Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't worry, Old Glory can take the heat
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn26.html ^ | June 26, 2005 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 06/26/2005 2:47:31 AM PDT by mal

The House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment on flag burning last week, in the course of which Rep. Randy ''Duke'' Cunningham (Republican of California) made the following argument:

''Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: Pass this amendment."

Unlike Congressman Cunningham, I wouldn't presume to speak for those who died atop the World Trade Center. For one thing, citizens of more than 50 foreign countries, from Argentina to Zimbabwe, were killed on 9/11. Of the remainder, maybe some would be in favor of a flag-burning amendment; and maybe some would think that criminalizing disrespect for national symbols is unworthy of a free society. And maybe others would roll their eyes and say that, granted it's been clear since about October 2001 that the federal legislature has nothing useful to contribute to the war on terror, and its hacks and poseurs prefer to busy themselves with a lot of irrelevant grandstanding with a side order of fries, but they could at least quit dragging us into it.

(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: flagburning; marksteyn; oldglory; steyn; turass
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 06/26/2005 2:47:32 AM PDT by mal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mal

Your are right about one thing. Old Glory cannot be defamed by flames..or flaming AH's.
But we can at least punish those who defame Old Glory equally with those that defame the Qoran..no less protection than the Satanic Verses.


2 posted on 06/26/2005 3:06:05 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mal; Pokey78
That's the point: A flag has to be worth torching. When a flag gets burned, that's not a sign of its weakness but of its strength. If you can't stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business. It's the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open.

Steyn bump!

3 posted on 06/26/2005 3:20:30 AM PDT by metesky (This land is your land, this land is MY land; I bought the rights from a town selectman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mal
Pick the southern border as the real symbol to defend.

Results over "feel good."
4 posted on 06/26/2005 3:23:37 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mal

Not meaning any disrespect, I have always felt that if there was a time for me to burn a flag, it would be when some clown passed a law saying I can't.


5 posted on 06/26/2005 3:24:25 AM PDT by djf (Government wants the same things I do - MY guns, MY property, MY freedoms!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

"Not meaning any disrespect, I have always felt that if there was a time for me to burn a flag, it would be when some clown passed a law saying I can't."

That's worth a big ole bump.


6 posted on 06/26/2005 3:28:13 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: djf

Agree...


7 posted on 06/26/2005 3:38:37 AM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: djf

It's time for me to blow up the Federal building in OKC when some clown passes a law that says I can't -eh?It's time to bring down the World Trade Center when some clown passes a law that says I can't? It's time to burn a cross on someones lawn when someone says I can't? The freakin' Communist who burned a stolen flag in Texas credited by the faggots in black robes with an act of Protected speech-even when they themselves admitted it was a despicable act --is
now training others to do as he did. You get more of that
behavior that is rewarded by protection...............


8 posted on 06/26/2005 3:41:47 AM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny; djf

Around 15 years ago, Louisiana passed a law that didn't ban flag burning per se, but made it legal to beat the living hell out of the scumbag who did burn Old Glory. Sadly, it was struck down in the courts.


9 posted on 06/26/2005 3:50:22 AM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) (Ketchup Boy is the George Costanza of the US Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore); StonyBurk

Passing a flag burning law or an amendment to the constitution is as ridiculous as passing hate crime laws.

No one is going to burn my flag without a fight and/or having the perp arrested for destruction of private property.


There is a much bigger problem when it comes to flag burning or desecration, and that is it is impossible to truly define what a flag is.


10 posted on 06/26/2005 3:55:28 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: djf
Not meaning any disrespect, I have always felt that if there was a time for me to burn a flag, it would be when some clown passed a law saying I can't.

Actually, we had laws on the books for almost 50 years until SCOTUS declared them unconstituional in 1989 and 1990.

"Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990."

We still have laws on books making it a crime to deface US currency. "“Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

11 posted on 06/26/2005 4:05:49 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
There is a much bigger problem when it comes to flag burning or desecration, and that is it is impossible to truly define what a flag is.

