Right News and Views

I’m not sure if the below is an actual letter to an actual student protestor, but it is the content itself which struck me. It’s an incredibly good analogy. I wish I had thought of it.

This letter was written by Charles Grennel and his comrades, veterans of the Global War On Terror. Grennel is an Army Reservist who spent two years in Iraq and was a principal in putting together the first Iraq elections in January 2005.

They wrote it to Jill Edwards, student at the University of Washington, who did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg Boyington.

Ms. Edwards, other students and faculty do not think those who serve in the U.S. armed services are good role models.
—————————————————————————————————————————-

To: Jill Edwards, Student, University of Washington

Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs

Miss Edwards, I read of your student activity regarding the proposed memorial to Colonel Greg Boyington, USMC, and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive many angry emails from conservative people like me.

You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your naivete. It may be that you are simply a sheep. There’s no dishonor in being a sheep, as long as you know and accept what you are.

William J. Bennett, in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997, said “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident. We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people, not capable of hurting each other except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

Then there are the wolves who feed on the sheep without mercy. Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that, or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

Then there are sheepdogs, and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. If you have no capacity for violence, then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined [yourself as] an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the unsheltered path.

Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep.

They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms, and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kids’ school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard. So they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot, and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic, such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land.

They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go Baa. Until the wolf shows up Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog, when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be.

Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter. He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America, said “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that would destroy 98 percent of the population.

Research was conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders, and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said they specifically targeted victims by body language:

Slumped walk, passive behavior, and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep, and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When they learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd and the other passengers confronted the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people, and parents - from sheep to sheepdogs - and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

Edmund Burke said “There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” Here is the point I want to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature, the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They don’t have a choice.

But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep - and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die, if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you.

If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down, and you will never have rest, safety, trust, or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip, and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes/no dichotomy.

It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep, and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between.

Since 9/11, almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously.

Its OK to be a sheep, but do not kick the sheepdog. Indeed, the sheepdog may just run a little harder, strive to protect a little better, and be fully prepared to pay an ultimate price in battle and spirit with the sheep moving from “baa” to “thanks.”

We do not call for gifts or freedoms beyond our lot. We just need a small pat on the head, a smile, and a thank you, to fill the emotional tank which is drained protecting the sheep. And, when our number is called by The Almighty, and day retreats into night, a small prayer before the heavens just may be in order to say thanks for letting you continue to be a sheep. And be grateful for the millions of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.

Charles Grennel

Sen. Arlen Specter recently called Reid “dictatorial” in reference to his obnoxious behavior and, particularly, to the all nighter that revealed how big a failure the majority party is.

As to being dictatorial, what else would you expect from a Democrat, the totalitarian party of America? They want to force their view (that government can do for you what they think you’re too stupid to do for yourself) upon everybody.

For example, you can’t opt out of Social Security because they have forced it on you- clearly, they believe you’re too stupid to plan for your own retirement in a country that’s economy is the envy of the world.

And their attack dog, the ACLU, forces a minority view that no crosses should be displayed on public lands in as many cases as it possibly can. Again, you must be stupid if you have faith in or simply believe in God.

They also use activist judges to impose their twisted view of reality on students who simply want to participate in JROTC in high school. Why, don’t those stupid boys know that their freedom came from the halls of Congress and not the military heroes who fought and died? Or so the liberal “logic” goes.

There are a lot of other things they force upon the people as well- and so I can’t think of many better words for them than totalitarian.

The best news in this piece is that the surge is, indeed, working- and that we are making progress in Iraq. But the second best news is that the American public apparently understands that the Democrats are failures- and were a poor choice after all when compared to the almost, but not quite, as inept Republicans.

Speaking of Reid’s all-nighter, it notes that “such maneuvers have earned the Democrat-led Congress the American public’s contempt. They’ve rewarded this Congress with a 14% approval rating — the lowest ever.”

14%- that’s lower than Bush’s current rating. I wish I could say this is because Americans are finally waking up to the threat the Democrats pose to our nation. Unfortunately, I rather think it’s just because the Democrats have failed on virtually everything they said they wanted to “accomplish” and the ill-informed and short-sighted voters that sent them to majority statues are frustrated with them. But accomplishments are good things and there is little, if anything, good that the Democrats want to do. So whatever they do it can’t be called an accomplishment (kind of like you can’t consider retreat an “accomplishment.”)

I hope everyone realizes this by 2008.

In this weeks column I explain that crusaders with pure motives don’t have the right to force me to join their crusade. If they do force me then they are trampling on my individual liberties. Despite however pure their motives are they just don’t have that right. If, for example, they take my money to directly benefit someone else then they are thieves.

If they force me to shut up because I believe the Bible when it states that homosexuality is wrong they are suppressing my right to free speech. If they suppress my right to say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter” then they infringe upon my right to freedom of religion.

Now, who could these totalitarians be? Why, I do believe they are liberals.

If it is logical or protects innocent people Democrats don’t want it.
Are they afraid people might actually help catch terrorists and so want to do something to discourage them from acting? Normally I feel Dems are just short-sighted- but I can’t call this anything but pure stupidity.

Harry Reid failed in his attempts last night to send Iraq down the road to genocide- as the Senate voted 52-47 against allowing mass numbers of Iraqis to die at the hands of terrorist fanatics.

Still, it’s a very troubling thought that 47 Senators (almost half of the whole lot of them) are so shortsighted that they would vote in favor of abandoning the progress we’ve made, crushing the hopes of so many Iraqis that freedom may yet the theirs, and, above all, allowing a slaughter that will surely come as one sect squares off against another.

Reid is either too short-sighted to understand what will happen or he just doesn’t care. Either way- he’s a sad specimen to be at the head of affairs in the Senate.

In John Stossel’s piece, Where Michael Moore is Wrong, not only does he explain why our health care system is superior to anything Moore suggests but he gives us words to live by: “if government would just get out of the way.”

Brilliant piece!

After reading The New New Atheism by Peter Berkowitz, I’m struck by the fact that so much blame is placed on religion for so many of the world’s problems. True, fanatical Muslims are a problem. As were certain Christians during the Spanish Inquisition. But blaming God for what man does make’s as much sense as blaming Nancy Pelosi for the recent shooting of a US soldier by an anti-war nut job. I find Pelosi repugnant and loathsome but what that psycho did certainly cannot be laid at her feet. He pulled the trigger- he alone is to blame. To believe anything else is to buy into the liberal mantra that one is not – or should not be - accountable for their own actions.

Attackers of religion also turn a blind eye to the fact that people’s faith often leads them to do good to their fellow man where no other catalyst for doing such good exists. How many churches help the homeless, feed the hungry, and offer a welcome to those many others turn away from? What of the monks that preserved so much ancient knowledge and history throughout the Middle Ages that otherwise could have been lost forever? What about the men and women who lead crusades against injustice based on their belief in God’s word? There is value in having a strong faith in God.

True, there are those who twist God’s word to their own ends and do evil, harmful things to others in God’s name. But man can twist anything that way- not just religion – and often does.

I can speak only for myself here but if there were no God, and I had no faith in Him, then I surely would have murdered someone by now. Without God I would adhere to the law of the jungle for, without God, that is indeed all I believe man is - an animal.

Good an evil are, therefore, not concepts created by man- the sheer variation in what some people consider and define as good (which, to others, is considered and defined as evil) alone should be enough to at least make one consider the possibility of the truth to the universal standards of what is and is not right according to God’s standards.

But the Bible warns us that men will call good evil and evil good- and that believers will be persecuted, mocked, and ridiculed. The response is to pray for those that attack you, attack God, and do not believe. It can be hard - I know – but God loves them just as much as He loves anybody else.

My wife and I recently saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I was sitting there, enjoying the film and minding my own business, when a thought suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks. This thought concerned Dolores Umbridge, the overbearing, nasty, narcissistic, and snobbish new professor of the Defense against the Dark Arts class at Hogwarts who later becomes “Grand Inquisitor” of the school.

It is impossible not to dislike Umbridge. Indeed, it is very easy to outright despise her and I could not help but see parallels between her behavior and the actions of certain politicians. Consider the following points and you’ll see what I mean.

