Author: Ilove2fishfor333

The Supremacy Clause…..not nearly as supreme as you think

We hear talk all the time about how Federal law is supreme, or that when Federal and State laws conflict that Federal law prevails. The Supremacy Clause, like the Elastic Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause has come to mean something entirely incoherent with what it really means. As with all of the abbreviated descriptions of other clauses of the Constitution, there are other words in the Supremacy Clause that have significant meaning, and in fact restrict the power of the Federal Government…let’s study it.

The Supremacy Clause reads: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” What exactly are the words, indeed the most important words in the Supremacy Clause that are completely ignored, and that restrict the power of the Federal government?  Those words are “In Pursuance Thereof.” This means that in order for any action by any branch of the Federal government to be the supreme law of the land, it must be constitutional. There are no exceptions. The belief that the tyrants who populate the Federal government can make any law they please, or that Judges can puke up any edict they desire and that such law or edict is to be followed without question is one based on historical ignorance at best, or tyrannical motives at worst.


We have come to a point in this great Republic that federal politicians and judges believe they can do anything they want. Why shouldn’t they? The American people are largely ignorant of how our federated representative republic is supposed to work, and all of those who are tasked with running the various levels of government come from that pool. Federal politicians with no authority have determined they can force citizens to purchase a product or face a fine, and federal judges have taken on the role of legislators. Now we have a federal judge who has declared that President Trump can’t block people on twitter…….HA! I would tell that judge what she can do with that ruling.

But what is to be done when any branch of the Federal government tries to impose an unconstitutional action on another branch of the Federal government or on the States or the People? The aggrieved party should ignore it. As Thomas Jefferson once stated: “Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Furthermore, credibility should not be lent to these unconstitutional actions by appealing them to a higher court…simply ignore them. There is no need to panic, for this has occurred since the beginning of this republic, and this federated republic has endured just fine. A noisy free society at times is much preferable to a peaceful tyranny.


The entire purpose of the Constitution was to replace the very weak Articles of Confederation that did not provide the authorities needed to operate a fully functioning General government, because the States obeyed or ignored the Articles at their pleasure. The Supremacy Clause was added to make it clear to the States that they had a duty to obey the legitimate, legitimate that is, laws of the Federal government, but the addition of “in pursuance thereof,” also made it clear that the new Federal government did not have the authority to make any law desired. The United States Constitution was constructed and worded so that all those who populate the Federal government could not vote themselves a raise in power, and “in pursuance thereof” was another roadblock to that tyranny.

Computer models will be the death of us

Computer models will be the death of us

It’s very likely that you have heard the old saying, “garbage in and garbage out” when it comes to computers. I think this description is perfectly appropriate when it comes to computer models, but, I prefer to put it I think in a much better way….”computers only know what they are told to know.”

There are a great number of assumptions that go into computer models, and by making only minor adjustments to those assumptions the outcome can be greatly changed. The problem with these assumptions is that they are moving targets and it can never be known which target to move where in order to create what is to be the likely outcome. Computer models can be used for an attempt at genuine informative purposes as with the Chinese Flu or they can be used for corrupt purposes as with climate change.

The recent talk of how computer models have wildly exaggerated the number of projected infections, deaths, and needs arising from the Chinese Flu is troubling, but not at all surprising if you have been following the climate modeling debacle. I have no doubt that those creating the models in order to attempt to predict how the Chinese Flu will progress are doing it with good intentions. However, good intentions don’t cut it. If I attempt to give you a free haircut and cut your ear off in the process, I don’t think you will give me credit for trying to be a good ol’ boy.

With the Chinese Flu, modelers have no clue what we are dealing with right now, because it is simply too new, unknown, and chaotic. Besides, we don’t really know how long its been in the United States. I think its been around a lot longer than generally thought, because we don’t know how long China had been hiding it from the rest of the world.

These models are being created using faulty assumptions that are doing nothing but scaring the hell out of everyone, including policy makers which then can lead to bad policy. Computer models are not science nor are they data. Policies should be created using facts and data only, not suppositions. We need to stop playing Nostradamus and knock it off with the modeling, and deal with this issue by figuring out what works, by using real data and facts as we learn them.

The climate models are where we get into corruption, because they are political tools. Climate models are intentionally used to scare the hell out of everyone in order to further the agenda of the climate jihadists. It’s a form of appeal to authority, and it’s an ages old tactic that the meek have allowed to be used against themselves by those in power in order to appropriate their freedoms.

Trying to model the Chinese Flu is impossible enough, but trying to model the climate is even more impossible, if that’s possible. Climate is a system of complete chaos and is affected by the oceans, the atmosphere, forces outside the Earth’s atmosphere, by activity within the Earth, and all of which occur on different and varying timescales.

