Chris Johnson

The state is constantly looking for weasel words in Supreme Court opinions to further their arrogant subjugation of their subjects. We see this in how they misconstrued the language of —United States V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) to claim that the Second Amendment only protects militias.

We see this when they misconstrue —District of Columbia v. Heller, 467 U.S. 837 (2008) to mean that “presumptively constitutional” means that any infringement is constitutional.

We see this when they misconstrue —New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) to mean that anyplace can be designated as a “sensitive location” where infringements are required. Like defining all of Times Square as a sensitive place.

The state is constantly looking for any words that could be taken to mean that infringement is allowed.

—Opinion, United States v. Rahimi, 602 S.Ct. ____ (U.S. 2024) has far too many weasel words for the state to latch onto. Bad facts make for bad laws.

Schoenthal v. Raoul in Chicago shows exactly this.

After Rahimi was issued, the state in every case rushed to bring that opinion into their arguments. Not because their case had anything to do with individuals found to be credible threat of physical violence to another who had a court of law issue a domestic violence restraining order against them, but because they wanted to use the weasel words.

In Schoenthal the state wanted a status hearing to set a supplemental briefing schedule. This is the official way to get more arguments before the court, regardless of the current status of the case.

The state says it is a joint motion. This is true in fact, but not in spirit.

The state wants to brief the court regarding how wonderful Rahimi is for their case. The plaintiffs (good guys) just want equal time, if the court allows the state to submit additional arguments.

The judge said “No”.

Now, the language the state is trying so hard to get into the record is suggest a law trapped in amber —id.. This is where the Supreme Court explained how to do regulation matching. The state latches on to “it doesn’t have to be an exact match, so our horrible, not even close, matches should be allowed.”

So the state made a second motion to brief Rahimi to the court. This time they included the language they felt would save their case.

The judge said “no” a second time.

So the state, instead of requesting permission to brief the court on Rahimi, submitted a notice of supplemental authority regarding Rahimi. This was not the simple, “We wish to bring to the court’s attention that Rahimi was decided, no, this was a short brief with the state’s arguments.

Therefore, the court said “no” again, a bit more forcibly.

Me or your lying eyes?

For the last four years, the only time I heard about Kamala was when she had messed up, again. It is a feature of her actions, she messes up.

She was assigned to close the border. Joe used Obama’s term, “Tsar”. As in “Border Tsar.”

Today, I’m being told, “Kamala was never the border tsar. That’s just a Trump lie.”

This is where we are today.

As one X pundit put it, “How have you explained the ‘fine people hoax?'” The consensus was that it wasn’t worth the time or effort. That even if you did manage to get them to acknowledge it is a hoax, within a couple of weeks, they will have forgotten.

This is getting crazy.

Aside, there are two cases pending articles. I’m working on them.

I do not have many friends. It is difficult for me to reach out to my friends to keep in touch with them. Since I work from home, I’m not forced to interact with co-workers. So, few friends.

Note, I use the word “friend” to mean “friend”, not somebody that I work with or classmates. A friend is a friend.

When I left the horrid state of Maryland for the green, green hills of NH, I wasn’t leaving friends behind. My friend and mentor had died a few years earlier. With my kids graduated, there was nothing holding me there.

For six months I lived near the Vermont border while commuting 80+ miles to just outside the inner beltway of Boston. I did that commute 4.5 days a week. On Friday, I left work in Boston and drove back to my family in PA. On Sunday, I drove back to NH.

I was staying with a family as a boarder. I had met her in an online game. We had become online friends. When she got married, Allyson did it for her.

During the months, I became friends with her. She, and her husband, were conservatives. They had the same sort of beliefs that I had. I had many enjoyable conversations with her.

Note, the husband is currently in the “special prison” for those special prisoners who wouldn’t survive in gen pop. I was more than willing to help put him there.

Regardless, we were friends. I helped her when I could. When they lost their house a few years later (husband’s fault), we opened our home to them. When he was kicked out, we continued to support her.

There was many a rainy day that I worked on her car because we were all short on money.

She ate at our table, shared in our lives. She was here for Christmas and for other holidays.

A true friend.

I do not talk to her anymore. Not at all.

There is a part of the abortion argument that flat out escapes me. It is how so many women think that because the federal government is no longer blocking anti-abortion laws, that they are at a considerable risk.

My friend is a few months older than I am. She isn’t going to get pregnant. It isn’t going to happen. Having access to an abortion is meaningless to her.

What about her daughters? One daughter is happy making babies with her husband. The other daughter is happy being an Aunt. That one can’t think of a man sexually, see not above about her step-father being in the special prison.

Nether of her daughters is at risk of an unintended pregnancy. So why is abortion so important to her?

My youngest is also very upset that the federal government is blocked from blocking anti-abortion legislation. She considers it to be part of “woman’s health”.

It is essential to understand, abortions are not banned in this state.

Roe v. Wade found that women had a right to abortions under because they had a right to privacy. Because they had a right to privacy, what happened between the woman and her doctor was none of your business. Thus, abortions are a right under a woman’s right to medical privacy.

Dobbs said, “No. There is no right to abortion hidden in the Constitution. The plain text of the Fourth Amendment does not implicate the conduct in question. There is nothing in this Nation’s historical tradition of regulations that is similar to ‘right to abortion'”.

Having made the statement, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the question to the states.

Some states had laws that instantly went into effect, banning abortions. Other states enshrined abortion “rights” into their laws. Still, other states didn’t do a damn thing.

