...the only new precedent set was disregarding the fighting words doctrine that once applied to flag burning, up until the zaniness of the mid-eighties when we learned that a graduation prayer was unamerican and flag burning was constitionally protected. There is not a shred of evidence that indicates any founding father would have considered flag burning or sodomy as protected rights.
There is not one shred of evidence that the Founding Fathers would have considered audio recordings or televised broadcasts as protected rights.
I don't see anything where a farmer has the right to grow corn instead of soybeans expressly protected either.
Many rights were not enumerated or considered - hence the ultimate catch-all of the Constitution that states in Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
You've already tried to make that point. I think you've forgotten that rights do not come from yourself, the state, or even our Founding Fathers.
You want to give the state too much power, power it absolutely does not deserve. Not only that, but you've managed to abdicate your mental faculties to a very weak and sketchy understanding of history.
Defending a state-owned flag has nothing to do with defending a personally purchased or created flag anyway.
In any case, good luck with your statist agenda. I'll not support it. Millions of other good Americans will doubt your sincerity and your true patriotism for threatening their unclaimed right to protest their own government. You'll even drive good Americans away from the Republican party in the process. That bothers me, but I can see that such an appeal would have little effect on you.