General

Out with the old!  In with the MUCH bettere.

I was raised in a strict Christian, Republican household where my parents always voted Republican, and they passed their views down to us kids. My father passed away about 15 years ago, and my mom remarried—a Democrat. While I’ve mostly leaned conservative, with some occasional moves toward the center, my mom has changed a lot since my dad died. She now lives in a suburb of Chicago and regularly listens to news outlets that lean left.

I didn’t tell her who I voted for in the 2024 election because I didn’t want to start a political debate. However, I did ask her, “Do you think Dad would have voted for Trump?” She replied, “Of course NOT!” I knew deep inside that he would have.

Yesterday, I called her to check in, and naturally, the conversation turned to politics.

“Can you believe it? Trump is having his inauguration inside!” my mom exclaimed. “What a wimp! It’s not going to be that cold out!”

I responded, “I don’t see any problem with that. I wouldn’t want to stand out in the cold for hours, either.”

She continued, “Well, can you believe it? He’s also staying inside because he’s afraid of being shot!”

I replied, “I wouldn’t want to be shot either. Honestly, that just makes it even more understandable that he’s having the inauguration inside. I guess I don’t see what the issue is, Mom.”

I then tried to put it into perspective: “Mom, if I were planning to get married outside, I’d have a backup plan in case of bad weather. The same goes for the high school down the street when they have graduation outside—they always have a backup plan. So I don’t understand why you’re so upset about Trump wanting to be warm and safe.”

After my conversation with my mom, I mentioned her comments to my husband and sister. They pointed out that having the inauguration inside would limit the number of people who could attend. My sister added, “If you lived in Seattle, Washington, and were flying in to see the inauguration, it would be really inconvenient if there weren’t enough tickets.”

I can understand that perspective. It makes sense that some people might feel frustrated by the limited access. However, I still find myself wondering why the left is making such a big deal out of something so minor. It feels like they’ll latch onto any small issue to portray Trump as the villain. Honestly, it makes me question—don’t people have better things to focus on? There are so many more important issues at hand.

Happy Inauguration Day! A big relief to those of us on the right.

Is it Moral?

We all have a moral code. Some people have a moral code that is more restrictive than yours. Some people have a moral code less restrictive than yours.

Occasionally, a moral code is imposed by outside authorities. Such a moral code is unlikely to be “your” moral code. You might agree with all or some of that enforced moral code.

An example of an outside moral code is “Thou shalt not kill.” The original Hebrew was “Thou shalt not murder.”

If you are reading this, it is highly likely that your moral code allows you to violate the first rule, “Thou shalt not kill.” If you carry, if you are willing to use lethal force, you have already decided to violate that rule.

At the same time, you should still be within the rule of “Thou shalt not murder.”

Humans are not born with a moral code. We are taught a moral code by our parents and our community.

A big problem for many Muslims is that their moral code is incompatible with our moral code. We can look at the rape gangs in the UK and question, “Why would they rape children?”. It is because, to their moral code, they have done no wrong.

There are those among us whose moral code would revolt you. Their moral code isn’t thou shalt not commit murder. It isn’t thou shall not kill. Instead, it is closer to “are you willing to do the time? Is it worth it to you to kill this person?”

We joke about feeding pedo’s into the wood chipper, feet first, with tourniquets in place. The reason we make that joke is because there are many among us that have evaluated the cost and are willing to do the time.

To quote Chicago, “It was murder, but it wasn’t a crime.”

In a series I was watching, the cops show up at a dirt poor family’s home. It is obvious that they have been eating meat from animals harvested from the forest. The cops know, they cops aren’t going to do anything about it. Who’s moral code is correct?

Is it legal?

Harvey Silverglate wrote Three Felonies A Day, How the Feds Target the Innocent. The book boils down to the fact that in the course of going about your day, most people will commit 3 or more felonies.

There is an imaginary line a few miles south of me. If I am standing, with my normal gear, on the north side of that imaginary line, no issues. If I step across that line, I’m committing felonies.

One of the things that is often said, which I have not verified, is that everything Hitler did to the Jews was legal, under German law, at the time.

In some cultures, it is legal to beat your wife. It is legal to beat your children. It is legal to do many things that are illegal here.

In the UK, it is illegal to say bad things about protected classes of people. In the US, there are people who want it to be illegal to say things that hurt their feelings.

What is legal and what is not legal is determined by the rules written in “The Book.” In the US, at the federal level, we need to have both houses agree to a bill and then have the president sign the bill into law.

In addition, the congress can pass a bill and have it signed into law telling some agency to create “regulations” with the force of law.

