Articles by Herschel Smith

We’ve already discussed how the Obama administration lied about not knowing that the Benghazi attack was an assault by an militant Islamic group.  My own military readers informed us that this was a planned assault with fighters already in position, using a complex ambush with combined arms.  This assessment was made by my readers within 24 hours of the assault using nothing but open source information.  I have been unequivocal in calling the suggestion that the administration waited for information and analysis a lie.  I still do not retract my charge.

Now comes more evidence.

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

[ … ]

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

And as I had pointed out, some two weeks after the assault Obama went before the U.N. claiming that it was a result of that crackpot video.

Again, exactly when they used the word “terror” isn’t relevant.  The assault would have inflicted terror regardless of whether it was a result of mob behavior or a planned attack.  The point is that Obama put the blame squarely on a spontaneous mob acting from rage as a result of the video.

He knew better.  And you knew better within 24 hours because my military readers told you so.  In this case, the facts are getting in the way of the narrative.

Jeff Knox explains why the upcoming national election is important, but in the process, I think he proves a corollary (or maybe even contrary) point.

What all of this demonstrates is that Republican appointees to the Supreme Court are rarely “conservative” stalwarts and historically display only a 50 percent chance of supporting traditionally conservative positions, while Democratic appointees are historically 100 percent reliable in backing the Democratic agenda. Even Robert Bork, who is considered an ultra-conservative jurist and whose failed confirmation hearings were so contentious that his name has entered the vernacular as a verb (meaning to block a nomination by defamation), has frequently expressed an opinion that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to arms. I had the opportunity to argue the issue with Judge Bork himself on a radio program in the late ’80s and was sorely disappointed with his position.

The Supreme Court currently breaks down like this: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79 years old and continues to surprise prognosticators (including me) who have been predicting her imminent retirement for years. Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both 76 years old, and both appear to be in good health for their age. Stephen Breyer is 74 and also healthy. Clarence Thomas is 64. Samuel Alito is 62. Sonia Sotomayor is 58. John Roberts is 57, and Elena Kagan is 52.

It is extremely likely that at least one of these justices will retire within the next four years, and it’s quite possible that as many as three could step down. If Barack Obama is re-elected, it is a virtual surety that any justice he appoints will be relatively young, staunchly “liberal” and have an unfavorable view of the Second Amendment. If Democrats retain control of the Senate, confirmation of an Obama appointee is also almost guaranteed. Even if Republicans manage to take control of the Senate, the odds are almost nil that any but the most extreme radical would be rejected.

If Romney is elected, the odds of him appointing a pro-Second Amendment conservative are no better than 50-50. A Democrat-controlled Senate reduces those odds to somewhere between 25 and 30 percent, while a Republican-controlled Senate raises the odds to around 60 percent. 
In a best-case scenario, the likelihood of seeing reliable, pro-Second Amendment justices seated on the Supreme Court are not great, but each step away from that best-case reduces that likelihood dramatically.

Whether our second amendment rights are further codified or eroded in the coming years is yet to be seen.  Ruth Ginsburg sees reversal of Heller Versus D.C. on the horizon with a “future, wiser court.”  But that’s only part of the battle.  In the future, local politics may be even more important, since the federal government is only one guarantor of our rights as firearms owners and users.

If the particular state in which you reside is unfriendly to firearms rights, they may have Supreme Court decisions upon which to base their intrusions.  But if more friendly to our rights, at least there is a battle to be waged between states and and intrusive federal government.

This isn’t determinative, and it doesn’t obviate gun rights problems, but it does give us a firmer foundation upon which remediation of federal problems may occur, even if difficult and even if the fight is a long one.

Prior: Louisiana, Guns And Strict Scrutiny

Too much focus has been given to whether the administration called the attacks on the American consulate at Benghazi an act of terror.  Parsing the questions is important both to frame our objections to Obama’s behavior after this incident and to point out larger problems with his foreign policy.

It’s well known that the administration rejected requests for increased security at the consulate.  The administration’s assumptions regarding the nature of the world has caused them to be unprepared for the Islamists at every turn over the last four years.  But their refusal to protect Americans, as shameful and loathsome as that is, constitutes a different issue than the one I am addressing.

As I’ve pointed out before, I published an assessment within one day of the attacks in which, despite focusing on issues related mostly to how we move forward with increased security, my own military readers concluded that this was a well-planned, well-coordinated attack with ensconced fighters, involving a complex ambush with the use of combined arms.

Take careful note.  The use of combined arms is deadly to your own fighters if it isn’t a well-rehearsed engagement.  Firing mortars or light [or heavy] machine guns at your own fighters kills them, and you must know where they are and what they’re doing at all times.

My article was well-visited that day by the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, DoD network domains, and others that were in a position to make a difference with the administration.  Glenn Reynolds linked the post, and the traffic his site drives isn’t the only interesting feature of his attention.  The quality of his traffic is even more remarkable.

So within 24 hours everyone knew that this wasn’t the action of an angry mob.  The administration also knew that very quickly from information to which only they would have been aware, as Former Spook points out.

In recent posts, we’ve asked the fundamental question about the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans: what did the  administration know, and when did they know it?

As we’ve noted, there was a steady stream of intelligence reporting on the attack, delivered at the FLASH/CRITIC level.  Messages assigned that priority must be delivered to the President within 10 minutes of receipt.  This traffic captured conversations between the Islamist factions responsible for the attack, before and during the assault on our compound.  That’s why administration claims that incident was some sort of “demonstration gone bad” are nothing more than a lie.

Ditto for Joe Biden’s claim that Benghazi was some sort of intelligence failure.  By all accounts, the spooks did their job, and it was apparent within minutes  that our consulate was under attack by terrorists, not ordinary Libyans incensed over that internet video.  If Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has any shred of integrity remaining, he should resign immediately in protest over how his community is being “used” to conceal leadership failures of the first magnitude.

But terrorist phone traffic wasn’t the only source of information on the night of September 11, 2012.  According to Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt (who spent most of his Army career in special forces), various U.S. command centers–in the U.S. and overseas–received a running account of the attack –while it unfolded–from a State Department official inside the consulate.  Hunt detailed who was listening in during a recent interview with Boston radio host Howie Carr.

See his article for a continuation of the discussion.  So as we’ve observed, the administration knew.  But then as I mentioned above, so did you.  It didn’t take weeks or months of review, investigation and field work to know how this transpired.  My military readers told you within 24 hours.

And yet … some two weeks after the attack on the consulate, Obama went before the United Nations and gave that silly, sophomoric speech.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

[ … ]

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy.

He very clearly blamed the attack on a video and pointed to mob-like behavior and outrage.  This is his lie.

He knew better.  Everyone knew better.  Yes, he and his administration has four deaths for which to answer.  They are on his conscience.  His foreign policy is an abysmal  failure.  Furthermore, as my own readers pointed out within one day of the attack, we lacked an effective QRF (Quick Reaction Force).  We were unprepared.  This is yet another problem.

Those are problems indeed.  But they belong in a different category, and parsing them is necessary when moderators and main stream media types talk about ridiculous things like when the administration used the word “terror.”  The word means nothing.  The attack would have inflicted terror regardless of whether it was a pre-planned attack or the actions of a mob.  In pointing to a video, Obama lied. The lie demands an answer separate from the failures of Obama’s foreign policy.

UPDATE #1: Seeing the problems ahead, it appears that the administration is returning to the lie, as a dog to its own vomit.

UPDATE #2: The CIA is lying for Obama, just as had been predicted.  And it is a lie – make no mistake about it.  Also see Bing West on the CIA-NYT lie.  What, now, does this say about General David Petraeus who currently heads up the CIA?

UPDATE #3: No, Katrina, you’ve accepted the lie too uncritically.

