Are They Truly That Stupid?

I originally received this via e-mail from a very good friend exactly two years ago. It’s a bit long so you may want to grab a cup of coffee or a soda, but it will enlighten you as to why some people do what they do, and why they feel it necessary to lay down their life if necessary.

BK

Jill Edwards, a junior math major at the University of Washington and a member of the UW student senate, opposed a memorial to UW grad “Pappy” Boyington. Boyington was a U.S. Marine aviator who earned the Medal of Honor in World War II. Edwards said that she didn’t think it was appropriate to honor a person who killed other people. She also said that a member of the Marine Corps was NOT an example of the sort of person the University of Washington wanted to produce.

General Brett Dula’s letter to the University of Washington student senate leader.

To: Edwards, Jill (student, UW)
Subject: Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Miss Edwards, I read of your ’student activity’ regarding the proposed memorial to Col Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive a bellyful of angry e-mails from conservative folks 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 for your naiveté.

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. Please take a couple of minutes to read the following. And be grateful for the thousands - - millions - - of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even your ill-conceived and uninformed bad ideas.

Brett Dula
Sheepdog, retired
———————————————————-
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER,
Ph.D., author of “On Killing.”

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

Read more »

He was so smooth that if I was under 30, had no military or business experience and was easily swayed by star personalities I might consider voting for him. (and then I woke up)

The BlacKnight

That became a joke back in the late 90s when then President Bill Clinton responded to a Grand Jury question with that now infamous statement.

What we have today is not so much a joke as an indicator of what the media has become today. Okay, maybe that is a joke. On August 28th The Sedalia Democrat’s online edition boasted a headline proclaiming “County commission violates Missouri’s Sunshine Law", when in fact no such violation occurred. I suppose The Democrat relied on the opinion from Missouri Press Association attorney Jean Maneke, quoted in the paper as saying “to take something up that is not on the agenda is a violation of the Sunshine Law”. On its face, that statement would seem to be correct, but if one were to actually look at the law in question you would find that the commission did in fact comply with the law, which states “All public governmental bodies shall give notice of the time, date and place of each meeting, and its tentative agenda, in a manner reasonably calculated to advise the public of the matters to be considered…” (There’s more, but you’ll have to take my word that it is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Or you can look it up for yourself, but trust me, you’ll be wasting your time.)

This argument hinges on the definition of the word ‘tentative’. According to dictionary.com, tentative is defined as “unsure; uncertain; not definite or positive". Given this definition, and the fact that the county commission did, in fact, publish an agenda, no reasonable person could conclude that a violation occurred. So the next logical question:

Read more »