Sunday, March 27, 2005 

Intellectual Package Deals

While carpooling to work one day several years ago, I had a recent acquaintance ask me what my two favorite music groups were. I didn’t have to hesitate. I knew exactly what they were and told him so: Rush and Cheap Trick. His face got that glazed over look that dullards get when confronted with an idea that didn’t come out of the Handbook of Social Orthodoxy. It didn’t surprise me. What surprised me was his telling me, “No they aren’t.”

Now it was my turn to get the slack-jawed look. I recovered fairly quickly and with keen intellectual acumen I said, “Huh?” He promptly explained that those couldn’t be my top two favorites because they weren’t anything alike. It seems that my two favorite bands had to be very similar to each other. Cast in the same mold so to speak. That was the day that I realized that ideas come with baggage for most people and you’re not allowed to break up the set.

I wish I could say that such thinking was limited to music, but it’s not. I think we’ve all been confronted at one time or another with people who insist that if we believe one thing we must either believe or disbelieve something else. I’ve been told that if I believe in capital punishment then I absolutely have to believe in abortion, yet I’ve always believed the opposite position was true. We’re lucky if the subject at hand is something trivial like my music example, but not so lucky if it extends to religion, philosophy, ethics, or politics. These are the times when friends are lost and enemies are made.

Far worse are the intellectual package deals that aren’t as explicit as in my examples. Bad ideas and faulty reasoning are smuggled into your mind as implied and unquestionable facts necessary to support some disingenuous statement. The most recent example that I’ve seen was an article about the inroads the Republican Party has made with minorities, women, and the so-called working class. The article didn’t bother to deny the trend. In fact, reported it quite honestly. Then, in the next sentence, the article stated that research needed to be done to determine why these people were voting against their own best interests. What sneaked in the back door? The assumption that Republicans and Conservatives have nothing to offer those demographics and that if they vote for those candidates they are either foolish or have been fooled.

Rather than fret about it, I make a grand nuisance out of myself by shining light on these tactics. With a little practice it becomes quite easy to root out the hidden message and make it explicit. It usually embarrasses the culprit and opens the eyes of his intended victims.


OK, So I Lied--More Schiavo and Islamic Fundamentalism Too

OK, so I lied. It's not my fault I blundered across a post by a guy named Juan Cole. Frighteningly, but not surprisingly, he is a history professor at the University of Michigan. His brilliant take on the situation is that the Republicans stumping for Mrs. Shiavo are the same as Islamic fundamentalists. In fact they are using the equivilant of a medieval Islamic law called 'hisba':

The Muslim fundamentalists use a provision of Islamic law called "bringing to account" (hisba). As Al-Ahram weekly notes, "Hisba signifies a case filed by an individual on behalf of society when the plaintiff feels that great harm has been done to religion." Hisba is a medieval idea that had all but lapsed when the fundamentalists brought it back in the 1970s and 1980s.

and stunningly--

President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model.


One of the most objectionable features of this fundamentalist tactic is that persons without standing can interfere in private affairs. Perfect strangers can file a case about your marriage, because they represent themselves as defending a public interest (the upholding of religion and morality).

His argument has enough holes in it that it qualifies as an intellectual swiss cheese. Without a trace of irony, he supports his point with examples of Muslim outrages. I think people at UM need to start asking for their tuition back. Bah!


The Only Thing I'll Say About Terri Shiavo

I've been desperately searching my radio dial for something, anything, that isn't about Terri Shiavo. Why? Because it upsets me and I can't do anything about it. Everything that can be said has been said by thousands of people in thousands of different ways. I know the story, seen the grieving parents, heard the creepy husband, and suffered through the clueless liberal pundits until I'm ready to scream 'uncle'.

But then I read in Michelle Malkin's blog that the poor woman has been directly compared to a robot and indirectly to a dishwasher and microwave oven. The AP article states that people react to Kismet, the robot in question, as if it were actually alive and conscious. This is a disingenuous argument because people have always tended to anthropomorphize animals and machines that they interact with regularly. My step-mother once owned a car that she claimed hated her. I am sometimes convinced that my computer has a sick sense of humor and a really nasty mean streak. We both know, however, that this isn't really true.