UPDATE #4: Romney’s response apparently can be found here.  Take note, though.  Look carefully at the dates.  Obama’s camp is claiming that the intelligence community didn’t change the briefs until September 22nd.  For the sake of argument, let’s grant the point.  Obama gave his speech to the U.N. on September 25th.  Even if [what I am calling] the lie is true, Obama is caught in yet another lie.  He knew before his U.N. speech.

Louisiana may be about to become the most second-amendment friendly state in the country.

It is all about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the fight over Amendment No. 2 to the state constitution.

“Amendment No. 2 is a simple amendment. It’s just two lines,” said George Peterson of American Freedom and Supply in Jefferson Parish.

In its two sentences, Amendment No. 2 calls the right to bear arms “fundamental” and adds that any restrictions on that right would be subject to “strict scrutiny.”

Those two words could have a major legal impact.

“It would not only prevent the legislature from enacting new gun laws that would be for the public’s protection, it could also potentially be used to strike down laws, for example, that don’t allow people to bring guns on college campuses, or into grocery stores or bars or churches,” said Eyewitness News Political Analyst Clancy DuBos.

That means more than 80 current gun laws could be more easily challenged in court. The Bureau of Governmental Research opposes the amendment, calling it “alarming” and a public safety issue.

“Louisiana has the third highest death by firearms in the United States. New Orleans has one of the highest murder rates,” said BGR President Janet Howard. “There is just no good reason, as far as we can see, to create uncertainty in this area and make it more difficult to regulate guns than it currently is.”

Supporters, though, said “strict scrutiny” is all about common sense.

“A legislator from some parish or whatever wants to make something that’s non-sensical — like banning assault weapons or sales in a certain parish — you’d have to be under strict scrutiny to see if that’s actually reasonable,” Peterson said.

It is a scrutiny that will now fall on voters, as they decide on Nov. 6th, whether or not the proposal is reasonable.

A lawyer would have a better chance of a clear explanation of this than would I, but here it goes anyway.

There is the rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.  On the rational basis test, it is important whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government.  It may not even matter whether there is an actual interest at stake.  If a court can hypothesize a legitimate interest, then the challenge fails.

Under intermediate scrutiny, it is important whether a law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.  Under strict scrutiny, there must be a compelling governmental interest as a basis for the law, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieved that interest, and if there is a less restrictive means of achieving that interest, the challenge succeeds.

This would be an important amendment.  Many states grant deference to local governments in the application of more restrictive laws.  One such example would be the changes made to my own state of North Carolina early in 2012.  Carry of weapons in state and local parks is now legal (and the Castle doctrine is adopted state-wide), but there are municipalities and cities that have chosen more restrictive regulations for their area.

Thus, carrying a weapon like I do, I have been in communication with the head of the parks and recreation division for Mecklenburg County to track what changes have been made and whether signage will be revised to recognize the legitimacy of carrying a weapon – concealed or openly – in the parks and public walkways near where I live.

Louisiana doesn’t have to worry with that, as long as the people pass the amendment to the state constitution.  The right to bear arms will be recognized as fundamental, strict scrutiny will apply, and many local regulations will be struck down.  They are about to become the most gun-friendly state in the nation.  Even if you don’t live in Louisiana, it’s important to celebrate victories.

From Emily:

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens demonstrated the importance of America’s upcoming presidential choice as he spoke Monday to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Justice Stevens told the assembled gun grabbers of the urgent need for Congress to adopt laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

As the author of the dissenting opinions in the Heller and McDonald cases, which affirmed the right of individuals to keep handguns in the home, Justice Stevens said the high court precedent still allows new laws rolling back our rights.

The 92-year-old jurist explained the landmark gun rulings leave room for restrictions on the right to carry outside the home, bans on certain styles of firearms, elimination of carry rights in “sensitive” places and background-check requirements for private gun sales.

“The Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or the use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years,” the Ford nominee said, incorrectly lumping together semi-automatic and automatic weapons, which already are highly regulated.

He added, “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside, and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

Stevens forgets his history.  As I’ve observed before, “There are always caveats, stipulations and complications when it comes to interpreting and applying the constitution.  But a plain reading of the text requires that if our understanding contradicts the fundamental exigencies and vicissitudes of life as it existed in the colonial times that hatched the constitution, then our understanding is in need of modification.  Weapons were ubiquitous in the colonies for sporting and recreation, protection against animals, protection against people and protection against governmental tyranny (“The British never lost sight of the fact that without their gun control program, they could never control America”).  Each was in its own way a threat to the safety and health of strong families.”

So Justice Stevens ignores the warp and woof of American history, and without that familiarity and understanding, no one, including a Supreme Court Justice, will be able to make sense of our founding documents.

But more immediately, the Supreme Court ruling in Castle Rock Versus Gonzales decided that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens.  Justice Stevens – forgetting (or ignoring) his Supreme Court history – is recommending the defenestration of a clear right (i.e., the Second Amendment) in favor of one that is an utter fabrication of his own imagination, i.e., “some kind of constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside.”

Such is the case with washed-up, has-been progressives who simply refuse to acquiesce to the nature of the American system.  Bitterness defines them.

From ABC News:

At the end of a long answer to the question, “What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?” Obama said this:

“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Of course he did.  It’s who he is, it’s what he is about.  And notice that he protracts the problem of violence to cheap hand guns as well.  Well hell, let’s just ban cheap hand guns too.  That will fix the problem.

I’ve already made my views known.  Forcing a family to consider what may for them be an inferior weapon for their protection (e.g., a lower capacity magazine or more human-machine interactions in order to make a weapon function) is immoral.  It also won’t fix the problem of evil anywhere, including the inner city, but the notion that he can’t fix evil with a law or new regulation doesn’t comport with his world view since he is a statist.

Thus should all gun owners, lovers of freedom and believers in righteousness work against both the election of Obama and his evil regulations.  My views have been made known, but Obama had successfully hidden his to the ignorant masses until now (since the masses won’t pay attention to anything that didn’t happen yesterday).  At least it’s good that we’re all being transparent.  This is a breath of fresh air.

From The Seattle Times:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out the conviction of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden who served a prison term for material support for terrorism.

In a 3-0 ruling, the appeals court said that material support for terrorism was not an international-law war crime at the time Hamdan engaged in the activity for which he was convicted.

Hamdan was sentenced to 5 1/2 years, given credit for time served and is back home in Yemen, reportedly working as a taxi driver.

“If the government wanted to charge Hamdan with aiding and abetting terrorism or some other war crime that was sufficiently rooted in the international law of war at the time of Hamdan’s conduct, it should have done so,” wrote Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. All three judges on the case were appointed by Republican presidents.

The war crime for which Hamdan was convicted was contained in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

“The government suggests that at the time of Hamdan’s conduct from 1996 to 2001, material support for terrorism violated the law of war referenced” in U.S. law, said Kavanaugh, but “we conclude otherwise.”

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the department is reviewing the ruling.

Hamdan met bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1996 and began working on his farm before winning a promotion as his driver.

Defense lawyers say he only kept the job for the $200-a-month salary. But prosecutors alleged he was a personal driver and bodyguard of the al-Qaida leader. They say he transported weapons for the Taliban and helped bin Laden escape U.S. retribution following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Not much more needs to be said about this.  Pause and consider: ” … and is back home in Yemen, reportedly working as a taxi driver.”  Really, is it any wonder that our boys currently in Afghanistan don’t know why they’re in theater, and consider it a successful deployment when they don’t even fire a weapon at the enemy?  If everyone has lost the will to defend the homeland, why would we expect any different from our warriors?

There are two more “debates” coming up where there is some non-trivial chance that the issue of guns and recent violence will come up.  Here are some potential questions and what Romney should respond.