Is it Constitutional

To understand if something is Constitutional, we have to look at the regulation and determine if the regulation implicates the plain text of the Constitution. If it does, then we have to look to this Nation’s history of regulations on this type of regulation.

For most of the Constitution, we have historical jurisprudence telling us what each word and phrase means. This is so the inferior courts and the legislator can “get it right”. They don’t, but the Supreme Court does try.

The meaning of the words of the Constitution are locked in time. They mean today what they meant when the language was added to the Constitution.

For instance, the term “well regulated”, from the Second Amendment, does NOT mean “many regulations” or even “with regulations setting forth the boundaries of the right”. In 1791, “well regulated” means functioning well.

The phrase we are interested in, today, is Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech The full quote is above, I’ve expanded the clause to focus on the concept of “Free Speech”.

From the plain text, it is obvious that it is a limit on Congress’s authority to create regulations abridging speech. Any law that Congress passes that restricts speech implicates the plain text of the First Amendment.

Once we have determined that there is a Constitutional issue, we need to look at this Nation’s history of abridging free speech, at the time of the founding! 1791!

If you have a “hate speech” law that came into existence in 1950, that is not part of this Nation’s history of abridging free speech. The latest the law can exist and still be part of the original understanding of the law is around 1820.

Because this issue has been asked and answered by the Supreme Court, we don’t need to look for those laws. What the Supreme Court found was that there is a history in this Nation of abridging free speech.

What are those abridgments?

They fall into categories based on how much abridgment there is into the “core” right.

As an example, there are regulations limiting the use of the US Postal Service to distribute pornographic materials.

Does this intrude into “freedom of speech?” YES! It does.

How close to the core right does it cut? It is not political speech, for the most part, nor is it “educational” speech on the other. It does not seem to intrude into the core right.

On the other hand, if the State had anything to do with censoring conservative speech on Twitter, Facebook or any social network, that does cut directly into the core rights protected by the First Amendment.

Once the category is determined, the next step is to decide the “level of scrutiny” to apply.

If the abridgment cuts to the core protected right, then strict scrutiny is applied. Less than but still significant, then intermediate scrutiny applies.

There is another below that which I do not remember.

Using levels of scrutiny is giving our rights away. We should never agree to “levels of scrutiny” as it allows the State and rogue inferior courts to decide on the outcome by choosing levels.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court found that the inferior courts were intentionally misusing levels of scrutiny. As such, they said that levels of scrutiny were no longer allowed for Second Amendment challenges.

I highlight the phrase “shifting the burden” because that is an exact match to what was said in Bruen.

In Constitutional Challenges, once the plain text is implicated and strict scrutiny is invoked, the government must prove three distinctly different things:

1. That there is a compelling government interest in passing the regulation
2. That the solution proposed was the least restrictive possible
3. That the restriction was narrowly tailored to meet the compelling interest.

The government is not supposed to be able to just say they have a compelling reason, they need to prove it. Stopping murder? That is compelling. Stopping espionage is compelling. Stopping people from voicing their opinion is not compelling.

Having identified the compelling interest, the government must then show that they are using the least restrictive method to achieve the goal.

Increasing the penalty for murder? That is not restrictive. Banning all cell/mobile phones in businesses? That is not least restrictive. Banning people that might say something offensive is not least restrictive. Forcing a company to divest itself of foreign advisory control? That sounds like it might not be very restrictive.

Finally, was the law narrowly tailored to accomplish the goals?

Conclusion

Something can be moral and illegal. Something can be legal and immoral. Being Constitutional makes it “legal” but does not make it moral.

Remember that it was once legal and Constitutional to own slaves in this country. It was never moral.

We fought a war and amended our Constitution to make slavery Unconstitutional and illegal. It stayed immoral.

We are in the process of moving from the image above to the image below.

At least in terms of what the infrastructure looks like.

Today I decommissioned an EdgeRouter 4 which features a “fanless router with a four-core, 1 GHz MIPS64 processor, 3 1Gbit RJ45 ports, and 1G SFP port.”

When they say “MIPS64” you can think of it as being in the same class as an ARM processor. Not a problem for what it is.

The issue was that there are only 1Gb interfaces. That and I’ve come to hate the configuration language.

This has been replaced with a pfSense router running on a TopTon “thing.” I call it a thing because it is from China and intended to be rebranded. It doesn’t have a real SKU.

It is based on an N100 with 4 cores and 8 threads. 2 2.5Gb Ethernet ports, 2 10Gb SFP+ ports. It can be upgraded and has multiple extras.

Besides the hardware, this is an entirely different animal in terms of what it can do. It is first, and foremost, a firewall. Everything else it does is above and beyond.

