Get ready to be stomped on by the lib blogers,Ed.

Go easy on Ed, he was abandoned by his parental units in an orphanage just outside Remulak during a teething fit.

Mr. Crothers (or perhaps the talking flag) seems unable to tell the difference between advocating the legality of unpopular speech and advocating the content of the speech itself. I'm sure many veterans do appreciate this difference, but the threat of physical violence on behalf of veterans is unfortunate nonetheless.

Nah, Ed, we just think it is akin to treasonous.

Yes, Ed, what a pity that you are just a misunderstod liberal.

Ed, I don't have to tell you that some people care more about symbols that represent America than they do about the things that make America the wonderful country it is, like the First Amendment to the Constitution (among many other things).

Tony

Does the N&R think it's OK to publish threats directed against a particular individual on the opinion page for his written remarks on a political issue? What a cheap shot; so much for journalistic integrity. I'm saddened by this very poor (IMO) editorial decision.

You need a tissue?

I'm sorry! I had to laugh at this. The whole talking flag thing was too much like the talking towel thing from South Park. I kept hearing that high pitched voice as I read the flag's words.

Frankly, as a veteran and a conservative I don't think I would "stomp" anyone for burning or spitting on an American flag. I can't believe Mr. Crothers threatened violence against another. After all it is a symbol that is easily replaced. If Jim Bob wants to burn a flag, I can go buy thirty more to hang around my house. I can drape myself in flags. Hey, it's good for the economy. Think of how many workers can keep their jobs because someone burns a flag. Let's all support our workers in the flag industry by burning a few flags and replacing them.

But Ed, can we burn the ones made in Mexico????
How the hell do American Flags get made in Mexico anyway? NAFTA? WTF?
If you wanna buy a flag, please check the label and make sure its at least made in the USA for christ's sake.

I thought about something over the weekend. I was considering dropping this whole LTE pasttime from my life. A lot of that was due to the childishness and mean-spiritness of recent responses. My own included.

While I was pondering that decision, I realized that there was something I've taken for granted over the last few months: Intelligent people.

I've read the written thoughts of you and
written to people from all walks of life - different religious perspective, wide ranges of political persuasion, broad spectrums of career choices. Yet, they've been able to discus issues with so much depth and understanding. I've been humbled that there exists more awareness in this community than I thought possible.

That makes me happy. Because sometimes when I venture out to the mall or when I'm driving down the road, it seems like I'm surrounded by nothing more than idiots.

This Letter to the Editor forum has given me hope.

I wonder if most of the people that stop in here share certain characteristics. Do we all put our feelings better into the written word than we ever vocalize them? Do we all feel a need to be heard? To exchange intelligent thought with others? Are we lonely to a degree because we have a hard time connecting to the outside world?

Who knows, right?

I just want to thank each of you for the experience. I also appreciate your patience with me because sometimes I can be vicious.

Anyway, it's been an eye-opener.

I'll shut up now. Just felt I needed to say that.

The "truth" is always best.

This should really make sunshine patriot ED's day from a former Repub!

Whatever comes out of these gates, we'll stand a better chance of survival if we work together." Maximus, from the movie 'Gladiator'

July 4, 2005

Dear Friends:

I hope that you have a very enjoyable Fourth of July as we come together today to celebrate our nation's birthday.

The quote by Maximus holds a lot of meaning as it relates to this time in our nation. To put his quote in current perspective, we stand a better chance of survival if we work together to end this unconstitutional (undeclared) war in Iraq.

The American people have given our President one year of 'probation.' Congress must immediately get its act together and clean up the mess before it is too late.

There are two great liberty-seekers who have written outstanding articles related to our nation's founding principles. Jacob Hornberger, the President of the Future of Freedom Foundation, wrote an outstanding piece titled 'Celebrating the Fourth of July.'

Closer to home and heart in today's world is an article written by Cindy Sheehan, 'Still Not Worth It.' Cindy's son was a great young man who fell for our country in Iraq. Cindy's article will make you rethink the reality of being in Iraq and our patriotism. You will find both articles below.

I hope you will enjoy and share these articles. Again, have an outstanding Fourth of July and remember the wise words of our founding fathers.

Sincerely yours,

Rachel Lea Hunter
Candidate for North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice

Guess Who's Coming to Help MJ This September!

Celebrating the Fourth of July
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 4, 2003

Let’s not mince words: The “freedom” that Americans celebrate today is opposite to the freedom that Americans celebrated on, say, July 4, 1890.

Think about it: In 1890, Americans were celebrating a way of life in which there was no income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, drug war, gun control, or immigration controls. There were virtually no economic regulations, mandatory government schooling (public schooling), or welfare. There was neither foreign aid nor involvement in wars thousands of miles away. There was no paper money or monetary central planning. Americans and foreigners alike enjoyed the rights of habeas corpus and due process of law.

That is what it once meant to be an American. That is once it once meant to be free. That is the freedom that Americans were celebrating on Independence Day, 1890.

That unusual society was the logical consequence of the central idea that motivated the English colonists living in America to take up arms against their own government. While the Declaration of Independence cited numerous reasons for their decision to revolt, what was different about that document was its expression of the most revolutionary principle ever enunciated in a political document: that the source of people’s rights is God, not government. It is impossible to overstate the significance of that simple but profound truth.

Throughout history, people have meekly accepted the notion that their lives, liberties, and property were nothing more than privileges bestowed upon them by the state. Given that mindset, it is not surprising that people never questioned the power of political rulers to arbitrarily arrest and punish them, regulate their peaceful activity, confiscate their property, or conscript them for war.

Each person has been endowed by our Creator with certain talents and abilities, which he has the right to employ, especially in the economic marketplace, in order to sustain and improve his life. He has the right to enter into mutually beneficial exchanges with others and to accumulate the fruits of those exchanges. He has the right to decide for himself what to do with the fruits of his earnings — spend, save, invest, hoard, donate, or even destroy them.

Thus, it makes perfect sense that Americans in 1890 were celebrating a way of life in which there were few or no occupational-licensure laws, economic regulations, income tax, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, immigration controls, drug laws, or gun control.

Today, “freedom” in America entails a way of life in which people cannot enter into businesses, professions, or occupations without the permission of the political authorities. If one doesn’t receive that permission, he doesn’t engage in that line of work, plain and simple.

Today, the income of the American people is unconditionally subject to the power of the federal government. Sometimes they’re nice and tax us less; sometimes they’re not so nice and tax us more. But make no mistake about it: by having the power to set the percentage of the income tax, the federal government now has ultimate control over how much of people’s earnings they will be permitted to keep.

The government power to regulate economic activity is once again a given, resulting even in the criminal prosecution of some of the country’s most successful economic entrepreneurs.

In the name of political “goodness” and “charity,” the government now has the power to take money from one person in order to give it to another person.

Today, Americans celebrate the “freedom” to be taken care of and controlled by a powerful paternalistic government ... the “freedom” to have their lives, economic activities, and fortunes subject to omnipotent government control ... the “freedom” to be made into “good” and “compassionate” people through the coercive welfare apparatus of government.

It is a “freedom” that has created a mindset of socialistic dependency among the people, while destroying the self-reliance and “can-do” spirit that characterized our ancestors. It is a mindset that cannot imagine people actually surviving and prospering without the welfare assistance of government.

It is a “freedom” by which government has once again been placed in the sovereign and supreme position in its relationship to the individual and in which the individual has once again been relegated to a subservient role.

We should also not forget that the “freedom” that Americans today celebrate also includes the federal government’s newly assumed power to seize anyone anywhere in the world, including here at home, and jail or execute him without due process of law.

On July 4, 1776, a small band of radical English colonists expressed an idea of liberty that shook the political foundations of the world. What better way to celebrate the Fourth of July, 2003, than to pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to its restoration?

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

-----

Still Not Worth It

by Cindy Sheehan

Last January, I was bumped from the Larry King Live show for an appearance by the soon to be proven innocent Michael Jackson. I was going to be on the program to answer the question: Did I feel my son's murder in Iraq was "worth it" after the "free" elections in the war torn country on January 30th. I wrote an article then called: "Not Worth It."

I never thought I would be invited back on as a guest after I pretty much burned the Larry King bridge with my article. However, to my astonishment, I was invited to be a guest on June 28th. I was asked to be on the broadcast in order to give my impressions and rebuttal to George's speech on Iraq that he delivered in front of the less than enthusiastic (what the White House spin doctors call: respectful) troops at Ft. Bragg, NC.

I felt like I was in Bizarro World as I heard George speak about 9/11 five times and mention terrorism 31 times, even though these rationales for war have been disproved repeatedly. I think George thinks that since we believed him once about terrorism vis-à-vis Iraq, that we must therefore be gullible enough to believe him this time. I don't know, and I am not a professional pundit, but my theory is he might have mentioned 9/11 to manipulate our emotions and maybe even frighten us a little again?

The thing that struck me when I was watching that vacuous man giving his hollow speech was the fact that he could have always replaced the word "terrorists" with the phrase: "my moronic and callous foreign policies" For example, when he said that terrorists spread death and destruction on the streets of Baghdad and kill innocent people, he could have just as easily said: "My moronic and callous foreign policies spread death and destruction on the streets of Baghdad and kill innocent people." When he said that we need to stop terrorists from toppling governments in the region, he could have just as easily said: "We need to stop my moronic and callous foreign policies from toppling governments in the region." People have characterized the speech-lite in many ways, but if I had to pick a few words to describe it, I would say: "Hypocritical, manipulative, condescending, meaningless drivel."

I sat through an entire hour in the CNN studio in DC hearing not one person say that the invasion was a mistake and if it was a mistake, then our troops should be brought home immediately. Even the "Democratic" Senators (Kerry and Bayh) on the program just gave their recipes for "success" in Iraq, which did not include any exit strategies. The guest host for that hour was Bob Costas and he asked one guest, Sen. John McCain, an intriguing question: "If you could push Button One and have an eventual wonderful outcome in Iraq, or if you could push Button Two and never have had it happen, which one would you pick?" Of course, Sen. McCain chose Button One. He hasn't had a loved one killed in this enormous tragedy of a war, nor does he have a loved one in harm's way. It has not affected him personally one bit. What skin is it off McCain's nose if our troops remain for a highly unlikely rosy outcome at the cost of thousands of more lives? I would push the button that would bring back my son, Casey, and the tens of thousands of other victims who have been killed for nothing but outright lies and bald-faced betrayals. I would push the button that would give Iraq back its power, water, and infrastructure.

My absolute favorite guest of the evening was Sen. John Warner, powerful chair of the Senate Armed Disservices Committee. Of course, he fell in lockstep behind his Führer and praised the speech and how, although we have "all" paid a terrible price for this invasion and occupation, bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people is worth all the sacrifices that the world is making. I sat in the Green Room with Sen. Warner's entourage. I wondered (even out loud) what price they have paid for our administration's misdeeds in Iraq. They all looked like happy, well-fed, well-dressed, well-educated, and well-hydrated Americans. They looked to me like they had plenty of electricity to blow-dry their hair and charge their cell phones and laptops. They looked like they had quite a nice supply of clean drinking water and fresh food. I sincerely doubt if any of them had a loved one ripped from their lives by a car bomb, IED, or bullet in an ambush. I wondered who the "we" was that John Warner spoke of. I spoke with John Warner after his interview and told him unless he was prepared to sacrifice even a good night's sleep over this senseless and criminal war, then he should work on ending it, not prolonging the carnage. He told me that I was "entitled to my opinion," but he would respectfully have to disagree with me. That was awfully Constitutional of him!

I finally got on to speak for my 82 seconds (all the time Larry King Live could spare for the peace message) about how this war is a catastrophe and how we should bring the troops home and quit forcing the Iraqi people to pay for our government's hubris and quit forcing innocent children to suffer so we can allegedly fight terrorism somewhere besides America. How absolutely racist and immoral is it to take America's battles to another land and make an entire country pay for the crimes of others? To me, this is blatant genocide. How dare we export our brand of flag-waving death and devastation to a people who have been through so much already? It wasn't bad enough that our sanctions killed tens of thousands of Iraqis before we even started an active aggression against them. Now we have to create confusion, chaos, and disorder there. How dare our president and Congress, and we Americans, allow this to continue?

After my brief advocacy for peace, my position was refuted by another Mom whose son was killed in Iraq in 2003 who said she "totally disagrees" with me and "feels sorry" for me. Well, you know what? I ache for her blindness and for the millions of sheeple who have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the bunch of hypocritical, bad shepherds who are running a disastrous herd over the world. I have distressing news for the Soccer Safety Moms and the NASCAR Dads who are such ardent supporters of this administration and war: Your grandchildren and children who will be entering Kindergarten this fall will be fighting George's endless war if he gets his way and is allowed to continue spreading the cancer of imperialism in the Middle-East. Donny Rumsfeld said we could be in Iraq for another dozen years. Does anybody think with all the billions of dollars that are being poured into constructing super-sized bases in Iraq that the war machine plans on relinquishing the cash-cow that is that poor, unfortunate land anytime soon? Think about it when you tuck your child into bed tonight.

I heard George and the Senators say that evening the sacrifices we as Americans have had to make for Iraq are "worth it." I really would like to know who has benefited and profited from Iraq and who has really had to sacrifice anything. I know it was "worth it" to Dick Cheney who was the CEO of Halliburton, (of no-bid contract fame) which has raped billions of dollars from our government, from the people of Iraq, and from our soldiers who are not getting what they need to survive in a combat zone. It is "worth it" to Black Water Security Co. who sends one-thousand-dollar-a-day mercenaries to Iraq, funded by the War Department. It is "worth it" to L. Paul Bremer who slunk out of Iraq with 8.8 BILLION dollars missing from the Provisional authority. It is also "worth it" to the other companies and individuals who have been enriched by feeding our children to the military industrial complex. By George, I think we have found the people who think this war is "worth it." But, is it worth it to George Bush who was counting on this unlawful and unprincipled aggression in Iraq to give him "political" capital? Instead, if poll numbers are any good indication, Americans are withdrawing their assent for George and they are withdrawing their consent for him to wage eternal war on humanity.

As I sat in the Green Room of CNN, I was saddened and troubled by George's call for us Americans to fly the flag proudly on the 4th to honor our troops. For one thing, the American flag is not a magical token that can bring armor to the troops who are still dying without the protection. The flag is not a faith healer that can restore limbs and eyesight to the ones who have been maimed forever. The flag is not a genie in a bottle that can blink her eyes and bring our children home from this horrible blunder that they are suffering for and being slaughtered for. But, as for me, I will never be able to celebrate another patriotic holiday without mourning what this nation has stolen from my family. I will never be able to look at an American flag without thinking of the uniform my son wore proudly that displayed that same symbol and the evil ones who desecrated and defiled the stars and stripes by lying us into the invasion of Iraq. No, Casey's sacrifice was not "worth it" and George needs to do more than wave his flag and manipulate our sense of patriotism. He needs to march his girls to a recruitment center and send them to Iraq to fight the terrorists that his moronic and callous foreign policies have recruited or he needs to wake up and smell the apple pie and bring our other sons and daughters home, now!

July 4, 2005

Cindy Sheehan [send her mail] is the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan, KIA 04/04/04 She is co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace.

Sue, The threat of phyical violence against flag burners is real. I read a story online somewhere in the past day where a kid tried to burn a flag at a concert over the weekend. Several people rushed him and took the flag away and the kid got pummeled in the process.

Society has a way of letting people know what is considered appropriate behavior and what is not.

Ed Crothers sounds like the kind of guy who believes "they hate freedom."

One thing the opponents of free speech forget is that the flag is only a symbol of our country and particularly of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. A constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag is a desecration of the ideals of this country, and is itself a desecration of the flag.

John Shaw
http://itismyopinion.blogspot.com

Much discussion of this letter at Eschaton. I like this one: "If the American Flag is smart enough to write threatening letters, you'd think it'd have enough sense to coat itself in flame-retardant chemicals . . ."

The moment we pass an amendment limiting free speech, no matter how offensive you may think it is, is the moment that same flag stands for less.

C'mon people, let's protect the ideals of this country, not a cloth symbol.

Once we start passing things like this, the terrorists have won.

Mr. Cone, if you choose to burn a US Flag in my presence to express your right to free speech, don't be upset when I express mine by punching you right in the nose.

My toddler accidentally dropped his flag on the ground this weekend. Should I be imprisoned for that? I mean, where does this end?

Is no burning a shredded flag the proper way to get rid of a damaged flag?

I'm gonna punch you! Right in the NOSE!!!1!11

Christ, why do we have to live with these imbeciles?

I think it's quite funny that all the nutjobs who threaten violence against people who burn the flag don't even know that the law of the land includes and recommends burning the flag under certain circumstances.

From the U.S. code, Title 4, Chapter 1 �8 "Repect for flag"
...
(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.

--

I guess that means Ed can't dispose of a tattered flag (like the ones hanging off of countless cars) properly, lest he get his nose punched in.

Of course, the Limbaugh-lovers of the world will never look past their own blind hatred of anything that can't be condensed into a conservative talking point. They can't think in more than one dimension about any issue; to do so would mean renouncing everything they've advocated since the 80s.

The idea that the flag is a symbol of the freedom to say what one wants, when one wants to say it - including the burning of symbols like the flag - is just too complicated for them to wrap their fragile little minds around.

john: there's a difference between free speech and assault.

your attitudes make me think of cloth but not the cloth that makes a flag. they make me think of the brown cloth found fashionable by some in the 30's.

you might think you're defending freedom, but the fact is that you don't know what it is.

Cindy Sheehan,

I am very sorry for your loss and respect the sacrifice made by your family. Your experience has obviously made you very bitter. Your letter takes the tone more of a bitter polical hack than one of a grieving mother. The letter contains well too many fallacies to address here. I am just glad that for every one of the military parents Larry King can find who share your opinion; he can find 50 more that disagree with you and are proud of their relatives service. If things are really that bad in America maybe you should head north or south and leave. While your traveling please speak to all the people trying to get into America that think it's a pretty great place. See if you can convince them to stay out too.

Mr. Cone burns a flag. John punches Mr. Cone in the nose. John goes to jail for assault and battery.

God, I hate violence. The next person to advocate violence in response to burning a flag I'm going to kick you in the butt. ;-)

John,

I have expressed no interest in burning a flag. I have expressed support for the Constitutional right to do so.

What kind of country orders people to revere a symbol? Not a free one, for damn sure. You would shred the Constitution to save a piece of cloth.

In any case, threatening people with physical violence in a conversation like this is just pitiful.

Jesus, how stupid is John?

John, first of all, Ed Cone never said he wanted to burn a flag, intended to burn a flag, or advocated the burning of flags.

He said he opposed the adoption of laws criminalizing the burning of flags. Are you too stupid to understand the difference?

And I have to laugh at the righteous John, willing to committ the crime of assault in retaliation for the burning of a flag. John, there is no interpretation of the laws that considers assault free speech.

Uh, John?
"Punching someone in the nose" isn't speech you moron, it's a crime not protected by your Constitution. Maybe you should read the Constitution sometime.

Let me know when you get to "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". It won't take long. Maybe some liberal will explain the big words to you.

Is flag burning actually a problem? Has anyone seen one being burned in person? How widespread is the problem really. Now if you want to see some flags burned go ahead and pass your amendment. My guess is that would create the problem this ridiculous amendment was indended to solve.

John's response is typical.

Their fearful leader uses violence to solve problems, why shouldn't they?

Is flag burning actually a problem?

Burning of U.S. flags is a huge problem all around the globe. Unfortunately, our legal power does not yet extend to all the freedom-hating corners of the world -- we shall have to invade several more America-hating countries before we can hope to even make a dent in the problem.

Sparky,
Um...huh?

Why people want to piss on our constitution by passing this amendment is beyond me.

I am a vet and I take offense at the Mr Crothers sense that I would assault anyone for exercising the rights that I fought for in 2 wars. I may not agree with their views but I fought for their right to express them. In fact, I think I might punch Crothers in the nose if I ever see him for proposing such idiocy!!! He is not expressing the ideals of our great consitution. Shame on him!

HA!HA! HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA!HA! HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA!HA! HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Yesssss!! Burn it! Burn the flags! Burn the constitution! Burn it all! I love fire!!

HA!HA! HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA!HA! HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!HA!HA! HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I abhor physical violence. That is why I would shoot John right between the eyes if he ever punched me in my nose for burning any flag I bought with my own money for the express purpose of burning it. That's what I like about guns, you don't have to touch bugs like John to drop the hammer on him. Speaking of which, what do you think John would say if we shredded his second amendment right to own guns like he is trying to shred our first amendment right to free expression? I bet he would whine like a bigger baby than he is whining now. And yes, John, I have used lethal force in my own defense before. It's fun.

Dear Flag:

How could we have gone so wrong? I will always love you, but I stopped being proud of you when you took up with that shameless gigilo Bush. He'll screw anything that moves.

But don't worry, when you realize you've been betrayed by a sweet-talking con man, I'll be there to pick the pieces of your broken heart.

J.C. Burcham,

How many children have you lost in this war?

Our flag stands for many things especially our sovereign freedom. Some of our freedoms and liberties are enumerated in our venerated Ten Amendments that were tailed onto the constitution, which was focused on the nuts and bolts of governance.

The first freedom to be outlined is our inalienable right to say and do exactly what we want. There are certain agreed upon boundaries to speech, like shouting 'Fire' in a theater. We are a nation of laws, and those laws very clearly define the line between free speech and crime.

The current penalties for flag 'desecration' are so minor, a misdemeanor, as to be no laws at all (18 USC 700). The Judicial Branch seems satisfied that burning a flag in protest to perceived imperialism on the part of the various levels of American government is protected under the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause (obvioulsy assault is not in this category) or that no Executive Branch Prosecutor has had the political will to enforce 18 USC 700.

Let us never forget that every single one of the Patriotic Americans that fly those decrepit flags you see everywhere are all in violation of 18 USC 700.

Now we get to the crux of the matter, the algebra of English. The creation of a Twenty-Eighth Amendment to remove protection of one specific form of political expression ('speech') undermines the foundations of the First Amendment (guarantor of that speech) and therefore is antithetical to the essence of America's freedoms, and those freedoms (and much more) are embodied in the Flag = Flag burning amendment is against what the Flag stands for.

To sum up, as long as one os free to burn the flag, one does not have to do so. When it becomes illegal, it is the grave duty of every patriotic American to do so.

Someone finally asked the real question here: is there some kind of major problem that Congress is responding to with this law? No, they're just whipping the ditto heads into a frenzy of shallow, lightweight patriotism. Hitler did it, Mussolini did it, Franco did it, Stalin did it. Unfortunately, it's been proven in numerous scientific studies that ditto heads don't read (including the current person in the Oval Office) so they don't know that their kind of person has been doing the dirty work for fascists for as long as both groups have existed. Liberals, progressives, intellectuals, and any independent, freethinking teachers, artists, scientists, and philosophers are the real targets of every law and every decision the neocons make. They want to outlaw thinking and acting independently. There will always be people who like the petty power and the feeling of being in with the powerful people (think of Rolf in "Sound of Music" who so quickly turned his back on his own countrymen to join the Hitler/Nazi movement - he's a composite of very real people). They are the biggest whiners and when they get a little bit of power, become the biggest bullies. Watch out folks for a growing nation of bullies trying to tell everyone else what to do (or else).

I am disabled combat Viet Nam veteran. I put my life on the line for your right to free speech.
If I need to spell out free speech to include burning the flag then we are dealing with mental midgets and if they vote, we are in deep trouble.
I know several bush backers who do not read and only watch Fox News or nothing at all.
They are fools who follow authority blindly. When presented with the facts, in print, they reject them and do not read the evidence in front of them.
They have also separated themselves from the death and destruction in Iraq, particularly of our own troops and the abandonment of them by OUR GOVERNMENT! The blood of every dead American soldier and the pain and suffering of those who are permanently disabled is on their heads.
This tough talk is ok for "Arm Chair Warriors". The least they could do is to support funding for the Veterans Administration health Care System which has been a political football for generations.
They are too blind to see that Bush would rather have a dead soldier than one who needs medical care. It's less expensive. More profit for him and his rich buddies. They can keep their huge tax cuts for the rich while corporations pay nothing for the right to export American jobs.
Some people love to be abused. They are used to it and not comfortable without it. Just like "dope" to an addict, these cretins will pay more taxes, outrageous gas prices, insurance bills and bank charges. They will allow the banks to take away their homes with glee.
What can you say when they will not read, listen or in any other way entertain the truth.
They may even ask for more abuse as long as they have greedy fool who tells them he is strong when in reality he is as weak minded as his supporters.

This doesn't address the real problem, of course, but it's an interesting idea -

Don't burn it, wash it

Lewis Mark,

You are exactly right. This flag crap is unearthed to coincide with the Supreme Court taking away ALL AMERICAN'S PROPERTY RIGHTS. Talk about shredding the constitution. In the end, THEY hope we'll be happy and content with the freedom to burn our flag. They don't give a crap about the flag, they want our property so they can turn it into a Super Wal-mart and all their developer buddies can share in the wealth.

Hey, WTFuXiT2Ya, so you show how you abhor violence by threatening to shoot another blogger?
How proud you must be of yourself.

I never said you threatened to burn the flag, Ed Cone, I said IF.
Liberals like you that would desecrate the flag are peeing on everything our forefathers fought for, and everything brave Americans fight for today. You're giving the finger to the very government that protects you and allows you the freedom to express yourself in that way. You're belittling everyone that's served and fought under our flag.
Our flag is not just a piece of cloth, it's a visible symbol of our greatness as a nation. To desecrate it is to desecrate our nation and our citizens.

John,
To punish those that express their first amendment RIGHT to burn the flag, is a slap in the face of those who died protecting our right to do just that!

John,

Where do you come up with this stuff? You admit I said nothing about burning a flag myself...then turn around and say, "Liberals like you that would desecrate the flag..."

No, John. No. I am saying that people have a Constitutional right to express their views, however abhorrent those views may be to you or me.

Further, it's not a liberal or conservative issue. Read the comments, they come from all across the spectrum. This is about free speech, which is not confined to one political point of view.

You say that to defend free speech is to "give the finger to the very government that protects you and allows you the freedom to express yourself in that way." No. We celebrated yesterday the Declaration that states that our rights are bigger than any government. And what the hell use are rights to criticize one's government if one can't use them to criticize the government?

The military doesn't own the flag. It's been heartening to read comments on this subject from veterans who say they recognize that they were defending the rights, not the flag. And it's insulting to veterans to say they don't get this distinction.

You're willing to question my patriotism and puff up your own, because I wrote a newspaper column arguing that the government should not mandate reverence for a symbol. That symbol may mean something to you, me, and many others. To some, it may mean less. And to still others, it's very importance is what makes it a potent symbol of protest.

That's the way we do it in America, John.

Desecrating the symbol of our country is not "defending" anything, it's an attack on the government for which it stands. You're "exercising" your rights, not defending them.

Ed,

Some people try to misunderstand. You've gone to a lot of trouble to attain the knowledge you have. There is a difference is knowledge and wisdom. {You cannot feed intellect into a brick wall} So,let it go and keep up the good work.

John, let's try this one more time.

I'm not desecrating anything. I'm not burning, peeing on, or defacing anything. I, in fact, spent much of yesterday helping my daughter and my niece decorate a beach house with streamers and flags.

Not that my personal behavior is the issue.

The issue is the right of Americans to political speech.

Even political speech that you don't like, or I don't like.

And since when is it bad to criticize our government? We're Americans, bud, it's our right and responsibility to speak our minds.

Also, this word "desecrate" is problematic. Is the flag a holy object? No, it is not. It is a potent and beloved symbol of this country. But it is not the country, or the government.

Stand up for your rights, John. That means knowing what they are.

I think we can just solve this problem by first raising tax on flags, say $5 a flag. Because you know when the thing burns all that second hand smoke is going effect the children and the environment. Also if you are stupid enough to waste your money on buying a flag to turn around and burn it, then I'm not sure if you are smart enough to play with fire without getting hurt, so that means healthcare cost will go up. So when you go to get insurance, we need to have the question "are you a flag burner or not, when was the last time you burned the flag?" Which brings us to the need to have a flag burning and non flag burning designations, because when that flag burns that smoke will offend some people and we can't have that can we? But wait there is more what happens when a city has ordnance about no smoking outdoors in public places? Do you think the ACLU will come in and fight for all smoking things? Or do you think they will make flags that don't smoke when they burn?

You people are too funny. Going on and on about how your First Amendment rights are being taken away. Well news flash for ya, you just joined all those Second Amendment rights people but I don't remember hearing you gripe about the loss of the Second Amendment. Or what about all those business owners who were told that they could not allow smoking? Didn't hear you then either, but maybe that was because you agreed as long as it wasn't your right. Ahh but when it happens to you not very fun is it? So buck up, the government knows best of how to take care of you. (Or at least that is what I heard being said to smokers and those gun rights people). They are just trying to save you from hurting yourself and others with that nasty second hand smoke.

So much for wisdom . . .

Ed said: "The issue is the right of Americans to political speech."

Ed let me ask you, what political speech is someone giving when they burn the flag. I'll be honest I never understood that. I always thought speech was well speech. But here is another one for you, if they are making a statement against the government, and since for the most part we are known for our capitalism, wouldn't a better speech be for these people to go to the bank withdraw all their money and light it up? Now there is a statement.

Oh and one more thought Ed, we do have freedom of political speech, stand on the corner and hold a sign, I see people doing it all the time. So what freedom is being taken away? Nobody said these people can't speak or hold signs etc. etc.

Ed said: "We're Americans, bud, it's our right and responsibility to speak our minds."

Really, does Linda Tripp and Kathleen Witley know that last time they spoke out, I think it was called a "vast right-wing conspicary". Or what about Trent Lott and Karl Rove? Tell me Ed did you defend their right to speak out?

Ed said: "Stand up for your rights, John. That means knowing what they are."

Last question Ed, have you wrote any editorials about Second Amendment rights?

I'm not attacking your right to burn a flag, Mr. Cone. But apparently you have no idea of the purpose of the flag, or what it stands for.
Our freedom of speech does, indeed, give you the right to attack our government in words and attack the country that gives you that freedom. I've been in two wars to help preserve that right.
But you're attacking the government and, by proxy, the citizens of this country when you do it. You're attacking those that sacrificed to preserve that right for you.
You can say most anything while exercising your "right" but I'm not obligated to like it or tolerate it.

Of course Mr. Cone didn't defend their rights, Trish, because it was conservatives exercising them.
Liberals are vociferously intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them, as Mr. Cone so stridently demonstrates. Take the case of Atlanta pitcher John Rocker in 1999. When he exercised his rights to free speech there were actually Democratic members of congress who demanded that he be involuntarily committed to a mental institution because they didn't like what he said, it wasn't the "liberal" thing to say. Intolerance such as this is abominable, but typical of the liberal mindset.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

You people are pathetic!!

Don't let someone else exercise their free speech, but feel free to exercise yours.

Keep up that hypocrisy and I will rule the entire world instead of just the Republican Party.

Come back to my lap Trish my pet. Remember our deal. Your eternal soul for a guise of intellectualism and a high position with the party.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Hey Yo Mama has Satan paid his fanclub dues yet? If he hasn't you need to collect them, not fair that he gets to worship at my feet and not pay the dues.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

In your wildest dreams am I, the Lord of Darkness, in your fan club. You know it is I who reigns over you. If not for me, you would be sitting at a commune with your hippie boyfriend and the rest. I brought you out of that liberal minded lifestyle and gave you all that is republican. I, alone, gave you conservative ideals. I am the Lord of the Flies! If you do not bow to me now, I will relocate you to Southern California and put you in the house next to Alec Baldwin.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

There is at least one example in history of some people going far further than burning the flag to show their displeasure with our country and its government.

We live in that part of the country that unsuccessfully tried to form its own country and its own government, creating its own flag to represent these efforts.

Instead of a mere flag being burned, many lives were lost.

If it is suggested today that under no circumstances should it be tolerable to burn our country's flag, let me point out that that makes it clearly less tolerable that such treasonous efforts as those of the Confederacy were carried out.

The Confederate flag has been somewhat controversial, but if that flag so clearly represents treason against our national government, why is putting that flag on display regarded as less offensive than burning the American flag?

Also, understand that any symbol can mean completely different, even opposite, things to different people. (The same can even be true of words.)

The American flag is available for every citizen (and non-citizen) to interpret. A lot of us come to some similar conclusions.

But there are variations on how we perceive our flag and what it represents.

For some people, the emphasis is here. For others, the emphasis is there.

For some, we are ready to die (or in more cases, probably, kill) on behalf of the flag. For others, the flag is rarely, if ever, deeply considered.

If we pass a law that forbids anyone ever burning the flag, our country becomes something entirely different than it now is.

We become a sister-nation to all those nations that require that people think and act and believe a certain way. (OR ELSE!!!)

We become hardly distinguishable from the countries we say we need to change to make the entire world a better place for us all.

Freedom of speech is not just tied to what comes out of us in clear-cut words, either spoken or written.

Freedom of speech includes the right to interpret and represent and treat symbols as we choose.

Then the rest of us have the equal right to freely express our reactions and our responses to such speech. (Freedom of speech does not include the right to respond with physical violence, although in some cases, physical violence might not hurt as much as what we can sometimes manage to say with words and convey through symbols.)

Another interesting point is this: when someone burns the American flag, isn't his/her greatest risk that he/she will look so stupid and ugly in doing so that whatever grievance or point he/she was trying to make becomes totally irrelevant?

In such a case, do we really need to respond with anything other than pity for someone so misguided as to engage in such an act?

Do we need to punish someone whose greatest punishment will be their forfeiture of ever being taking seriously again? (What greater punishment is there?)

And if we know our country and what it represents, does it matter what others say about it or try to do to our symbols? (In other words, if someone burns our flag, does that have anything whatsoever to do with our love and understanding of that flag and what it represents? How does someone burning the American flag harm me or this nation when we are so secure in our knowledge and understanding of that flag?)

If someone calls my mother a "whore" or a "bitch," I see no reason to fight or try to harm the person saying it.

I have the clearest, cleanest, purest knowledge that my mother is neither of those things.

I therefore know under such circumstances that I am dealing with the most ignorant and worthless creature imaginable, hardly deserving of my time, my thoughts, my words, or my efforts.

Yes, I would tell someone that my mother is not those horrible things that he or she has chosen to call her.

But I know better that them saying such things in no way makes them true or worthy of consideration.

My mother is such a superior being that she would want me to fight over far more worthy causes than someone calling her stupid, ugly names.

The same translates well with the flag.

It does not offend me if someone burns the American flag. I have knowledge of what that flag means and what it represents, and in so knowing, a person burning that flag does not in the least threaten it or what it stands for. A flag burner cannot take away my internal knowledge and understanding of the flag.

Also, I will add: is it not a contradiction how quickly some will stand up to defend the flag at all costs while ignoring completely the mistreatment of fellow human beings?

We hear no calls for ammendments against cross burnings? (And why is it acceptable to burn crosses that most often in this country seem associated with Christianity? Are Christians not angered knowing that individuals are using a symbol so closely associated with Christianity in such a way?)

And I'm NOT calling for an amendment to ban cross burnings.

There are far superior ways to confront and address cross burnings. (Just as there are far better ways to confront the near non-issue of flag burnings.)

Final point: an amendment to ban flag burning would be a far greater disgrace to this country than any flag burning. If you don't realize that, I would argue that you don't know or understand America as well as you think.

Some random notes:
Why is flag burning "freedom of speech"?: Texas v. Johnson in 1989 found ... "burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment." Must have been some of those pinko activist judges. Yep, sure was: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia (tee hee!) and Kennedy.
Basic debate ideas: Arguing that if we don't jump on the 2d amendment bandwagon we can't make an argument on the 1st is one of your prime rib fallacies, medium well, with a little horseradish on the side. It appeals to those who can't handle reason.
Most of the cites alleging the trashing of free speech involved people who said things and either were convicted in the court of public opinion, or who testified to something and were not believed. No abrogation of rights was involved. People, you need to understand the difference.
I'm surprised folks haven't brought up the "Let Bubba Do It" law. I don't know if this is still effective, but some time ago, Louisiana decriminalized assault and battery, if applied against a person burning a flag. Remarkably simple and devious: the fine for beating someone up while they are burning a flag was reduced to something like $25, with considerable nod-nod, wink-wink implying that these cases would not be vigorously prosecuted.
Now returning control to the amateur debating society ...

You guys advocating this amendment just don't understand what the rest of us are saying.

If you limit free speech, no matter how offensive you may think it to be, then you start to shred the very flag you aim to protect.

I for one don't want the government taking away any more of my rights.

Mr. Floyd, Your's is the voice of reason in an unreasonable arguement. Thank you.

All this talk of being unpatriotic, unamerican and ignorant because you support people's right to protest, in their own chosen way, is really quite revealing. You have in one camp those saying this is America and if they choose to protest by burning an inanimate object they are free to do so. In the other camp you have those who want to control the freedom of those who wish to protest in the non-violent way THEY choose.

Now which camp sounds more like a dictatorship? Like one with communist beliefs?

It is much like religion, as you pointed out, Mr. Floyd. If you have a truly fulfilling relationship with God, if you know in your heart of hearts the existence of God, do you lose that relationship and knowledge just because someone burns the Bible or the Ten Commandments aren't sitting in a public place? If you answer yes, your allegiance to God is superseded by your alligiance to objects, false gods. (Much like making a god out of the flag.)

That makes one a hypocrit, imho.

Trish and Killian,

I'm in favor of the 2d Amendment along with the other enumerated rights. And this is not a liberal-conservative issue, no matter how often you say that it is.

Also, the First Amendment protects against government censorship of speech, not against criticism and debate. Tripp, Lott, Rocker, et al -- if the government had tried to shut them up, of course I would have fought for them. When their fellow citizens, voters, employers etc chose to exercise their own rights in response to their words, well, that's not censorship. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility or criticism.

Which leads back to the actual point under discussion here: critics of flag burning have every right to argue against it, write dumb letters from talking flags, etc. They do not have the right to physical assault.

John, I feel I have a pretty good handle on the meaning and purpose of the flag. It's probably pretty close to yours, from what I can tell. We differ on our understanding of the First Amendment and the rights of Americans -- the rights represented by that flag. I guess we'll have to disagree on that one.

Lon:

"Texas v. Johnson in 1989 found"
Ok but the SU Court also ruled in Dred Scott v Sandord that african-americans were not citizens. So if the SC is right, maybe the Fourthtenth Amendment should never have been ratified.

"Basic debate ideas": Aww well seems like the other side always does that with the whole "chickenhawk" theme. However if you are stating that this is a big deal because we are losing our First Amendment right, which you are not no one said you couldn't speak, why not a big issue about losing the Second Amendment. I think one would call that hypocrisy. So basically it's not about Amendment rights is it? Oh and the argument: you not are not losing your first Amendment right, you can speak out all you want. You can dance around holding a sign doing the jig. Also not all speech is protected in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, the SC set out the rationale of what is protected and what isn't. Obscenity, lewdness, libel and fighting words are not protected, so does that mean you have lost your First Amendment right?

"this is still effective, but some time ago" Aww yes and someone where on the books you can take your wife down to the courthouse and beat her, but only on a Saturday I think. And your point being?

That should read: "a bullet thru the empty space where a brain would be if he had one." I intend to defend myself with extreme predjudice against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The domestic ones concern me more right now. They are closer, and if they never opened their mouths, you wouldn't know them from normal people.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/06/hunting-of-liberals.html

Mr. Floyd makes a good point. Furthermore, the passage of this idiotic amendment might cause some future moron like our President, because other morons will elect one again, to conclude that because some jihadis burned an American flag in Afghaniraqistan, or some other non-existent place, they meant to do us harm, and we should invade their country, forthwith!

Ed said: "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility or criticism."

You are correct, I had the Dixie Chicken syndrome. However what seems to be bothering me here is when the Republicans were criticizing Clinton, I don't remember hearing any democrats state that it was a patriotic thing to do. However that is beside the point, nobody here was told me what "political" speech someone is making by burning the flag. What are they saying or trying to prove? Also as I mentioned in the above post to Lon, not all speech is protected nor is anyone saying you can't speak. So what right are you losing? Also what about local ordanaces? Like no burning (out west where there is wildfires) or smokers (CA on the beach)what happens then? Do those laws get trumped?

"I'm in favor of the 2d Amendment along with the other enumerated rights."

So when the Second Amendment rights were being diminished did you write any editorials about it? I am not being smart here, I would like to read them if you did.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Thank you Trish!! Now I don't have to wait until it's raining and sunshining at the same time to beat my wife or should I say....you! I can take you to the courthouse on Saturdays.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Ed said: "this is not a liberal-conservative issue, no matter how often you say that it is."

Acutally it is and the reason why is because there is a Republican President and Congress. No one on the left side seemed to care much when their Second Amendment rights were being taken away (because as we know that was happening under a Democrat) That is what makes this a liberal-conservative issue. It has nothing to do with losing rights or anything else. Heck look at Yvonne up there bringing in communism and you say it is not a political issue? You really think Yvonne brought up communism when the Second Amendment was being limited? Heck no because she probably agreed.

Do you want to know what the really funny thing is, all you people whipped up into a frenzy and the likelyhood of the Consitution being changed is nil. I bet half the people here have no idea the process to change the Consitution nor when the last time it was changed. But it is fun to watch when the tables are turned so to speak. Not to much fun when the shoe is on the other foot huh?

Mr. Cone, I'm not contesting your right to criticize or try to destroy our government, or to burn a flag that so many have given their lives to protect. But I am not obligated to agree with you, or to take your actions lightly. You may burn all the flags you like, but I and many others will consider it a shameless act of desecration to our country.

So, WTFuXiT2Ya/Steve, does using profanity make up for your small penis? Do you feel like a real man when you personally attack others who express their beliefs? Do you even know which end of a rifle the bullet comes out of?

Trish, my politics make Ed Cone look like a leaning to right moderate and I'm a strong supporter of Second Amendment and smoker's rights. I don't blog much about those issues because I don't follow them and there are too many good bloggers with more knowledge and talent that do.

No one person can write about or solve every issue. I think we all do the best we can. Liberals, conservatives, we're not that different from each other really. We all care about the same things - our family, our country, our soldiers, making a decent life for ourselves. We just all have different ways of expressing those feelings.

Burning the flag is speech in the same way that a picture is worth a thousand words. It's a symbolic gesture to express any of whole range of feelings from anger to betrayal to frustration and despair. Maybe you could call it form of sign language.

Libby,

Thank you very much for a thoughtful post without attacking me and answering in a resonable tone, I don't think I have experienced that here yet. Also I have to say, I do believe that you are one of the few who support all rights, smokers, the Second Amendment etc. My whole point is that when these other rights were being taken away, no one cared because it didn't effect them. But when it does they don't like it too much and start with the whole "my rights are being taken away by the evil conservatives". As if one morning they woke up and the evil Republicans started taking away rights. Rights have been taken away from us for a long time. Why all the fuss now, it is not like this Amendment will never pass not only does it have to make it through the Senate, it also has to be ratified by 37 (I think is the number) states, what is the likelyhood of that? My point being if you are going to whine about one right then you need to stand up and fight for the other ones too if it is indeed about rights. It shouldn't matter whether they effect your or not. Right?

By the way you said: "Burning the flag is speech in the same way that a picture is worth a thousand words"

Now I have to mention that some pictures are not allowed because they are considered porngraphy. I was unware but if you have film with a picture of a naked person and take it to be developed you can be arrested because it is considered porngraphy. So if some types of speech are already banned what difference does it make if flag burning is banned? I mean you still can speak, march, carry a sign.

Trish:

'"Texas v. Johnson in 1989 found"
Ok but the SU Court also ruled in Dred Scott v Sandord that african-americans were not citizens. So if the SC is right, maybe the Fourthtenth Amendment should never have been ratified.'

I'll avoid sarcasm, as much as this comment screams out for a sarcastic response.

Dred Scott came in 1857 (although dated 1856), when, by the text of the Constitution, it was perfectly legal to own human beings and treat them no differently than any other property. The concepts behind the majority's decision are despicable, grounded as they are in the perception that some humans are inferior to others to the degree that they are inhuman and undeserving of humane treatment and human rights (you can see it for yourself here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393).

The 14. Amendment to the United States Federal Constitution was proposed in the aftermath of the Amerian Civil War, in 1866, and ratified in 1868. Strangely (ok, some sarcasm), what it does is "amend" the Constitution. That means that the very basic law of the country is changed. The SCOTUS ruled in 1857, correctly, in terms of law (at least, as the Court said so, it became legally "correct"), though incorrectly in tems of ethics, that enslaved Americans of African descent, or even emancipated former slaves, or free born Americans, were not citizens. The 14. Amendment changed that - flash of light, poof of smoke, and suddenly, magically, every American, regardless of ethnicity or former status of bondage, was a citizen.

The Supremee Court is the highest interpreter of American law, the highest law of which is our Constitution. When the Constitution changes, the Supreme Court has to change. Most of the amendments subsequent to the Bill Of Rights (save for a few that changed the structur of government) are the result of writing into law the idea that the Supreme Court was wrong, and that, even if it seemed to rule properly, was indeed endorsing some lack of rights.

From your name, I presume you to be female. Do you exercise your right to vote? Despite the fact that "man" and "men" can be and are used, in English and other Germanic languages, to refer to "all humans", the law of this country, up to the Supreme Court, held that the terms meant only males. The 19. Amendment wrote into our most basic law that, no, women do indeed have a right to vote. Constitution trumps Supreme Court.

To accept otherwise is to declare that most, if not all, amendments to the Constitution are wrong, because the Supreme Court said so according to the Constitution as it once existed.

Of course, we also have an error of magnitude here - the day that "desecration" of the flag even beings to approach the socio-political weight of the legal recognition and protection of the citizenship of all Americans is the day that the Constitution has been relegated to the dustbin of history.

If some beltway politicians were to force us to choose between enshrining our flag or protecting our Bill of Rights, we would be wise to choose protecting our Bill of Rights.

Without our Bill of Rights, we'd be just another country with a flag.

Trish,

I hope Libby is not the only civil voice here, I've tried to keep an even tone as well, as have many others.

I don't see what the Second Amendment, smoking, and Clinton have to do with the fact that the House of Representatives has passed the flag-burning amendment. I wrote a column (six years ago) about flag-burning, that's what this conversation has been about. If an amendment was under serious consideration that would ban guns or smoking, I'd write in opposition. I agree that the amendment under discussion has little chance of becoming law, but to ignore it would be to increase its chances.

You ask, What is the speech value of flag burning? Whatever the person with the match believes it to be. Not my place, or yours, to dicate or approve.

I don't like my government telling me what I can or can't do, and when it comes down to principles enumerated in the Constitution I get very defensive of my rights.

John, we agree. You are free to burn a flag. I am free to burn a flag. We are both free to disagree with flag-burners.

Trish, we can finally agree on something: repubs are evil. This meeting of the minds; however, does not change my mind- please go be stupid somewhere else. You have not made one single cogent argument, all you do is quote one of those AM radio guys. If we want to hear rush we can listen in we don't need you to repeat everything he says.

I hereby rescind your first amendment right to free speech. Go away, rush has a web site you would enjoy; it is frequented by other empty-heads. You guys could rant and rave to your hearts (well whatever passes for a heart in a neo-con) content. Bye-Bye and good raving.

By the way would you please take John and JC Burcham with you; although John probably won't pass the intelligence requirements, please for goodness (sorry) sake keep him with you.

Trish you're right that the problem isn't just the Republicans, or conservatives, both parties and even so called liberal politicians have voted to diminish our civil rights over the years. You need look no further than the war on some drugs to find the proof of that.

The only reason we focus on conservatives now is that they are in power. The root of the problem is that our government is run by lobbyists and our politicians now protect special interests, not the public good. Whoever comes up with the coin for the campaign coffers gets the legislation they want.

This flag amendment is simple grandstanding to pander to whatever special interests, but more importantly to keep us polarized on peripheral issues. Divide and conquer. If they keep us angry with each other, maybe we won't notice that they're not doing their job. We have many bigger problems that need to be addressed besides whether someone wants to exercise their FA rights by burning a flag.

As far as equating flag burning with pornographic photos, it's kind like the difference between having a reasonable debate or having someone threaten you with violence because you don't agree with them. It's a different kind of speech and hate speech is not protected.

If you use speech to incite harm on others, and I believe what you're talking about is child pornography - I don't think you can be arrested for having adult nude photos on your roll of film - then it neither is or should be protected.

You ask why flag burning is necessary when there are so many other avenues to protest the government. It's for the same reason we need to protect all our civil rights, not just the ones that we care about. Burning a flag is political speech and if we allow the government to suppress our right to make that statement, they will use it as a precedent to keep chipping away at our right to dissent.

And by the way, to the rogue's gallery out there, I have never burned a flag nor do I intend to, just as I don't own a gun, but I will fight to protect the right for Americans to do both and to perserve every other personal freedom that is under attack by power hungry politicians.

Chris said: "Constitution trumps Supreme Court."

Correct but you are basing your argument on a Supreme Court decision. No where in the Constitution does it say that burning a flag is free speech. Five humans of The Supreme Court said they think it does or that is the way they see it, does that make them right, because four said otherwise? As shown above, the Supreme Court can be wrong. But more to the point if an Amendment does pass it is not taking your right away it is giving We the People a voice to disagree with five humans.

"the Supreme Court said so according to the Constitution as it once existed."

I'm sorry I didn't realize that the Constitution was a living breath document that changed with the times. If it is true that the Constitution changes then why don't we just throw it out and start anew, like we do with the President and Congress? Could it be because it is a document, the rule of law, the "the highest law" and in it there is a process to change what might be wrong and that is called an Amendment, which the people (as in "We the People") get to have a voice. When you allow 9 unelected humans the ability to decide what they think the Constitution should say and you deny the right for people to disagree (in the form of an Amendment), you in effect are allowing my rights to be taken away. The Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not change it based on European laws or how they wish it to be. When they do that, "We the People" are no longer, it becomes "Us the Government".

"protection of the citizenship of all Americans is the day that the Constitution has been relegated to the dustbin of history."

No the day that we give 9 humans the ability to push their agenda on us is the day you can throw the Constitution in the dustbin, because in doing so you are throwing away the rights, that The US Constitution set up, that give you a voice in this government. If the Amendment passes it is allowing We the People, to say we disagree with five humans elected to a court, not that we are "taking away your rights". And that my friend is what the country was built on.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Wonderful Trish!!! Cite the constitution when you see it is to your advantage. Switch to the Supreme Court when it fits your need. Dodge the issue and rant about the person instead of the argument. Don't every make a sensible argument. Keep them twisting in the wind. They are imbeciles. They believe everything you tell them. Keep repeating what Rush and Hannity say. Eventually we will crush them!!! You may even graduate up from my lapdog.

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

I'm a 58 year old Viet vet, Bronze star, a couple of Air Medals, a Combat Infantryman's Badge and more.

Contrary to the Flag's line of thinking (?) about dogfaces wanting to stomp Mr. Cone, I agree with Mr. Cone's thoughts.
The flag needs no protections that would lessen the import of the First Amendment. To do so would be the cruelest blow to the flag. Far more damaging than burning a thousand painted rags.

And that's all a flag is, a painted rag. Until it stands for something.

Our flag is not harmed when one protester burns it, even if the protest might be misguided, or the burning done to inflame passions.
Refusing misguided protests, or allowing one's anger at the act of burning to allow one to remove the intellectual backing that makes the flag special . . . well that would be unforgivable.

Pass a law stating that all "official" flags must be made out of non-burnable material, so flags from government offices, schools eytc., can't be burned. Then you can always sooth your conscience when a protester burns a flag by stating "It's not a real/official flag, just a painted rag without meaning. If that makes Mr. Crothers feel better, I'm willing to bet it will meet approval by Mr. Cone.

But please don't get the idea that Ed Crothers can speak in the voice of all veterans, or even of the flag.
And don't place the American flag into some category of items that helped remove the import of any of America's freedoms.

I'm pretty sure, she'd rather burn!

Jack Ballinger

Libby a very good post and for the most part I agree with you, I just disagree that the Constitution states burning a flag is speech. The thing is I understand what both sides are saying. I'll be honest with you, I frankly don't care one way or the other. I know as bad as that is I just don't see it as important. I am more worried about the eminent domain ruling. I happen to see the whole Amendment process as our government working the way it was set up. My argument is just because the SC makes a decision does not mean that the people have no voice about that decision. That is why our government has checks and balances. If the Amendment passes, you are not losing your right, as you stated there are other avenues, the people are just having a say to how they interpret the Constitution. Basically it is giving the people the right to disagree.

Let me ask you this you stated: "If you use speech to incite harm on others, and I believe what you're talking about is child pornography then it neither is or should be protected."
Are you aware that the ACLU is suing, under the First Amendment free speech clause on behalf of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)? Let's suppose that the Court rules in favor of NAMBLA, does that make it right? You stated that child pornography should not be protected so if five judges say otherwise does that make it right? Should the people then just roll over and go along with child pornography because some judges said it's somewhere in the First Amendment?

See the problem I run into about the whole flag burning is I believe in the Constitution to the letter. I do not see the Constitution as a living breathing document. I see free speech as well just that speech. If you want to be able to burn the flag, they elect people to represent you, make legislation and change your state law. That is the process on which this country was formed. But it seems today that instead of following the letter of the law, we like to take short cuts, sue and allow nine people to make the decision. When we allow this in effect you are taking away the rights of the people to have a say in the government.

People who say that flag burning is free speech, where did they get that from? From five Supreme Court judges, not the Constitution. So if the people vote on the Amendment and it passes that is not taking away a right it is giving the voice back to the people.

As a side note about the film, no I was told that even adult photos. Again I have no idea whether it is true or not but several people did say that it was a law.

Ed said "hope Libby is not the only civil voice here, I've tried to keep an even tone as well, as have many others."
Yes Ed you are correct as soon as I hit send I remembered I should have included the little minority that there is here. But you know it gets so frustrating when you are chased around this board from a fan club or even told by yellowdog that you have no right to post here and yet I find most (not all) agree with these two, so no I don't find that the majority of people here to be civil at all. At one time I was going to get my kids involved. I saw this as a good way for them to learn, however that was thrown out the window with some to the language and talk that goes on. But all in the name of harrassment and free speech right?

"I don't see what the Second Amendment, smoking, and Clinton have to do with the fact that the House of Representatives has passed the flag-burning amendment"

It's about rights and those rights being taken away or so I thought that was what you were saying.

"You ask, What is the speech value of flag burning? Whatever the person with the match believes it to be. Not my place, or yours, to dicate or approve."

Then why do you feel it is your place to dicate to someone else that flag burning is free speech? If the majority of people vote otherwise who is right the people or the government in the from of five judges?

"I don't like my government telling me what I can or can't do, and when it comes down to principles enumerated in the Constitution I get very defensive of my rights."

Well if an Amendment is passed, your government isn't telling you anything, that would be your fellow citizens, "We the People". Hence why an Amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. (Although maybe in the state of NC the government would vote for you since to my knowledge rarely is anything ever put on the ballot for a vote by the people).

If you're going to burn a flag, make sure it says "made in China" on it. The fact that we would import an American flag that was made in China is more offensive to me than the burning of it.

Trish
If you so distrust these 9 people and we remove the SC then who do you suggest interpets the laws of our country and that those laws fall within the Constitution?And has this comes down to interpetation of what the Constitution means I would not trust any committee set up by any one party to do this.

Hayes said: "If you so distrust these 9 people and we remove the SC"

I never said remove the SC. But you are correct I do not trust them, especially when you have a Justice say that we need to refer to European law (as set up in the Constitution their job is to interpet the Constitution as to what the founders meant, not what the Europeans believe) I said that if this is what the people want, they should have the option to pass an Amendment.

No we don't need to remove the SC, what we need is to get judges who know the job and interpet the Constitution for what it is not what they want it to be. As much as you and very one else thing that The United States Constitution is a living, breathing document, it is not. The Constitution has a way set in it to change it, that progess is called an Amendment not a decision by a judge.

Trish wrote: "Are you aware that the ACLU is suing, under the First Amendment free speech clause on behalf of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)?

Are you aware they are not?

Details:
---------

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations

August 31, 2000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

source: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86

Trish, your disdain for the Supreme Court and your supposed support of the US Constitution are quite at odds with each other: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." (US Constitution, Article III, section 1.)

Trish, I'm not "dictating" to others that flag burning is free speech, I'm stating as fact that under the law of the land it is free speech. You may not like it, and you may use your right to free speech to try to change it. I think it should be legal, I don't want my government telling me how to speak, think, and behave, and I use my right to free speech to say so.

When I read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights I read a list of governmental functions and the limitations set thereon, thereby providing me with my liberty.

How does a flag burning amendment (or any amendment like same-sex marriage) enhance my liberty, or limit the government's oppressive tendencies?

Seems to be in direct conflict to the purpose of the aforementioned documents.

Defenders of the constitution? A crock of crap if you ask me.

Why doesn't the governemt just make this a law under the "general welfare" clause, like it does for all the other (non-federal domain) laws it wants?

B.S.

Joe

Pardon this clarification but my comment "the limitations set thereon, thereby providing me with my liberty" is incorrect.

My creator endowed me with the right to life, liberty and happiness.

Government can only infringe on my rights, not provide them.

'Nuff said.
JoeP

Trish
In the end you are talking interpetaion of the Constitution regardless of who sits there. Why is it actiism of a judge when he makes ruling you disagree with but I would, and I assume here, that if that decision falls within your framework or opinion that judge is defending the original meaning of the constitution.
My simpe question here why could it not be the oppsosite? The ruling you disagree with is actually enforcing the original intent.

Do you see Brown vs. the BOE as activism or enforcing original intent?

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Trish is too busy caressing my bifabricated tail to respond to you hayes!!! She'll be with you in a moment!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Hey Satan, My father is the god of commodities but he's been way off on market predictions. What would be a good investment these days? Does hell have internet access?

Roch said: "Are you aware they are not?"

You can post the ACLU spill on it but the fact remains that NAMBLA promotes child rape. They have a publication called "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships." It gives instructions on how to build relationships with children, how to gain the trust of kid's parents and where the best place to have sex with children and not getting caught.

I am sorry that you and the ACLU think this is free speech. I find it nothing more the an guide on how to rape kids and to be quite honest, I think there is enough of that going around without having groups like these protected. Sorry but being a parent of two girls I have no sympathy for pedophilias. You would think that soceity would want to protect the most innocent among us but some are more worried about free speech it seems.

Roch said: Trish,: "The judicial Power of the United States"

Show me where it states that the legislative body cannot Amendment the Constitution? See where it states that the judicial power, not the legislative power.(Read the whole Constitution there happens to be 3 bodies, yes the SC is the judicial power, I never said otherwise. What I said was if Congress approves an Amendment, the states ratify it , it falls under legislative branch.

However as a side not it also says: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United State ..." Mind telling me where in there it says the laws under the EU Constitution?

Joe said: "Why doesn't the governemt just make this a law under the "general welfare" clause, like it does for all the other (non-federal domain) laws it wants?"

Because Joe of activist Judge who what to push their agenda.

"Society has a way of letting people know what is considered appropriate behavior and what is not."
Posted by: hugh at July 5, 2005 09:56 AM

So according to society it is OK to "pummel" a kid, but it's not OK to burn a flag? No wonder I have no interest in being part of this society.

Upon this momentous occasion, and among so many bright people, let us reflect on the true character of ourselves and our ancestors:

July 5, 1852, Frederick Douglass:

"I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.‹The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!"

"What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.... "

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Johnny Wilder you father is not the god of commodities!!!! He is the god of nothing!!!! Hell has no internet access!!! That's why I moved to the Republican Headquarters in DC!!! You are pathetic!!! Go away!!! Banish him Trish!!! He is not worthy of republican status!!!! Be gone with you Wilder before I spew flies at you!!!!

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Hayes said: "Why is it actiism"

It doesn't matter whether I agree or not. The point being is most issues should not even come up before the court, as they are states' rights issues. You say the judges are defending the original meaning of the Constitution? Ok then tell me how in the world is abortion in the original meaning of the Constitution? It is a state's right issue. Along with burning the flag. If the framers intended for the First Amendment to mean speech is burning the flag, why didn't they just say that?

The Constitution drafted a system of checks and balances on bodies of the central government. If you look at the Articles of Confederation you will see the intent of the framers was not a strong central government but for the states to retain their power.In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v Madison the Supreme Court declared that the federal courts had the power to nullify acts of the nation's government. This action increased the authority of the Court and significantly altered the meaning of the various provisions of the Constitution. Where is the check on the Supreme Court? Was this the intent of the Constitution to have the people ruled by the courts? If so why don't we just allow the Courts to rule us and stop electing a President and Congress, what the heck do we need them for we have the Supreme Court along with the federal courts.

"Do you see Brown vs. the BOE as activism or enforcing original intent?"
I hate to be a copout on this one but I am going to have to look at it more. I'll be honest I never paid it much attention as it didn't happen during my lifetime. So before I answer one way or the other, I want to know all the facts of it. Right off the bat I would have to say original intent due to the fact that it was written a couple of years after the Thirteen which outlawed slavery. Thus giving everyone equal rights meaning, race shouldnt matter. I do have to say though that are schools are pretty much still segregated today. I do wonder if forcing the will of the courts on others works? It is not like the Court has any power to enforce their rulings.

Karl.. Karl Rove is that you? I'd recognize that evil laugh anywhere?

Joe P said: "Government can only infringe on my rights, not provide them."

Actually Joe, I have to disagree with you here. Yes your creator gave you these rights, but it is your government and the men and women of the military that protect them. I seriously doubt if you were in North Korea that you would be allowed to have these rights your creator gave you.

If the framers intended for the First Amendment to mean speech is burning the flag, why didn't they just say that?

This sounds like you're suggesting that the framers of the Constitution should've enumerated all of our freedoms.

It would've been easier for them to enumerate what our restrictions would've been than to do that.

Okay Trish, this is my last word on the subject. I'm back to work in the morning and won't have time to write anymore but I've enjoyed following this discussion and getting to know some of the regs here.

Roch101 I think answered the question about NAMBLA, and is right is saying the ACLU was not condoning the content of their disturbing site, but rather their right to promote their own, IMO warped view. Freedom of speech is for everyone, choosing which speech is allowed based on content is more dangerous than allowing the speech. The answer to bad speech is more speech, not less.

As far as the Constitution, I think it is, as it should be, a living document and the Ninth Amendment is why.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Think about it. You got this bunch of rich white guys, they're pretty smart, they had just fought a long war for independence and they wanted to write a constitution. This was a major political experiment. They had no idea if it would work and they were trying to write a set of rules that would last hundreds of years.

No way they could possibly think of everything, hence this amendment. What it says is - hey we got the big stuff but we didn't write down every single one.

It's not the 1700s anymore. The law must evolve with the society it serves. The founders recognized that by including this language that left our rights open-ended.

You want to know where in the Constitution it says we have the right to burn flags - read that Amendment again. The heart of it is right there and the interpretation of its meaning rests in a body of law that is now centuries old.

The constitution is the symbolic baby born from a birth of a nation. Our Founding Fathers meant it to grow, not to be graven in stone.

Libby, I have enjoyed are discussion. I can say I respect your opinions and you present them very well, even though I disagree.

You are correct when you say: "Our Founding Fathers meant it to grow, not to be graven in stone."

That is why we are allowed to elect our Representatives. If you want a law changed then get enough of your fellow citizens to agree and change the law. That is what is meant as "We the People".

Who you callin We the People?