March 2007 Archives

My inner geek couldn't resist sharing this.

Hat tip: NixGuy.com

Shortly after April 14th, the PBS show "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer" will highlight a Tennessee couple trying to raise enough money to equip their Marine son and his squad with new Dragon Skin body armor before the Marines deploy to Iraq. So far they've only raised enough money to buy one vest, but look on the bright side. Even though the Marine Corps won't foot the bill, at least they'll let Lance Corporal Alex La Rosa and his mean wear the best armor on the market.

If these young warriors were in the Army instead, they'd be screwed.

To help, call Javier La Rosa at (865) 766-9840.

--

8/31/07 Update: Check the latest news.

Our military is finally striking back at the jihadists online.

The U.S. military is quietly expanding capabilities to attack terrorist computer networks, including websites that glorify insurgent attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, military officials and experts say.

The move comes as al-Qaeda and other groups fighting in Iraq and elsewhere have expanded their activities on the Internet and increased the sophistication and volume of their videos and messages. Much of the material is designed to raise money and recruit fighters for Iraq.

"You should not let them operate uncontested" on the Internet and elsewhere in cyberspace, said Marine Brig. Gen. John Davis, who heads a military command located at the National Security Agency. The command was established to develop ways to attack computer networks.

...

"Our opponents do a heck of a lot more than just watch us in cyberspace," Davis said. "They are acting in cyberspace. We need to develop options so that we can … dominate cyberspace."

Cyberattacks can take different forms, including eliminating terrorist websites and creating doubts among insurgents about their networks' security, said Arquilla, who favors an offensive approach he calls a "virtual scorched-earth policy."

Hallelujah! It's about time.

Hat tip: The Tank

Hugh Hewitt and Newt Gingrich discussed the "assault weapons" ban yesterday, and both agreed that the 2nd Amendment doesn't permit individuals to own high powered military weapons. While I sympathize with their desired policy, the cold hard Constitutional fact is ... they're wrong.

A couple of years ago I wrote a detailed research piece for a law school class on firearms law. I went way back and looked at sources like the transcripts of the debates during the Constitutional Convention, the constitutions of various states, letters and speeches by the Founding Fathers, and I discovered what they thought about keeping and bearing arms. They understood the 2nd Amendment to allow the private ownership of military weapons. All military weapons. Period.

Here's a summary of my research:

Everyone knows that rifles, pistols, and shotguns are "arms," but what about other weapons like clubs, knives, swords, artillery, bombs, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction? Although this question sounds silly at first, Larry Arnn of the Claremont Institute once remarked that if the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we would all have the right to own nuclear weapons. Some scholars think this kind of reading of the Second Amendment means that "individuals may keep and bear . . . whatever 'arms' they desire."

So does our Constitution recognize your neighbor's right to park a brand new M-1 Abrams main battle tank in his driveway? Should we permit gun shops to hold tent sales offering great low prices on military-grade flamethrowers and nerve-gas-tipped artillery shells? Must the U.S. Government allow you to carry a "suitcase nuke" to avoid violating your fundamental Constitutional rights, even if you might trip while carrying it and level a city block?

Part I of this article summarizes the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that acts as the point of departure for this journey into the "what-ifs" of the right to keep and bear arms.

Part II looks at the decision's inconclusive treatment of what "arms" means, and explains why the "textualism" school of constitutional interpretation should control the search for the meaning of "arms," instead of the "living document" or "framer's intent" schools.

Part III explains what the Founders and their informed contemporaries understood "arms" to mean in their day: that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear any and all weapons, no matter how destructive.

Part IV brings that definition forward to modern times and identifies the unacceptable social risks posed by private citizens' possession and use of today's most powerful weapons.

Part V makes some tentative and preliminary suggestions for a Twenty-Eigth Amendment limiting individual access to excessively destructive weapons that threaten society, while preserving the common-sense meaning of the individual right protected by the text of the Second Amendment.

Read the whole thing and then tell me that "arms" doesn't include a .50 caliber machine gun or an M-1 tank. You probably won't like it (I don't completely like it myself), but unless you're willing to let the courts twist the meaning of the Constitution in whatever way they want, you'll have to agree with my conclusion.

--

Update: I just unearthed a somewhat similar take on the definition of "arms."

Update 2: Publicola asks some pointed questions.

About a year ago, the U.S. Army banned its soldiers from wearing any body armor other than standard-issue Interceptor armor. Surely the Interceptor armor's as good as anything else, right?

Nope. Take for instance Dragon Skin, made by Pinnacle Armor:

The Marine Corps doesn't like the awkward, heavy, and less-effective Interceptor armor. The Army grudgingly agreed to test Dragon Skin, but I haven't seen anything come of that promise (other than snarky comments from a guy who's a product manager for Interceptor Body Armor). And don't get me started on the moon suit.

Since the President's Secret Service detail wears Dragon Skin, as do U.S. Army generals in Afghanistan, the Army's resistance to Dragon Skin for the troops strikes me as very fishy.

Defense Review also viewed a letter from ATC [Ed: That's the Army's Aberdeen Test Center.] containing information that proves that SOV/Dragon Skin did NOT fail any U.S. Air Force test or requirement, as has been stated by certain parties in the U.S. Army. We viewed the relevant information ourselves.

Bottom line is, all relevant ballistic test data is available for viewing and validation (just like we viewed and validated it), exactly as Pinnacle Armor has offered in their written response to the SOUM [Ed: the Army's "Safety-of-Use Message" criticizing Dragon Skin armor] and the Pentagon Brief by General Sorenson. Defense Review has validated this ourselves by visiting Pinnacle Armor and carefully scrutinizing all of the data with our own eyes. That data covered a 9 year timeline and validates Pinnacle's statements in their written response.

So, the upshot is that based on the unrefutable ballistic test data that we've seen ... Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis' (U.S. Army) negative statements about Pinnacle Armor SOV/Dragon Skin ... and Major General Jeffrey A. Sorenson's, Col. John Norwood's (U.S. Army), Col. Thomas Spoehr's(U.S. Army) negative statements about Dragon Skin in his recent news briefing are either ignorant (showing a lack of knowledge of the available ballistic data), outright lies, or deliberately deceptive.

The only other possibility (and this would be giving the total benefit of the doubt to the Army), would be that civilian "experts" like Karl Masters, Steve Pinter, James Zehng, Janet Ward and others at U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center/Soldier Systems Center and PEO soldier who providing the information to the green suiters (Army officers), are responsible for the U.S. Army receiving inaccurate information about SOV/Dragon Skin's true performance capabilities.

OK, the Army's opposition to Dragon Skin is more than fishy. It stinks.

By the way, these civilians in the system seem to have built quite a little empire/fiefdom for themselves over the years. This is due to the fact that the military has (for years) outsourced these types of positions ... to such civilians, instead of maintaining them within the military. Unlike military personnel these civilians do not have the same level of oversight or controls on them to maintain the typical checks and balances necessary to ensure true and unbiased evaluation of performance-based products (like SOV/Dragon Skin, for instance) for the protection of the America's soldiers.

Imagine dragging one of these civilians to the mean streets of Baghdad and offering him a choice between wearing Interceptor armor and wearing Dragon Skin. I'll give you one guess as to which one he'd pick.

My question for the Army: what's happened in the last year with the comparison between Interceptor armor and Dragon Skin?

--

8/31/07 Update: I stand corrected.

This is what happens when lefties use images on my server to sign their comments on The Daily Kos.

Update: Fair is fair. I retaliate against Freepers too.

Update 2: Computer geeks have gotten into bandwidth thievery too. Hey, more free ad space for me!

A high school senior in Texas managed to get offers from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Although his accomplishment impresses me, he clearly isn't too smart. He's going to Annapolis.

He's scheduled a news conference for noon today to discuss his wife's health. I hope she's OK.

Laura Ingraham interviewed Fred Dalton Thompson this morning (mostly on immigration), and an excerpt of the audio's posted here (also as a downloadable MP3) . The excerpt lasts 4:46, but I don't see it posted anywhere in its entirety. I already pay for Laura's podcast, so I can listen to it but I can't post it myself. Here's the whole interview.

If Fred decides to run, my refrain will be ...

The Draft Fred Thompson site maintains a great collection of background info and news on the former Senator. National Review Online has transcripts and audio of Fred's recent radio commentaries.

The following e-mail from Mike DeWine landed in my inbox today. The first sentence was enough to instantly seal my decision to vote against John McCain in the Ohio primary, but I can't resist a mild fisking.

Dear Friend,

You may have heard that I am heading up John McCain's Presidential campaign in Ohio. I'd like to take a few moments to tell you why.

I have known John McCain for almost 25 years. We both were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. I worked closely with him during our years together in the House and during my 12 years in the U.S. Senate. No one is more qualified to be our next President. [Ed.: Wrong. Fred Dalton Thompson is.]

While our Party is truly fortunate to have such a strong field of qualified candidates, I believe that John McCain has what it takes - the experience, knowledge, and foresight - to lead our Nation. He is decisive. He has guts. And, he leaves no room for ambiguity or uncertainty in his reasoned policy decisions. [Ed.: Yup, he's unambiguously a squish on everything but national defense.]

I don't agree with John McCain on every issue. [Ed.: That's supposed to reassure me that he's not a RINO like you?] But, I do know that when we elect a President, we elect the Commander-in-Chief. We elect someone who is going to be making life and death decisions every single day. There is only one person I want making those decisions - and that person is John McCain.

The fact is that the future and security of this country hinges on next year's election. The Presidency requires a person of sound judgment, with an extraordinary grasp of foreign and military affairs - someone who can navigate our country through very dangerous and unchartered waters. Again, that person is John McCain. [Ed.: No, it's Fred.]

Over and over, John has proven his leadership. He was right about Iraq and the need for more troops. He was also right way back in the fall of 1983. I remember John giving a courageous speech in the House against extending our military presence in Lebanon. He believed our presence would not be sufficient to keep the peace, nor were we prepared to exercise our full military capabilities. Less than one month later, 241 U.S. military personnel lost their lives in Lebanon.

John McCain, like he has so many times, stepped forward. He didn't sit back. He didn't cower. He knows both the strengths and limits of our military forces. That kind of understanding is vital if a President is to exercise measured judgment on when and where to use our military to defend and protect our country and our interests.

The bottom line is this: I've watched John McCain for years. I know him, and I'm for him. Please join me with your support. Whether it is through a financial contribution or your volunteer efforts, John needs your help. Visit www.JohnMcCain.com to join the team.

Very respectfully yours,

Mike DeWine

P.S. Click here to make a quick online contribution.

Paid for by Mike DeWine for U.S. Senate and authorized by John McCain 2008. [Ed.: DeWine still has money in his campaign war chest, and he only spends it on McCain?]

Every time I think McCain can't be any more tone deaf to the conservative GOP base, he out-does himself.

--

Update: I'm not the only one wincing. Check out VikingSpirit, Nasty Brutish & Short, Return of The Conservatives, and PoliticsExtra.

Update 2: Jerid at the lefty Buckeye State Blog wonders just exactly where DeWine's disagreements with McCain lie. Good question.

Although Mike Trivisonno is going bonkers about fighter jets and dastardly chem trail conspiracies on the air at WTAM, his histrionics did serve a good purpose. I took some lovely photographs of the interlaced contrails overhead this afternoon.

Click the pic to see all seven.

Enjoy!

Update: Nice shots by "USAgent" here, and a NewsNet5 story here.