It is running NTP with a USB GPS unit attached. It runs DHCP, DNS, HAProxy, OSPF and a few other packages. The IDS/IPS system is running in notify mode at this time. That will be changed to full functionality very shortly.

So what’s the issue? The issue is that everything changed.

On the side, as I was replacing the router, I jiggled one of the Ceph servers. Jiggling it caused it to use just a few watts more, and the power supply gave out. It is a non-standard power supply, so it will be a day or two before the replacement arrives.

When I went to plug the fiber in, the fiber was too short. This required moving slack from the other end of the fiber back towards the router to have enough length where it was needed.

Having done this, plugging in the fiber gave me a dark result. I did a bit of diagnostic testing, isolated the issue to that one piece of fiber. I ran spare fiber to a different switch that was on the correct subnet, flashy lights.

Turns out that I had to degrade the fiber from the other router to work with the EdgeRouter 4. Once I took that off, the port did light off. But that was a few steps down the road.

Now the issue is that all the Wi-Fi access points have gone dark. Seems that they are not happy. This required reinstalling the control software and moving them from the old control software instance to the new one. Once that was done, I could see the error message from the access point complaining about a bad DHCP server.

After fighting this for far too long, I finally figured out that the pseudo Cisco like router was not forwarding DHCP packets within the same VLAN. I could not make it work. So I disabled the DHCP server on the new router/firewall and moved it back to the Cisco like router. Finally, Wi-Fi for the phones and everything seems to be working.

At which point I can’t log into the Vine of Liberty.

I can see the pages, I can’t log into the admin side. It is timing out.

3 hours later, I figured out that there was a bad DNS setting on the servers. The software reaches out to an external site for multiple reasons. The DNS lookup was taking so long that the connection was dropping.

I think this is an issue that I have just resolved.

But there’s more.

Even after I got the DNS cleaned up, many servers couldn’t touch base with the external monitoring servers. Why?

Routing all looked good, until things hit the firewall. Then it stopped.

Checking the rules, everything looks good. Checking from my box, everything works. It is only these servers.

Was it routing? Nope, that was working fine.

That was one thing that just worked. When I turned down the old router, the new router distributed routing information correctly and took over instantly.

So the issue is that pfSense “just works.” That is, there are default configurations that do the right thing out of the box.

One of those things is outbound firewall rules.

Anything on the LAN network is properly filtered and works.

But what is the definition of the LAN network? It is the subnet directly connected to the LAN interface(s).

Because I knew that I would need to be able to access the routers if routing goes wrong, my computer has a direct connection to the LAN Network attached to the routers. The Wi-Fi access points live in on the same subnet. So everything for my machine and the wireless devices “just worked”

The rest of the servers are on isolating subnets. That are part of the building LAN but they are not part of the “LAN Network”.

I know this, I defined an alias that contains all the building networks.

Once I added that to the firewall rules, it just worked.

Tomorrow’s tasks include more DHCP fights and moving away from Traefik. Which means making better use of the Ingress network.

Allyson is a published author. I am a published author. She works at writing. I was told to write, I did, they published it.

When I decided to keep GunFreeZone.net alive, I tried to post multiple times per day. I quickly burned out. Today I have a schedule of once per day, with extras when it is important and not an echo.

In the course of a normal day, I will read around 400 pages of text. Some of it I skim, some of it I have to read carefully, and some of it is for fun. I will also write 3000 to 5000 words, some of that is code, most of it is in English.

To be blunt, I spend more time reading and writing than just about anything else in my life.

Writer’s block is an excuse for an amateur. If you are expected to write, you write, you don’t get to say, “I don’t feel it today.”

If you are getting “writer’s block”, you are writing as a hobby. Allyson talks about this in her writing blogs and groups.

The next part of writing is making sure you are writing for more than yourself. If you are writing for yourself, you should be writing for yourself six months from now.

Every evening, I sit down, and I write for the blog. Occasionally, it is easy. Usually, it is work. Then there are days when it is just plain difficult.

I want to babble about the cheap soldering station I just picked up. Claims to be good. Has a 4.5-star rating. I had to crank it to 800F before it would melt solder, and I’m not sure if I got good connections.

Boring.

I’m in the process of getting rid of Traefik, a “load balancer”. I would rather not have left Apache, I did. I went to nginx, I still don’t understand it as well as I do Apache, but it is my preferred web server. Nginx can work as a load balancer, but it isn’t really.

So I have: Traefik, Nginx, Apache, HaProxy, and whatever it is that pfSense used for “load balancing”.