First, she believes that creating more rules – laws – is the answer to every problem – or, in many cases, perceived “problems.” She is part of the “Ministry of Magic,” after all- in Harry Potter-speak that means “Congress.” At Hogwarts she has rule after rule after rule posted in glass cases on one of the hall walls in attempt to first simply control but then later to actually target students. One of the best scenes in the film occurs when all these rules come crashing down around her- and all of the students she has suppressed cheer at the sight.

Secondly, she seeks to portray those who disagree with her as liars. By obscuring the truth through control of the student’s speech she seeks to stifle all descent. She devises a particularly nasty means to keep Harry Potter from continuing to warn others about the coming danger. Not as nasty as influencing by lying through most of the media outlets but nasty nonetheless.

Thirdly, she means well but fails to see how much chaos and harm she is actually causing. The school becomes a virtual prison with more and more of the student’s freedom suppressed. Much the way Congress, through high taxes, stifles the freedoms of the people.

Lastly, and most serious of all, she denies the obvious truth that a clear and present danger, Voldemort, threatens a great many lives. Despite the obvious evidence of this danger she blissfully refuses to consider even the possibility that an enemy exists who is bent on killing all that refuse to join his dark regime.

Sound familiar? If you’ve realized JK Rowling must have patterned Umbridge on well-meaning but short-sighted liberals then go to the head of the Defense against the Dark Arts Class.

In my latest column, I discuss the hypocrisy of Democrats who have attacked Bush on the pardon of Libby. Republicans practice similar behavior, of course, but Democrats are worse.

Peter J. Wallison’s What We Pre-Empted makes an excellent point (one of many, many excellent points) in support of the initial invasion of Iraq. He claims that “almost no outcome in Iraq would be as adverse to the interests of the United States as today’s world with Saddam still in power.”

That’s a “well, duh” to me but liberals don’t understand this. They somehow imagine in their fevered minds that everything would be just perfect if the bad old Bush was not in the White House. Yes, of course, the Texan is the problem- not the genocidal dictator. This extreme, even gross, lunacy and shortsightedness is dangerous to our national interest, not to mention our very lives.

It’s just amazing, that’s all. To a liberal, government can solve any problem if we just give them more of our money and more of our freedom. But let the government decide to use the military to solve a problem and then suddenly, like the children they are, they cry, wine and moan unceasingly.

The deficit falls! Blast those pesky “tax cuts for the rich” - they are spurring our economy to grow.

Tony Blankley offers an excellent example of how things are verses how things were not in World War II. But it is to be expected when effeminate, weak, cowardly, and shortsighted politicians rule the Congress. Glad Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Iraqi genocide pushers were not in power then or there would be no Jews left on earth and we would be speaking German- or Japanese.

Amazing – frightening, really - how ignorant of history our leaders are, isn’t it?

Patrick Poole makes a very interesting point in his op-ed Media Silence on Antiwar Violence. A soldier – one of the men that insures we continue to enjoy our freedoms – gets shot by an a gunman intending to make an antiwar statement and you don’t hear a thing about it on the news. But had the soldier “been an abortionist or homosexual, this story would be front page news for the New York Times and the lead story on CBS News with Katie Couric for at least the next month.”

The gunman committed suicide- which, though it would have been better for him to have been caught and put to death by our justice system – is good enough for me. Truly sad thing to say and feel but, as we know, our twisted society would have failed to give him the death penalty for wonton, premeditated attempted murder. Indeed, he would probably have gotten off completely if he could have somehow made it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They might have even given him a medal- the socialist, amoral sickos…

“This is not our fight,” says Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd in a recent op-ed calling for genocide to begin as quickly as we can pull our troops out of Iraq. The message from the two dim.. excuse me, Dem Senators? “Let them die, en mass, we don’t care.”

Ah, but they are interested in war. The so-called “war on poverty” is a fight they can really sink their fangs into. If people only have one television or they work at minimum wage – well, that’s a huge problem to Democrats- far bigger than the mass death which is what surely will occur if we abandon Iraq.

Democrats say they care – which is how they justify stealing out of our paychecks – but it seems to me that people who actually care would choose preventing genocide over making sure the poor get more of the wealth. Poverty is, clearly, sad- but I would rather be poor and alive than tortured and killed.

The passive evil of the Democrats rivals the active malice of Hitler. How many of the unborn, how many Iraqis, and how many other innocents are going to have to die before Americans see these people for what they are?