Computer models are nice toys and fun to play with, but should never be used for policy decisions. The notion that a mathematical formula can be created to predict the future of a chaotic system is an act of utter futility in the case of the Chinese Flu, and utter corruption in the case of climate change. There probably has always existed in the human condition the desire to predict the future. I think we are better off influencing the future, and leaving the predicting to the guys wearing the sandwich boards where the appeal to authority does not apply.

Transgenderism is self-mutilation and eugenics rolled in to one, and in the case of children it is child abuse

The story of the six year old boy in Texas whose mother wants to force him to become a girl is sad, pathetic, horrifying, enraging, and pure child abuse. The mother says the boy says he is a girl…so what. What if he says he doesn’t want to go to school, do his homework, his chores, brush his teeth, or he wants to take valium, or play with a loaded gun?

Children don’t get to make such decisions for obvious reasons. Parents who put their children through this are perpetrating an abuse on par with sexual abuse that will scar the child for life. Parents who seek personal attention by perpetrating this barbarity on their children should simply leave the proxy out of their Munchhausen escapade and torture themselves to their heart’s desires.

However, if you are an adult with the full faculties to make such a decision and want to pretend to be the opposite sex, fine, knock your teeth out. If you want to identify as an amputee, go grab the Skilsaw and go to town on the limb of your choice. Or if you want to identify with the blind, get a table spoon and pluck your eyes out. Harbor all of the weird ideas your heart desires, but leave the children the hell alone.

There is no sanctuary from Leftist ideology for children. If they can make it alive out of the womb, or past the first few moments of being outside the womb in Governor Northam’s world, they can look forward to being forced into taking chemicals to change their appearance and behavior, or being paraded around as programmed little robotic pawns spewing language they don’t learn watching Bugs Bunny. There is no longer a need to use rats to experiment on, let’s just use the children. There is something just so sick, disgusting and Naziesque about this.

Transgenderism is an illusion. It is impossible to change your sex. Furthermore, those who put themselves, or in the case of children are forced into this trauma are many times more likely to commit suicide. And now, men who are pretending to be women are being allowed to compete against women in athletic events. How do Leftists square wanting equality for women by forcing them to participate against men?

This atrocity is simply the left wing version of conversion therapy and is a degradation of humanity. We do not have to sit by and accept this brutality as being inclusive. There is nothing to gain by being inclusive and tolerant of insanity. Do not be afraid to stand up and make your voice heard. The sanity of your country depends on it.

The Gun Control Fallacy

Gun control to put it simply, is impossible. It is impossible because it is not an attempt to control guns, but is an attempt to control human behavior. Would it be possible to implement car or knife control? Human behavior dictates whether or not there will be a school shooting, not laws. Laws can only provide for punish for the crime, not prevent it. Do speed limit signs prevent speeding.

The looney Left never miss an opportunity to take advantage of the deaths of selected individuals, school children in this case, to advance a political agenda while using their favorite tools which in this case happens to be school children. The tactic of using and indoctrinating children is a mainstay of Liberal political philosophy. Just as it is with communists, fascists, socialists, and nazis.

These cries from the Left and the ignorant children they have incorporated into their agenda are not about actually protecting the children. How do we know this? It’s simple. When it is proposed to protect children while at school with armed personnel in some fashion, Liberals are unalterably opposed to it. They make stupid emotional arguments such as that schools shouldn’t be like armed fortresses or some such, or that it will be emotionally traumatic to the children. These fallacious arguments are exhibit one that they couldn’t care less about protecting the children, but are more interested in restricting, then reducing, to be followed by eliminating gun ownership rights.

Don’t think for one moment that just because the Constitution protects gun ownership that it is a right that cannot be taken away by usurpation. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to make us buy anything, but the Supreme Court said it does have the authority to make us buy health insurance. Obamacare is unconstitutional which means that this ruling by the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional. The Constitution is merely a collection of words protected by the goodwill of men, and don’t count on that goodwill.

The only way to protect children at school is with armed personnel and those who can be armed at a moment’s notice, a school militia of sorts, how ironic. The banning of bump stocks, age requirements, and high capacity magazine restrictions will do absolutely nothing to protect children at the point of attack. There are ways to very easily overcome all of these useless laws in order to inflict as many casualties as possible. We live in a different world now. Disaffected former students and jilted boyfriends are not the only threat out there. No law can protect the school children from your run-of-the-mill terrorists. What then? Will Liberals squeal about terrorist control? Yes, we must protect the children, but it is clear we can’t count on Liberals to cooperate in that endeavor.