We have an even bigger problem than that. We have liberal, activist judges legislating from the bench. If the majority of people believe that flag desecration laws abridge free speech, then they should seek redress through their legislators. SCOTUS should never have been involved in this issue.

12 posted on 06/26/2005 4:10:27 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)
I was interested to see this post [with which I totally agree] right next to a column complaining about the criminal prosecution of a woman in Italy for "vilifying a religion":

(Click Here)

A good question to ask those who would criminalize desecration of the flag is: Do you favor criminalizing the desecration of the holy books (e.g. the Koran or the Bible) or criminalizing vilifying religions?".

I believe that the last time I looked God commanded us to put Him ahead of all, including family and country, and most certainly our country's flag.

13 posted on 06/26/2005 4:14:53 AM PDT by Tom D. (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benj. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kabar

A flag can be a piece of cloth, paper or plastic. It can be on a postage stamp, a T-Shirt, a mail box or even on a car in a used car lot. Am I going to be arrested when I use a worn out flag T-Shirt to wipe an oil dip stick in my car? Just as it is impossible to get inside the head of a person charged in a hate crime, it is impossible to determine the state of mind of a person who destroys a flag.


14 posted on 06/26/2005 4:18:39 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.

Woops, I did not read far enough into the Steyn column to see that he made the same connection near the end. Everytime I shoot my mouth off (or keyboard off in this case) before I finish reading, I screw something up. Sorry.


15 posted on 06/26/2005 4:21:17 AM PDT by Tom D. (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benj. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mal

All passing this amendment would do is turn flag-burning into a genuinely potent symbol.

Right now, since it's legal, it's about the most cowardly and ineffectual way of making a statement there is. Anybody who does it looks like a total ass, because they're not risking anything.

Passing this amendment would only encourage flag-burning. It'd give it respectability as a symbol of subversiveness, where now it has none.


16 posted on 06/26/2005 4:25:11 AM PDT by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny

Obviously, it is possible to write laws (and Constitutional Amendements) describing what constitutes flag desecration. We had flag desecration laws on the books for almost half a century. Without reading these laws, I doubt if any of the specific you mentioned would be covered or be worthy of prosecution. Flag desecration is like pornography, you know it when you see it.


17 posted on 06/26/2005 4:29:10 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mal
I agree completely with Mr Steyn, we do not need a flag
protection amendment.
We need a constitutional amendment to prevent judges
from amending the constitution.
18 posted on 06/26/2005 5:41:17 AM PDT by ExSafecracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExSafecracker
Prosecute those individuals or groups who intentionally burn or physically damage the American Flag in public for.. Incitement to riot

Incitement to riot ... words or conduct urging others to engage in riot under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of injury to persons or property or a breach of the public peace.

A felony I think.

Just apply it.

Wm
19 posted on 06/26/2005 6:06:03 AM PDT by WLR (Elitism is a mental disorder, contagious and deadly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WLR

I could go along with that. I'm not opposed to using the Constitutional Amendment option, as that is the only option allowed to us in the balance of powers to check a run-away judiciary --- which is exactly what we have right now. But if the same can be accomplished without an amendment, that's wonderful. I will s.t.h.u. on this topic the very first time a flag-burning puke is prosecuted under incitement to riot :-)


20 posted on 06/26/2005 6:27:42 AM PDT by so_real ("The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

You are purposely twisting djf's words and thoughts.


21 posted on 06/26/2005 6:53:03 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mal

I agree totally with this post.


22 posted on 06/26/2005 6:58:34 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mal

To properly dispose of a flag that has been damaged or defiled we burn it. The flag in the hands of a traitor is certainly being defiled. Burning it is the patriotic thing to do. Flying the flag under false pretenses like the Democrats do, now that's something to get upset about.


23 posted on 06/26/2005 7:09:24 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
when I use a worn out flag T-Shirt to wipe an oil dip stick in my car

The flag cannot properly be a T-Shirt.

