While growing up in St. Louis, Missouri, I paid little attention to politics. It wasn't until much later when at age 22 I joined the Army, and then again when I deployed to Iraq, that I saw in an extreme how policy affected my life and the lives of my brothers.
I truly believe my time in Iraq was patriotic and have since realized that I will not give up that spirit. I have left the ranks of my Bothers In Arms and have joined the ranks of the Domestic Patriot.
I am no poet but I thought I'd share a poem I wrote while I was deployed with the 1-40 CAV ABN in 2007. If you have any thoughts please leave a comment.
A Modern Combat Soldier
He is an American combat soldier
He knows not life under a tyrant or life without liberty
He is the product of an American man and an American women
He is the product of a nation built before him
In his character is an American built mentality
Built through generations of patriotism and the willingness to work hard for a great life and a great nation
His American mentality is far from passive
When his home is attacked he is proactive he seeks justice he answers a call
A call that is instinctive to those with the American mentality
He wants to protect what he knows who he loves what those before have built for him
He wants to earn his manhood a place in his country a place amongst those who have also fought for the American way of life
A friend or family member was not lost by him on 9/11, but he has experienced loss many times since that day to ensure it does not happen again
The attacks and attempted attacks on America have not been forgotten by him
He wants to keep the fight far from home far from his family far from the ones he loves with whom at home awaits the great life he is fighting for
He is an American combat soldier with an American built mentality
I'm sure by now, all of you have heard about the resent violence on the night of the 6th, outside of U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan's forum on health care and aging in my home town of St. Louis, Missouri. I'd like you to bare with me while I show you how the Service Employees International Union as well as many media outlets are spinning this story to paint protesters of the current health care reform ideas as violent radicals
Before I get into the meat and potatoes here it needs to be said that violence has no place in what should remain a civil debate. It discredits and further divides both parties. Leadership on both sides of the debate has condemned such actions, and for that they are to be commended.
Now, unless you've been hiding under a rock, you're aware that there has been very heated and passionate opposition to the current direction Congress and the Obama Administration has taken health care reform. Many Americans are fed up with out-of-control spending by politicians who seem to be more concerned with the wants of special interest groups then the needs of their constituents. So, the people are making there voices heard the best way they know how. I think it's safe to say that the nature of a town hall meeting is to let the people come face to face with their representative. If they won't respond to phone calls or answer questions via email then a town hall meeting seems to me to be the next logical step.
Every group has its bad apples. History shows us that the civil rights movement had its share too, but America still saw that light. We've seen a few loons in this movement but there are very few. We've come to a turning point in America where the people are no longer afraid of being ridiculed because they know in their heart that the direction this country in heading in is not right.
Let's focus in on the incident in St. Louis. When the town hall ended the debate continued on the street. A physical confrontation erupted followed by injuries and arrests. If you search the web for articles, you'll find that the liberal media has been extremely vague on the the facts of this altercation. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article today on their website by Kim Bell and Patrick O'Connell, titled "Dueling protesters disrupt Carnahan forum on aging."* In the article they stuck only to the facts that the St. Louis County Police issued and the next day reactions of a few leaders on both sides of the debate. In fact, the only specifics in the article pertaining to the chaos, a quarter of the whole piece, was the first hand account of an SPD reporter who was one of the 6 people to be arrested! He told how his arrest was grossly unjustified. I might add that the story of his arrest begins after the physical altercation in question.
113 words at the end of the 1900 word article were devoted to the real story. Kenneth Gladney, a man selling "Don't Tread On Me" flags outside of the town hall, was beaten by 4 SEIU members.
Even a writer for the New York Times wouldn't touch the details of this altercation, saying simply "Opponents of the proposed changes, organized by the St. Louis Tea Party, apparently clashed with supporters organized by the Service Employees International Union outside a school gym." **
Why won't the liberal media examine the facts of this case and let the readers decide who the extremists are? Could it be that their precious SEIU might be seriously injured by the facts? Hmmm... Something to think about.
It seems that SEIU is betting that most non-members will refrain from visiting their websites. I find it peculiar that St. Louis' own, SEIU Local 2000, has the following message posted on their home page. "Because of recent turmoil and problems on the Local 2000 Executive Board, SEIU has decided to temporarily take over management of the local union. The new trustees are dedicated to improve and strengthen the local."***
*** http://www.seiu2000.org/
And even more strange is a post on SEIU's national website. Kenneth Gladney is not mentioned once, but they do tell the story of a reverend and SEIU member as being "assaulted at a town hall."****
They even go so far as to post the following disgusting propaganda video in the same article.
At the end of that video you see the reverend on the ground in the blue SEIU shirt and it conveniently fades to black right before the non-combatants begin to verbally scold the SEIU members.
Lets examine an unedited version of the same indecent. You'll notice that the video begins with the SEIU reverend on the ground right next to Kenneth Gladney, the black man in the tan polo shirt.
Notice: Strong Language
The un-cropped video tells a very different story. I could go on and on about this but I ask you, please, go to these links I've given you, re-watch the videos. The manipulation of the public is insulting to this country's people, and needs to be realized.
I'll close with one more video. The story told by Kenneth Gladney.
And now a reading from Dolph's first letter to the Congressman.
Well Representative Conyers, if someone asked me to the "read the bill" I would respond the very same way. What good is it for me to read the bill if I don't have the time? After all, I am a full time student with a part time job. I have to mow my lawn, do the dishes, and take out the trash from time to time. Oh, and I do need to take my clunker in for an oil change soon. Most of the time it's hard for me to get through an enjoyable book without getting sidetracked by other things that come up in my life. I certainly wouldn't have the time. And what about the mind boggling legal babble that is contained in these bills? Why... you'd need two lawyers and two days just to figure out what it means after you read the bill. I certainly don't have the staffing, or any other such resources for that matter, to take on such a task. What good is it?
But then, I'd probably continue and state how in this great country of ours we elect people to represent us in such matters. Yes, the founding fathers knew when drafting our constitution that in order for us common folk to enjoy our liberties we'd need to have a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. Part of that government they created included the House of Representatives outlined in... oh, what part of The Constitution was that, ARTICLE. I!
Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, you know all about these things. After all, you've been in the House sense 1964. As someone who earned the Juris Doctor in 1958 and who most certainly has a very competent staff with access to more than two other lawyers, we all know you were just kidding around, Congressman. I'm sure most Americans would agree that if you weren't competent in understanding such legislation before voting on it then we wouldn't see you in Washington after 2010. Oh, Congressman, you are a jokester.
These days Tax Day Tea Party goers and others displeased with our government are called right wing extremists, rednecks, racists, hate mongers, sore losers, and the list goes on. What actions are deserving of such disdain and ridicule? To question the government of the people? To demand the ear of a civil servant? Or is it because some people in this great country actually feel that they have a right to help shape public policy? It takes little effort to remember that these of course are rights that our founding fathers thought fit to include in our Constitution.
If we think back in our history there have been countless times when the people got together to fight injustice and prevailed. We celebrate these times. While attending school, our children learn about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and the rest of the civil rights struggle. We look on these victories with pride, we don't belittle those that struggled or talk about how their anger was fake.
Sense I've mentioned children in school, let me take the time to examine ridicule. Children take the time to ridicule and belittle each other. This is done to establish dominance, assassinate the character of a "threat", and to isolate another into a group set apart from the "accepted." We call this immature in children but when the elitist is guilty of such behavior he claims that he is just "stating the facts" or "exposing the truth."
Now, at times among each other, we all participate in such practices. It is only natural when we are angry about such things to revert to old habits at times, but shouldn't our leadership be held to a higher standard, especially with the responsibility that comes with the voice that we give them? After all their job is to protect our right to express ourselves, not to participate in it's suppression. Do the politicians not understand that their mockery of civil opposition is tyrannical?
Well I am a member of that civil opposition, call me what you must. Right wing extremist? Fine. I'll be all the way down here on the right along with The Constitution. Call me what you must. A sore loser? Sure. Obama said that his election was not his victory but the victory of the people. Well as it has turned out my view is that it was a loss of the people and we are continuing to loose, but the game is not over my friends. Harder fights have been won by Americans. I invite more of you to join me in not settling, or in being just a little bit "sore," but if not that's fine too. It is your right. So, I'll continue to question and to challenge and you can just continue to call me what you must.
