Month: November 2010

Tanks To Afghanistan

Published by Papa Giorgio

Defense Tech had this recent post about some military action:

While Abrams were used extensively in Iraq, the Afghan fight has often seen troops using lighter, nimbler vehicles capable of scrambling along the mountainous country’s notoriously primitive roads — more like paths — or using helicopters to travel quickly and bypass the danger from IEDs.

Now, as the Marines push harder into enemy territory, they’ll bring serious ground firepower with them:

The officials said Friday this is a first for the U.S. in the 9-year-old war, though Canadians and Danish troops have already used the huge, heavily armored combat vehicles in Afghanistan.

Officials say the tanks will help Marines keep insurgents away from key population areas and help troops move into insurgent safe havens. Officials say the tanks can bring extra protection and added firepower and help troops observe key routes where militants place roadside bombs.

This seems like yet another indication of how the fight is getting tougher and more intense over there.

…(read more)…

Here is some Iraq footage:

This Five Year Old Wasn’t A Terrorist-Whew! All those Caucasian 5-year old terrorists better watch out! We have your number

Published by Papa Giorgio

Concentrating on 5 year old boys from Davenport Iowa going to visit Grandparents for Thanksgiving is sound Security Protocol.Oddly… No bombs were found.However the child was briefly detained after it was found that the child had $5.25 Milk money in his pockets. Instead of buying his milk,the child had been saving the money to buy a souvenir in his travels,which is a misdemeanor offense. Seizure of the cash caused near chaos within the higher echelons of the Obama Security. Passengers on his flight breathed a sigh of relief that this child was not packing heat.(from a LiveLeak poster)

The Blaze has some more info on this indecent:

The video was posed on the 19th by lukemtait.  It’s the only video on that channel right now.  Other people are now copying the video and reposting it of course.

This is the caption on the video:

Lets get the facts straight first. Before the video started the boy went through a metal detector and didn’t set it off but was selected for a pat down. The boy was shy so the TSA couldn’t complete the full pat on the young boy. The father tried several times to just hold the boys arms out for the TSA agent but i guess it didn’t end up being enough for the guy. I was about 30 ft away so i couldn’t hear their conversation if there was any. The enraged father pulled his son shirt off and gave it to the TSA agent to search, thats when this video begins.

For a caption that begins, “Lets get the facts straight first,” it is exactly the opposite of helpful in that regard!  You almost have to go out of your way to not include when and where this happened.  In my experience when video posters leave out information like that there is usually a reason.


We see only 39 seconds.  We don’t know what happened before or after.  The poster says the metal detector didn’t go off but that the boy was selected for a pat-down anyway.  Is that what happened?  The father seems relatively clam.  Would you be?

…(read more)…

Another video posted on The Blaze is a news story from Nightly News:

Some Black and White History (A response to convo elsewhere)

Published by Papa Giorgio

BREITBART posted this:

On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: “You must take care of the civil rights bill – my bill, the civil rights bill. Don’t let it fail.” In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.

Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations. Sound familiar? Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[….]

Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader – not President Lyndon Johnson – was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.

In the Senate, Dirksen had no trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for passage. On the Democrat side, the Senate leadership did support the bill, while the chief opponents were Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC), Al Gore (D-TN) and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Senator Byrd, whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate,” filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for fourteen straight hours. At a meeting held in his office, Dirksen modified the bill so it could be passed despite Democrat opposition. He strongly condemned the Democrat-led 57-day filibuster: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!”

Along with most other political leaders at the time, Johnson, credited Dirksen for getting the bill passed: “The Attorney General said that you were very helpful and did an excellent job… I’ll see that you get proper attention and credit.” At the time, for instance, The Chicago Defender, a renowned African-American newspaper, praised Senator Dirksen for leading passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The struggle for civil rights was not finished, however, as most southern states remained under the control of segregationist Democrat governors, such as George Wallace (D-AL), Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox (D-GA). Full enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not arrive until the Republican political ascendancy in the South during the 1980s.

Another interesting post over at NEWSMAX:

In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.

The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation’s military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.

Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

(MMA UNDERGROUND)

I brought up the fact that the Left enslaves minorities to depend on their government for sustenance, thus securing votes. Thomas Sowell debates this “subsidizing effect” in this referenced video (must listen all the way to his last response):

One question I asked, after one ingests all the above like I hope my friend did, was the following:

  • …So, since the Republicans were historically and into the Reagan revolution less likely to be racists, would the racist arm of the Democratic Party meld into the Republican Party or the Democratic Party that supports virulently — as an example — an organization that still has as its goal American Nazi eugenics in mind, as evidenced by the almost 4-to-1 abortions in some black minority areas? Do racists see that controlling these populations (Democratic policies) rather than allowing them the freedom to become entrepreneurial (Republican policies) more or less likely to attract racism?

Fascism was brought up as well in this conversation (it usually is from the Left), here is my “quick” clarification:

Also, fascism is a leftist doctrine, not a right doctrine: WHAT IS FASCISM

EPA versus JOBS and Common Sense

Published by Papa Giorgio

“I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology….  many environmentalists are showing signs of elitism, left-wingism, and downright eco-fascism. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism. The public is left trying to figure out what is reasonable and what is not.” Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace.

HotAir h/t:

School Spending and Union Budgets (Dick Morris and Dennis Prager)

Published by Papa Giorgio

In this first video Dick Morris goes over the legislature control and gubernatorial leadership in about 20 states that Republicans are taking over control of in January. He explains one of the first glaring possibilities of change they will be confronted with and possibly try and truly change (let’s hope so):

Dennis Prager touches on just how much these unions (yes, teachers unions as well) are bankrupting the nation. He references an Economist magazine article that is also referenced in a previous post entitled, “500-Billion Unsecured California Pensions and growing; 3.2 Trillion Nationally” – below, Prager hits the nail on the head in his saying these are deals with the devil: