism is a specific belief that races can be ranked according to genetically inherited characteristics. For example, when a white supremacist takes a racist view of blacks he is really saying that they are genetically inferior. This genetic inferiority allegedly manifests itself in lower intelligence, which, in turn, translates into other undesirable characteristics such as sloth and a propensity toward crime. If the babbling liberal, regardless how he/she sees themselves cannot supply the correct definition of racism after he/she has used the term then he/she makes a complete fool of her/himself.