No products in the cart.


May You Live In Interesting Times

Chinese curse

We live in interesting times. Maybe if I take another nap, the bizarre world will have found its senses by the time I wake up. I doubt it, though. Let’s face it, like in George Orwell’s world, everything is backwards. For instance, bad news is good news for the Stock Market, now. Go figure. You see, good news might mean an increase in interest rates, so good news is bad news and bad new is good news. Got it?

Next item to consider: Hillary Clinton. The FBI will not seek her indictment, even though she broke the law. She didn’t mean any harm, is the basis of FBI Director Comey’s statement, so since she’s such a wonderful person, we won’t charge her. Of course the same FBI decided to charge Bryan Nishimura even though he merely had classified information stored on his personal computer, which, at the very least, is what Hillary did, which is against the law. He was indicted and pleaded guilty. Hillary? No. After all, she is running for President, and is a former Senator and Secretary of State. Bigwigs don’t get charged, silly.

I find the whole BlackLivesMatter thing, kind of weird. Don’t you? Sure, black lives matter. So do yellow, brown, red and white lives matter. And the whole White Privilege crap is pure hate. I’d like to know what I, a white male of advanced years, have gained because of my ethnicity? What privilege? I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I don’t get paid a couple of hundred thousand dollars to give a speech to rich bankers, like Hillary and Bill. I’ve worked all my life, dammit. Don’t tell me I’m privileged.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/Islamic State. They keep changing the name on me; kind of like what has happened to Blackwater. You remember ISIS, the guys with the Black flag, who drove into Syria and Iraq in brand new Toyota Hilux trucks, and began scaring the bejeesus out of the Syrians and Iraqis. They beheaded lots of people, remember? Seems the US supported them, then they didn’t, and then bombed them, but not really, until the Russians came in and really bombed them. There’s something very suspicious about that whole ISIS group. Who supplied them, anyway? Not me. And as Hillary pointed out: What difference does it make?

Then there is the whole Brexit thing to consider. Whew! It passed, but will they really exit? David Cameron resigned as Prime Minister, but not yet. He’ll stick around until October. And just as they (the anti-Brexit crowd) predicted, the Stock Market dived immediately after the results, but then the Market rose to where it was before the dive. Crazy, huh? I hear George Soros made a bundle on that. Go figure. Of course now, several Italian Banks are on the ropes, and Deutsche Bank is on the verge of collapse, it seems, and some Real Estate Investment funds in Britain have frozen their funds, but heck, they’ll do alright, when they get bailed out. I wish I could get bailed out, but I’m not in the 1%.

Europe and the EU are in such a mess. Muslim immigrants don’t understand, we are told, that it’s not nice to grope and rape white women. Who Knew? Of course it’s not because they are Muslim, and we mustn’t be Islamophobic. Neither must we be homophobic, or a host of other politically incorrect multi-syllabic words that are just a means of telling us that according to the “progressives”, we are evil, in a multitude of ways, but they are pure as snow, and care about “inclusiveness”. Of course we are not included in that “inclusiveness”.

Just to point out how bizarre this world is. I came across the following article:

Claim: Principal said teachers who stop student cheating are engaging in ‘discrimination’

No kidding. Have an interesting life, my friends. Enjoy the madness.



Shorty Dawkins



  1. “Hillary Clinton. The FBI will not seek her indictment, even though she broke the law.”

    Yet few seem to remember these words from James Madison, found in Federalist 57, when he wrote that 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.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”

    Thomas Paine once said: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.”

    But today we have the US Constitution, so for us at this time until proven otherwise by the actions of the criminals, traitors, domestic enemies who serve within our government and those criminals and traitors that would defend them by force we must abide by the first and second sentences; “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude.”

    So how do we do such a thing as to start bringing justice back to America? Use the tools that we retained, use the tools actually put into writing within the US Constitution for all to see such a *Grand Jury Investigations, *Grand Jury trials. We can call forth and send out our own investigators and call forth the Grand Jury when enough evidence is gathered – and in the case of H. Clinton the evidence is everywhere.

    This is our door, or one of them, to start the enforcement of the US Constitution. We have a real constitutional judge in Alaska that would probably be willing to preside if we could not get another sort-of constitutional judge to. It is our constitution.

    Ask Dr. Vieira, Judge Napolitano, the very few judges that stood against the Patriot Act, etc what their opinions are on this subject and suggestion and would they preside as a constitutional Oath KEEPING judge.

    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….”

    *Grand Jury – “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

    “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

    “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

    “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

    “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”
    “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge.”

    “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) (end quote)

    Once again, like the militia, the jury, etc, the Grand Jury and Grand Jury Investigations are our tools. They do not belong to those who serve within our governments – state or general (federal). It was made so for a reason.

    God Bless All; Stay Safe,

    If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

    Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

    Just to read if you want to:

    “As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C.

    “Judges not only can be sued over their official acts, but could be held liable for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney’s fees.” Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

    “There is no common law judicial immunity.” Pulliam v. Allen, 104S.Ct. 1970; cited in Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

Comments are closed.