American Flag Blog

Prior to 9/11, visitors to New York would often be amazed to find that beneath the huge twin towers of the World Trade Center, there operated a bustling hub of the New York City train system. Not only did several subway lines converge there, but one of the two trains (known as PATH) that connect New Jersey with Manhattan via tunnels under the Hudson River terminated there.

The vicious attack of 9/11 had serious repercussions for New York that went way beyond the horrific events of that day. One of them was the crippling of the transit system by the destruction of the underground station.

A very heartwarming and patriotic wrinkle in the rebuilding of the terminal occurred in New York Friday, coming not from an American, but from the Spanish architect chosen for the project. Santiago Calatrava was about to present a revised plan to the Port Authority board when he spotted an 8′ x 12′ American flag on display on a wall outside the boardroom. This flag, as he discovered, had special significance; it was the American flag that flew over the plaza between the two buildings on the morning of September 11th.

During the presentation, Mr. Calatrava indicated a blank wall at the end of the terminal and told the board, "We would like to suspend a very symbolic object," he said. "It could be the flag who is hanging here in this house." Port Authority Executive Director Kenneth J. Ringler Jr. responded enthusiastically, "I think it’s a great idea. It would demonstrate the resiliency of Americans to the thousands and thousands of people who would be going through that transportation center every day."

The flag was found in the rubble three days after the collapse and turned over to the National Guard who declined to destroy it, instead returning it to the Port Authority. Dirty and tattered, it has flown over a World Series, a Super Bowl and the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

It’s instructive that while some Americans view American flags as symbols of repression and are moved to burn them, a highly educated professional from Spain views the American flag as the symbol of liberty that it truly is and endeavors to preserve it.

Mark Williams of KFBK 1530 radio in Sacramento, California organized a rally outside the California Department of Justice building Thursday night and more than 600 people from both sides of the debate showed up. The debate in question is over a painting by California lawyer and amateurish painter, Stephen Pearcy that is displayed along with another 30 or so pieces of anti-American art in the cafeteria of the Department of Justice. The painting depicts an American flag in the shape of the continental U.S. being flushed down the toilet with the early adolescent title,"T’anks to Mr. Bush."

California State Attorney General Lockyer sponsored the exhibit and, as I reported earlier in the week, commented on the "style and beauty" of the collected works, while simultaneously denying responsiblity. While I think that burning American flags should not be protected by the First Amendment as free speech, painting American flags in toilets at least doesn’t pose a threat to anyone. However, for the Attorney General to sponsor, what is essentially a political protest from only one point of view, on government property seems to be a tacit endorsement of that point of view by the State of California.

Perhaps it’s time for the Governor to step in and terminate this exhibit.

A few months ago, I took a call from a guy who identified himself as the Prop-Master for an upcoming Hollywood production to be titled "Flags of Our Fathers." He told me the film would be about the World War II battle of Iwo Jima and the men who raised the two American flags atop Mount Suribachi.

In my opinion, it is one of the most stiring accounts of bravery and patriotism in American history. The Japanese held the island and were well entrenched and waiting when the first Marines landed on the beach. A desperate battle ensued in which 26,000 American soldiers died. But most Americans are familiar only with the regiment of Marines who fought their way to the top of Mt. Suribachi, then risked their lives to raise the American flag at the top. (The first flag was thought to be too small, so a larger flag was later raised in it’s place).

Both of those flags were made by Annin & Co., and since we are one of the larger Annin distributors, the Prop-Master contacted me to find out more about the details of the two American flags raised on Iwo Jima. We had a nice conversation, and I answered most of his questions, but I somehow didn’t think this movie would see the light of day. It shows how much I know.

I read today that actor Paul Walker has just signed on to star in the movie, "Flags of Our Fathers." It will be directed by Clint Eastwood and co-produced by Eastwood and Steven Spielberg.

It’s heartening that this story of the bravery and horrendous sacrifice these soldiers were willing to endure in the name of the United States of America and freedom will be told to a generation of Americans that has no memory of World War II. And it’s a wonderful thing that it will be told by such competent and talented storytellers.

Amid the recent terror attacks in London and Egypt and the almost constant burning of American flags by Islamic groups here and abroad, Islamic groups here in America are scrambling to improve public relations.(Except, of course, for the Islamic Thinkers Society of Brooklyn, New York. They care so little for  their adopted country that they regularly demonstrate their feelings by stomping on American flags in the streets).

Leading the charge is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, otherwise known as CAIR. Last week, CAIR released television ads designed to portray Islamic-Americans as peace loving, everyday Americans. Today, CAIR is holding a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to announce "a fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) against terrorism and extremism." The Fatwa is reportedly being "endorsed by major U.S. Muslim groups."

