Sheepdogs

26 March, 2010

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

A retired Army Colonel (a Vietnam veteran) recently wrote an article titled “Of Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs” which I found quite interesting. Essentially he compared our society to a flock of sheep, wherein the people are the sheep, those who threaten our society are the wolves, and our defenders (soldiers, police, and such) are the sheepdogs. He said: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." That’s quite true in general I think. Our crime statistics indicate that the majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates claim that two million Americans (six tenths of one percent of our population), are victims of violent crimes every year, perhaps an all-time record, despite the estimated eighty million American gun owners that didn’t shoot anybody last year. But with more than 300 million people in this land, the odds of being a victim of violent crime are considerably less than the media would have us believe. Furthermore, since most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, we can assume that the number of violent citizens in our country is considerably less than two million. We may well be in the most violent times in history, but for the most part we’re incapable of hurting each other, except by accident, or perhaps under extreme provocation.

Those people are the sheep, and I mean nothing disrespectful by calling them sheep. There's no dishonor in being a sheep, as long as you know what you are. And just what are those sheep? Sheep are the peaceful critters that happily munch their way across the pasture, getting ever nearer the forest wherein “here there be wolves”, happily forgetting (or denying) that any danger exists in their simplistic lives, or that they might be the one singled out of the flock by the wolf. They blindly follow anyone who might be momentarily out in front of the crowd. They do not want to believe that anything might disturb their happy life, and that is what makes them sheep.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep 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, let down your guard, or pretend it isn’t so, you become a sheep. "Then there are sheepdogs," the old soldier continued, "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 are a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and you care for your fellow citizens, what do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, do violence upon the wolves, and return unscathed. Now that I am retired from the ranks of the sheepdogs, and frequent the "pasture" more than the "woods”, I see this analogy to be truer than ever before.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like a wolf; he has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not and will not harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms so much as a single lamb will be removed and punished. Our world cannot work any other way. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He’s a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. 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. As Kipling said in his poem about “Tommy” the British soldier:

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"

But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He’s 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. Well, the young sheepdog yearns for a battle. The old sheepdog is a bit wiser, but he also moves to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young pup.
Finally we have the shepherd, the leader, and the brains behind the whole outfit. He cares for the sheep, leads them to safety, to water and fresh pastures. He calms their fears when things go awry. He directs the sheepdog in keeping wolf away from his charges.

The old soldier’s analogy was aimed at explaining those who protect us from physical evils. But it can readily be carried further in our society, and here I’m specifically thinking about our political lives. With that, the sheep are those who blindly follow whoever promises them the greenest pasture, never considering that the pasture may be full of nettles, or that the shepherd might have an idea that mutton is on the menu. Perhaps it’s a case of what might be considered best for the flock is not particularly part of his agenda at all.

The wolves in my extension of this analogy are those, foreign or domestic, who would enslave us in one way or another, stealing our freedoms of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, or perhaps just destroying our little corner of the pasture. The sheepdog is the fellow that watches the action, knowing full well that the wolf awaits somewhere. He sounds the alarm when the wolf appears, alerts the shepherd, and tries to drive the flock to safety. He’s a busy little fellow that the sheep would just as soon ignore because he disturbs their peace of mind as they happily wander towards the precipice. The shepherds are our leaders, those that we trust with our national well-being. And the sheep? 300 million American citizens who are “to busy” to be concerned with what’s happening to our nation.

And what are the sheepdogs expected to do when the shepherd does suddenly turn into a wolf? About the same thing we’ve always done I guess… Continue to sound the alarm, try to lead the flock away from danger, and prepare to protect them by whatever means possible.

Michael Moore

(19 March)
Immediately prior to Mr. O’s speech to the West Point graduating class, the press had reported that he was going to announce an increase in the US troops deployed in Afghanistan (which he did). Hollyweird legend and renown world problem solver Michael Moore immediately issued an “open letter to the president”. In that letter he said in part: “Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president, pure and simple.”

I’ve never really liked the term “War President” being used to indicate someone who prolonged a war, as it’s somewhat unfair to whoever happens to be sitting in the oval office when the shooting starts. After all, wars are generally something that takes quite awhile, often years, to get started, and a long time to end as well. The great pacifist Woodrow Wilson gave us WW I, but that can’t be blamed on him, even though his pacifist policies did help haul us into what was a purely European war.) The great socialist FDR gave us WW II, and that one can’t be entirely blamed on the President either, but his foreign policies finally made it inevitable. “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman gave us the war in Korea through a few foreign policy errors, and some erroneous high hopes on the part of the opposition. The “Cold War” can only be blamed on Joe Stalin’s intrangencies, even though several US Presidents bore the brunt of it, and they could rightly be called “War Presidents”. Vietnam exploded in our faces because of a good many blunders on the part of LBJ, yet another great socialist. George Bush the Elder tried to maintain the faltering status quo in the mid-east and gave us Desert Storm, along with Saddam’s “Mother of all Wars” fizzle. Smarting under that perceived “Insult to Islam” (we won the war); bin Laden gave us 9-11 and a lesson in international terrorism. Somewhat upset over that turn of events, George the younger kicked over the traces and sent our military romping and stomping all over Afghanistan and Iraq. Barry got lucky in that he just happened to inherit an ongoing conflict instead of having to start his own.

After raging on about the war a bit longer, Michael came up with this gem: “We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?” Just what has Mr. Moore been smoking!? “We love him”!? The name “Barrack Obama” is just about as popular at a TEA party meeting as is that of Sarah Palin at a White House staff meeting! As to a landslide victory, Mr. O wasn’t that far ahead at the count, so apparently the definition has changed considerably over the last year or so. Besides, I understand that the Olympic committee is going to take the gold medal away from Lindsey Vonn, and give it to Mr. Obama instead, as he’s about the only one who can go downhill faster than she does! I realize that Michael lives in the make-believe world of Hollywood, but he really should take a look at the real world before he starts giving advice to Washington.

Michael’s letter went on with; “And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike.” My comment to that is “Sorry guy, it’s all about power after all, and yes, politicians are all the same anywhere in the world, despite the platitudes.” The only difference is in how they go about accumulating their power, and what they later do with it.

Michael (along with most of the loony left) makes the mistake of assuming that wars can be turned on and off like a light switch. He also assumes that we’re fighting this war to win something. Rather, we’re presently fighting to prevent an Islamic war from spreading all over the globe, and threatening our very existence. What he does not mention, or more likely doesn’t understand, is that if NATO withdrew from Afghanistan right now, we’d leave behind a messy situation that would make the end of the Vietnam War look like child’s play! It’s not for us to walk away, but rather Islam itself has to clarify its position and solve the problem. Does it represent a religious ideology, or is it a socio-political ideology that demands the blood of non-believers? All of the above? Their aims and ambitions are somewhat confusing to the rest of us, and must be made clear to the world society. If they want peace, Islam has the responsibility of alleviating the fears of our global society, which is rightly feeling threatened.

And no, war is not the solution to any problem, it’s but a reflection of that problem. Wars begin when the politicians fail. The solution comes about when the war ends, and the politicians finally decide how to move forward. The men with guns can do nothing more than expend their young lives in buying time for the politicians and diplomats to decide how they’re going to handle things. Your mistake Michael, is to believe that having one of the participants walk away automatically settles the issue, and everyone can then live happily ever after in some pipe-dream utopian world.

My appologies

28 March, 2010

I’ll ask my readers forgiveness over the last couple of weeks, as, like the guy trying to drain the swamp, I’ve been up to my ears in alligators lately. First, due to some major computer problems I’ve been unable to access the Internet lately, while my electronic idiot-savant associate was being a patient in the computer hospital.

Even worse, from my viewpoint at least, I’ve been in the Portland VA hospital for the last week, getting some cardiac issues resolved. Seems that the VA Doctors have figured out how to “cure” my overly slow heart rate problems, and I now have a pace-maker installed in my ageing and somewhat sunken chest. (I’ll tell ‘ya one thing though, while it’s a comparatively minor operation, such a procedure definitely hurts!)

So, now that the both of us are supposedly fixed, I’ll try to get caught up with posting the last couple of installments, and get next weeks column written.

Between spectacles, hearing aids, and now a computerized addition to my heart, I guess ‘ya can just call me “Bionic Bob”.

