Sunday, January 27, 2013

Obama: I Go Shooting All the Time

Barack Obama says, "I go shooting all the time".

I'm sure you do, Mr. President. According to this article, you're a "keen clay pigeon shooter". I have no doubt that your infringement on the second amendment would not apply to single-fire shotguns and trap loads, as long as they're safely locked up at the gun club when not in use. And be sure to use hearing protection.

Mr. President, I hope you see that the Second Amendment is really about this, and not some meaningless "right" to blast little ceramic Frisbees out the air at some exclusive gun club as a diversion (although that's also covered, as luck would have it).

I'm sorry, but this just makes you look insular and pretentious.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

You Have Been Warned

My Dad sent me this:

It's probably photoshopped, because I doubt that any government these days actually supports the Second Amendment. It represents a threat to them (as it was intended). They would never put up a sign like this.

Actually, the Second Amendment was intended as a threat to oppression and tyranny. If our government feels threatened by the Second Amendment, what does that tell you about our government?

Update: What is oppression and tyranny? That is when someone makes you do things you don't want to do, and takes things from you that you don't want to give up. How is that different from violent crime? It isn't! Someone making you hand over your wallet at gunpoint is oppressing you, tyrannizing you. If you had a gun, you could resist this tyranny. And here's the beautiful part: even if they didn't know if you had a gun, you could resist this tyranny. The Second Amendment guarantees your natural right to resist tyranny. A government that infringes on that right is by definition, tyrannical. Don't be fooled.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Official Specification for The United States

I used to think The Constitution would protect me. It will, but only if We the People insist on it. That hasn't been happening lately. The Constitution can't uphold and defend itself. Americans need to hear 365 days a year, something like The Pledge of Allegiance. It goes like this:
  1. The United States Constitution is still the official specification for the United States of America. 
  2. It is the binding contract between We the People and The US Government. 
  3. The Constitution lists the specific services that the US Government agrees to provide for its citizens. 
  4. We the People agree to pay taxes to cover the cost of those specific services, nothing more, nothing less. 
  5. The Bill of Rights lists the ten things that must always be observed, period. 
  6. The terms & conditions of The US Constitution can only be changed by following The Amendment Process. 
  7. Any regime that distorts or disregards The Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous. 
It is my contention that the majority of social and political problems in this country could be avoided if everyone understood and observed these seven points. 

We the People must insist that our elected representatives live up to their oath of office to uphold and defend The Constitution.

Monday, January 21, 2013

The United States Jumps the Shark

The United States of America, "Inauguration Day",  Monday, January 21, 2013 (check local listings for time)
repeat (cc)

According to Wikipedia,
Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that is used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality that is beyond recovery. The phrase is also used to refer to a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of "gimmick" in a desperate attempt to keep viewers' interest.
That script, which aired September 20, 1977, was identified as the beginning of the end of the TV sitcom Happy Days

In this episode of The United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in for his second term as President of The United States. This script is believed to have been in production since 1848, originally created by German humorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with the working title Das Kommunistische Manifest

That episode originally aired first in Russia (starring Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, among others) under the title Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). It ran for a staggering 69 years, from 1922 ~ 1991. The episode collapsed under its own weight after spreading a wake of unprecedented poverty and oppression. It ended in tears with 20 million dead.

The episode aired in Germany (The Third Reich, starring Adolph Hitler) with some modifications under the title Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party -- Nazi for short). This version ran for twelve years, from 1933 ~ 1945. It ended with a bang (sometimes called World War II, but The Third Reich was the central character), but not before spreading a wake of unprecedented poverty, destruction and oppression. It ended in tears with 50 to 70 million dead, depending on which critics you read.

The United States has been slow to pick up the story line, given that the third episode (The United States Constitution) was so popular and successful (the first, British Colonial Rule was largely panned as a failure, and Articles of Confederation were deemed too weak). "The Constitution" episode has been on the air continuously since its premiere in 1787. It has had its twists and turns, including abolishing slavery (which predated The Constitution) and the Civil War, but The Constitution emerged intact, and some say stronger following that historical correction. But some plot complications began to emerge that would have profoundly disturbed the original authors. 

In 1913, mid season replacement Woodrow Wilson from the progressive acting school, took his role in a disturbing direction. Some distasteful plot twists include the creation of the income tax, including one of the most oppressive collection agencies in human history, The IRS. During this era, congress vacated its responsibility for regulating the currency, and the crony-capitalist Federal Reserve was created. This is in addition to a whole slew of new bureaucracies the likes of which the original authors would be most skeptical, not being mentioned in, nor suggested by the Constitutional script.

Despite these setbacks, things continued pretty much along the original plot line until a new character, Franklin Delano Roosevelt joined the cast for an unprecedented run from 1933 ~ 1945. In a stunning departure from the original plot line, this renegade gave us Social Security and a whole New Deal, not to mention packing The Supreme Court, all of which undoubtedly had the original authors spinning in their graves. The problem with these plot developments is that viewers become hooked on them, and it is well-nigh impossible to retire them. This is a continuing theme, as we shall see. To prevent future actors from nearly becoming emperor and totally screwing up the script, term limits were introduced. 

Harry S. Truman introduced a new twist, starting a war without a formal declaration by congress. The Korean War was the first of several unauthorized wars, and a serious departure from the original script. No surprise, the United Nations was a player here. Nobody seemed to care. Still numb from WWII, they seemed to overlook it.

In more recent times, we have had a string of bad actors come through the scene. Dwight Eisenhower brought the Interstate Highway System, though which appealing and nice to have, an earlier actor, James Madison (also one of the principal original authors) deleted a very similar scene 144 years earlier. John F. Kennedy went off the rails with the first (undeclared) involvement in the Vietnam War. He also introduced the Moon Shot. It was an exciting premise, but certainly not part of the original plot. The writers would not have supported this, even if it had been technically possible in their time. They would have suggested the private sector do that, assuming We The People really wanted it.

From this point on, the script has been veering completely out of control. Some say that it is because the viewers have no idea what the original script was all about. In addition to escalating the US involvement in the Vietnam War (again, with the UN's help and no formal congressional declaration), Lyndon Baines Johnson declared war on poverty, which grew government entitlements, but 40 years later, poverty still exists in roughly the same amount. The only difference is, the biggest health problem by the modern poor is obesity instead of starvation. Maybe that is an improvement. Oh, and the illegitimacy rate has grown to 51%. More than half of the children born in this country are bastards. That's a prurient plot twist that only Hollywood could love. 

Richard Nixon creates The EPA, one of the most oppressive, unconstrained and out-of-control bureaucracies of all time. OSHA is another departure from the original script. It seems nice to have until you realize that there just isn't any story line backing it up, and as usual, bureaucracies invariably exceed their original scope, and take over the whole plot. The two Bush presidencies (H. W. and W) brought us two more unauthorized wars.

Enter stage left, Barack Hussein Obama. A relative unknown (I mean really, we know practically nothing about this man -- his background is carefully sealed), this actor absolutely hates the original script, saying it "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day". While this was taken out of context,  the fact is, he believes The Constitution was, and is flawed, in that it provides only "negative rights" -- limited government, but no entitlements. Duh! That's the whole point! Oh well. Although a knowledgeable audience would have rejected that story line, they renewed him for another season, even after he pushed through an economic "stimulus", ObamaCare, both staggering usurpations of the enumerated powers, and a whole litany of other plot lines that defies audience suspension of disbelief. 

So the original script is simply being ignored, to be replaced without any official action or fanfare, with the Marx story line. It happened so gradually that nobody really noticed. The original authors and the original audience are long gone, and the rest of us just haven't been paying attention. The United States actually jumped the shark on November 6, 2012, when the viewers officially changed the channel to the new story line. 

There are now more takers than makers in our viewing audience. There are more people who believe it's okay to take someone else's earnings without their consent, and give it to someone who hasn't earned it. Taking something from someone without their consent is called "theft" unless you're the government. Taxation for constitutionally authorized services is one thing. You get what you pay for. But it's quite another thing when government does more than We the People agreed to when we ratified The Constitution.

Government makes the laws, so somehow it's exempt from them. It would be different if it followed The Constitution. Why is theft considered illegal? Because property represents irreplaceable time from a person's life that it took to obtain it. Taking their property equates to fractional murder. On the other hand, generosity is giving your time and property willingly, freely. We do not have a Great Society, we have a sick society, consisting of a bunch of people who think they are entitled simply to take without asking, a part of someone else's life. 

Barack Obama isn't the problem, but he's a really nasty symptom, the tragic hero in this farce. The real villain is the viewing audience, who selected him as the American Idol. Jumping the shark is usually the marker for the time when something begins its final death spiral. I hope I'm wrong about that. We can change it, but it will require  the re-education of a large number of citizens about lib-classic and constitutional principles. Studying The Federalist Papers. It could take generations. In the meantime, hang on tight. It's going to be a bumpy ride. 

Thursday, January 17, 2013

I Am Not a Tyrant

President Obama made these comments during the unveiling of his Second Amendment infringement yesterday:
There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever... ~  Barack Obama
Not because that's true? Mr. President, of course you don't think you're a tyrant because,
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. ~ C.S. Lewis
The problem that I fear we are facing is the one our founders debated at great length when they were designing the American form of government: Are Americans virtuous enough for self-rule? Or, do we require an elite governing class to make us do the right things, against our baser instincts?

I am sure that some folks will scoff at the suggestion that we need to be "virtuous". What an outmoded concept! It's so... nineteenth century! That’s a problem with our culture, not the concept. With liberty and freedom comes great power -- including the right to keep and bear arms -- dangerous! Yes, but,
With great power comes great responsibility ~ Voltaire, Churchill, Roosevelt, Spider Man
The word "virtue" might be a bit dated, but "responsible" isn't. If there are too many irresponsible people walking the streets these days, we may not be responsible enough as a culture to enjoy freedom anymore, as President Obama seems to be suggesting. 

Sadly, Obama may be right. Our culture selected him (a second time!) in part, because he offered to take responsibility for things that we should be doing for ourselves -- at a great cost to our freedom. I fear we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Emergency! Emergency! Java 7 Could Kill You!

The people at tell us there is a Java exploit that might allow some attacker to take over your computer (if you're insanely stupid about your browsing and email habits). They say, "Web browsers using the Java 7 plug-in are at high risk."

Yes, it could be serious, if the attacker steals your identity and all your money. They say, "To defend against this and future Java vulnerabilities, disable Java in web browsers". Future Java vulnerabilities? Why not disable everything? In fact, you should just stay in bed.

In another story, President Obama is poised to impose an executive order that would infringe on The Constitution (the second amendment, but it really doesn't matter which), and ... (crickets). It's too bad we can't simply disable Barack Obama in our browsers, to prevent this and future threats. This is much more serious. It isn't mere trifles such as your computer, your identity and all your money; it's your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness!

Perspective, perspective, perspective...

-----Original Message-----
From: US-CERT Alerts [] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:53 PM
Subject: US-CERT Alert TA13-010A - Oracle Java 7 Security Manager Bypass Vulnerability

Hash: SHA1

National Cyber Awareness System

US-CERT Alert TA13-010A
Oracle Java 7 Security Manager Bypass Vulnerability

Original release date: January 10, 2013
Last revised: --

Systems Affected

     Any system using Oracle Java 7 (1.7, 1.7.0) including

     * Java Platform Standard Edition 7 (Java SE 7)
     * Java SE Development Kit (JDK 7)
     * Java SE Runtime Environment (JRE 7)

     All versions of Java 7 through update 10 are affected.  Web
     browsers using the Java 7 plug-in are at high risk.


   A vulnerability in the way Java 7 restricts the permissions of Java
   applets could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary commands on a
   vulnerable system.


   A vulnerability in the Java Security Manager allows a Java applet
   to grant itself permission to execute arbitrary code. An attacker
   could use social engineering techniques to entice a user to visit a
   link to a website hosting a malicious Java applet. An attacker
   could also compromise a legitimate web site and upload a malicious
   Java applet (a "drive-by download" attack).

   Any web browser using the Java 7 plug-in is affected. The Java
   Deployment Toolkit plug-in and Java Web Start can also be used as
   attack vectors.

   Reports indicate this vulnerability is being actively exploited,
   and exploit code is publicly available.

   Further technical details are available in Vulnerability Note


   By convincing a user to load a malicious Java applet or Java
   Network Launching Protocol (JNLP) file, an attacker could execute
   arbitrary code on a vulnerable system with the privileges of the
   Java plug-in process.


   Disable Java in web browsers

   This and previous Java vulnerabilities have been widely targeted by
   attackers, and new Java vulnerabilities are likely to be
   discovered. To defend against this and future Java vulnerabilities,
   disable Java in web browsers.

   Starting with Java 7 Update 10, it is possible to disable Java
   content in web browsers through the Java control panel applet. From
   Setting the Security Level of the Java Client:

   For installations where the highest level of security is required,
   it is possible to entirely prevent any Java apps (signed or
   unsigned) from running in a browser by de-selecting Enable Java
   content in the browser in the Java Control Panel under the Security

   If you are unable to update to Java 7 Update 10 please see the
   solution section of Vulnerability Note VU#636312 for instructions
   on how to disable Java on a per browser basis.