Perhaps CAIR is sincere. Perhaps they really abhor the violence of terrorism. But does that mean their ultimate goal has changed? Consider the following statements by various CAIR officials:

Omar Ahmad - Co-founder of CAIR -
"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Nihad Awad - Executive Director of CAIR -
"I am in support of the Hamas  movement."

Ibrahim Hooper - CAIR Spokesperson -
"I
wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like
the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the
future…But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote
that. I’m going to
do it through education."

On that note, I truly hope Muslims around the world continue burning American flags in violent demonstrations and I also hope that we see those images televised regularly here in America to counter the "education" that groups like CAIR have in mind.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we  practice to deceive."  - Sir Walter Scott

The Supreme Court has certainly caused a tangled web to be woven by their 1989 decision to classify flag burning as free speech.  Two recent events illustrate how tangled the thinking on the burning of American flags issue has become. And it’s all because the Supreme Court chose to declare that the word "speech" means something entirely different from it’s definition.

The first item involves a lesbian couple in Wisconsin who found their rainbow flag had been removed from the front door, burned, then left in a neighbor’s yard. The police are considering this to be a hate crime. If taking a rainbow flag of someone’s door and burning it is a hate crime, then why is taking someone’s American flag off their flagpole and burning it not also a hate crime? Why isn’t burning a rainbow flag also considered free speech protected by the First Amendment?  Do rainbow flags merit more legal protection than American flags?

The second incident occurred in the early morning hours Saturday in the Cincinnati area. Twenty American flags were taken from Jim Wessel’s front yard display, shoved under his daughter’s car and lit on fire. Not only did the American flags burn, but the car was burned beyond repair as well. The display was in honor of Wessel’s son-in-law, Pfc. Timothy Hines, who died in action. A $5,000 reward is being offered for anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest of the vandals. The police speculated that the flag burning was only the work of vandals and not the act of someone trying to make a political statement. How do they know that? Is there something about this flag burning that differs from other flag burnings in such a way as to suggest that this was not a political statement? If the perpetrator is caught and claims that he/she was making a political statement, will that change the outcome of the prosecution?

For the Supreme Court to rule that burning anything - American flags, rainbow flags or cardboard boxes - in public should be considered free speech was simply a very bad idea.

The controversy surrounding an "art" exhibit in the cafeteria of the California Department of Justice building is heating up. Of the thirty or so paintings by California lawyers on display, one in particular has sparked outrage - it depicts an American flag in the shape of the continental United States being flushed down a toilet and is titled "Tank’s to Mr. Bush!" (See post of 7/23)

My opinion is that burning American flags in public is not funny and should not be considered free speech because it’s an inherently dangerous activity. And while I also think that desecrating American flags by other, more peaceful methods should likewise not be characterized as "speech," the circumstances of this particular desecration event are utterly laughable!

At the center of the controversy is Stephen Pearcy, a looney Berkeley lawyer who painted the American flag in the toilet. He, no doubt, fancies his childish scrawling as high art and a great follow-up to his previous work of hanging a U.S. soldier in effigy from a tree in his front lawn. According to the Sacramento Union, Pearcy spent all of twenty minutes on his masterpiece. Judging by the complexity of the work, I would say he is a very slow painter.

But the nut cases like Pearcy who think of all sorts of interesting ways to trash American flags are only part of the story. The people who sponsored  and promoted this exhibit are the other part, and they are falling all over themselves trying to deny responsibility while at the same time, praising the  so called art.

California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer is a co-sponsor and ring leader of the exhibit but is trying to distance himself from his role while at the same time, trying to avoid running into Governor Schwarzenegger in the hallway. The exhibit’s other co-sponsor is the California Arts Council, a taxpayer supported state agency, but according to Mary Beth Barber, Communications Director of the  California Arts Council, “The exhibit was not funded by the California Arts Council.” Huh? Are you sponsoring it or aren’t you?

And Lockyer’s flack, Nathan Baransin told the San Francisco Chronicle that Lockyer, “…played no role in developing the guidelines on what the curator of this exhibit could pick or not pick.” I guess that Lockyer’s role was really less that of sponsor than of cheerleader for talentless lawyers with too much time on their hands. In a press release, he says it’s “an honor to co-host this powerful exhibit… the collected fine works of these artists – and lawyers – achieve these worthwhile objectives with style and beauty.”

And in the same press release, Chairman of the California Arts Council, Muriel Johnson, says she was “impressed” by the work, describing it as “wonderful.” Forget about  American flags for the moment, with an Arts Council Chairman like that, I’m worried about the future of art.

Just when you think that there are no new ways to force the seperation-of-church-and-state concept down the throats of the American people, along comes a new one. This time it’s the "take all the American flags off church property" trick.

I don’t know where the notion that all things religious must not mix in any way with all things political came from, but I do know that it didn’t come from the Constitution. The portion of the First Amendment that deals with this subject is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" These simple words carry a very simple message - that the U.S. government can’t create a state religion and that it can’t tell you who or how to worship if you so desire. The founders of this country wanted to make sure we didn’t create a state sponsored religion as they had in England. Or, in other words, there could be no coercion on the part of the government in regards to religion.

In the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today, Joel Connelly makes a case for removing American flags from churches. The inspiration for Connelly’s piece was apparently the Fourth of July remarks made by Rev. Sandy Brown, executive director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle. "After all these years of secrecy, I’m now ready to make a confession: I am a serial flag remover. I’ve removed the American flag not just from one church I served as pastor, but from all three," wrote Brown.

Starting from that, Mr. Connelly goes on to make his case for removing American flags from church property. He uses the following quote from Thomas Jefferson to bolster his case, "Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens are a departure from the Holy Author of our religion. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinion in manners of religion."

What, do you suppose, does Connelly think Thomas Jefferson is saying here that supports the idea of removing American flags from churches? I would argue that this statement tends to support the notion that if a religious congregation chooses to display American flags on church property, they are free to do so without interference from the state.

I ran across an article today about 32 people who became U.S. citizens yesterday in Ohio. Two of the many great things about our country are, one; that people from all around the world can come here, escaping political and economic oppression, and persue a better life, and two; given the choice to stay where they are or come here, they come here. But while reading the article, I had a disturbing thought.

In June, I wrote a couple of posts about a group in New York City called the Islamic Thinkers Society. They were staging a protest rally on the streets of New York at which they were stomping on American flags. In fact, they regular stage these type of public activities at which they desecrate American flags. I made the assumption back in June that the members of the Islamic Thinkers Society were most likely illegal aliens, since it is estimated that one third of the population of the city are illegals.

Maybe I was wrong. The London bombers were reportedly citizens of Great Britain, making it far easier for them to escape detection by British intelligence. I sure hope that some agency  in this country is performing background checks on candidates for citizenship because if they have ties to groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society, citizenship should be denied.

For those of you starved for original artwork by lawyers with too much time on their hands, take a trip this summer to Sacremento, California and visit the cafeteria at the California Department of Justice. There you will find, among a raft of art perpertated by members of the California Bar, a masterfully done piece cleverly entitled "T’anks to Mr. Bush" by erstwhile artist/ambulance chaser, Stephen Pearcy of Berkeley.

The masterpiece in question depicts an American flag in the shape of the United States being flushed down a toilet. While I have nothing against depictions of American flags being flushed, and I will defend your right to abuse American flags in a variety of ways as long as those ways don’t involve violence or actions that might endanger others, I wonder why such in your face extremism is permitted in a taxpayer funded facility. The same people that will approve of this "art" are the people who will also defend those that burn the American flag in the name of "free speech." I mean, there is only so much wall space, so I wonder if opposing views are being heard? Somehow, I doubt it.

Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer commented, "For those that it offends, they shouldn’t look at it. For those that want to talk about public-policy matters and look at the art, they’re free to do so. But it’s their free choice."

There are those who oppose an amendment to protect the American flag from desecration who ask,what will we define as the American flag? Will likenesses of American flags on various objects also be protected from desecration?

My question is, if someone takes this childish attempt at art of the cafeteria wall and lights it on fire as an act of free speech, will Pearcy stand among those that defend that action?

There’s a new book out there - no, I haven’t read it yet but I will - about the American flag, it’s history and an exploration of why it is that American flags stir such passion in so many Americans. The title is, "Flag: An American Biography," and it’s author is Marc Leepson, who, among other things, is a Viet Nam Vet.

Leepson was inspired by the story of Michael Christian, a Navy Pilot who was shot down over North Viet Nam and wound up in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" prison camp. Using scraps of cloth, Christian sewed a small American flag on the inside of his prison shirt. Every day, he and his cell mates, including John McCain, would say the Pledge of Allegiance to the little American flag. His flag was eventually discovered and Christian was severely beaten, but that didn’t stop him - he just made another flag.

Leepson often wondered about Christian and his dedication to the American flag, "After all, it’s cloth. It’s a piece of cloth. But obviously it’s much more than a piece of cloth. That got me thinking, ‘What more is behind this?’ "

In the introduction of his book, Leepson says, "Americans have a unique and special feeling for our flag. And that’s putting it mildly. … No country in the world can match the intensity of the American citizenry’s attachment to the 50-star, 13-stripe Stars and Stripes, which is as familiar an icon as any that has existed in the nation’s history."

Joyce Doody of the National Flag Foundation agrees and notes that many visitors to the United States are amazed at how many American flags can be seen flying. She goes on to say that in many countries, "it’s more a symbol of the government, not the people."

And there’s the nub of it. The unique thing about the United States is that we truly are, as Abraham Lincoln so aptly said, a "government of the people, by the people and for the people." Americans love their American flags because of who we are as a nation.