It isn’t uncommon to have a path that hits firewall, HaProxy, Traefik, nginx or Apache. Boring.

There are dozens of court cases that are interesting to me.

If they are heard in a district court where they obey the rule of law and follow the instructions set for them, they will get yanked into the Circuit Court so fast your head won’t stop spinning. If the case is in the circuit court, then the argument will be a repeat of what has already been said.

Boring.

At this point, the only interesting cases are those that will be heard by the Supreme Court this year.

Current events? By the time my article is published I’m already 12 hours behind of the news cycle.

Still, I write about things. There is more than a little filler these days. There are articles where I go far too deep in technical babble.

So to all of you that read our blog, thank you for hanging with us.

If you have something you want to say, PLEASE submit it. It would give me a day off.

For the most part, I’ve stopped writing or reporting on “mass shootings”. They happen. My initial takes are normally wrong. The information that we are fed is designed to tell a story. I hate being a conspiracy guy.

My biggest error, so far, has been my initial analysis of the Trump shooting.

Having said that, it is difficult not to have questions when something stinks.

Part of critical thinking is to ask questions. To verify answers. To put answers to the test.

Example: We had a breaker pop on Friday. I knew what the cause was instantly, the wife was running her space heater.

When I got to the living room, she’s sitting on the sofa. Within seconds, I determined that she had left the heater on, even after she left the room.

Wife and Ally are telling me that it couldn’t be the fault of the heater because it had been running for a while and hadn’t blown the circuit.

Yeah, that was before we had that extra bit of draw on the circuit from the wife turning on the TV and side table light and other loads.

They used critical thinking to eliminate the heater. I used more knowledge to rule the heater in.

That circuit is rated at 1650 watts. The heater, in low mode, draws 750 watts. The lights left on, the misc. stuff plugged into the walls, the bathroom light and fan easily reaches 300 watts. My computer has a 750 watt power supply in it. The switch and other “stuff” plugged into the same circuit. All of that is a significant load. Thus, popped breaker.

While rated at 1650 watts, those circuits will actually run for a bit over that limit until they pop.

When you look at a fact set, you have to evaluate all the parts to be able to reach a logical conclusion. Upon reaching that conclusion, you still need to have an open mind for more data that might change your analysis.

Security Analysis

Doing a security analysis of a location or situation has risk. I’m reminded of a sales analysis I did and provided to our sales manager for Cray.

The short of the analysis was that they were asking for millions of dollars from the client for a drive system which they could buy from other sources for under $100 thousand. I gave him this analysis so that he would have the ability to answer these types of questions before they were asked of him.

The sales manager reported me for “attempting to sabotage the sale”. I listened and reported back to my chain of command. The customer didn’t need me to tell them what their options were, they already knew.

Security analyses are like that. Telling a potential target of an observed weakness is more likely to get you in trouble and harassed than it is to get the institution to budge.

I’ve gamed out some options against institutional targets. I don’t ever talk about those analyses because I do not want something to happen to those targets and me becoming a person of interest.

Even the language I use would get me in trouble. I learned it from working for the military. Everything we analyzed was a “target”. It didn’t matter whether it was a T-90 from Russia or a Leopard II from Germany or an XM-1 from the US. They are all targets.

Most people don’t get it. So I don’t use those terms.

Questions

A veteran from the US Special Forces has decided to do “bad things.” He is going to detonate a bomb to cause damage to a Trump Hotel.

For some reason, he decides to take his passport with him on this mission.

The heat from the detonation is so intense, his weapons melt. Likely just the plastic furniture, but his passport and IDs survive.

What protected those IDs from the heat?

He rented a Tesla truck to do this in. What advantages does a Tesla truck have over an Econvan?

With extensive training on IEDs and making explosives, his device was pretty much a dud. What was the explosive used? Why didn’t he use a real explosive?

See TM 31–210 (HQ Department of the Army, 1969) pages 7 through 72 contains extensive information on primary and secondary explosives from field expedient sources.

Pages 194 through 223 cover making Fuses, detonators, and delay mechanisms.

A revised version was released in 2007.

So SF dude, who has been trained in all of this, messes up a simple bomb?

This man was likely highly trained in how to perform one man operations that were extremely successful. Why did he forget so much of his training?

Finally, why did he choose to use a Desert Eagle in 50 cal to off himself?

Christmas is past for another year. It was better than expected.

Watching movies with the family was good. My wife insists on “A Christmas Story”, as it is her favorite. I picked “Red One” on a recommendation from Scott Adams on X. The final movie was “A Christmas Story Christmas”.

This last hit a bit hard.

Regardless, friends came through, and we were able to give back to our friends.

My wife’s best friend’s husband passed earlier this month. We had her over for Christmas Eve dinner (tacos) and Christmas Dinner (Turkey with fixings).

Our tradition is to go around the table and each person gives thanks for something that happened that day. Sometimes it leads to discussions, sometimes it is just a little thing, “Thank you for a dinner, I really like.”

The goal is to stop perseverating on the bad that is happening around you, the things that are getting you down, and to acknowledge, to search for, the good that you have.

My friend from the NVL called on Christmas Eve. That was a good talk. The only bobble was when he let his distrust of Elon slip out. We have agreed not to talk politics. We are still friends.

My best friend died in November 2000. I don’t think I ever recovered from that day. He was not only my friend, he was my mentor.

He was the first person I met that could program better than I could. He was a better man than I, by far.

I found myself competing with him in programming to be better. He never competed with me. He just won. After a while, it stopped being a competition and became a lifelong friendship.

Through Mike, I met Max. Max called me on Christmas Eve. Talking to him made me feel better. Friends can do that.

So on this day, after you have finished with what’s under the tree, had the first of a week’s worth of leftovers, take a moment to reach out to a friend and let them know what they mean to you.

Here is hoping that the happy man in the red suit brought you all you wish.

More importantly, I wish you health and happiness in the coming years.

-Chris

Yesterday was a good day. But you don’t want to hear about nerd rants.

I took my wife to the hospital for minor surgery. It was successful, and the patent lived.

There are hardly any places in this state that are “gun free zones”. Post offices, courts, and jails are the limit, as far as I know.

While schools are “gun free zones”, the law says that if you have a permit to carry, you can carry in school zones.

Certain parts of court buildings are gun free zones. When I went to support a friend, I was in the court building, carrying. There was a metal detector between me and the courtroom, which was a true gun free zone.

Post offices were made “gun free zones” when a postal worker went bonkers and killed some of his coworkers. Under leftist logic, that means that The People need to be disarmed when entering postal property.

Postal property including the parking lot.

This is being challenged in court.

If you look at the image, you will notice that there are no references to any legal documents.

For example, the signage in Massachusetts has “G.L.C. 266 § 120” on it. New York’s signage says it is a felony and “Penal Law § 265.01-D, Penal Law § 265.01-E”. Texas signage says, “Pursuant to section 30.05, penal code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm”.

The sign on the hospital? No such verbiage. That is because it does not have the force of law behind it.

In my state, a NO GUNS sign doesn’t mean anything.

If the owner of the property discovers I’m carrying, they can have me trespassed. That’s it. It isn’t the sign, it is just their right as a private property owner.

They can trespass anybody they want for any reason.

It is nice to live in a free state.

Defamation: A statement that injures a third party’s reputation. It is a type of tort.

Slander: A false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person. The damages from slander must be proved by the party suing.

Libel: A method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person’s reputation.

In other words, it is all linked together. In general, we speak of libel as written defamation and slander as spoken defamation.

E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her. Trump denied the allegation he raped her. Carroll then sued Trump for defamation.

Trump lost the defamation case. I believe that the case is on appeal.

This is the case that leftists have been using to say “Trump was found guilty of rape.”

No, he was not. Rape is a criminal offense, tried in a court of law, prosecuted by the state. E. Carroll was unable to find a single prosecutor willing to charge Trump with rape.

She brought a civil case. In a criminal case, the accused must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence. Very different.

Nobody on the left is willing to say that a court that finds in the way they want might be biased, while at the same time screaming that any court that finds against their wishes must be right-wing extremists/right leaning bias. In terms of this case, the suit was brought in a notoriously anti-Trump court.

The court allowed statements that did not directly relate to the charge.

In the end, the jury found that no rape occurred but felt that there was a sexual assault. See past articles regarding multiple charges to allow a jury to do the right thing and then give a lesser charge to make the plaintiff (in a civil suit) or the prosecutor a “smaller” win.

The jury awarded E. Carroll 5 million dollars.

Trump makes it all back, and then some

Yesterday, December 15th, Trump reached a settlement with ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to settle Trump’s defamation suit against ABC News for statements made by George Stephanopoulos.

George claimed that Trump had been found guilt of Rape. This is a false statement that damages Trump’s reputation, i.e., defamation.

Rather than a length and expensive civil trial, which they would have lost. ABC News agreed to pay $15 million for the building of the Trump presidential library. They will also pay $1 million dollars towards Trump’s legal fees.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/george-stephanopoulos-abc-apologize-trump-forced-pay-15-million-settle-defamation-suit