American Flag Blog

I have been making the point repeatedly that while the proposed flag desecration amendment will specifically protect American flags from desecration, the ramifications will go well beyond the act of burning American flags.

In one of it’s more misguided adventures in legislation, the Supreme court ruled that the First Amendment right of free speech would forevermore also apply to the felony of arson - specifically, the burning of American flags.

So now we are faced with the prospect that eventually, when they catch on, the wacko arsonists out there will only need to light fires using American flags, then claim their free speech rights to avoid prosecution. And if it’s allowed to continue - ie. more legislation from the Bench - other threatening and dangerous activities will be included under the umbrella of free speech.

If you think I’m kidding, consider this item: In the wee hours of Wednesday morning, a man who was apparently a transient lowered the American flag in front of an American Legion post in Beaumont, Texas and lit it on fire. According to an eye-witness, the man then tried to light the Texas flag on fire but failed. He was soon arrested on unrelated charges.

Here’s the kicker - he hasn’t been charged with misdemeanor flag desecration. If the Beaumont police want to pursue that avenue, they will have to charge the man with two counts of flag desecration (one American flag and one Texas flag) and file all the accompanying paperwork and it might just not be worth it.

According to Dee Dixon, writing in the Beaumont Enterprise, "However, flag desecration charges might not hold up because of case law established by Texas vs. Johnson," (Texas vs. Johnson is the Supreme Court case that found burning American flags to be free speech). And Alan Chen, a law professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, when asked if the man in this case could be prosecuted for burning the American flag, he said, "It depends on the circumstances … but if they are being punished for the desecration themselves, that’s protected by the First Amendment."

So there you have it. Seperating the act of burning American flags from the associated criminal behavior becomes a legal bowl of spaghetti. Law enforcement is unwilling to sort these cases out because it’s just not worth the time and trouble if you can’t get a conviction.

As I see it, you can shuffle all the politicians and pundits in America into two basic categories: those that regard the U.S. Constitution as the foundational document of our American system of government and those that pay lip service to protecting the Constitution while using the courts to further their agendas.

With a vote in the U.S. Senate on the controversial amendment to protect the American flag from desecration just weeks away, many that fall into the latter category will be out front and vocal.

A group of war veterans and politicians on Long Island are calling for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, the two Senators from New York, to support passage of the flag amendment in the Senate. And predictably, their responses are expertly crafted double-talk.

Hillary said that while she does "support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration … amending our Constitution should be a rare and extreme measure, which we should only resort to when all legislative options have been exhausted." Guess what Hillary, the legislative options were exhasted, and you know it. The Supreme Court in 1989 struck down a Texas Law prohibiting the desecration of American flags, aserting in the 5-4 decision that burning American flags constituted free speech. So any law that Congress would pass now would be nullified.

At least Hillary made the statement herself. Schumer’s statement was made through a spokeswoman Risa Heller, who said he "despises people who burn the flag" and "continues to support statutes to punish them, but he is very reluctant to amend the Constitution."

If you listen to the politicians in coming weeks, you will here the same theme expressed in a variety of ways, but it will go basically like this: We hate to see American flags burned and we will support legislation to prohibit it, but we don’t think we should ammend the Constitution.

There is a word to describe when a politician suggests as true something he or she knows is actually not true. It’s called lying.

If the spreading fungus of anti-Americanism, which has even infected the Supreme Court, continues to grow unabated, it will be very bad for the United States of America, but it will be very good for our business. You see, we won’t be selling many American flags, except  to museums for history exhibits, but everyone will want a United States of North America Flag or, who knows, a United States of the Western Hemisphere flag. Or maybe they’ll be called Extreme American flags.

The sovereignty of the United States is being challenged, not by a fringe group of wackos, but by a growing number of otherwise ordinary Americans. I don’t want to seem like an alarmist, but a couple of recent events lay bare a philosophy that will challenge our basic right of private property.

The first event is, of course, the recent Supreme Court ruling that will allow a strip-mall developer, for example, in collusion with your local municipal officials, to seize your house to make way for an Old Navy, a Barnes & Noble and a Starbucks.

And now, as groups taking a cue from the Minuteman Project are forming along the California border, other groups are appearing to protest these citizen border patrols. These reactionary groups are accusing the border watchers of racism and comparing them to the KKK. Whoever successfully defines the terms to be used in a debate usually gains the advantage, so we may possibly look forward to ordinary Americans who cheerfully wave American flags on the Fourth of July viewing any attempt by the United States to protect our borders as racism.

Two of these groups that go by the benevolent names of Gente Unida (People United) and Border Angels, organized a march at the Mexican border in San Ysidro, California over the Fourth of July weekend. Enrique Morones of the Border Angels made the vaguely cryptic statement, “They [Minutemen] are not welcome here and they’re not welcome anywhere. We say no to the militarization of the border.” The crowd in general, was more straight-forward with the agenda as they chanted “No human is illegal,” “One race, the human race,” “Tear down the borders,” “Viva Che, viva Chávez, viva México, viva Zapatistas,” and “Open all borders.”

Oh well, I guess it’s good-bye American flags, goodbye U.S.A., and hello my Mega America Comrades!

I was reading today about a group of commie youth in Russia (makes sense) that was burning a home-made paper American flag in front of the U.S. consulate in the city of Ekaterinburg. The small group that calls itself the Russian National Bolshevik and Communist Youth met in front of the Consulate on the Fourth of July for a fun day of picnicing, protesting and burning American flags.

They want Americans to leave Russia and they are against U.S. policy, although they didn’t specify what policy they are against. A representative explained her groups actions this way, “The American flag that we burned had 50 swastikas on it instead of 50 stars, because we equate U.S. policy to that of the Nazis,” said Ludmila Zhuravleva.

Well, to begin with, the Nazis were Socialists and the United States is not, at least not yet. However, Socialism is a popular ideology with many right here in the U.S.that burn American flags and oppose U.S. policy. Secondly, Americans living in Russia are by no means shaping the policy of that country, so what their ouster would accomplish is a mystery to me. And lastly (we save the best for last), a group that apparently would like Russia to return to those heady days of Communist rule should remember that while Hitler was busy having approximately nine million people murdered in the name of his Socialist ideals, Joe Stalin was exterminating approximately 20 million of his own people in the name of Communism. Confusing? You bet!

As it turns out, Ludmila and her gang of thrill seeking Communist American flag burners has something in common with people who burn American flags the world over - a distinct inability to think.

The Islamic Thinkers Society, a radical Islamic group in Brooklyn, New
York, has gained some media attention lately for their public
demonstrations on the streets of New York City at which, among other
things, they trample on American flags (see our 6/26/05 post). One member of this group was arrested last year for plotting to blow up New York’s Penn Station which explains why, in light of the bombings in London’s subway, the media is now taking groups like this seriously.

The fact that the desecration of American flags by this group was almost ignored by the media until the recent London wake-up call tells us that there are those in the media who are willing to give violence a pass in the interest of preserving what they believe to be our First Amendment rights. Yesterday, I told of a teenager who, in the throes of a drunken rampage, burned a neighbors American flag. Again, some in the media are thinking that this might turn out to be a challenge to a law on the books that prohibits the desecration of American flags rather than simply a case of violent criminal mischief.

Columnist Jim Pinkerton of New York’s Newsday, in a column about the growing threat of groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society wrote, "Are the Islamic Thinkers just exercising their right to free speech, however hateful? Maybe. Although, of course, there’s a fine line between speaking freely and inciting violence."

And if the Supreme Court had not ruled that the inherently violent act of burning  American flags should be construed to be a form of free speech, the line "between speaking freely and inciting violence" would be considerably wider.

On the 4th of July, a Tennessee teenager stole an American flag from a home and set it on fire. Eighteen year old Andrew Elisha Staley then spent the next nine days in jail and was released Thursday pending his August trial. Besides the charge of "desecrating a venerated object," he was also charged with underage drinking, littering, evading arrest, burning personal property and theft.

Now for the disturbing part of the story - an AP reporter wrote, " While the case could test a state statute against flag burning — an act the U.S. Supreme Court says is protected under the First Amendment — prosecutors said Andrew Elisha Staley has yet to argue that he was exercising free speech rights."

No one is characterizing this incident of delinquency as a case of free speech except for the AP reporter. Staley’s own father said his son "has no reason for anger against the United States" and could easily have ignited a garbage can instead of a flag, and his mother said, "Bottom line is, the kid got drunk. He’s never been in trouble before."

For the reporter to suggest that because one of the random acts of drunken and stupid behavior committed by Staley was burning an American flag, his actions might be protected by the First Amendment, is beyond ridiculous. It speaks to the mindset of those who would like to reinterpret the term "free speech" to include wanton acts of illegality.

For an insight as to the thought processes of  at least some of the people who want to interpret the Constitution this way, consider this quote from past NOW president, Molly Yard. When then President George Bush senior nominated David Souter for the Supreme Court, Yard refered to him as "Almost Neanderthal," then went on to say that his "constitutional views are based on the ‘original intent’ of the Framers 200 years ago, when blacks were slaves and women were property of their husbands."

So, according to Yard and like minded people, the Constitution is not valid at all because it was written at the time it was written. If this is where we are headed, burning American flags will be the least of our problems.

In the time of our Civil War, the Federal Government was much smaller and weaker than it is today, and the states were more distinct and independent. In December of 1861, South Carolina pulled the plug and left the union of states known as the United States of America. Other southern states quickly followed suit forming the Confederate States of America. The point is that many people today think of the Confederacy and the Civil War as being an aberation, but for more than three bloody years, there were two "United States" of America, complete with two seperate White Houses, Presidents, Constitutions, and yes, flags.

For those few tragic years, the various flags of the Confederacy were every bit as much "American flags" as the Union 20 star flag was. In fact, the "Confederate flag" that is so despised by so many today was not actually the flag of the Confederacy at all, but the Confederate Naval Jack.

Fortunately, there are those who recognize that preserving not just "The American Flag", but all American flags, is an important part of preserving our national heritage. That’s why it warms my heart that the good people of the Massachusetts Historical Society donated a Confederate First National Flag (there were three) to it’s original home - the Confederate garrison at Port Hudson, Louisiana.

My good buddy Darryl is in the flag business and in his spare time, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool NASCAR fan. He made a statement today that got me to thinking. He said that the NASCAR people were big supporters of the American flag long before 9/11 - check out a NASCAR event and you will see American flags everywhere.

Among the NASCAR drivers, you won’t find  the self-centered antics - the drugs, the infidelity, the drunk driving, that’s so prevalent in other professional sports. Instead, you’ll find genuine, down-to-earth people who are truly grateful to be doing what they’re doing. I went to a Utah Jazz game earlier this year where the only people who didn’t place a hand over their heart during the National Anthem were the players.

Many red-state elites look at NASCAR fans as ignorant red-necks with limited interests: guzzling beers and waving American flags. But for red state politicians, that viewpoint is a huge miscalculation that will continue to cost them elections. NASCAR is the most watched sport in America and growing fast precisely because of the positive all-American aura it projects. And the fans may be waving American flags, but they are by no means all blue state, beer guzzling rednecks. Darryl for example, is a red-stater African-American who doesn’t drink. As for myself, I’m not a NASCAR fan, but I can understand the appeal - life on their side of the fence sure looks sunnier, happier and more hopeful than it does among the America haters.   

There is a brand of American that more often than not is proud to be identified as a liberal and who in turn, identifies the American flag with conservatives. For the life of me, I can’t understand why a thinking person would associate the American flag with only one political party; one social point of view; one group.

A piece appeared today in The Pitch, a Kansas City, Missouri publication about an art show entitled "Raze: A Declaration of Independence" by artist Jay Norton. The reviewer, Gina Kaufmann, immediately indentifies herself as a liberal, then goes on to describe the first piece of the artist’s work she sees upon entering - a partially burned American flag hanging on the wall. Her first impression is thus, "This piece, at face value, accomplished one thing and one thing only: It told the viewership what to expect in the rest of the work. And it set the bar alarmingly low."

Other pieces were, for example, paintings of American flags with likenesses of Coke and Pepsi logos that say "Preempt" and "Collateral" in place of the star field. Needless to say, Ms Kaufmann did not like the show. I suspect that her reaction has something to do with not being ready to give up her identity as an American. If you reject the American flag and the precious liberty it symbolizes, then what do you accept in it’s place?

Ms Kaufmann gives us a clue to her true state of mind with this statement, "I’m not impressed. In fact, I’m embarrassed. Can I go home now?"

We Americans love our flags. Not just American flags, but all types of flags - especially those that figure prominently in the illustrious history of our nation. Most of us take our flags seriously, sensing the powerful symbols that flags can be.

But here is one American that takes a more cynical view of flags, seeing them as a political tool to be used to mislead potential voters. Howard Dean made this now famous remark during the 2004 Presidential campaign, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can’t beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

I am posting this remark, not to make light of Howard Dean, but to contrast his view with another mans view, not an American incidentally, who shows a keen understanding for how flags are used the world over to make strong statements.

You may remember the Solidarity movement in Poland that eventually drove the Communists from power. Adam Michnik was a leader of that movement and also the founder and editor of the largest Polish daily newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza. He also happens to be an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq. During an interview in January of 2004, he said, "I consider that 9/11 was the day when war was started against my own work and against myself. Even though we are not sure of the links, Iraq was one of the countries that did not lower its flags in mourning on 9/11."

It’s interesting to me that while most of us were left stunned by the events of that day, astute political observers like Mr. Michnik did not miss the message that Saddam Hussein was sending us.