Naturally, this makes me start gnashing my teeth. Referring to comatose or profoundly brain-damaged people as 'vegetables' has always infuriated me. This is degrading to the victims even if their souls have long since departed and beyond disrespectful of their survivors. Comparing them to objects which have never been alive and never will be is even worse. It seems ironic to me that many of the same people who claim, in essence, that she is no longer human no longer human are the same folks that have a stroke if you so much as step on a roach. Bah!

Friday, March 25, 2005 

Sometimes You Just Have to Love Paying Your Taxes

Everybody knows taxes take money out of your pocket. That’s reason enough to hate them right there and most sane people do. But I have another reason that I would bet that I share with most taxpayers as well. When we spend a dollar, and let’s just admit that paying taxes is spending money, we expect a dollar worth of value in return. Unfortunately, most of us get only a fraction of that. It easy to see why if you compare the few legitimate functions of government to what it actually does.

Few sane people would argue against national defense, basic law enforcement, border security, patent and copyright enforcement, the judiciary, and a few others. The much adored Thomas Jefferson said that, “The government that governs best governs least.” The problem starts when the Jeffersonian concept bumps squarely into the Rooseveltian Government’s-Finger-In-Everybody’s-Pie concept. That’s when the observant person realizes that the inmates are not only running the asylum—they’re rifling through your wallet as well.

It’s been said that a conservative is a liberal that was mugged by reality. I remember one of my first muggings. I was a very young man trying and failing to support a family of three on just over the minimum wage. I was standing in line hoping I had enough money to pay for the food in my cart when I noticed a commotion ahead. There was a man trying to buy liquor with food stamps and the cashier was desperately trying to explain that it wasn’t legal. Unfortunately, the man spoke virtually no English. When a translator finally arrived and explained it to him, he rolled his eyes in disgust, took out his wallet, and started thumbing through scads of hundred dollar bills in search of something smaller. On days like that you seriously think about joining the tax revolt.

But then there are days where you don’t mind paying your taxes at all. I lived in San Diego for many years and always got a thrill out of seeing the rows of gray warships at the Naval Station. It was always a pleasure to see ships being built or overhauled and all the hardware flying in and out of the North Island Naval Air Station. When the first Gulf War went down, we watched the news and were treated to the spectacle of the world’s 4th largest army being obliterated—in a trifle over four days.

Even today, in a world where the military was gutted to cash in on the “peace dividend” and the intelligence services were castrated out of liberal spite, we still managed to stomp the Taliban in two weeks. Doing it in the “graveyard of empires” no less. For an encore our troops did the same thing in Iraq. These are the days when paying your taxes is a little less painful.


What are Episcopalians All About?

My wife has a powerful itch to start going to church again. I've never been particularly religious but I'm willing to start going for the family's sake, but there's a hitch. What she's looking for in a church is exactly what I spent my life trying to get away from. We tried going to churches at random but that got old really quickly. We took a test that is supposed to determine which denomination best suits your beliefs. The results of course didn't match, but there was one exception. Both of us hit on Episcopalian/Anglican as our number two recommendation.

Problem is, neither of us know the first thing about this religion. We went to various websites related to it but they didn't get much past some vague generalities (I pretty much assumed the Jesus connection from the beginning). From what I could tell it sounds a little like Catholicism Lite. The pickings for local congreagations is pretty slim so it is hard to get information that way.

So, what I would ask is that if any of you folks that belong to this denomination happen to wander onto my site, please tell me a little about it. I would appreciate it. I'm getting really sick of being a different religion every week. Thanks.


Does Bush Have a Plan He Forgot to Tell Us About?

What the hell is the deal with Bush’s border policy? This is the one needling frustration I have with the man. I happily voted for him twice, originally considering him to be a “placeholder president”. Mostly someone to keep Gore out and keep the chair in the Oval Office warm until the 2004 election. Then came 9-11 and the man stunned me with his leadership, intelligence, and common sense. I voted for him eagerly and proudly the second time around. So why is it that his IQ dropped below that of a tree stump on border policy?

