R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Again, the problem with the analogy is the company it keeps. Try an Internet search under, 'sheep, woves and sheepdogs," and you will find this same article quoted about fifty-eleven times, ALWAYS with some sort of (to say the least) very conservative political slant.
Here is one example--which, note, is introduced by a writer who can't help but take a whack at Democrats ("blue states") who, it would appear, are either too stupid or too America hating to grasp reality:
"This poem was posted on KevinSites.net (Sites is the NBC photographer who filmed the now infamous shooting in Fallujah) Sites apparently is not completely devoid of respect for the men who protect him. He posted this poem from a Vietnam Vet...it bears reading, particularly in 'Blue America.'
The Sheepdogs
Most humans truly are like sheep
Wanting nothing more than peace to keep
To graze, grow fat and raise their young,
Sweet taste of clover on the tongue.
Their lives serene upon LifeÂ’s farm,
They sense no threat nor fear no harm.
On verdant meadows, they forage free
With naught to fear, with naught to flee.
They pay their sheepdogs little heed
For there is no threat; there is no need.
To the flock, sheepdogÂ’s are mysteries,
Roaming watchful round the peripheries.
These fang-toothed creatures bark, they roar
With the fetid reek of the carnivore,
Too like the wolf of legends told,
To be amongst our docile fold.
Who needs sheepdogs? What good are they?
They have no use, not in this day.
Lock them away, out of our sight
We have no need of their fierce might.
But sudden in their midst a beast
Has come to kill, has come to feast
The wolves attack; they give no warning
Upon that calm September morning
They slash and kill with frenzied glee
Their passive helpless enemy
Who had no clue the wolves were there
Far roaming from their Eastern lair.
Then from the carnage, from the rout,
Comes the cry, “Turn the sheepdogs out!”
Thus is our nature but too our plight
To keep our dogs on leashes tight
And live a life of illusive bliss
Hearing not the beast, his growl, his hiss.
Until he has us by the throat,
We pay no heed; we take no note.
Not until he strikes us at our core
Will we unleash the Dogs of War
Only having felt the wolf packÂ’s wrath
Do we loose the sheepdogs on its path.
And the wolves will learn what weÂ’ve shown before;
We love our sheep, we Dogs of War.
Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66"
"Here is another use of the analogy--one, as far as I can see, that is pretty typical of Internet sites:
Stalin Would Be Proud Of Them
The Fifth Column/Edward Daley
April 22, 2005 - What do most members of the Democratic National Committee, the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have in common? They hate the Constitution of the United States of America.
Of course, people in each group have somewhat different reasons for hating that document. Democrat party leaders hate it because it forces people with minority opinions like themselves to abide by rules which reflect the will of the majority. ABA law practitioners hate it because it does not permit them to make legal decisions based upon their political ideologies. Members of the ACLU hate it because they are socialists, and the Constitution is designed to promote the liberties of individuals while limiting the powers of government.
Some people belong to all three of these groups, and they are among the most despicable, anti-American people you will ever meet, because they hate the Constitution for all of the above reasons and more. Although none of them will ever admit it, that document represents to them the single most offensive thing on earth, namely the restriction of their authority over the American citizenry.
You see, these DNC/ABA/ACLU types think that normal, working class people are idiots, who have no business running their own lives. Average folks are only competent enough to go to work, pay taxes, and shop at WalMart. Beyond that, they're morons, with no clue as to what's really good for them.
Now, before I continue I need to point out, to those of you who weren't paying attention when I used the word "most" in my opening sentence, that there are some people in these groups who don't hate the Constitution.
Senator Dick Shelby, for instance, is a member of the ABA, yet he is a conservative Republican, who introduced the Constitution Restoration Act earlier this year. The legislation is intended to "reinforce states rights by clarifying that the Supreme Court and district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against a federal, state or local government or officer for acknowledging God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
Then there's Zell Miller, the former Senator from Georgia. He's a life-long Democrat, yet he opposed the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees by obstructionists in his party, who support only liberal activists for positions on the federal bench.
I was going to include an example of an ACLU member who isn't an America-bashing socialist, but I haven't been able to find one yet.
Be that as it may, I am willing to concede that there may well be someone in that organization who thinks the Constitution, in it's current form, is a pretty good thing. If indeed that individual actually exists, I can only suggest that he keep his opinions to himself if he wishes to remain in the ACLU much longer.
I'm sure there are countless liberals out there who are infuriated by what I've asserted thus far in this article, and I'm just as certain that many of them want to know what proof I have to back up my arguments. Frankly, the evidence supporting my contentions is so overwhelming that I can't decide where to begin.
It seems to me that anyone who has been alive for the past couple of decades, and isn't illiterate, shouldn't be having a problem comprehending that the elitists I've writing about are determined to bastardize the Constitution via judicial fiat. They know that they have no popular support for their views, so they have little choice but to turn to activist judges who are willing create laws from the bench on their behalf.
In fact, mentally deficient justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have been steadily eroding the integrity of both the Supreme Court and our Constitution for years now, and there's no reason to believe that they'll suddenly pull their heads out of their respective posterior orifices and embrace the wisdom of their detractors.
These are the kinds of arrogant nitwits who actually believe that the opinions of foreign courts should be taken into consideration by members of the Supreme Court during their deliberations on Constitutional matters. At the same time, the will of the American people, as expressed in the laws of the several states, is often ignored completely by them.
If I'm wrong, how then can one explain the recent declaration, by certain members of the high court, that the execution of minors is cruel and unusual, and therefore unConstitutional?
Where in the Constitution are the words cruel and unusual defined in any way which relates to the execution of anyone, let alone minors? Here's a hint... NOWHERE!
Justice Kennedy wrote, with regard to the abolition of the death penalty for individuals under the age of 18, "Our determination finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty."
To this I ask SO WHAT? What does that have to do with OUR Constitution and OUR laws? The answer is clear... NOTHING!
Prior to the aforementioned 5-to-4 decision, twenty states allowed for the execution of minors. Apparently the people of those states believe that determining whether or not a juvenile deserves the death penalty should be left up to a jury of his peers, instead of a bunch of old farts in black robes who think that America is wrong for being different from the rest of the world.
Another justification used by these types of judges after they've made decisions like this one, is that they have somehow been able to gauge the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." What they have never been able to do, satisfactorily, is answer the question: what makes you think it's a judge's job to do that?
It's our elected representatives who are charged with determining what society's standards are! We, the people, let them know what we think of the laws they create when we vote, and when we don't like the legislation they've enacted, we elect other people who's legal proposals more closely reflect our views.
And when the time does come when America's "standards of decency" have evolved to the point at which we feel the need to amend our Constitution, we'll be perfectly capable of doing it, and we won't be asking any judges what they think about our decision.
Believe me, that concept scares the living crap out of the members of those three groups I mentioned previously. The very idea of average citizens deciding for themselves how they will be governed, and under which laws they will live, is like a knife through the heart of those fascist swine.
Make no mistake about it, they want to run your life. If they didn't, why would the ACLU's legal staff be suing everybody and their mothers over matters which have always been considered common sense issues by the vast majority of people? The answer is clear. They know that as long as they keep suing folks who have limited resources, they'll either win by attrition, or their cases will eventually end up before activist judges, who'll declare that the laws they happen to be opposing are unconstitutional. Whether the issues before those judges are actually addressed in the Constitution or not will be irrelevant, because few non-liberal members of the legislative branch of government have the guts to challenge their rulings.
As for the leaders of the Democrat party, those who aren't trial lawyers are usually bought and sold by trial lawyers, and practically all of them are sympathetic to the views of the ACLU. The paltry few who don't march in lock-step behind the rest, are either ignored or treated as traitors. There is no room in their world for things like sincere reflection, intellectual honesty, or self-criticism. Their religion is utterly intolerant of such blasphemies.
People often ask me why Republicans in Congress never seem to be as united as their Democrat counterparts are, and my answer to them is always the same, in so many words. Republicans are mostly conservative, and conservatives believe in individuality and the diverse opinions which come with it. Democrats are mostly liberal, and liberals believe in forced equality and the conformity necessary to achieve it.
Put a thousand conservatives in a room together, and you've got a room full of individuals. Put a thousand liberals together in a room, and you've got a room full of sheep, being herded by a few angry sheepdogs."
As far as I can tell after a quick search, there is no use of this analogy by the center or left of the political spectrum.
However, I have personally--and more than once--heard or read left-to-far-left "intellectuals," announce that they have taken on a special moral and intellectual responsibility to guard and to guide the poor masses in the right directions. In one case, I heard Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield say, very clearly, that the intelligentsia had a particular historical mission to guide the poor dopes--and in response to a direct question, that the proper thing at times was to flat out lie to workers and others in order to serve their best interests.
Sorry, no. I dislike the analogy, and I despise the basic attitude--though I should note that of all these guys, I don;t really have the least problem with a tired and disgusted soldier's writing...any more than I do with Kipling's, "Barrack-Room Ballads." As an old-fashioned American, give me Carl Sandburg's, "The People, Yes, the People." Or gimme Ernie Pyle's tired soldiers. Any day. Or should we just change the Constitution to, "We the Sheepies?"
That's who you're eager to write off as sheep.
__________________
Here is one example--which, note, is introduced by a writer who can't help but take a whack at Democrats ("blue states") who, it would appear, are either too stupid or too America hating to grasp reality:
"This poem was posted on KevinSites.net (Sites is the NBC photographer who filmed the now infamous shooting in Fallujah) Sites apparently is not completely devoid of respect for the men who protect him. He posted this poem from a Vietnam Vet...it bears reading, particularly in 'Blue America.'
The Sheepdogs
Most humans truly are like sheep
Wanting nothing more than peace to keep
To graze, grow fat and raise their young,
Sweet taste of clover on the tongue.
Their lives serene upon LifeÂ’s farm,
They sense no threat nor fear no harm.
On verdant meadows, they forage free
With naught to fear, with naught to flee.
They pay their sheepdogs little heed
For there is no threat; there is no need.
To the flock, sheepdogÂ’s are mysteries,
Roaming watchful round the peripheries.
These fang-toothed creatures bark, they roar
With the fetid reek of the carnivore,
Too like the wolf of legends told,
To be amongst our docile fold.
Who needs sheepdogs? What good are they?
They have no use, not in this day.
Lock them away, out of our sight
We have no need of their fierce might.
But sudden in their midst a beast
Has come to kill, has come to feast
The wolves attack; they give no warning
Upon that calm September morning
They slash and kill with frenzied glee
Their passive helpless enemy
Who had no clue the wolves were there
Far roaming from their Eastern lair.
Then from the carnage, from the rout,
Comes the cry, “Turn the sheepdogs out!”
Thus is our nature but too our plight
To keep our dogs on leashes tight
And live a life of illusive bliss
Hearing not the beast, his growl, his hiss.
Until he has us by the throat,
We pay no heed; we take no note.
Not until he strikes us at our core
Will we unleash the Dogs of War
Only having felt the wolf packÂ’s wrath
Do we loose the sheepdogs on its path.
And the wolves will learn what weÂ’ve shown before;
We love our sheep, we Dogs of War.
Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66"
"Here is another use of the analogy--one, as far as I can see, that is pretty typical of Internet sites:
Stalin Would Be Proud Of Them
The Fifth Column/Edward Daley
April 22, 2005 - What do most members of the Democratic National Committee, the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have in common? They hate the Constitution of the United States of America.
Of course, people in each group have somewhat different reasons for hating that document. Democrat party leaders hate it because it forces people with minority opinions like themselves to abide by rules which reflect the will of the majority. ABA law practitioners hate it because it does not permit them to make legal decisions based upon their political ideologies. Members of the ACLU hate it because they are socialists, and the Constitution is designed to promote the liberties of individuals while limiting the powers of government.
Some people belong to all three of these groups, and they are among the most despicable, anti-American people you will ever meet, because they hate the Constitution for all of the above reasons and more. Although none of them will ever admit it, that document represents to them the single most offensive thing on earth, namely the restriction of their authority over the American citizenry.
You see, these DNC/ABA/ACLU types think that normal, working class people are idiots, who have no business running their own lives. Average folks are only competent enough to go to work, pay taxes, and shop at WalMart. Beyond that, they're morons, with no clue as to what's really good for them.
Now, before I continue I need to point out, to those of you who weren't paying attention when I used the word "most" in my opening sentence, that there are some people in these groups who don't hate the Constitution.
Senator Dick Shelby, for instance, is a member of the ABA, yet he is a conservative Republican, who introduced the Constitution Restoration Act earlier this year. The legislation is intended to "reinforce states rights by clarifying that the Supreme Court and district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against a federal, state or local government or officer for acknowledging God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
Then there's Zell Miller, the former Senator from Georgia. He's a life-long Democrat, yet he opposed the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees by obstructionists in his party, who support only liberal activists for positions on the federal bench.
I was going to include an example of an ACLU member who isn't an America-bashing socialist, but I haven't been able to find one yet.
Be that as it may, I am willing to concede that there may well be someone in that organization who thinks the Constitution, in it's current form, is a pretty good thing. If indeed that individual actually exists, I can only suggest that he keep his opinions to himself if he wishes to remain in the ACLU much longer.
I'm sure there are countless liberals out there who are infuriated by what I've asserted thus far in this article, and I'm just as certain that many of them want to know what proof I have to back up my arguments. Frankly, the evidence supporting my contentions is so overwhelming that I can't decide where to begin.
It seems to me that anyone who has been alive for the past couple of decades, and isn't illiterate, shouldn't be having a problem comprehending that the elitists I've writing about are determined to bastardize the Constitution via judicial fiat. They know that they have no popular support for their views, so they have little choice but to turn to activist judges who are willing create laws from the bench on their behalf.
In fact, mentally deficient justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have been steadily eroding the integrity of both the Supreme Court and our Constitution for years now, and there's no reason to believe that they'll suddenly pull their heads out of their respective posterior orifices and embrace the wisdom of their detractors.
These are the kinds of arrogant nitwits who actually believe that the opinions of foreign courts should be taken into consideration by members of the Supreme Court during their deliberations on Constitutional matters. At the same time, the will of the American people, as expressed in the laws of the several states, is often ignored completely by them.
If I'm wrong, how then can one explain the recent declaration, by certain members of the high court, that the execution of minors is cruel and unusual, and therefore unConstitutional?
Where in the Constitution are the words cruel and unusual defined in any way which relates to the execution of anyone, let alone minors? Here's a hint... NOWHERE!
Justice Kennedy wrote, with regard to the abolition of the death penalty for individuals under the age of 18, "Our determination finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty."
To this I ask SO WHAT? What does that have to do with OUR Constitution and OUR laws? The answer is clear... NOTHING!
Prior to the aforementioned 5-to-4 decision, twenty states allowed for the execution of minors. Apparently the people of those states believe that determining whether or not a juvenile deserves the death penalty should be left up to a jury of his peers, instead of a bunch of old farts in black robes who think that America is wrong for being different from the rest of the world.
Another justification used by these types of judges after they've made decisions like this one, is that they have somehow been able to gauge the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." What they have never been able to do, satisfactorily, is answer the question: what makes you think it's a judge's job to do that?
It's our elected representatives who are charged with determining what society's standards are! We, the people, let them know what we think of the laws they create when we vote, and when we don't like the legislation they've enacted, we elect other people who's legal proposals more closely reflect our views.
And when the time does come when America's "standards of decency" have evolved to the point at which we feel the need to amend our Constitution, we'll be perfectly capable of doing it, and we won't be asking any judges what they think about our decision.
Believe me, that concept scares the living crap out of the members of those three groups I mentioned previously. The very idea of average citizens deciding for themselves how they will be governed, and under which laws they will live, is like a knife through the heart of those fascist swine.
Make no mistake about it, they want to run your life. If they didn't, why would the ACLU's legal staff be suing everybody and their mothers over matters which have always been considered common sense issues by the vast majority of people? The answer is clear. They know that as long as they keep suing folks who have limited resources, they'll either win by attrition, or their cases will eventually end up before activist judges, who'll declare that the laws they happen to be opposing are unconstitutional. Whether the issues before those judges are actually addressed in the Constitution or not will be irrelevant, because few non-liberal members of the legislative branch of government have the guts to challenge their rulings.
As for the leaders of the Democrat party, those who aren't trial lawyers are usually bought and sold by trial lawyers, and practically all of them are sympathetic to the views of the ACLU. The paltry few who don't march in lock-step behind the rest, are either ignored or treated as traitors. There is no room in their world for things like sincere reflection, intellectual honesty, or self-criticism. Their religion is utterly intolerant of such blasphemies.
People often ask me why Republicans in Congress never seem to be as united as their Democrat counterparts are, and my answer to them is always the same, in so many words. Republicans are mostly conservative, and conservatives believe in individuality and the diverse opinions which come with it. Democrats are mostly liberal, and liberals believe in forced equality and the conformity necessary to achieve it.
Put a thousand conservatives in a room together, and you've got a room full of individuals. Put a thousand liberals together in a room, and you've got a room full of sheep, being herded by a few angry sheepdogs."
As far as I can tell after a quick search, there is no use of this analogy by the center or left of the political spectrum.
However, I have personally--and more than once--heard or read left-to-far-left "intellectuals," announce that they have taken on a special moral and intellectual responsibility to guard and to guide the poor masses in the right directions. In one case, I heard Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield say, very clearly, that the intelligentsia had a particular historical mission to guide the poor dopes--and in response to a direct question, that the proper thing at times was to flat out lie to workers and others in order to serve their best interests.
Sorry, no. I dislike the analogy, and I despise the basic attitude--though I should note that of all these guys, I don;t really have the least problem with a tired and disgusted soldier's writing...any more than I do with Kipling's, "Barrack-Room Ballads." As an old-fashioned American, give me Carl Sandburg's, "The People, Yes, the People." Or gimme Ernie Pyle's tired soldiers. Any day. Or should we just change the Constitution to, "We the Sheepies?"
That's who you're eager to write off as sheep.
__________________
