Do You Want To Help Drain The Swamp?

One of President Trump’s campaign promises was to “Drain the Swamp”. That call rang true with many Americans. The “Swamp”, of course, is that mass of Elites, bureaucrats and politicians who have been steadily destroying our country, our economy, educational system and our culture. Whether, or not, he intends to follow through on this promise remains to be seen. We know he can’t do it alone, and many people wonder how they can help. Here’s how. It won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight. It also will require some sacrifice on our part.

There are ongoing boycotts of both Target and Kellogg’s that have hurt the all-important bottom line of both companies. Target supports transgender bathrooms, and Kellogg’s supports a boycott of Breitbart.com because it is conservative.

Boycott of Target and Kellogg’s Deters Corporate Bullying, Says American Family Association

Both of these corporations support the “progressive” ideology, which is the ideology of the Swamp. It is anti-American, anti-capitalist, and most recently, anti-white and anti-male. The Kellogg’s Foundation donates large sums of money to “progressive” organizations. Both are seeking to destroy our culture. Both advertise heavily in the mainstream media, who also promote the “progressive” agenda.

ESPN, in the last couple of years, has swung hard to the Left and promotes the Far Left “progressive” agenda, while purging its ranks of conservatives; Curt Schilling being one of its victims. As a result of this swing to the Far Left, ESPN has lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and has become a drag on its parent company’s earnings. That parent company is the Disney corporation, which, since it owns ESPN, could have put a stop to the Far Left agenda of ESPN, but it has not done so, which says it supports it. Walt Disney Co. also owns the television network ABC, and a host of media and film companies. Disney has for years promoted the “progressive” agenda, and, like ESPN, is very vulnerable to a consumer boycott, as they sell their products and services directly to the consumer. A successful boycott of Disney would send a “bottom-line” message to the Disney Board and management that the American people are fed up with the “progressive” agenda, and will not pay for its manipulation of the culture.

The recent NFL protests involving kneeling during the National Anthem is gaining momentum throughout the “progressive” world. It is true that the players and coaches have the right to protest, but as I said in a recent article, we, as Americans, have an equal right to protest against their actions. They can whine all they want. We have the right to speak freely, and to choose where we spend our money. Actions have consequences. We can, if we choose, send a message to all the big corporations who have been manipulating us for years. We just have to be willing to take a stand and send them the message. When their “bottom-line” turns into the red, they will have a choice to make. The boycotts of Target, Kellogg’s and ESPN are having an effect. Target is hurting, and Kellogg’s has laid off workers and closed some factories. ESPN, likewise, has laid off a substantial number of its employees as it hemorrhages money. Boycotts can work.

The political Swamp is supported by massive donations made by “progressive” corporations and their upper management. Cutting off the spigot will be a key part of the Drain the Swamp movement.

Now that that you know what you, as an individual, can do to help Drain the Swamp, will you step up and help?

 

About Author

Shorty Dawkins

I am a writer of novels, currently living in the woods of Montana. My 5 novels can be seen here: https://www.oathkeepers.org/my-5-books-shorty-dawkins/

Comments

  1. Cal 26 September, 2017, 12:59

    Your suggestions on how to drain part of the swamp is true, and would work on that section. A big one of this section left out is Walmart.

    Walmart under the “old man” was American; but his kids sold out soon after he died. What was required of Walmart? To destroy all competition with the assistance of our governments. So Walmart built everywhere, but NOT at the full cost to Walmart. Instead the land was often bought and paid for by American, not the corporation. Same for the buildings, etc. Walmart was even allowed to rent from itself and deduct the rent. Etc. Yet, everyone buys from them because of prices. What they do NOT see is that those jobs, etc that went out the country – retail and industry was the price for those cheap goods.

    It takes more to drain the complete swamp, but this is a good start.

    The next step should be holding all to the supreme LAW of our land, and to the highest LAW of each state, to the contracts (Constitutions – supreme of this land, and to the highest of each state). While doing so, educate the voters of each state that those Amendments found in almost every election they vote on decrease the power of the people, increasing the power of the state government. When something is Law, when broken there is a penalty – felony for breaking the US Constitution; felony and perjury for breaking the Oaths.

    Our complete government is founded on the concept that ALL people are EQUAL under the Law. That means that it matters not what position they occupy in our government, how much money they personally have, what station they are in life, they are still personally responsible for their own actions. Those who serve/served witin our governments are very strongly (legally/lawfully) PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their actions while serving (ex. H. Clinton). So if they commit treason, Perjury, murder, etc they are to be held responsible for their crimes. That is why there are many *tools that belong ONLY to the people themselves within the US Constitution, so that we can hold those who serve within our governments accountable.

    *Militia, elections, Grand Jury Investigations, Grand Juries, (informed) juries, etc.

    It is critical for all to understand that just because something is labeled a “law”, statute, code, treaty, etc does NOT MAKE IT BINDING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE – though it is binding on those who serve within our government.

    James Madison knew that there was always a possibility that: “men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the [votes], and then betray the interests, of the people” so he recommended that the people always watch those that serve within our governments closely and hold them accountable for their actions.

    James Wilson: “I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the enumerated powers are not as accurately and MINUTELY DEFINED, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language…nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are LIMITED AND DEFINED by the following, “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”, it is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given (enumerated), shall be effectually carried into execution.”

    James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (1785): “The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
    We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.”

    Gov. Samuel Johnston, North Carolina Ratifying Convention of the U.S. Constitution (1788): “When Congress makes a law in virtue of their constitutional authority, it will be an actual law. I do not know a more expressive or a better way of representing the idea by words. Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.”

    Archibald Maclaine, North Carolina’s ratifying convention: “If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, AND PUNISH YOU FOR THE ATTEMPT.’”

    Thomas Jefferson: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

    He also said “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.”

    Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972): “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”

    First Chief Justice, John Jay, said to the first jury in Georgia v. Brailsford, on the occasion of the first Supreme Court trial held in the new USA: “It may not be amiss, here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court; for, as on the one hand, it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.”

    Thomas Jefferson defending jury nullification, wrote that “if the question relates to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system.”

    United States v. Moylan, the Supreme Court yet again acknowledged the “undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence.” (1969)

    Samuel Adams, using sarcasm to make a point on May 15, 1764 (Understand that all that he lists is PROTECTED from those who serve within our governments – state and federal – by the US Constitution): “But if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands and every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern and tax ourselves… are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary slaves?”

    George Washington: ““I think the Parliament of Great Britain hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into your’s, for money…”

    Thomas Jefferson to Lord North 1775: “That this privilege of giving or of withholding our monies, is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative, which if left altogether without control, may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shews how efficacious is its intercession from redress of grievances, and re-establishment of rights, and how improvident it would be to part with so powerful a mediator.”

    Daniel Webster warned: “Good motives may always be assumed, as bad motives may always be imputed. Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power; but they cannot justify it, even if we were sure that they existed. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intention, real or pretended. When bad intentions are boldly avowed, the People will promptly take care of themselves. On the other hand, they will always be asked why they should resist or question that exercise of power which is so fair in its object, so plausible and patriotic in appearance, and which has the public good alone confessedly in view? Human beings, we may be assured, will generally exercise power when they can get it; and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular Governments, under pretences of public safety or high public interest. It may be very possible that good intentions do really sometimes exist, when Constitutional restraints are disregarded. There are men in all ages who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. They think there need be but little restraint upon themselves. Their notion of the public interest is apt to be quite closely connected with their own exercise of authority. They may not, indeed, always understand their own motives. The love of power may sink too deep in their hearts even for their own scrutiny, and may pass with themselves for mere patriotism and benevolence.” (Daniel Webster, Speech at Niblo’s Saloon in New York (1837)

    Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations: “The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquillity, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state, and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are entrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires.”

    Hamilton, Federalist 33: “But it will not follow from this doctrine that laws passed by Congress are the Supreme law of the land] that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

    The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution. Nor may it make “agreements”, etc, that was NOT a power delegated to any branch or office within a branch.

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33: “…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….”

    Those that serve within the position of the US President and within the Senate get the Authority they use to act from the US Constitution. The objects of their lawful powers are enumerated in the Constitution. This means that the President and Senate both must be authorized in the Constitution to act on an object before any Treaty made by them on that object, before any “mandate”, before any other type of legislation qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”. If it is not in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution it is NOT a Law, etc, only color of law, pretend law and those that enforce those pretend laws become *terrorists. (TO not be used or made into a *terrorist read and know the US Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights – a list of things that are required to be PROTECTED by those that serve within our governments at all levels)

    *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    Chief Justice John Marshall: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334)

    Reply this comment
  2. greg k 26 September, 2017, 15:28

    General Motors, Ford, Boeing, Microsoft, GE, Oil companies, etc., etc., etc. Virtually any company that trades under the EX-IM bank, or influences “Globalism,” is part of that list. We are in fact living in an “International Fascism” right now. You just have to see who influences the political leaders of the countries to see it.

    Reply this comment
  3. Struttinbuck 27 September, 2017, 14:20

    I didn’t realize Disney owned those corporations. Time to spread the word.

    Reply this comment
  4. Jeanette 27 September, 2017, 14:34

    Haven’t been to Target (which used to be one of my favorite stores) since they started catering to Muslims – probably seven or eight years before they began pandering to potential bathroom pedophiles.

    Remember the doll that they refused to remove that said “Islam is the light”? Well WalMart DID remove those dolls from its shelves.

    So it was Sayonara Target way back then, and I haven’t been back since!

    Reply this comment
    • LJ 27 September, 2017, 21:38

      Target is owned by a 5-Arab corporation all of whose officers live in Paris.

      Reply this comment
  5. dio 27 September, 2017, 15:37

    Been boycotting them for months thanks to Breitbart.

    Reply this comment
  6. Moski 27 September, 2017, 16:26

    Would be helpful to have easily read data listing PROGRESSIVE, LEFTIST CORPORATIONS and who,what they specifically support. Also a data list for concervative alternatives .

    Reply this comment
    • Shorty Dawkins Author 27 September, 2017, 18:25

      Moski,

      The list would be extremely long. Any company that promotes globalism should be included in any list. Organizations that promote globalism belong on the list, too.

      Just a few more to give you an idea:

      IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, the Federal Reserve, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Microsoft, Apple, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC.

      Anything presented by these companies and organizations should be looked at with extreme skepticism. They are promoting globalism. Period.

      Shorty Dawkins

      Reply this comment
  7. Martin 27 September, 2017, 16:36

    If “they have a choice”, you have a choice. You can go on line and find out who supports the NFL and the other “Hard Left” companies that are working to undermine the Constitution of the United States and the Will of the Majority of the population. I am slowly withdrawing from the Communist-oriented companies that are attempting to impose their political views on our Nation.

    Reply this comment
  8. Ken 27 September, 2017, 17:01

    Timely article! I was just looking at my Dish programming a few hours ago (I’m out of contract, so I can make changes). I wanted to dump any NFL and ESPN channels as a minimum. I found that the only way to do this was to go to their most entry-level package (“Flex”) where you start with some basics and then have the option of adding smaller packages back a-la-carte. Guess what? Dish is about to lose 40% of my monthly payment, all because of the NFL. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to cut MSNBC and CNN yet, but I’m going to email them and ask (cutting them should be worth at least another 10 cents off my bill, considering their dismal ratings).

    Reply this comment
  9. Tom 27 September, 2017, 17:59

    My boycotts include Target, GM, all NFL merch and I’ll add ESPN because they also stink. Walmart will be tough for me because I’m retired but I’ll keep looking.

    Reply this comment
  10. Larry 28 September, 2017, 05:00

    I have not shopped at Target for many years, ever since they quit selling gun accessories, and I found out they give large sums to the gun grabbers. Now Kellogg is on my list. I have mixed emotions about boycotts, in general, because sometimes the little guy trying to make a living, gets hurt, but in a war it sometimes can’t be helped. I’m on board.

    Reply this comment
  11. James Sowders 28 September, 2017, 06:50

    Target has always been a foreign owned company and has never supported America or its military. I won’t even walk into a Tar get’.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*