Skip to comments.Flag Desecrations & Sen. Tom Harkin: Question
Posted on 07/02/2006 10:16:07 AM PDT by IPWGOP
Iowa's Sen. Tom Harkin stated today in the press in Iowa that there have only been 7 desecrations of the US flag in the past 7 years.
According to standards per the Constitutional (legal) definition of 'desecration,' does any body out there know of these 7 specific incidents of flag desecrations?
This is important, as the recent Senate vote failed BY ONE VOTE regarding an amendment to the Constitution to banning flag desecration. Sen. Harkin was one of the senators who voted against the Constitution amendment banning flag desecration.
So, anybody have some info on these 7 flag desecrations ion the past 7 years?
Harkin's a liar, pure and simple. Better to ask him about his Mig kills over North Viet Nam.
Don't know if this was included in his 7 but a flag was burned in Ashland, OR on 4/14/03.
Sorry, no, I have a life. The Bill of Rights was kept intact BY JUST ONE VOTE.
BTW, in viewing your artwork, I find the two pics of Sheehan a desecration of the flag. I don't like it and it frankly offends me. But hey, that's just me, it's a free country. You might want to read the US Code on flag etiquette.
The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.
Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.
Tom Harkin is a disgrace to the great state of Iowa. He is a vindictive socialist.
He lied about his military service, and didn't recant his lie until someone cornered him on it.
It amazes me that people here in Iowa vote for this resident of the Bahamas to represent them.
Harkin: "Well, duh. Of course I am for flag burning.
It helps one of my side businesses."
Of course the situation would change radically if flag-burning was outlawed. Then it would become a big deal, and it would happen much more often. Protesters would become "martyrs" to their cohorts if they were arrested. Newspapers would have big stories, and that would encourage even more flag burning.
Fortunately the Senate has once again (albeit just barely) preserved our freedom of speech by failing to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Fortunately the true meaning of the United States flag -- individual liberty in a nation which allows political dissent -- has been preserved for another year.
Newspapers (MSM) already are left-wing (mainly) and
trash American (free speech), each and every day.
"We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid ...
"Youre a big fellow. But youre not that big. Youre no warrior. I know warriors....
You are a terrorist, a species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders."
To call you a soldier gives you far too much stature.
You are a terrorist, and we do not negotiate with terrorists.
We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice. ...
"See that flag, Mr. Reid?
That is the flag of the United States of America
That flag will fly there long after this is long forgotten (*)."
[Federal Chief Judge William Young, First Circuit to Terrorist Shoebomber Reid]
(*) Unless the trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada "wins"
and America and the American people LOSE.
Good to hear from you. Thanks.
There was a skit on the old Smothers Brothers' Show where Dick is explaining something to Tommy and a butterfly flits across the scene. You can see Tommy's brain turn off as he begins to track the butterfly. Well, that's the 'Flag Amendment Freepers', but it's not nearly as funny.
"The flag-burning amendment is just a cheap political trick;"
You are right about that yet it exposes the intentions and ideologies of those who love this nation and those who would trash it for all to see. We need more trueblood patriots in the GOP...too many spineless gutless wonders loved by MSM. Course correction material as positive.
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term flag of the United States means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
Since this was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1990, there appears to be no such thing as a legal definition of 'desecration of the flag of the United States'.
So could you please explain IPWGOP's (the person that posted this thread) artwork (see her homepage) that uses an american flag as a band-aid, and also writes all over the flag in the other Sheehan cartoon. Is that not speech?
Actually, this is reaaly a rhetorical question, of course it is. And though I am offended by it, I would defend to her death her right to use it. Also I would defend to my death the right to interject a little levity as in the last sentence.
Conduct as speech shouldn't really be that hard of a concept given our collective knowledge of our history including the Boston Tea Party and the burning of various leaders in effigy.
| If burning the symbol of our country is considered dissent & free speech, why can't I burn a bald eagle? Better yet, why can't I burn you? I certainly would be making a statement and if I tried just a little but I could make it poetic.
I personally don't think we need a constitutional amendment concerning flag burning, I really don't... but we do need an amendment that says people cannot equate stupid actions to individual items in our Bill of Rights.
Burning a flag is not free speech. It's someone acting like a two year old in a Walmart at best or an attorney with nothing better to do than to twist the meaning of plain English at worst.
Displaying a cross in your city's logo has nothing to do with "separation of church and state." It's something that was never interpreted as a right for the first 175 years or so of this nation.
Come to think of it the right to privacy is not in the constitutional either. But it has gradually been penciled into the margins of this wonderful document over time by a group of mental masturbating judges trying to justify their jobs.
Somehow we manage to let our "rights" be slowly eroded by inventing new interpretations of this document. The constitution is really about as short as a sophomore's English paper, yet it has hundreds of thousands of pages hanging on to it that change it's meaning. It's like building a pyramid, only upside down. We started with a solid foundation, but now there is so much crap added to it that it most certainly will fail and fall some day.
Your analogy to the Smothers Brothers is funny as I remember the skit myself but my take is a bit different. I see the press and Democrats ranting that someone is throwing red meat to the base and people much like you say, yup-yup-yo... that's exactly what their doing, salivating all over themselves, everyone against burning the American flag is a fool.
Who is acting mindlessly? Those who become passionate at the thought of someone burning our flag, or those who's blood boils to the point they feel compelled to belittle others?
Well I recall several at the Terri Schiavo protests in Florida.
"When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner."
We do not need to open the US constitution for matters of etiquette. Likely that hundreds of US flags have been burned in a dignified manner over the last 7 years. What happened to SS reform? Methinks we should keep our eye on the ball.
Yeah, that pond-scum-sucking wanna-be. One and the same, blow hard, phoney-baloney A-hole.
In case anyone does not remember:
Candidate Harkin Stretches the Truth
In Mr. Harkin's case, the questions that have lingered longest concern his Navy record. Mr. Harkin did serve in the Navy during the Vietnam era, but exactly what he did, and for how long, remain a matter of some dispute.
"After I got out of college," he says in his standard stump speech, "I spent eight years, eight months and eight days as a Navy pilot."
His military record, though, shows he served five years on active duty, from Nov. 21, 1962, until Nov. 30, 1967. The senator arrives at the eight-year figure by adding on three years in the ready reserve. Mr. Harkin's military record, acquired by The Wall Street Journal through a Freedom of Information request, shows he remained active in the reserves, ready or not, until Oct. 1, 1989, retiring with the rank of commander.
"I'm right," Mr. Harkin says. "I was a Navy flyer for eight years, eight months and eight days. I have a certificate to prove it."
What he did while on active duty is even more confusing.
In 1979, Mr. Harkin, then a congressman, participated in a round-table discussion arranged by the Congressional Vietnam Veterans' Caucus. "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962," Mr. Harkin said at that meeting, in words that were later quoted in a book, Changing of the Guard, by Washington Post political writer David Broder. "One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions. I did no bombing."
That clearly is not an accurate picture of his Navy service.
Though Mr. Harkin stresses he is proud of his Navy record--"I put my ass on the line day after day"--he concedes now he never flew combat air patrols in Vietnam.
He was stationed at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Atsugi, Japan. Damaged aircraft were flown into Atsugi for repairs or sometimes flown out of Atsugi to the Philippines for more substantial work. Mr. Harkin says he and three other Navy pilots flew these ferry flights. And, when the planes had been repaired, he and his fellow pilots took them up on test flights. "I had always wanted to be a test pilot," he says. "It was damned demanding work."
How much time did he actually spend in Vietnam? "I wouldn't really know," he says. He estimates that over a period of about 12 months he flew in and out of Vietnam "a dozen times, maybe 10 times." But what about those combat air patrols and the photo-reconnaissance support missions? He says he did fly combat air patrols, in Cuba, in 1965 and 1966. He was stationed at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. base, "and we were on frigging alert for 18 months, the whole time I was there." He would take off whenever a U-2 American spy plane flew by, in case Cuban dictator Fidel Castro scrambled his fighters to intercept it. And he says he flew photo-reconnaissance missions too, out of Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C., while he was serving in the ready reserve.
In explaining his Vietnam experience at that congressional round-table in 1979, Sen. Harkin says that in retrospect "maybe I didn't say it right."
(YEAH, MAYBE YOU LIED)
The round-table wasn't the only time he talked about extensive Vietnam service. In April of 1981, Mr. Harkin told Harold E. Roberts, publisher of the Creston, Iowa, News Advertiser, that in Japan he was assigned to a squadron where "we flew many missions to Vietnam and the Philippines." And in a short April 1, 1980, statement in the Congressional Record attacking the Veterans Administration for the way it was handling claims related to the herbicide Agent Orange, Mr. Harkin said that "as a Vietnam veteran in Congress, I feel particularly responsible for seeing that this issue continues to command our attention."
Mr. Harkin says he always refers to himself as a "Vietnam-era veteran," and thinks the statement in the Congressional Record might be a misprint.
Mr. Harkin's Navy record shows his only decoration is the National Defense Service Medal, awarded to everyone on active service during those years. He did not receive either the Vietnam Service medal or the Vietnam Campaign medal, the decorations given to everyone who served in the Southeast Asia theater. "We didn't get them for what we did," Mr. Harkin says. "It's never bothered me."
Was that photoshopped? Or should I just generally go apeshit with hatred towards that bitch.
Not Photoshopped. It was taken from the thread about the Freeper counterprotest of their protest at Walter Reed.
I don't know how our guys kept their composure; especially our vets. I think I'd have gone postal.
(Pistol dry-firing has a somewhat cooling effect.)
Thank God there's at least one other person here that understands this.
Don't forget the massive cottage industry of creating 49 star "protest burn flags" that will spring up.
Such a flag is not now and never has been a US flag. I can't possibly see burning one being a crime being held up in any court.
I don't know if you looked through that thread, but there's one POS with a sign that says "God loves maimed soldiers." If anyone needs proof that there's evil in the world. . . .
I saw that. Certainly deserving of an IRA "six-pack."
There are all kinds of possibilities like that. How exact does a flag have to match an "official" U.S. flag for it to fall under the terms of a Constitutional Amendment outlawing flag desecration? Are pictures of flags printed on paper (perhaps on both sides) flags? If not paper, then what materials? How large or how small can a flag be?
That also renders absurd the question of how many flags have been burned over the years. If one individual buys (or manufactures) a hundred flags and burns them in a bonfire, do we count that as one hundred flags burned this year? Is that worse than ten people each burning one flag? Is it only one incident if the flags are all burned at the same time in one bonfire as opposed to being spaced out at daily intervals? At what point does this "problem" become large enough to "justify" a Constitutional Amendment?
This proposed Amendment is a full-employment act for judges and attorneys for the next fifty years, as people come up with all kinds of imaginative ways to test the boundaries of this ridiculous infringement on our basic freedoms.
Funny thing about freedom of speech. When someone burns a cross, thats not freedom of speech, because it might be considered a symbolic threat against blacks. But when someone burns a flag, it is freeedom of speech and not considered a symbolic threat against Americans.