Michelle Malkin has written on this topic eloquently and thoroughly. There is an abundance of material on her blog in a post entitled Shame on President Bush. In it she provides information and links to other sites that detail the outrageous insanity of his policy.

Originally promising to tighten border security in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks he is pursuing a path that will make it weaker. Security and economic considerations, as well as increasingly rare common sense, dictate a diametrically opposed course of action.

Outrages include: Agreeing to a policy that will allow illegal aliens to drain hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Social Security funds into Mexico, forgetting his promise to upgrade the Border Patrol, proposing yet another amnesty program that will encourage even more illegal immigration, insulting the members of the Minuteman Project (American citizens who patrol the border voluntarily) as vigilantes, and others.

How does a man who sails so gracefully through some of the most troubling times in decades get a vital issue like this so wrong? I can think of a few reasons, none of them good. One, he doesn’t want to offend his Hispanic in-laws, he’s afraid of alienating Hispanic voters, he’s afraid of Vicente Fox, he believes the dreck about illegal immigration being good for the country, or he fears that businesses using illegal labor will turn against him. The only other possibility I can think of is that is part of some greater long-term strategy such as lulling terrorists and other criminals into a false sense of security in order to apprehend them later. Even if this last reason is true I think it is a big mistake. Allowing anonymous potential evil-doers to slip into the country is a formula for disaster.

Thursday, March 24, 2005 

Why I Don't Love Star Trek Anymore

I will love Star Trek no more, forever. It really pains me to say that. Like so many others I’ve spent ridiculous amounts of time parked in front of my television set watching Jim, Jean-Luc, and the others keep the Federation safe from tyranny. Unfortunately, if one grows and matures as he ages, the day comes when you realize that you’ve become part of the tyranny.

I can forgive the original series for its child-like naivety because it was a product of 1960s culture. But as the years went on and series followed series things didn’t change much. Even 90 some odd years beyond the Jim, Spock, and Bones era not only was 1960s liberalism still around, it had saved the Federation countless times and eventually was in the process of saving the galaxy. For those of us that are amazed that the country survived the 60s and 70s, it is a monumental gaffe that shatters our ability to suspend disbelief.

Once you’ve become aware of the immortal nature of 60s-style liberalism you begin to notice things about all of the various series. The Federation is allowed to take no action that might impact another culture, even if that action is necessary to promote the interests of the Federation or save someone’s life. Even oppressive and genocidal regimes were sacrosanct under the Prime Directive. In fact, most of the best stories required the characters to violate the Prime Directive. I don’t know about you, but to me this seems to devalue not only human life, but the lives of other sentient beings as well.

Then there are the not-too-subtle digs at some of the groups that I belong to. I find it too much of a coincidence that the uber-baddies of the galaxy are the Borg. Awesome villains to be sure and narrow-minded above and beyond the call of evil duty, but they strike a little too close to home for me. For instance, why is that they are all white? Why is that even when dark-skinned races are assimilated they still turn white? How come the evil Borg are so concerned with assimilation? Is it just a coincidence that this all-white group of evil-doers runs roughshod over everyone in its pursuit of universal assimilation? Seeing as how many Americans, me included, are frustrated by some immigrants’ refusal to assimilate into mainstream society, I don’t think so. I think this is a backhanded way of pushing the multiculturism agenda

Finally, why is it that the Ferengi get no respect? I know they’re hard to take sometimes, but after four decades of the smarmy, latter-day summer-of-love, pseudo-enlightened assortment of alien races in the Federation, they are a welcome breath of fresh air. In fact, they’ve become my favorite Star Trek species. I think they deserve a break. After all, they’ve been severely punished by Star Trek writers for being the uber-capitalists of the quadrant. For their superlative business and economic skills they have been condemned to be short, scrawny, hideous, and fang-toothed with grotesquely distorted facial features. They’re cowardly and untrustworthy, even with family. I’ve always wondered why the sleazoid race of the galaxy couldn’t be a bunch of extraterrestrial Marxists or Islamofascist-like religious bigots. The poor Ferengi are even gratuitously sexist and keep their women naked all the time. OK, so they allowed them one good quality. I stand by my original point. If you've ever listened to a liberal talk about the United States, it all sounds vaguely familiar.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 


Hyphenated Americans, or Hypho-Americans as I sometimes derisively call them, stick in my craw worse than just about anything else. I know that much has been written about them already but I feel compelled to add my rant to the debate. The phenomenon has been going on long enough now that I find many younger people can’t remember anything else and that troubles me.

It troubles me precisely because it flies in the face of everything I was taught to believe as a child. Things that I came to doubt in my rebellious years but passionately re-embraced as a young adult after much thought and introspection. One of those tenets was the Melting Pot concept. The idea that many different varieties of people could live together and become one people. That the new immigrant would change us a little and the previous immigrants would change him a lot. That out of Old World disharmony we could forge unity.

Naturally, this idea is scoffed at now, if it is spoken of at all. Latter-day “enlightened ones” have led us out of the melting pot desert and into the lush garden of multiculturalism. On the rare occasions when this antiquated notion comes up it’s equated with such things as ethnic oppression and, my personal favorite, cultural genocide. Apparently expecting a newcomer not to eat his neighbor’s dog is analogous to the wholesale slaughter of human beings on an industrial scale.

In my relatively short time on Earth I have seen the goal of national unity gradually pushed out of the American consciousness and slowly replaced by the standard of gratuitous diversity. Many of us grew up listening to teachers and other authority figures telling us that, “The true strength of American lies in its diversity.” It’s a very seductive saying. It tends to make one feel good just saying it. It is also a lie.

The true strength of America lies in its unity. There, I’ve said it. The unspeakable, unthinkable, politically incorrect truth. Yes, steel with its diverse components is far stronger than iron alone, but those components are smelted together and work as one. What is true for steel is metaphorically true for this nation as well.

The idea of a multitude of different, possibly mutually antagonistic, cultures occupying the same country is a very, very, very bad idea. You need only look to the Balkans or the Middle East to see the consequences. In the long run, unity is a life or death issue for the United States.

Which brings us to those Hypho-Americans? I must not have been paying attention because I don’t know exactly when we stopped being Americans and started being Insert-Subgroup-Here-Americans. All I know is that one morning I woke up and I was still an American while seemingly everyone else had turned into Hypho-Americans. I was surrounded by Hispanic-Americans, Afro-Americans, Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans (latter known as Native Americans, no hyphen, so go figure), Hindu-Americans, Muslim-Americans, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, blah, blah, and blah.

Yet in the middle of all that diversity you rarely, if ever, hear about Euro-Americans, British-Americans, or even Anglo-Americans, all of which I am—at least technically. Ask me what I am and I’ll tell you that I’m an American every time. Press me for my ancestry and I’ll tell you that ethnically I’m of English extraction but you won’t find me showing much enthusiasm about it. Why? Because I don’t identify with England or the English at all. Why not? Because I’m not English, I’m an American. The English are foreigners and I’m much more concerned with the welfare of my fellow Americans, regardless of where their ancestors came from. No offense to the English intended of course.

If I could be assured of living in an America which embraced capitalism, individual rights, personal responsibility, and self-determination, I would be happy for my “group” to make up only 1% of the population. Conversely, an America composed entirely of my “group” who were wall-to-wall socialists would be a living hell to me.

I hope that one day America can kick its hyphenation habit and we can all draw closer together as a people. To do this we will have to embrace the common heritage that we do have, the history of immigration and assimilation, and of Enlightenment Era ideals that survive few places other than here.

Monday, March 14, 2005 

What the Hell is a Conservative or Liberal Anyway?

Just exactly what is this conservative vs. liberal thing? This is a harder question than it may seem at first glance because, like so many things in life, meanings of words and phrases aren’t static. Tell someone today that another person is a conservative and he will mostly likely be able to tell you many things about that person’s political, religious, and moral philosophy, maybe even about that person’s taste in literature and entertainment. The same can be said for describing someone as a liberal.

The problem comes when you examine history and learn about how those people viewed themselves. You’re confronted with the realization that what is meant by those two terms has flipped to a great extent. Today’s liberal just might be yesterday’s conservative and vice versa. I think that to understand what’s going on you have to look at what the words meant as adjectives before they were transformed into nouns.

Taking a quick look at the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary I find the following definitions (among a few others) for the word liberal: marked by generosity: openhanded: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way: ample: not literal or strict: broad-minded: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms. Reading this people might say “This is liberalism? Then where do I sign up?” I know that’s what I would think.

Conversely, conservative is defined this way: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions: traditional: marked by moderation or caution: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners. This could be either good or bad depending on your perspective but it doesn’t sound too exciting, even to me.

A strange thing, however happens if we look at what the word liberalism traditionally has meant: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. If that sound familiar, there’s a good reason. It pretty much sums up the definition of modern day conservative belief and practice.

So how do we reconcile this apparent contradiction? The answer is both easy and hard. You have to interpret the terms in their historical context. In simpler terms you have to judge by what was meant when the words were originally spoken, not by what they might mean now in the political correct intellectual vacuum or our day. My own shorthand definitions are as follows: a liberal wants to change things; a conservative wants to preserve things. When times change but our terminology doesn’t, the terms swap meanings. So yesterday’s liberalism is today’s conservatism.
The creation of our country was the last dying gasp of the Enlightenment. The beliefs held by our founding fathers and most of the intellectuals of the time are sometimes referred to as classical liberalism to differentiate from modern liberalism, which is a very different creature. So if liberals want change and these guys were old-school liberals what change did they want? They wanted to live in a republic instead of a kingdom, democratic (small d) rule instead of absolute monarchy, reason instead of mindless emotion, free will instead of religious coercion. The list goes on. At the time, this wasn’t just change, it was radical change.

Many of these fine folks assumed that the United States would remain an agrarian nation, filled with gentleman farmers and the occasional craftsman. But latter day liberals wanted to change that established order and do something innovative. They wanted to massively industrialize the nation and secure the blessings of capitalism, so to speak. To the modern mind, this sounds an awful lot like one of those rascally conservatives.

Over time these radical changes became the established way of doing things. In effect, they became the new old-school. So when the anti-industrial, anti-capitalism backlash came it came along with a new flavor of liberal, that of a different group of people who wanted change. After a long and valiant struggle for their cause they prevailed. These folks reigned supreme in the United States from the Red Decade, the 1930s, to the 1990’s. The people that labored for so long to sweep away the establishment had become the new establishment. Unfortunately for them, they never noticed the change.

So what happened? Once this particular breed of liberals got many of their policies in place they wanted to preserve what they had accomplished; wanting to keep things as they were naturally made them the new conservatives in practice even if not in name. For some reason, I’m guessing force of habit, we continue to call these folks liberals. Meanwhile, conservatives wandered like a metaphorical Moses in the political desert for decades. When some effective leadership finally surfaced, we began to agitate for what? Change of course, which made us de facto liberals (classical ones anyway) but we continued to be known as conservatives. It is my view that both factions are currently mislabeled with a name that is more applicable to the other, at least for now.

We conservatives, as we are currently known, have seen some glorious things happen. I was always confident that someday the Left would be beaten back and cooler heads prevail, but I never expected to see so much change so fast, especially not in my lifetime. The victories are made all the sweeter by watching our rivals implode before our very eyes. Amazingly, their response to defeat has been to press the self-destruct button even harder.