Governor Romney, given the recent violence that plagues our inner cities and even suburban areas as we see with the recent Colorado shooting, would you be in favor of closing the gun show loophole?

I’ve been to gun shows, and I’ll be the first to tell you several things.  The last show I went to I talked to several firearms dealers.  People are tight and they’re hanging onto their money.  As you know, the economy needs recovery and nothing you’ve seen for four years looks like a recovery.  Second, if you do happen to be doing well and have purchased anything at a gun show, you know that the firearms dealers must follow the same protocol as they do at their place of business.  That is, there must be a background check and you must fill out federal form 4473.

It is true that you may happen to purchase a gun from an individual, but this isn’t a loophole associated with gun shows.  You can do that anyway in most states, a freedom that I intend to preserve as President by leaving that issue to the states.  So the notion of a gun show loophole is a figment of the imagination of the gun control lobby, or better, it’s something they made up.  It isn’t real.  It doesn’t exist.  It’s a phantom.  And making more laws to control mythical things isn’t the solution to crime.  More laws would affect the law abiding citizens, but criminals will still behave in a criminal manner, which is why I would like to focus on criminal behavior and not law abiding citizens.

Governor Romney, what would you do about the botched operation called Fast and Furious as President?

Thank you for asking the question.  First of all, we don’t know the depths of the criminality yet because the Department of Justice is intentionally hiding information and being uncooperative.  I don’t have any direct proof that I could take to court that shows that the operation was intentional rather than botched, but recent documents uncovered by Wikileaks indicates that at least one Mexican authority believes that there were untoward intentions.  This authority said “Federal authorities in the United States have been quietly supporting certain Mexican criminal empires, especially the Sinaloa drug cartel, in a bid to solidify the syndicates’ reign as dominant powerbrokers … If cartel chiefs cooperate with authorities, “governments will allow controlled drug trades.”  Another bombshell uncovered in the leaked e­mails indicated that the U.S. federal government had deliberately allowed cartel hit men to murder people inside the United States if they agreed to offer their services to Washington.”

If I am elected President, I will get to the very bottom of this sordid affair, and I will go from the bottom to the very top of the administration if my investigation takes me there.  I will pursue criminality to the fullest extent of the law as it is within my power as the chief executive, and all criminality that we uncover will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Governor Romney, if you are President would you stop this internet and mail order of assault weapons so that we can be safer in our homes and places of work?  It’s absurd that you can actually order guns on line.

Thank you for the question.  Actually, you can place orders for weapons on line, but they still must be delivered to a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) just as if you were purchasing a gun from your local gun store.  Before this FFL will transfer the weapon to you, you must pass a background check and fill out federal form 4473, just like you must do in a gun store.  So as you see, there isn’t any difference between internet order and simply paying a visit to your local gun store.

As for the issue of assault weapons, I would like to give law-abiding citizens the maximum latitude to purchase whatever weapon they thought best suited their needs, while enforcing the laws on the books to prevent criminals from conducting illegal activity.  You see, it isn’t the caliber of the weapon that one is holding that’s the problem.  It’s the caliber of the one holding the weapon.

UPDATE #1: Thanks to Bill Quick!  Yes, I hope Romney uses this line.

UPDATE #2: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention!

A field grade or staff officer has problems with his coming deployment to Afghanistan.  Is it related to the debacle that Afghanistan has become?  Or perhaps to the under-manning of the COPs, or if it’s N2K perhaps he knows that it’s a doomed mission?  Perhaps he is concerned over our teaming up with criminals like Hamid Karai and his brother Wali Karzai?  Maybe it’s our throwing enough cash around to corrupt most of the locals with whom we engage?  Or maybe he has a problem with the sorry rules of engagement, or the lack of a coherent strategy passed down from the top, or the horrible trend in green on blue attacks?

Nope.