 * Vulnerability Note VU#625617

 * Setting the Security Level of the Java Client

 * The Security Manager

 * How to disable the Java web plug-in in Safari

 * How to turn off Java applets

 * NoScript

 * Securing Your Web Browser

 * Vulnerability Note VU#636312

Revision History

  January 10, 2013: Initial release


   Feedback can be directed to US-CERT Technical Staff. Please send
   email to  with "TA13-010A Feedback VU#625617" in
   the subject.

   Produced by US-CERT, a government organization.

This product is provided subject to this Notification:

Privacy & Use policy:

This document can also be found at

For instructions on subscribing to or unsubscribing from this mailing list, visit
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)


Thursday, January 10, 2013

Toys for Boys, or Tools for Patriots?

Amendment II -- A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There are a lot of people saying that we're about to cross a line here, to which I have to ask, "what part of infringed do you not understand?" The word means weaken, destroy, violate, encroach. Folks, we crossed that line a long time ago!

Here's my concern: I have always said that The Constitution of the United States is still the official specification for the US government; the binding contract between We the People and our government. Any regime that distorts, deconstructs or disregards it is untrustworthy and dangerous. If we crossed that line a long time ago, what does that say about the regime? What does that say about We the People, for tolerating it?

By the way, it isn't just the second amendment at risk here. In 1913, congress abrogated its responsibility to regulate the money supply, and created The Federal Reserve System. We did nothing. In 1935, the regime imposed a mandatory retirement plan called Social Security. We did nothing. In 1965, the regime imposed a mandatory health care plan called Medicare. We did nothing. In 2011, the regime imposed a mandatory health care plan called ObamaCare. We re-elected them! It may be debatable whether these are great services, but they are "feature creep" -- grotesque usurpations of power, to name just a few, but we tolerate them. So, what does that say about us, indeed?

Dear reader, this is where the rubber hits the road: are we going to allow our government to infringe on our constitutionally guaranteed rights, or not? If not, what are we going to do about it? This is a scary question that separates the men from the boys. It's a deadly serious question. It isn't a radical question; it is the most conservative, liberal (in the truest sense of the words), question there is. Think carefully.

An article entitled, If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? has gone viral on the web. It's the kind of stuff that gets people labeled as extremists. But is it extreme to demand that government live by its own rules? If government won't, isn't it up to We the People to force it to? The author makes some provocative arguments. You should go read it. I'll wait here.

The Constitution has been so effective at constraining government for the first 150 or so years, that we have become too complacent, too trusting of our government. As a culture, we have forgotten how easy it is to lose our freedom. Thomas Jefferson noted in The Declaration of Independence
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Our government has the might to take, or control our guns any time it wants. It can do it illegally, as it is doing now, or it can do it legally. If there wasn't a danger that government would abuse its power, we wouldn't need the Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments to The Constitution. But We the People can decide as a nation that the second amendment is obsolete, and repeal it. Then it would be legal for government to attempt to regulate guns out of existence, if anyone really believes that is possible. However, before we throw the baby out with the bath water, we should note that freedom is very empowering. But with great power, comes great responsibility. Freedom is risky. 

For example, the founders put the freedom of speech in the first amendment, to prevent government from persecuting people who discuss politics openly and question the authority of government. That is the benefit. The risk is that people will be irresponsible, and abuse that right. Pornography is a result. Shouting, "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) is a result. 

Similarly, the second amendment exists for a variety of reasons: hunting, self-defense against wild animals (including humans), and not to put too fine a point on it, to give would-be tyrants and oppressors something to think about. That's the benefit. The risk is that people will be irresponsible, and abuse that right. Gun related crime is a result. Opening fire in a crowded theater (when there are no oppressors) is a result. 

I know that gun ownership isn't for everyone. People focus on the lives lost to gun violence, but can't account for all of the violence that doesn't happen because the bad guys have to guess which good people carry. Responsible gun owners can protect those who choose not to be -- in the vast majority of cases, with nary a gun in sight, nor a shot being fired. 

The illusion is that we can live in a world without risk. The illusion is that government can provide security without abusing the power it would need to provide it. Responsibly equipped, I'd rather take my chances with a few deranged individuals, than I would with a renegade regime that distorts or disregards its constitution in order to provide the illusion of protection and the reality of oppression.