It will undoubtedly be many years before the members of the Liberal Orthodox religion can wrap their heads around the consequences of their failure to adapt. These tragic souls continue to mistake the problem for the solution, much like public education. This blindness gives us a great opportunity to advance our cause but it won’t last forever. Eventually, the current liberal leadership will fade away and will be replaced with younger, more vibrant, thoroughly frustrated, and unbelievably motivated people. They will once again be liberals in essence as well as in name. By the time this happens, we will likely have achieved many or most of our goals and want to keep it that way. We will be true conservatives again. It is imperative that we not get complacent. Modern liberalism has great allure for most young people and the less experience and maturity a person has the appeal of liberalism is that much greater. We must remain active, engaged, and involved if our present good fortune is to continue.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005 

First Post

It's my intention to provide some grassroot level commentary and analysis of current events illustrated by some anecdotes from my own experiences. For some strange reason people love to discuss their personal lives and deepest held beliefs with me even when they wouldn't do it with someone closer to them. Because of these people I have learned that common sense is a misnomer applied to a rare and precious commodity-and that there are many truly scary people in the world whose vote counts just as much as yours and mine.

This is my first blog, or any serious attempt at a web presence for that manner. I expect to gradually expand it to cover a lot more areas as time permits. I'm always interested in hearing from like-minded individuals for an exchange of ideas and experiences. Thanks for checking in.

About me

  • I'm dostrick
  • From Texas, United States
  • The All Seeing Eye. A symbol of the Enlightenment and I like to think one day it will be a symbol of me. *** Middle-aged juvenile delinquent. *** Meyers-Briggs INTP if you follow that. *** My primary interests are in history, philosophy, languages, and literature. All the things that guarantee you'll never get a well-paying job.
My profile




You can't run as a phony patriot and then claim your victory is a mandate for surrender.

--Ann Coulter--

If you kill them, they’re martyrs. If you lock them up, they’re martyrs. So kill them.


The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow.

--Ayn Rand--

There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.

--Thomas Jefferson--

For everyone but America the free world is mostly a free ride.

--Mark Steyn--

The fact is that political stupidity is a special kind of stupidity, not well correlated with intelligence, or with other varieties of stupidity. At the higher levels of the intelligentsia, the correlation may actually be inverse: the more brilliant you are, the stupider your politics. Albert Einstein seems to have thought well of Stalin; Hitlerism got its start in the universities.

--John Derbyshire--

One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

--Robert A. Heinlein--

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last.

--Winston Churchill--

One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.

--Dennis Prager--

Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.

--Thomas Sowell--

It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.

--Calvin Coolidge--

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.

--Samuel Adams--

The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.

--Thomas Jefferson--

All government is an ugly necessity.

--G. K. Chesterton--

America learned the hard way: it's the world of September 10th that's really crazy.

--Mark Steyn

Public schools are forbidden from mentioning religion not because of the Constitution, but because public schools are the Left's madrassas.

--Ann Coulter--

We expect nothing from the MSM. It never disappoints us.

--Joe Guzzardi--

The world will not greet you with open arms, but with a clenched fist.

--Barry Goldwater--

Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families.

--Benjamin Rush--

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like a fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

--George Washington--

It should be the highest ambition of every bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.

--George Washington--

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

--C. S. Lewis--

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" until you can find a rock.


"They must cast off the European skin, never to resume it. They must look forward to their posterity rather than backward to their ancestors."

--John Quincy Adams--

I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

-€”Benjamin Franklin--

There is nothing a nonconformist hates more than another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the existing standards of nonconformity.


Male White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (W.A.S.P.) oppression must end.


[I]n Her Majesty's northern Dominion the public health system is such an article of faith that no private hospitals are permitted: Canada’s private health care system is called 'America'.

--Mark Steyn--

When I sell out, this is where the blogads will go. Please remember, it's not for me. It's for the children.


Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

--Theodore Roosevelt--

It's never too late to have a happy childhood.


Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.

-- G. K. Chesterton--

"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."

--Robert Frost--

A formula that makes religion and politics easy to understand: (Islam - Allah = Communism)


It seems amazing that no Continental politician is willing to get to grips with the real crisis facing Europe in the 21st century: the lack of Europeans.

--Mark Steyn--

Powered by Blogger

Get Firefox

The browser of the Gods

Get Thunderbird

E-mail done right

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates