Saturday, October 28, 2006

Perry Logan is...a bit off

First off, let me start by saying that although I adamentally disagree with Perry Logan 99.9 percent of the time (including his embellishment of the facts, or altogther dismissing of them, i.e lies) I do agree with his statements on 911 conspiracist, Alex Jones. Jones never sources his findings or quotes and consistently lies about the facts of September 11, 2001. In fact if you want to check this humerous and (believe it or not) accurate description of Jones, go here. But enough has been said and proven about Moonbat Jones. On to Logan...

Logan claims in his latest tirade "The Sounds of Failure 2" that Republicans have a "total, across the board failure". Nevermind the fact that Iraq has had their first, real, free democratic elections in their history, children are back in school-especially girls, they now have a (albeit frail) government that is accountable to the people, the economy is solid, the dow-jones was at record numbers for two straight weeks, the U.S. hasn't been hit by a major terrorist act in over five years, we now have an ally in the Middle-East other than Israel, among other things. He claims the Bush administration "hid" military prisoners from Red Cross examinations (of course being a typical lefty, he has absolutely no proof). This is totally untrue of course, but if it weren't, how is that any different from Democrats say, oh I don't know...hiding classified documents in their pants, or hiding thousands of dollars in their freezers, or, a Democratic president hiding the fact that he had an affair with an intern, or with many other numerous women since he was govenor. Then he hides the fact that anyone who was determined to expose this; was threatened with an audit. But Logan would tell you, that was then, this is now.

He claims "The Bush administration sent troops to battle without adequate body armour." Has he gone totally sideways? Even though it is true that the troops were sent in to battle without the body armour they needed, Logan conviently neglects to mention that it was Bill Clinton and his cuts to the military (not to mention cuts to national police services and to the well-known, but often excused, walls in the intelligence community ) that sent American troops to fight all-the-way unprepared. If it makes Logan feel any better, Canadian defence was cut so bad (again by liberals) that not only did we show up in green fatigues in the desert, but we had to hitch a ride with the Americans to get there.

Back to Logan's dissing of Alex Jones for a second. Again, even though I think Jones is a leftty-koolaider, Logan has a quote of Jones' up on his site that says,
"I'm telling you: more terrorists are coming. And each event gets bigger as they get more funding."
Logan signs the quote, Alex "Wrong So Far" Jones.
While Jones has been wrong on pretty much everything he has espoused, he, at the time of this quote, Dec. 27, 2001, was not wrong at this.

Since Sept. 11, there have been many attempts of terrorism plots. Only, it's been because of the Patriot Act (which includes what the democrats have wrongly repeated as "domestic spying") that we are not talking about the deaths of thousands and thousands of American, and to that effect, Canadian citizens. These include: Richard Reed and his shoe bomb, the Millenium Bomber and his plot to blow up LAX, the Toronto 19 up here in Canada and the plot by Muslim extremists (surprise, surprise) to blow up 10 or more commercial airliners en route to America, among many others. NOTE TO PERRY LOGAN: Just because the Bush administration stopped the plots from happening (with much help from British intelligence and authorities) doesn't mean they weren't planned and almost carried out.

Some other embellishments or downright lies by Logan:
- He claims that democrats never voted for the war and that anybody who says it are "aiding and abetting the Republican Party and must be hearded into camps."
Well, perhaps Mr. Logan should better his time checking the facts instead of laughing at his childish sound effects like fart sounds and sitcom laugh-tracks.
Quite simply, (and I'll put in lamens terms so even Logan can understand it) when President Bush and the republicans introduced the bill to forcefully disarm Saddam Hussein, all but four democrats voted for it. (including the now-thank God-disposed Cynthia McKinney) When they took a second vote, which indeed happened and was not blocked by the republicans (where he got that from, I have no idea) the democratic vote increased by two, including that of John Kerry. Ipso facto, if Kerry didn't vote to go to war, why did he famously and foolishly say, "I actually did vote for the $187 billion before I voted against it."

As for Logan's claims about "viewing false information" *SIGH* one more time. Every intelligence community in the world said the same thing. HUSSEIN WAS DEVELOPING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Was it faulty intelligence? Well, 500 WMDs have been found in Iraq. What's the Dems excuse for this one? "They weren't the ones we went to war for!" To that I say (other than sour grapes) IT DOES PROVE THAT HUSSEIN LIED TO WEAPONS INSPECTORS AND THE WORLD, again defying U.N. resolutions, for the upteenth time. That was legally (according to those resolutions) reason enough to remove Hussein from power.

If the Bush administration saw the same evidence as the intel communities in Britain, Japan, Russia, Australia, Germany and Egypt, as well as everyone in Congress, and he's lying, then so are all the people that saw the evidence and voted for it, including most Democrats.

Logan wants you to believe that "No Democrat 'clearly stated' that their vote was "a blank cheque to go to war" They knew what they were getting themselves into and now they want to disassociate themselves from it. Oddly enough, the only democrats that have a right to complain about anything are the ones who originally voted against a forced military removal of Saddam Hussein, which is exactly what the bill was- and they know it.

Logan has a mile-long list of Republicans who have either been convicted of or admitted to pedophilia (for the ones that he assumes are pedophiles due to the lack of factual evidence, they should not be listed at all and Logan should know better) Yes, there have been way too many senators and representatives on both sides that have preyed on young children or adults. But do you notice when the republicans have one of these twisted beings in their party, they are given the heave ho, while the democratic ones are made out to be heroes? And to that effect, why is it that when democrats are caught in a scandel, talking heads like Nancy Pelosi roll out excuses for them, while the MSM pretty much ignores their infidelities, save for a few soundbites that last about two days and are never heard about again. But when a Republican displays such an "abhorant personality disorder" (Democrats words, not mine) it's news for a year.

I'm not going to create such a list as Logan did (and no, not because I can't, but because I really don't want to spend the next three hours compiling it) I will however list names that are just as involved in sex scandals as Republicans are. Not to marginaliize what the Republicans did, but to show how hyprocritical Logan and his types are. The following is a list of names (including a few of the 176 criminals that President Clinton pardoned in his rush for a legacy of corruption)

-Gus Savage
-Fred Richmond
-Charles Robb
-Brock Adams
-John Young
-Wilbur Mills
-Wayne Hays
-Gary Condit
-Jim Bates
-Daniel Inouye
-Gerry Studd
-Sheldon Silver
-Michael Boxley
-Gary Sipling
-Mel Reynolds (convicted child molester-pardoned by Clinton, now working for Jesse Jackson as a "youth counselor")
...among others. So Mr. Logan, stop showing only half the story.

Logan Faux pas:
Republicans -
"Wanted to stay with England" (the Republican Party didn't even exist at the time of the American Revolution)
-For the record-it was exactly men like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Payne (future Republicans) that wanted to succeed from England

"Supported slavery"
-This is probably the biggest lie Logan is spewing. It was a Republican president (Abraham Lincoln) that fought tooth and nail against Union delegates and his own generals, but mostly Southern DEMOCRATIC estate and slave owners, to free the slaves. Ever heard of the Amancipation Proclamation?

"Opposed, harrassed and intimidated newly freed slaves..."
-Point of fact: In 1862, the Union and it's President created the Confiscation Act, the American Freedman's Inquiry Commission in 1863, the "Freedman's Bureau" in 1865. All designed to give ex-slaves all the rights and privelges of "white men". Did these programs do the job? Of course they did, as many ex-slaves became soldiers, politicians, teachers, doctors, lawyers and other professionals. Although there were corrupt individuals in these young programs, how do you tell a party that was responsible for the medical treatment of 500,000 ex-slaves at 100 hospitals that they are racist? Was there and is there still racism in the free world? Of course, but do you really think either party has been responsible for racism today? Is it a government-funded bias? Give me a break. By the way, why don't the Libs ever acknowledge the 500,000 whites that died freeing the slaves? Nevermind, we all know the answer to that one.
Even today, racism is only an issue when it is irrellevently raised by the NAACP, ACLU and by people like Jesse Jackson (who cheated on his wife, fathering a child out of wedlock) and Al Sharpton, who are themselves the biggest racists of the 20th century.

"Opposed preserving the Union"
-O.K, this is probably the worst of his lies...

"Condemed southern and western farmers to poverty"
-Actually it was a time in American history called "The Great Depression".

"Opposed the Marshall Plan"
Um, no, sorry. The Marshall Plan bolstered the American economy, opened up Europe to the common market and helped to rebuild Europe. It passed through Congress mostly because of Stalin's objection to it. The Republicans jumped on it. Does this sound like something that Republicans, the money-grubbing party that they are, would refuse?

"Opposed Food Safety and Food Labeling Laws"
-The FDA was a bill brought forth by the Republican Party.

"Opposed the Voting rights Act of 1965"
-This bill included the rights of illegal immigrants to vote.

"Supported the war in Vietnam and the Bombing of Cambodia"
-Let's see, communism was in full-swing in Eastern Asia, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that where the enemy were?
A war, by the way, which America "lost" because of the ignorant misinformation of the media and people like Logan.

"Screw up the Educational System"
-As opposed to the Democrats installing and heavily supporting overpaid, terrorist-supporting, revisionist university professors who want to turn their students against America. Is it any wonder that the number of home-schooled children is on the rise?
Also, isn't it the Democrats that oppose public education vouchers, that have been proven to be very feasible? Then again, we're dealing with Democrats and the facts here.

"Make the government bigger"
-Huh? Look at the numbers. Bush (43) cabinet is tremendously smaller (and way more ethically diverse) than Clinton's. And Reagan's was smaller than Carter's.

"Lost a Major City"
-I assume Logan is speaking of New Orleans. I believe it was an act of God named Hurricane Katrina. But Democrats and lefty-moonbats would have you believe that President Bush sat quietly by the levies and waited until the time was right, then KA-BOOM!
If the Democrats have their way and do win the House or Congress (or God forbid both) and leave their terrorist buddies to do exactly what they're doing right now, they'll lose more than a city.

"Commit Treason on a Daily Basis"
-Don't make me laugh. Who is defending Cindy Sheehan and the New York Times and want to cut and run (Carter, Clinton) anyways?

"Allowed, Through Incompetance and Fecklessness, the Worst Terrorist Attack in World
-Yeah, you read that correctly. If this claim wasn't so morally outragous and historically inaccurate it would almost be funny.
How can I put this mildly and easy enough for democratic sheeple to understand?
Clinton+Berger+Albright+Intelligence"Walls"+ real total incompetance= 9/11

"Gave Us the Most Corrupt Administrations in American History"
-Again, I know. It's almost funny.
I can refute this in one word. I'll even spell it out for you: C-L-I-N-T-O-N
For the record, Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, you know.

"Impeach Only Capable Presidents"
-Yeah, capable of sodomy, purgery, incompetence,obstruction of justice, letting former allies become enemies, selling missle secrets away to the Chinese, and all the rest of the stuff that Democrats and liberals love to see in their presidents.

"Have Given Rise to a Tidal Wave of Resurgence of Islamic Radicalism form Africa to Indonesia"
-First off, weren't these "radicals" killing Americans and Christians in general before Bush and even Reagan took office? Weren't they pulling off unanswered terrorist plots and assassinations since (at least) 1979?
Secondly, if it is a "resurgence" of Islamic "radicalism" (like it can be solved by a talking to, i.e. negotiating, or a simple spanking) doesn't that mean there was an original "movement" to their cause? You wouldn't know it by listening to left-wing whackos like Michael Moore and Perry Logan.

"They Are Generally Either Fat or Gay?
-Yep. when liberals can't debate, they attack. No facts, just emotion. But then again, I thought Democrats loved homosexuals. Why is it whenever (supposedly) politically correct liberals attack someone, they use the stigma of homosexuality? They fight for the rights of gays (or so they want you to believe) but when it comes to assaults, calling someone gay or a homosexual is at the top of their lists.

etc, etc, etc.

Face it, we'll all be DEAD with the Democrats! Go Reps.

But again, at least even Perry Logan knows a total kook when he sees one.

But Remember, Everybody Loves Us...Right?

So here we go. Here's even more proof that we're the aggressors, that we are the cause for all the world's ills, and that everybody indeed loves us pacifist peacekeepers.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Canadian Role a Myth

With our brave men and women serving valiantly over in Afghanistan in the War on Terror, it greatly pains me to hear ignorant and insincere "men" like NDP leader, Jack Layton wanting to negotiate with the Taliban and to cut and run to serve in more "humane" missions; such as peace-keeping.

First off, the fact that Layton wants to sit down with an enemy that will probably cut your throat as soon as you step foot inside the tent (You don't think he would personally make the trip, do you?) shows you just how much the man is out of touch with reality. He actually believes that these murderous facists can be reasoned with and be made to understand that we can "be friends" and will actually adhere to any cease-fires or agreements. He actually believes that terrorists want to build schools and let the Afghani youth (especially the females, right?) be educated. He really wants Canadians to believe that there can be "peace in our time" with groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda. There is a reason Canadians have never voted the NDP to power, it's because even socialist-indoctrinated citizens know that he is a cowardly, flip-flopping terrorist sympathizer who knows nothing of defense.

To want to enbolden the enemy with a time-table for withdrawal (never mind the fact we are committed to NATO and any such time-table is not up to us) to show them weakness by letting them think if they kill a few of our soldiers, we'll run like the paper tigers they think we are and pull a Jimmy Carter by leaving a country's people, who want us to stay, at the (non) mercy of the evil regime that will take over is, as history has shown, sentencing to death not only the present Afghani government and their entire families, but anyone and everyone who assisted or supported the fragile leadership.

Secondly, for all of those who think that Canada's role internationally is merely walking around countries, who apparently haven't yet embraced the concept of paved roads; wearing blue berets and breaking up neighborhood fights, you have let yourself be caught up in the left's revisionism. Those like Layton are peddaling fairy tales of pacifism. They claim that Canada's role in peacekeeping has been an on-going mission since 1948. They want others to swallow the B.S. that Ottawa has sent troops to 40 other peacekeeping missions since then.

Sunil Ram, a professor at the American Military University, who is currently writing a book on peacekeeping says those numbers are misleading.

It seems that we haven't been involved in peacekeeping as much as Layton and his buddies would want you to believe. You can read the story, here.

Notice the quote by Ram when he says,
"The golden age of Canadian diplomacy ended 40 years ago." He adds that since then, Canada has been spending "most of our time in war, fighting."

The last sentence in the story, I think, says it all.
"We have to do our part in the defence of the West and defence of democracy and that requires fighting sometimes."

But then again, what do you expect from a party founded by communists?
  • /* Profile ----------------------------------------------- */ #profile-container { margin:0 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px dotted #444; padding-bottom:1.5em; } .profile-datablock {