But the Dobbs case broke my friend.

She blamed Trump, personally, for strangers in other states having restricted access to abortions. Having decided that Trump was “evil,” she then dove into the Kool-Aid and drank all that she could and more.

She went from “there is no evidence that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone” to “Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault and is not qualified to be on the Court.”

It happened in the course of a few days.

She went from “Thomas is a great justice.” to “Justice is a political hack, he is slimy, in the pocket of the wealthy.”

Her mind broke. It broke because it was so obvious to her, that Dobbs was decided incorrectly, that the only possible reason was corruption or malfeasance.

If the justices on the Supreme Court, whom she trusted, whom she respected, could betray her, then what else are they betraying.

Currently, she is of the “vote not Trump.” There is not a single thing that Trump did as president that she respects. All of it was destroyed, for her, with that one opinion.

I believe that I am willing to question just about anything. There are some things which are locked in stone. Not because “they” told me to believe that way, but because I did my research and in that research grounded my opinions.

I like to believe that I am moral. I have a moral code which I follow. Part of that code is to be willing to question my moral code and my opinions, to be able to separate facts from opinions, truth from wishful thinking.

My friend is lost. I do not expect her to ever recover. I will pray for her and hope she finds happyness in her new status as a subject of the state.

There are two basic types of devices, an embedded system, and a general system.

There are embedded systems everywhere. Your smart TV. The Chromecast you have attached to your “dumb” TV. Your coffee maker, your washing machine or drier.

These are a few of the embedded systems you use every day. There are some that are “critical” systems. Your car, likely, has an embedded system. If that system were to be modified, it could cause “bad things” to happen.

Medical devices are also considered to be critical systems. The computers that control your IV medical drip, even the automatic blood pressure machines or any of the machines that are used for monitoring are critical.

While the blood O2 monitor, attached to your finger, might not seem critical, if the values it is reporting are in error, your health care professional (doctor) could miss diagnose something.

Other examples of critical systems include: many military computer systems, voting systems, systems processing classified information, alarm systems, spacecraft control systems.

Your computer and laptop are not normally considered to be embedded systems, yet they have a part that is embedded. That is the BIOS on your computer and laptops.

Your phone and tablets are a sort of hybrid, where a large part is embedded, but there is an easy way to add other software.

Update A System

Read More

Ok, but what does that mean? More importantly, what does it mean to us?

To get an example of cognitive dissonance in “practice”, dig up “I Mudd” from Star Trek. At the end, the crew destroys the androids by setting up cognitive dissonance in their “logical” brains.

One such method was Spock saying to one android “I love you”, and to another, identical android “But I hate you.” When the androids point out that they are identical, Spock replies, “Exactly.”

The left has been trained to exist in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Read More

Brandon debunks some idiot’s claims of “fake”. 1 MOA red dot on a 2 MOA rifle at 130 to 150 Yards gives you a 4 inch grouping.

One of the most interesting things I’m currently discovering, is how to move back in time. What happens when there is no electricity? What can we do, how can we do it?

One path is to learn how to live off-grid. This is part of where I am. This is why I spent the time learning how to make a steam expansion engine, learning how to run it, and then learned how to build a 2 HP boiler.

That steam engine is intended to run a generator or a lathe, depending. Yes, I have some generators, but water and wood will be easier, in some situations, to get than other fuel.

But there is another entire type of skill set, that of taking a step back in time.

Let me discuss just one part of this, I want to make some items, such as a table-top. That’s easy, just drive to the lumberyard and buy the lumber, do the glue-up, feed it through the plainer, sand it and a bit more. Easy stuff.

Read More

I grew up in an innocent age of TV and movies. The heroes were the guys in the blue uniforms and the white hats. The lawyers were evil men working for evil criminals, or they were good men doing good deeds. The press was there to expose the truth, to give us the facts.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

What I learned about the court system was that everything happened in the courtroom. It was where all the excitement was. Paying attention because some lawyer was going to expose the truth at the last minute to make their case.

Even modern legal dramas suffer from the same tropes.

As I have been reading and listening, I’ve found that most of the hard work comes long before the jury is sworn in. The excitement is buried in hundreds of words and page after page of motions.

Read More

Alec Baldwin’s case was dismissed with prejudice.

What does this mean, IANAL view point

Alec Baldwin was charged with involuntary manslaughter after he shot and killed his cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins.

The relevant facts: Alec Baldwin was holding a real gun. Alec Baldwin pointed the gun at a person. Alec Baldwin cocked the gun (pulled the hammer back and set it on the sear). Alec Baldwin then pressed the trigger, causing the gun to fire, killing Halyna Hutchins.

Irrelevant facts: Somebody told Alec Baldwin that the gun was unloaded (Treat every gun as if it is loaded). Somebody said they loaded dummy rounds into the gun (Treat every gun as if it is loaded). He says he did not pull the trigger, (Never point your gun at something you are not willing to destroy/kill.). In addition, he injured the director(?) (Be sure of your target and what is beyond it).

Other irrelevant facts: Baldwin is just a trained monkey. He can’t be expected to know the safety rules. Baldwin is so stupid that he should never have been handed a real gun. It was somebody else’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was “safe”.

Things went wrong on that set. Some of it appears to be Baldwin’s responsibility. Including rushing the safety crew, disregarding safety “suggestions” and overall shitty safety.

Read More