When the so-called “Jesus rifle” came to light in Jan. 2010, it sparked constitutional and security concerns, and a maelstrom of media coverage. The Pentagon ordered the removal of the secret code referring to Bible passages that the manufacturer had inscribed on the scopes of the standard issue rifles carried by U.S. soldiers into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nearly three years later — despite the military’s assertion that is making “good progress” — the code remains on many rifles deploying to Afghanistan, which some soldiers argue is endangering their lives by reinforcing suspicions that the United States is waging a crusade against Muslims.

“I honestly believe that this is a dangerous situation. It literally could be a matter of life and death for a soldier if he fell into the wrong hands,” said an Army officer who spoke to NBC News from Fort Hood, Texas. “The fact that combatant commanders are not following (rules set by Department of Defense) commanders is very disturbing to me.”

The officer, who asked not to be named out of fear of reprisal from commanders, provided a photograph, taken on Tuesday, of the code on an M-4 rifle assigned to a soldier who is slated to deploy to Afghanistan in coming weeks.

The code stamped into the metal of the soldier’s ACOG (Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight) ends with the model number with “JN8:12.” which refers to the New Testament passage, John 8:12, which reads: “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

Other rifle scopes among some 250,000 provided by Michigan-based manufacturer Trijicon were imprinted with codes that point to passages in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Corinthians and Revelation, ABC News reported when it broke the news in 2010.

Trijicon, reportedly had been following this practice for at least two decades, and it was well known to gun enthusiasts.

Like my son said to me, “The dude who is worried about this needs to find something else to do with his life.”

Yea, I’ve got a feeling he is about to get something else to do.  Either he will be a fobbit and never leave the comfort of Hesco barriers, working PowerPoint slides all his deployment (in which case the Pashto- or Dari-speaking Afghans won’t ever get to read his English ACOG and he gets to worry over the question, “Daddy, what did you do during the war?”), or he will be outside the wire, in which case, if this is the kind of thing he is worried about, he will get his ass shot off.

Either way, I’ve said before that I will take a Biblical ACOG any day.  Calling Trijicon?  A free ACOG, please?  I’ll take as much Scripture as you can fit on it.

Prior: About Those Biblical ACOG Sights

I’m listening to Joe Biden debate Paul Ryan, and my jaw dropped, even though I expected the random thinker to spew nonsense.  Even I was shocked at the randomness.

His assertion that they (Iran) can enrich the Uranium (HEU [or other fissile material] is greater than 90%, and I won’t say any more because of my familiarity with MOX) but don’t have a weapon to put it into.  He repeated this assertion, again and again and again.

That’s sort of like asserting that a vandal making a Molotov Cocktail may have the accelerant and fuel, but damn it, they don’t have a bottle or rag!

My mouth just dropped open.  I am almost without words.  Seriously.

So the Iranians build a housing and a well-timed trigger that shoots the pieces of HEU at each other to achieve Keff >> 1.

Eh … perhaps a month or two.  You can stop listening to the blow hard now.  The longer you listen the stupider you get.  Joe the mouth is making hay of the Iranians: “If they only had a bomb.”  I wonder what would happen to Joe “If he only had a brain.”

UPDATE #1: I’m reminded by a friend.  Proverbs 29:9 – “When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.”  I guess we got both from Biden.

UPDATE #2: From Rich Lowry …

From a friend who follows these things closely:

“The worst part of the debate and the part that I wish Ryan had been able to counter was when Biden started in on the “They don’t have a bomb to put (the fissile material ) into.

This is outrageous. The hard part of building a nuclear weapon is to get the fissile material, bomb designs are a dime a dozen and anyone who has access to a copy of the Progressive Magazine from the 1970s when they published a bomb design they had dug up from some documents that were found in the Los Alamos public library can build one.

The A.Q, Khan design has long been available to then including any refinements the North Koreans have made.

Making a warhead that can fit on a missile may be harder, but building a basic nuclear weapon that could be put on an airliner or a ship is easy once you have the material…”