10th Amendment

Barack Obama recently described the U.S. Constitution as "an imperfect document ... a document that reflects some deep flaws ... (and) an enormous blind spot." He continued by saying "The Framers had that same blind spot." With all that, he is attempting to justify disregarding the Constitution. Even worse, he has tried to place himself above the Constitution and those "blind Framers" who just couldn't see the “big picture”. Chuck Norris said of that commentary; “After all, he's the constitutional scholar, and the Framers were just, well, the creators of the document!” With Mr. Obama’s apparent total misunderstanding of the meaning of our Constitution, despite his scholarly credentials, it’s no small wonder that he keeps his college records as well hidden as his birth certificate!

What I find particularly infuriating is the federal government (and Mr. Obama’s) continued violation of the 10th Amendment, a part of our Bill of Rights that was ratified in 1791, and that served us so well until the birth of “big government” at the end of the Civil War. That amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Most people, myself included, get upset when our First Amendment rights (freedom of speech and freedom of religion) are threatened by the loony left, and particularly so when our Second Amendment rights (the right to keep and bear arms) comes under attack by the gun grabbers and the Judiciary. However, the Tenth Amendment is probably the most important of them all, in that it specifically limits the power of the federal government. Thomas Jefferson explained this amendment when he said: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Unfortunately we’ve forgotten those words over the last hundred and forty-five years, and have allowed the federal government to assume just about any powers they wished. Now, under Mr. Obama, the government seems to want total power over this nation and its entire population, contrary to the rules laid down by our nations founders. Perhaps the framers did have some blind spots, but I’d hazard a guess that they were a whole lot smarter than Mr. Obama and his leftist cronies!

The present bugaboo is the federal attempt to take over the health care industry. (Apparently their appetite was only whetted with the banking and auto industries.) With the counter argument being based on the 10th Amendment, the federal government doesn't have a leg to stand on! Even with waving the flag of “for the common good”, the feds do not have that authority. The several states do, but the federal government doesn’t, and besides, the government has, time and again proven itself incapable of running private business. How many times does it have to be pointed out to Washington that Medicare, and Medicaid, is rapidly going bankrupt under their “expert” direction. They can’t seem to keep the VA system working very efficiently either, and now they want to take over an entire industry that accounts for nearly a sixth of our GNP!? Who, in their right mind, would appoint anyone to manage a business that has a whole string of failures in his dossier?

The Tenth Amendment has become almost powerless (ignored by the feds) at this point in our history, but there are a great many reasons to bring it to the forefront. We must keep in mind that the Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states – not a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise. Why? The simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything – including local colonies from across an ocean. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local, as the people of a state know what is best for them; thus they do not need bureaucrats, ruling from thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Historian Kevin Gutzman said that those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.

Back to Thomas Jefferson, himself a source greater than any living constitutional lawyer, who wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson in 1823: "The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They did not learn from the past, nor were they aware of the slipperiness of the eels of the law. I ask for no straining of words against the General Government, nor yet against the States. I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market."

This abuse of federal power could exist only in a nation that no longer holds its leaders accountable to its laws, and governmental leadership that regards itself as above the people and the Constitution. Yes, it’s definitely time for a change, but not the sort of change that Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi envision.

Raise Taxes?

The latest word from Sodom-on-the-Potomac is that we’re going to have to raise taxes in order to pay down the deficit. Well Golly Gee Whiz, who could’a have seen that coming!? Of course, it's not an absolute certainty, or at least not according to the media, with the easier option being “quantitative easing”, a fancy term for printing even more money (a dirty phrase that economists don’t like to use). The “print more (worthless) money” option would devalue the currency and of course the debt, but would likely trigger a cycle of hyperinflation like we’ve never seen before. Raising taxes yet again is the less traumatic course, though it may not be accepted by the taxpayers. "Congress only responds to financial crisis or some other external shock," says Bill Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C. "Nothing will be done in Obama's first term to substantially increase tax revenue." Perhaps not, but by running up a monster deficit in their so-far vain attempt to keep the economy growing, Team Obama has set the stage for a Democratic political disaster, and likely bankruptcy for the nation. Never mind the concerns about mortgaging the future, as they’ve already sold us down the river! Remember Mr. Obama’s promises about only raising taxes on the rich? Humm… perhaps if you’re not rich you’d best lay in some extra groceries while you’ve still got the purchasing power to do so…