According to the flag laws of the District of Columbia and most states, the words "Flag of the United States" include any flag, or picture of any flag, in which the colors, the stars, and the stripes may be shown in any number which, WITHOUT careful examination or deliberation, the average person may believe to represent the Flag of the United States.

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 36
CHAPTER 10

§176. Respect for flag

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.

(c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.

(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

For additional flag information.

24 posted on 06/26/2005 7:16:43 AM PDT by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mal
"Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It's not. It gets burned because it's strong."
25 posted on 06/26/2005 7:28:19 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mal

This opens a bag of worms.
What is the flag?
A stiring stick in a martini?
A printed page in a newspaper after 9-11?
A design on a weldor's cap?
A bumper sticker?
A small item to wave as a political parade goes by?
A piece of private property bought at a store(made in China)?
Or an official flag from the US government given out to honor a vetran at his funeral? To schools, public buildings?ect.

What do you do with them when they are not needed?

The official flag is burned on FLAG DAY when worn out,but the others are tossed in the trash. Will one be prosecuted for that or will we only prosecute for offensive political statements when jerks burn them in piblic?
If an "official" flag is stolen from a public building and burned is one thing, but a "private property" flag being destroyed is totally different.
Much like the difference between grabbing a koran from a mohammedan and destroying it, and buying one at the book store and destroying it. One is the property of someone else and one is MY private property.




26 posted on 06/26/2005 7:29:04 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

If there are any penalties or punishment for violation of that title and chapter I would think they wouldn't hold up based on the decision of the US Supreme Court.

If an amendment is passed and ratified that narrowly defines a flag and someone just wants to burn a flag, they'll just make sure it's a flag not defined in the amendment.

I don't know if anyone has noticed but since flag burning has been protected as free speech, there hasn't been a big problem of people burning flags. In fact, the last demonstrations I attended in DC, those on the other side weren't even carrying American Flags.


27 posted on 06/26/2005 7:34:36 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mal

It's illegal to burn leaves or garbage, unless you throw an American flag over it first.


28 posted on 06/26/2005 7:37:45 AM PDT by beavus (Hussein's war. Bush's response.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mal

Don't worry, Old Glory can take the heat

June 26, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


The House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment on flag burning last week, in the course of which Rep. Randy ''Duke'' Cunningham (Republican of California) made the following argument:

''Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: Pass this amendment."

Unlike Congressman Cunningham, I wouldn't presume to speak for those who died atop the World Trade Center. For one thing, citizens of more than 50 foreign countries, from Argentina to Zimbabwe, were killed on 9/11. Of the remainder, maybe some would be in favor of a flag-burning amendment; and maybe some would think that criminalizing disrespect for national symbols is unworthy of a free society. And maybe others would roll their eyes and say that, granted it's been clear since about October 2001 that the federal legislature has nothing useful to contribute to the war on terror, and its hacks and poseurs prefer to busy themselves with a lot of irrelevant grandstanding with a side order of fries, but they could at least quit dragging us into it.

And maybe a few would feel as many of my correspondents did last week about the ridiculous complaints of ''desecration'' of the Quran by U.S. guards at Guantanamo -- that, in the words of one reader, ''it's not possible to 'torture' an inanimate object.''

That alone is a perfectly good reason to object to a law forbidding the "desecration" of the flag. For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It's always useful to know what people really believe.

For example, two years ago, a young American lady, Rachel Corrie, was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza. Her death immediately made her a martyr for the Palestinian cause, and her family and friends worked assiduously to promote the image of her as a youthful idealist passionately moved by despair and injustice. ''My Name Is Rachel Corrie,'' a play about her, was a huge hit in London. Well, OK, it wasn't so much a play as a piece of sentimental agitprop so in thrall to its subject's golden innocence that the picture of Rachel on the cover of the Playbill shows her playing in the backyard, age 7 or so, wind in her hair, in a cute, pink T-shirt.

There's another photograph of Rachel Corrie: at a Palestinian protest, headscarved, her face contorted with hate and rage, torching the Stars and Stripes. Which is the real Rachel Corrie? The "schoolgirl idealist" caught up in the cycle of violence? Or the grown woman burning the flag of her own country? Well, that's your call. But because that second photograph exists, we at least have a choice.

Have you seen that Rachel Corrie flag-burning photo? If you follow Charles Johnson's invaluable Little Green Footballs Web site and a few other Internet outposts, you will have. But you'll look for it in vain in the innumerable cooing profiles of the "passionate activist" that have appeared in the world's newspapers.

One of the big lessons of these last four years is that many, many beneficiaries of Western civilization loathe that civilization -- and the media are generally inclined to blur the extent of that loathing. At last year's Democratic Convention, when the Oscar-winning crockumentarian Michael Moore was given the seat of honor in the presidential box next to Jimmy Carter, I wonder how many TV viewers knew that the terrorist ''insurgents'' -- the guys who kidnap and murder aid workers, hack the heads off foreigners, load Down's syndrome youths up with explosives and send them off to detonate in shopping markets -- are regarded by Moore as Iraq's Minutemen. I wonder how many viewers knew that on Sept. 11 itself Moore's only gripe was that the terrorists had targeted New York and Washington instead of Texas or Mississippi: ''They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C. and the plane's destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

In other words, if the objection to flag desecration is that it's distasteful, tough. Like those apocryphal Victorian matrons who discreetly covered the curved legs of their pianos, the culture already goes to astonishing lengths to veil the excesses of those who are admirably straightforward in their hostility.

If people feel that way, why protect them with a law that will make it harder for the rest of us to see them as they are? One thing I've learned in the last four years is that it's very difficult to talk honestly about the issues that confront us. A brave and outspoken journalist, Oriana Fallaci, is currently being prosecuted for ''vilification of religion,'' which is a crime in Italy; a Christian pastor has been ordered by an Australian court to apologize for his comments on Islam. In the European Union, ''xenophobia'' is against the law. A flag-burning amendment is the American equivalent of the rest of the West's ever more coercive constraints on free expression. The problem is not that some people burn flags; the problem is that the world view of which flag-burning is a mere ritual is so entrenched at the highest levels of Western culture.

Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It's not. It gets burned because it's strong. I'm a Canadian and one day, during the Kosovo war, I switched on the TV and there were some fellows jumping up and down in Belgrade burning the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. Big deal, seen it a million times. But then to my astonishment, some of those excitable Serbs produced a Maple Leaf from somewhere and started torching that. Don't ask me why -- we had a small contribution to the Kosovo bombing campaign but evidently it was enough to arouse the ire of Slobo's boys. I've never been so proud to be Canadian in years. I turned the sound up to see if they were yelling ''Death to the Little Satan!'' But you can't have everything.

That's the point: A flag has to be worth torching. When a flag gets burned, that's not a sign of its weakness but of its strength. If you can't stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business. It's the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open.

29 posted on 06/26/2005 7:42:47 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Steyn stuff!


30 posted on 06/26/2005 7:47:52 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
If there are any penalties or punishment for violation of that title and chapter I would think they wouldn't hold up based on the decision of the US Supreme Court.

Forget the substance of such laws and amendments. Why should SCOTUS be involved at all? At least the process of a constitutional amendment would reflect the will of the people, i.e., two-thirds of Congress and three quarters of the state legislatures must approve it. We wouldn't need constitutional amendments if SCOTUS would stay the hell out of social issues.

I don't know if anyone has noticed but since flag burning has been protected as free speech, there hasn't been a big problem of people burning flags.

SCOTUS used the pretext of it being a free speech issue to get involved just like they have twisted the Constitution to rule on other social issues, e.g., school prayer, private sector firing and hiring processes, political speech (they endorsed McCain-Feingold), racial discrimination, etc. There never was a big problem with burning flags even when the flag desecration laws were on the books, including the 60s and 70s. A Consititutional amendment is really Congress getting some cahones to take back some of the power of the legislative branch.

31 posted on 06/26/2005 8:27:28 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I wish I had gone to law school. I might know what the heck I'm talking about if I had, but if you look at post 24 there is a "should" in every paragraph of the Code. The SCOTUS probably saw an opening and stepped in it.


32 posted on 06/26/2005 8:39:13 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
The code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.

SCOTUS overturned a state law in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 and then in 1990 overruled parts of the the Flag Protection Act in United States v. Eichman. The infamous lawyer, William M. Kunstler, was involved in both cases against the State of Texas and the Federal government.

33 posted on 06/26/2005 9:34:41 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; deport; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; JohnHuang2; ...
Thanks!

Steyn ping!


34 posted on 06/26/2005 10:14:04 AM PDT by Pokey78 (‘FREE [INSERT YOUR FETID TOTALITARIAN BASKET-CASE HERE]’)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mal

Good article. Those voting for such an amendment might as well be burning it themselves.


35 posted on 06/26/2005 10:23:36 AM PDT by Sloth (History's greatest monsters: Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Durbin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Thanks for the "ping", FRiend....


36 posted on 06/26/2005 10:32:05 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Pokey78
Thanks to you both!

FMCDH(BITS)

37 posted on 06/26/2005 10:48:54 AM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mal
The triumph of symbolism over substance. We will protect the flag from burning but the Constitution is judicial toilet paper is fine with our elected leaders.
38 posted on 06/26/2005 11:11:54 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Thanks! Steyn Bump


39 posted on 06/26/2005 11:14:59 AM PDT by hattend (Alaska....in a time warp all it's own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mal

Interesting that so many Republicans support this amendment yet so many FR threads are against this amendment . . .


40 posted on 06/26/2005 11:17:39 AM PDT by No Dems 2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mal

What would happen if someone tried to burn one of those "rainbow flags" the queers are always waving?


41 posted on 06/26/2005 11:21:23 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Liberalism kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Not meaning any disrespect, I have always felt that if there was a time for me to burn a flag, it would be when some clown passed a law saying I can't.

I like that sentiment! Although let us not forget that Old Glory will always remain the symbol of freedom-loving Americans; the clowns who pass such laws have never earned the right to claim the flag as their symbol.

That said, I understand how you meant it, and again, I like your sentiment.

42 posted on 06/26/2005 11:39:16 AM PDT by Smile-n-Win (The U.S.A. is here to stay--better move out of our way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
What would happen if someone tried to burn one of those "rainbow flags" the queers are always waving?

You would get thuapped.

43 posted on 06/26/2005 11:43:09 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
...the clowns who pass such laws have never earned the right to claim the flag as their symbol.

Well said. Thank you.

44 posted on 06/26/2005 11:45:33 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

Now that . . . . would be a hate crime.


45 posted on 06/26/2005 11:46:58 AM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: No Dems 2004

Maybe some Freepers don't understand the issue. Congress is challenging SCOTUS for overturning its laws. This is a battle against judicial activism as much as it about the flag.


46 posted on 06/26/2005 12:13:41 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mal

>> "The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open." <<

Of course, few are as well armed for that battle as is Mark Steyn.


47 posted on 06/26/2005 12:15:05 PM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mal

I think Steyn was mistaken. I think "Duke" Cunningham was talking about the firemen and cops who stood on the ruins of the trade center, not the ones who died.


48 posted on 06/26/2005 12:20:09 PM PDT by AmishDude (Once you go black hat, you never go back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

I can buy a Q'u'ºr'a''¿'n'¡" today and soak it gasoline and add a match and no government official can say "boo."


49 posted on 06/26/2005 1:01:34 PM PDT by stands2reason (GINOBILI and HORRY are my MVPS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mal

I think I'm going to replace all my Stars 'n Stripes with the Gadsden flag. The SnS, in my opinion, is fast becoming the Government Flag, not the flag of our nation. The Supreme Court robed tyrants, for instance, fly it all over the place as a symbol of their power to destroy liberty.


50 posted on 06/26/2005 1:03:23 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson