No products in the cart.


“Political Corruption: Can the Swamp Be Drained?” – Kimberley Strassel

"Political Corruption: Can the Swamp Be Drained?" - Kimberley Strassel

Kimberley Strassel is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. In April she gave a lecture as part of the April 2018 National Leadership Seminar, “What is American Greatness?”

In her lecture, she points out various forms of corruption engaged in by those who are “The Swamp” that are not of the blatant variety, but are corruption nevertheless.

[ot-video type=”youtube” url=””]


Shorty Dawkins



  1. Corruption look at the taxing agencies, problem is cant find a lawyer with any sort of b***ls to go up against them

  2. She is incorrect about a lot of what can be done because she does NOT know the US Constitution. Neither does Pres. Trump.

    E.O.’s are NOT Law/legislation but are directives to the agencies that serve within the executive branch. READ the US Constitution,

    Article 1. Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

    Notice that it not only uses the word “All”, but it not only names the Congress, but also names the specific Offices within that branch that can create Legislation that is binding on the American people, those that serve within the House of Representatives and the Senate ONLY. There is an important rule of constitutional law called the Canon of Antisuperfluity (or Canon against Surplusage), which despite its cumbersome name, means simply that every single word of the Constitution, or lesser laws, should be given legal effect unless their context clearly shows they have no meaning.

    Also, the US Constitution is the supreme Law of this land, and that all that is NOT in Pursuance thereof is NULL AND VOID. There needs to be no other action needed then to declare it null & void, then to sh-tcan it.

    If one wants to fight the constitutionality of that action then it can go to the courts. At this time NDAA, Patriot Act, DACA, etc, plus a ton of agencies for which there was NO DELEGATED authority to create can all be tossed. They do NOT have the authority, so it in reality is misappropriation of funds, plus a multitude of crimes for them to exist on the part of every Oath taker that serves within our government and did NOT fight to end this.

    Then she is also wrong about WHO the US Constitution says enforces this stuff, and SHOW ME WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH HAS THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO HAVE THEIR OWN LE”s. It is constitutionally mandated that it is the Militia of the several states that enforces all of what she mentions.

    When I go back through it again I will have more to say, there was so many errors and unconstitutionality within her speech. Better then most, but she, and Pres. Trump are NOT there yet, if ever.

    1. Cal,
      I agree with everything in your statement, however who is the militia? and what in the world are they waiting for to bring order back to this lawless country mainly the crooked political machine that’s taken choke hold on this country (by any means necessary to them) lying,cheating, stealing you name it their doing it…..

      1. Sorry for taking so long to reply.

        We the People of the united States are the Militia. But, to be the constitutional Militia that has as constitutionally assigned duties to:
        — Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of this land) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state),
        — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
        — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
        — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”
        There are requirements that must be met, or started.

        We must be trained as the Congress requires the military to be trained which is why returning veterans are on the terrorist watch list. They meet that condition, and they can pass that training on to others.

        We must know the US Constitution and our own state’s Constitution because that is the Militias highest authority, not a person or office within our government. It IS the Militia that is required to enforce the Laws of the land which is including the US Constitution and our own state’s Constitution (being the highest and first Laws of our nation and state, withe the US Constitution being the supreme Law of this land that all LEGISLATION is required to be in Pursuance thereof in order to be LAWFULLY binding on the American people and binding on this nation.

        Some examples that are NULL and VOID, but are unLawfully enforced making the enforcers *terrorists, and often also meet the requirements of treason are the
        Patriot Act, NDAA, Fast Track, a branch of government LETTING another branch use its powers (as each was given constitutional powers to stop another branch from doing so), as they are REQUIRED to do in order to keep the contract that they serve under and are Oath bound to), foreign aid, military aid, wars that are NOT declared by Congress – who also ONLY has the delegated authority to fund CONGRESSIONALLY DECLARED wars and then ONLY for two (2) years, again wars that are NOT declared by those who serve within the Congress yet UNLAWFULLY send Americans to foreign nations to fight – no one has that authority in ANY position unless and until the Congress has declared war. Oath takers are required to refuse those UNLAWFUL orders. More examples are Weapons of war going to LEA’s, foreign nations, foreign entities, etc – gifted, sold, contracted for, traded, etc when they are REQUIRED in writing to go to the Militias of the several states (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16), etc.

        Add to that list “Asset forfeiture” when those who serve within our governments which were created to DEFEND and PROTECT our property and not get in the way of our endeavors UNLESS we are physically injuring another or another’s property (and that does NOT include property values), SWAT or raids where the Constitutional requirements are NOT met…

        Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

        Key words here are “The right against unreasonable searches and seizures SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Only REASONABLE searches and seizures are allowed. So what constitutes a “reasonable search and seizure”? It is defined within the 4th Amendment:
        — There must be a Lawful WARRANT, not a blank one unLawfully signed by a judge to be filled in later, that is a crime that judge is committing if/when it occurs;
        — That warrant MUST be based upon PROBABLE CAUSE;
        — Subject to DUE PROCESS REVIEW (oath or affirmation);
        — Particularly describing the PLACE to be search, AND
        — . Particularly describing the PERSONS or THINGS to be seized.

        There is clearly a 5 prong requirement as indicated by the word “AND”. You cannot have 4 out of 5 or 3 out of 5 and still have a reasonable, Lawful, search and seizure. Instead you have a crime being committed by the enforcers, well, multiple crimes, breaking and entering to start with….

        This was one of the first methods used to start bringing in and USING law enforcement to destroy our nation from within, and it could NEVER have happened, they could NOT have been USED against this nation, against the American people if those serving within enforcement/etc had bothered to know and understand their Oath and the documents to which they are contracted and bound.

        Nor could these unLawful wars we are in all over the world have happened if those who serve within the MILITARY had bothered to know and understand their Oath and the documents to which they are contracted and bound. They also would say that they will NOT follow those unLawful orders.

        Nor was any power/authority DELEGATED to those who serve within our governments concerning the peoples weapons, what types, how many, etc. They ONLY have Lawful authority IF a crime is committed with a weapon, and then ONLY over the crime weapon(s).

        Mark Twain: “The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convincing himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”

        (Sidenote for those of you who might buy into this “racial discrimination” stuff, Ben Franklin was the President of a group “Free the Slaves” and Tench Coxe was the Secretary. A lot of what is being said today are outright LIES.)

        James Madison: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures…” (Essay on Property, 1792) and he calls this exercise of arbitrary power, “the most compleat despotism.”

        Thomas Jefferson: “Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature.” AND “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

        *Domestic Terrorism: Section 802 (Title 18), “domestic terrorism” is defined as involving “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;” which “appear to be intended–to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (or) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”.

        Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

        “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

        “Right of property antedates all constitutions.” People v. Holder (1921)

        “But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value.” (Statute) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.

        “To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

        Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

        Examples of “… what they forbid.” is the Federal Reserve, wars that have not been declared so by the Congress, “money” not backed by silver and gold, Breaking and entering by LE’s – fed or state- with NO LAWFUL warrant, yearly property taxes, etc.

        John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States: “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”

        James Madison: “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” AND (Fed 57): Congress “can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”

        Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Goldberg, concurring: ”The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are ADDITIONAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, PROTECTED FROM GOVERNMENTAL INFRINGEMENT, WHICH EXIST ALONGSIDE THOSE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE FIRST EIGHT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS… I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.” (caps are mine)

        So to be a Militia that can enforce the Constitutions, hold those who SERVE WITHIN our governments accountable, one MUST know the US Constitution and their own state’s Constitution because how can one hold those that serve accountable for their actions, enforce the Constitutions, and NOT follow unLawful orders if they are not actually known? (“Law” written with a capital “L” means it is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution, as it is found written within that document). One must understand what freedom and individual liberty really is, and not as it is portrayed to us today. One major component of individual liberty is to be able to say “NO” to those who SERVE WITHIN our governments.

        J. Reuben Clark: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance SHALL RUN NOT to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and THE ONLY ALLEGIANCE WE OWE AS CITIZENS OR DENIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, RUNS TO OUR INSPIRED CONSTITUTION which God himself set up. SO RUNS THE OATH OF OFFICE OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. THIS PRINCIPLE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION IS BASIC TO OUR FREEDOM. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”.

        Thomas Jefferson: “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go…. In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” <– it takes a Militia of the several states to "bind" them.

        James Madison: “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

        George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

        James Madison: "In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." AND “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

        Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Comments are closed.