Higher taxes are coming soon, and they’ll hurt I’m sure. By some educated guestimates, the tax burden on Americans will probably double before the end of the next decade. The only real question is: What form will these new taxes take, and just how bad will it be? Last year British Prime Minister Gordon Brown raised his country's top rate for income tax to 50% from 40%. This came shortly after the decision to borrow more than a trillion dollars, and will bring Britain’s public debt to something like 79% of their GDP by 2013. ‘Course there’s been the expected weeping and wailing from the uber-rich, but the majority of Brits don't seem to care all that much. I suspect they figure they’re already broke, so what’s a few trillion more or less? The Obama gang might try a similar strategy for managing the mountain of debt on this side of the Atlantic, with an increase the top tax rate from 35% to 45%. It’s supposed to be a smaller amount in lower brackets, but I’m retired remember, and surviving on a quite limited income, so even a 5% boost in my taxes is really gonna hurt!

The upper tax rate peaked at 94% in the final years of World War II, remained above 90% for most of the 1950s, and held at 70% during the 1970s. Ronald Reagan became the great tax buster by cutting the top bracket to 28%. Even with that, liberals are happy to point out that the national debt exploded with the Reagan administration, which it did, but they conveniently forget to mention that that burst of spending not only ended the Cold War without nukes flying about, it also provided the military might that put an end to Iraq’s “Mother of all Wars” in just three days. Mr. Obama on the other hand has done more damage to our future economy than President Reagan ever thought of in his worst nightmares! Now, adding insult to injury, China, who holds a LOT of American treasury notes, has started unloading them on the suckers. That does not bode well for the American economy.

The expert economists are telling us they have a crystal ball and it says without more taxes things are going to be really bad. Yeah, just as not so long ago they told us it was just a small market correction and no big deal... and then the bottom dropped out. It seems to me that economists are nothing more that soothsayers with lots to talk about and nothing to say but opinion. Some of the amateur suggestions to solve the problem are interesting though. One thought being: “Here's a concept, CUT THE BUDGET BY 25% ACROSS THE BOARD! Do we really need all the city, county, state and federal employees? Obviously, the answer is NO! With all the talent they have accumulated on the government tit, they should be prime candidates to open various FOR PROFIT businesses. Gee, that would solve the unemployment issue as well. WOW, it seems so simple perhaps Washington D.C. should give it a go.” Another says: “I prefer that we simply quit spending more than we are bringing in and learn to live within our means. That is what the government tells us peons to do.”

One comment I particularly liked was: ” Here's a solution. Just raise taxes on the idiots who voted for Barry. In fact, tax them at 100% of their income. That ought to make them happy.” ‘Kay, but a lot of those folks are seriously regretting falling for Barry’s gift of gab… Another wit suggested: “Here's another idea: CUT ALL GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES. Cut the Congress, Senate, Supreme Court etc. to 100,000 a man a year. PERIOD. Let them pay into their health care, like we do. CLOSE DOWN their entitlement for life after leaving office. We fund these guys at FULL SALARY for the rest of their lives, even after they've been voted out of office!!! It has to start in Washington. The little guy has already taken as MUCH of a beating as he can take. It's time to PUT up in DC or SHUT UP." Will they do it?” Probably not.

As to Mr. O’s pet money spending project… "I DONT want the government running our health care system, they can’t even run the country without bankrupting us! What do they not understand about "cut spending?"

The Battle be Joined

The battle between liberals and conservatives has been long and often bloody as our history shows... and so far it appears that our next general election will be more of the same as the Republicans and Democrats battle each other, and now both face an irate Conservative TEA Party movement as well. No actual "lines in the sand" have been drawn... yet, but the the fangs are bared, the snarls are heard daily, while the fund raising and recruiting has stepped up considerably. While no mainstream politician has openly stated that they'll run for the Presidency, several are quietly gathering funds and positioning themselves for a campaign. Of the "fringe" contenders, only Sarah Palin currently seems interested, as indicated by her recent TEA party speech in Nashville.

"How's that hopey-changey stuff workin' out for ya?" she asked the convention. Classic Palin, and brilliantly delivered, as stated by one liberal pundit "she does folksy far better than George W. Bush or any of the other Republican focus-group populists ever did." That same pundit claims Sarah's speech was "inspired drivel, a series of distortions and oversimplifications, totally bereft of nourishing policy proposals". Humm... Drivel? Distortions? That depends on your viewpoint I guess. But it seems to me that it's still a little early in the "campaign season" to be making any serious policy proposals. After all, Mr.O has only had a year to work on his pet project of "changing" the greatest nation on the planet into a debt ridden third world has-been, and who knows what horrors he'll manage to pull off over the next three years!? But still, Sarah seems to be the favorite target of the lamestream media, and as we saw with Sen. McCain's campaign, she's eminently available for the left's favorite weapon, derision. In a interview with Chris Wallace the day after her Nashville speech, Palin said she'd been focusing more on "current events" since she quit as governor, and then corrected herself saying "national issues". The media had a field-day with that, informing all and sundry that current events is the high school term for the ocassional hour when students sleep through studying the state of the world. Her western American vernacular seem a bit odd to folks who've probably never been west of the Mississippi River in their lives, but that's OK I guess, as I don't understand their Ivy League accents either. The $100,000 speakers fee from the convention (that she plainly stated is going to "the cause") certainly roused their ire, but campaigns have to be funded somehow, and the TEA Party advocates don't have George Soros handy to pay the bills. Palin also brought up the fact that the Democrats don't produce many men of the people, but rather they produce idealists and elietist law school types who apparently don't understand the supreme law of the land. Which is a point I hope we'll be hearing a lot more about in the future.

Sarah's entire speech was delivered in her trademark "Abe Lincoln" folksy manner which seems to raise the liberal's dander, and that's a bit of a surprise considering that Lincoln was a raging liberal for his time. Some of her comments that seem so childish to the leftists include; "I am so proud to be American.", “May the best ideas and candidates win.", "We have hope that we can move things in the right direction...", "We will stand up … we will be counted.", "We have a vision for the future of our country...", "Washington has broken trust with the people.", "Our U.S. constitutional rights …", "Only limited government can expand prosperity.", "We're stealing the opportunities from our children.", and finally "Get government out of the way." Small government, lower taxes, greater individual liberties, more power to the states, and government according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the general principles that most tea-party activists agree on. And quite likely they'll agree with Palin's stated wish of "Allowing America's spirit to rise again … a God-fearing nation". She didn't have much to say about the Republican Party, but did encourage Tea Party aligned candidates to compete in GOP primaries, saying: "Contested primaries aren't civil war; they're democracy at work...". The former governor didn't specifically indicate whether her political future would extend to an actual presidential candidacy either, but given the attacks that Palin aimed at Obama and the Democrats, it seems like she's already running.

Things can get awkward when protesters have to put down their placards, start building an organization, and recruiting candidates. That shift is even more difficult in the glare of the national media spotlight. And, as with any protest movement, consensus has proven elusive. The tea-party folks are naturally suspicious of any established institutions, and that in itself would make the formation of another political party difficult, even though many would like to see that happen. "Form another party? Why would we want to do that? That's exactly what the Daily Kos wants us to do and we'd just be playing into liberal hands," said Andrew Breitbart, referring to a well known liberal blog. Personally I think a third party would almost guarentee Mr. Obama another another Democrat controled Congress, and probably another term, as it would split the Republican/conservative vote, much as Ross Perot's presidential bid made Bill Clinton a shoo-in. Still, one TEA member said "I see the problems but I also think that tea partiers would better represent me than Republicans right now." Recognizing the hazard, Sarah urged the movement to work within the system. "The Republican Party would be very smart to try and absorb as much of the tea-party movement as possible," she told the crowd. "Because the tea-party movement is the future of politics." Or perhaps as I believe, the movement should absorb the GOP instead, and dump the high and mighty power brokers that have consistantly ignored their conservative base for years.

Sarah has an image problem at the present time according to a Washington Post/ABC survey, claiming that 37 percent of Americans view her favorably and 55 percent view her unfavorably. If true, that usually spells defeat for a candidate, but she does have the next three years to work on the problem. And remember that Ronnie Reagan was the conservative outsider in 1976, who worked diligently between '76 and '80 to convince his opponents. Right now, while Palin is the grass-roots favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination, I don't think I'd consider her as the next President-in-Waiting yet, as a lot can happen in three years. But she is most certainly someone to be taken very seriously. The hope among the Republican elites is that she’ll keep annoying the liberals, raising money for the party, and stay out of the 2012 campaign. And Sarah? Well, the left loves to mock her, the right rushes to defend her, and folks in between seem fascinated by the whole thing. She also appears to be a lady who is real savvy in a cat fight and well able to defend herself.

So let the battle be joined.