American Flag Blog

The spoiled, washed-up old hippies who make a hobby out of America-hating love to point to Europe and admonish the rest of us for not being more like the Europeans. Yet the evidence continues to mount that Europe is headed for trouble.

On the economic front, shorter work weeks and longer vacations in many European countries, such as France, has not boltstered worker satisfaction as intended. Instead, the opposite has occured with high absenteeism and low productivity. Income tax rates are high and social programs fall short. If you require surgery in England, for example, you had better be prepared to wait weeks.

Violent crime is on the rise with Scotland toping the list with 3% of Scots the victims of assault (compared with 1.2% in the U.S.). And, not to forget that immigration continues unchecked throughout Europe which has led to a much more pervasive problem of the growth of Radical Islam than can be seen in the U.S. The recent subway bombings in London only hint at the deep entrenchment of Radical Islam in that country.

Along with the shameless media here in America that has been working overtime to implicate the Bush administration in the Katrina disaster, the European news media has also been having a field day criticizing America and President Bush.

But the people of New Orleans apparently don’t feel that way. Even before the long task of rebuilding begins, returning residents are raising American flags all over the city. Even Reuters news agency, not exactly known for their America-friendly views, was struck by the wide-spread show of patriotism and felt compelled to comment, "American flags fly everywhere you look — from boarded-up storefronts, battered trees and piles of debris that someone once called home."

The America-haters will be flumoxed. They’ll say things like, "How can people who have lost almost everything because of the diabolical environmental policies of the Bush administration not to mention the fact that he was playing golf when the levees broke want to fly the American flag? They should be burning American flags!" They simply won’t get it.

The first thing those people did upon returning was to raise the American flag. They didn’t wait until they were through putting their lives back together. They did it as a statement of gratitude and respect for the country they love.

Should we be more like the Europeans? Perhaps they should be more like us.

If you live in the Northeast, here’s a great way to spend a weekend day this October. There’s a restored Shaker village in the Berkshires of western Massachusetts called, appropriately enough, Hancock Shaker Village and they are featuring an exhibit of rare American Parade Flags. The exhibition is called The Stars & Stripes and will run through October. Here’s an excerpt from their site:

Hancock Shaker Village is the venue for the first major exhibition of American Parade Flags from the premier collection of J. Richard Pierce. The exhibition will show not only how America’s symbol changed over time, but also will reveal the personal, political, and historic stories that have contributed to the iconic quality of the flag. The exhibition will prompt you to think about other American icons - such as the Shaker chair - how they have changed both in form and meaning, and how we connect these icons to our lives today.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, parade flags were created to mark a range of historical events from commemoration of an important reunion, to the death of a president, to baseball games. Parade flags differ from the large, sewn flags commonly thought of today. They are generally smaller in size and were usually printed on paper or fabric with the intention of being discarded at the end of the event for which they were created.

In Stars and Stripes over 80 flags will illustrate a variety of star patterns found on parade flags used through the mid-twentieth century, including many extremely rare examples, and recount some of the personal stories associated with these iconic pieces of Americana.

The history of the American flag is complex and often amazing. The enthusiasm with which so many have contributed to our American flag, out of sheer joy and gratitude for the privilege to live in this great country is humbling.

If you can make it to Hancock Shaker Village this fall, you’ll enjoy a drive through some of America’s most beautiful country as the Fall leaves change, and you will also get a glimpse at a piece of our amazing history.

Back in 1823, then President James Monroe issued the Monroe Doctrine which, at the time, was a warning to European nations to cease any efforts at colonization in the Western Hemisphere. Our new American nation, still in it’s infancy, wanted to derail any aggression that might be headed our way.

The Monroe doctrine has been invoked several times in American history, and as recently as the administration of JFK when the U.S. Navy formed a blockade of Cuba as a reaction to the dicovery of Russian nuclear missile sites there. After more than 180 years, the need for the Monroe doctrine has not diminished.

With thousands of miles of border, virtually no immigration policy and the proliferation of small but very deadly weapon technology, the question of how to defend ourselves has taken on an urgency unlike almost any other time in our history.

That’s why I read with some interest about a protest against the U.S. Military taking place today in Asuncion, Paraguay. A joint military excercise  involving U.S. and Paraguayan forces is planned for later this year in Paraguay. Many Paraguayans fear that the U.S. is planning to build a base there even though Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte has assured them that nothing like that is in the offing.

There has been a limited U.S. military presence in South America in an effort to curb the drug traffic for quite some time. Much of the action traverses Paraguay, which is smack in the middle of South America. The problem we face is that the very sophisticated networks the drug trade have developed for their smuggling operations into the U.S. are being used by terrorist organizations to smuggle people and weapons.

The people pictured here burning an American flag in the street have no concern for the safety of Americans or the future of our nation. Not only are they telling us that they want us out of their country, but are indicating with their behavior, including the blatant disrespect for the American flag, that we cannot trust them not to be complicit in aiding terrorism.

Nevertheless, we need to operate under a policy that respects the sovreignty of our neighbors but demands the same respect from them.

I had to look outside this morning before breakfast just to make sure the sky was not falling. All the chicken littles were out in force wringing their hands and warning of impending disaster after hearing the President’s speech last night. Two hundred billion! How in the world are we going to pay for it without raising taxes?

How can it be that so many people just can’t seem to grasp the fact that as tax rates are raised, revenues will dry up? My guess is that they view money as a static resource. But money isn’t static, it moves and the more it moves, the more it can be taxed. The best way to encourage more money to move faster is to lower tax rates.

Let’s say hypothetically that the tax rates are raised significantly this year. And let’s say that as next spring rolls around, you’re thinking of buying a brand new American flag set for the house (what else?). Then you work on your income tax return and realize that you’re paying a lot more this year than last. So you decide to hold off on the flag set. Maybe you can do some repairs on that old American flag. And you cut back on other expenses too. Maybe the house can go another year or two without the paint job you were going to spring for. And your old car really isn’t that bad, at least it’s paid for.

This is called an economic slowdown. When taxes go up, people pull in the horns and spend less. With less money moving around, businesses scale back or fold. People lose their jobs and take unemployment and the economy slows down even more.

Now lets take another hypothetical. Tax rates are lowered dramatically this year. Less money is being  withheld from your paycheck each week. And when you file your return on April 14th (if you’re anything like me), you find that you’re in much better shape financially than last year.  You look around and see that other people are spending money so you feel pretty good about spending a little yourself.

And here’s where it gets good. The little extra money you’re spending along with millions and millions of others is creating jobs. And the people with the new jobs are now spending money and paying taxes! The companies that hired them are growing and paying more taxes. As new employees are hired, tenured employees are getting raises which means they’re spending more and, you guessed it, paying more taxes.

The bottom line is this: it’s not only how much money is in the system that counts, it’s how often it changes hands. Money that doesn’t move doesn’t benefit anybody - it only works when a transaction takes place.

So my advice is twofold. First, write or call your Representatives and Senators and let them know that you want them to push for tax reform. And secondly, go ahead and buy that American flag set - it will make both of us happy.

My son just started his junior year in high school and the most unlikely thing has happened. We thought that it wouldn’t be possible for his new history teacher to be worse that the one he had last year. Boy, were we wrong.

Last years teacher felt compelled to spout off on the virtues of Communism almost on a daily basis, but that behavior seems benign in retrospect. This years model has such a virulent hatred for America, the country in which he lives and from where he derives the right to stand up in front of a class and reveal himself to be a horse’s ass, that he is in the process of trashing the founding fathers and their struggle for independence.

That’s right, he is telling his students - my son included - that the American Revolution should never have happened; that it was not the Continental Army but rather, the French that defeated the British, and that the early morning raid on the Hessian barracks at Trenton on Christmas morning, 1776, was not a daring and brilliant plan but just a sleazy move by George Washington. Incidently, this guy is among the many teachers at my son’s high school who so disrespect the American flag that they refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

As disturbing as that may seem, I look at it as (believe it or not) a sign of better days to come. The America haters have turned up the volume and are becoming nearly apoplectic in their rants against the United States. In my estimation, that’s a sure sign that they know they are loosing ground. There is evidence in our community and across America as well to back me up.

Here in Park City, just before the 2004 elections, each school had a mock election for the Presidential candidates. Kerry won by a big margin in the high school, but the results were the opposite in the elementary schools where Bush walked away with it handily. If you’re a parent, you know that kids tend to mirror the beliefs of their parents. Since it stands to reason that the median age of parents of grade school children is going to be younger than that of the parents of high schoolers, it’s reasonable to deduce that the younger parents hold views that differ greatly from the older parents.

On the national level, this idea bears out as well. Some time back, I wrote about The National Anthem Project, a program sponsored by the National Association for Music Education. The plan was to teach school children across America not only the words to the National Anthem, but the history behind it. Few kids today are taught about the seige of Fort McHenry when British ships bombarded the fort all day and through the night. The huge 15-star American flag could be seen still flying over the fort the next morning, signifying the British had failed.

Watching from the harbor, Francis Scott Key was so inspired to see not a British flag, but the American flag over the fort that he penned a poem that would later become our National Anthem. Yesterday, to commemorate the 191st anniversary of that event, school kids across America  were singing the National Anthem, and loving it. (If you want to find out more, read "Students Get Meaning of Anthem Lyrics" in the Washington Times online).

So take heart - the dinosaurs of the Hate America movement will soon be facing extiction.

Mick Jagger once said something to the effect that he wouldn’t be a rock ‘n roller past the age of 30. Here we are some 40 years later and at the age of 62, Mick and the Stones are still at it. In fact, the Rolling Stones have been such a mainstay of the music of the Baby Boomer generation that they are as much an American institution as a British one.

One of the tee-shirts that is included in the tour promotion features an American flag with "Rolling Stones" scrawled beneath it. On closer inspection, you can see that it’s not an ordinary American flag - the stars are actually 50 of the Stones’ trademark mouth logos.

Obviously feeling comfortable with the strong identification with their American audience, Mick and crew have decided to jump into the American political fray. Some of the material on the current album is critical of Bush and his administration, presumably because of the war in Iraq.

But this really bears more examination - after all, America was attacked before the war in Iraq. Jagger made the following comments about the fear he has for what is happening in his native England.

"There were so many armed police in the streets. Walking around, seeing machine guns, is not how you imagine London to be. If we keep going down this track, we’re not going to get back… that we’ll get too far away from our original values and this over-reaching imperialism will take us to a place where we eventually collapse."

If by "over-reaching imperialism" he means, our dependence on oil, Jagger should think about a couple of things. First, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, etc. don’t mind taking our money. In fact, every country in the mid-east depends on oil exports for their existence.

And secondly, while people like me are driving a little less because of the price increase in gasoline, the Rolling Stones won’t think twice about tooling around the world in private jets that burn more fuel in one flight than I’ll burn in a whole lifetime of driving my car.

But with the sharp increase in anti-semitism that’s sweeping the U.K., it’s possible that Jagger is really criticizing our commitment to Israel. He uses the term neo-con, which to many critics of the war (like Cindy Sheehan for example), is code for people who want the U.S. to continue to support Israel.

Hey Mick, do us a favor and stay out of American politics. And while your at it, take those little, nasty mouths off our American flag. 

I’ve noticed a commonality among those who wring their hands in eager anticipation at the prospect of burning American flags. They all lack the ability to make a reasoned argument or have a coherent thought for that matter. But then again, a person who expresses a political viewpoint by burning an American flag probably doesn’t have a coherent viewpoint to express.

Let me lift the rock for you so that you can get a glimpse at what lives under there. Today’s example is a website called, appropriately enough The Flag Burning Page. The author, who is apparently one Warren S. Apel, first insists that you read his rant and that you understand it before proceeding further into his site. Apel goes to some length in the first few sentences to convince us that he’s as opposed to flag burning as any of us. But then he expends a considerable amount of time and energy doing just the opposite, and not doing it very well.

"Some people choose to burn the flag."

My reply: And some people choose rob convenience stores.

"It is a controversial topic because some people are offended by that action."

My reply: Not exactly. It’s a controversial topic because some people believe that the Supreme Court should not try to change the meaning of the Constitution. I’m personally not offended when morons do moronic things. I expect it. 

"Supreme Court rulings have upheld that peaceful flag desecration is a form of political speech that should be protected by our Constitution.  I agree."

My reply: That’s exactly what the Supreme Court did - they ruled that even though the Constitution doesn’t specifically protect flag burning as a right, it should. Hence, the interpretation that burning the American flag is political expression that should be protected as free speech.

"The worst part of all is that we can’t pass and enforce laws against flag burning unless we modify the US Constitution and remove an important part of the First Amendment."

My reply: Mr. Apel, your ignorance is breathtaking! To begin with, the Constitution was designed to be modified. The instrument of modification is called the amendment. The issue of a flag desecration amendment is before the Congress only because the Supreme Court side-stepped the amendment process in the 1989 Texas vs. Johnson decision. No one is trying to remove an important part of the First Amendment. On the contrary, proponents of the amendment are trying to restore the First Amendment to it’s original meaning (prior to 1989).

The First Amendment protects free speech, not moronic public displays of pyrotecnics.

American flags figured prominently on the national scene last week. There were two seperate Presidential proclamations to fly American flags at half-staff - one for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and one in observation of the death of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Then there was the Rehnquist funeral itself with the pomp and ceremony befitting a man of his stature, which began with his flag draped casket in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court.

And finally, there was the run-up to the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks culminating in ceremonies around the country such as the one held in Charlotte, North Carolina where 3,000 small American flags were arranged in the shape of the Twin Towers.

So it’s easy to see why another important news item was given little or no play. A video tape from al-Qaeda featuring a speaker believed to be American-turned-al-Qaeda mouthpiece Adam Gadahn was released and shown on TV stations around the world. It appeared only on ABC stations in the U.S.
Most of it is the usual litany of failures on our part and over-the-top threats, but one line really caught my attention - "We are Muslims. We love peace, but peace on our terms, peace as laid down by Islam, not the so-called peace of occupiers and dictators."

With all the nonsense we hear that Islam is a religion of peace, we have just heard the truth. The peace described in that sentence is not peace as we know it - the peace of a free and open society. It’s the peace of subjugation - the tenuous peace that comes from absolute obedience to tyrannical rule. It is the kind of peace that ordinary citizens of Stalin’s Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany experienced as long as they kept their mouths shut.

In this country, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) hopes to introduce us to this brand of peace. You may have heard of this group - they are very active in the public relations arena, trying to portray themselves as a peaceful and benevolent group of Americans. But the peaceful public image they put forth is only window dressing for a much more sinister agenda. Here’s how two of the groups leaders view their role:

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."

And…

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."

Knowing what their definition of "peace" is, I wonder what their definition of "education" might be?

Checking our visitor stats today, I saw that quite a few visitors came from a website called The Genoa City News. Being curious, I checked out the site which turns out to be a spoof on the TV soap, The Young & The Restless. They have a bulletin board where members can initiate topics that are completely unrelated to soap operas and that’s where our visitors were coming from.

The topic in question was entitled Flag-covered caskets vs. dead victims of Katrina. The flag-covered caskets part refers to the caskets of U.S. soldiers killed in action that are draped with American flags. One of the members had heard that Cindy Sheehan blamed Bush for the hurricane but couldn’t find the quote anywhere, so another member provided a link to our site. Unfortunately, our visitors all left in profound disappointment because the actual quote didn’t appear in our post.

So here is exactly what Sheehan had to say:

Well, George and I are leaving Crawford today. George is finished playing golf and telling his fables in San Diego , so he will be heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused.

In case the denizens of The Genoa City  News bulletin board  missed it, she said, "… he will be heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused." I don’t know why anyone had trouble finding that quote - it’s all over the net - but I suspect that the problem is that Sheehan cleverly substituted the words "Louisiana" and "devastation" for the familiar term, "Hurricane Katrina."

I think that it’s fair to mention that most of those people who couldn’t decipher the meaning of that statement are also fans of Cindy Sheehan and rabid Bush haters. So as a public service, I’d like to help them learn a little more about the mental deficiencies of their hero, Cindy Sheehan.

Here’s what President Bush had to say during the San Diego visit that Sheehan refers to above:

If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks. They’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition.

And here’s how the delusional Sheehan responds:

So it is official, Casey had his blood shed in Iraq for OIL. He died so we could pay over 3.00/gallon for gas. Like I suspected all along, my dear, sweet son: almost 1900 others; and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died so the oil fields wouldn’t "fall into the hands of terrorists" and so George and his immoral band of greedy robber barons could become wealthier. Like I have said all along: how can these people sleep at night and how can they choke down their food knowing it is purchased off of the flesh and blood of others? We have found our "Noble Cause." And it is OIL. This man and his handlers need to be stopped.

Only a delusional mind can make the leap of logic that Sheehan made with that statement. It would be a bad idea to allow our enemy, an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us, to gain control of a source of funding that would finance ever more devastating attacks. That is the reality that we face as a nation. I am truly sorry for Cindy Sheehan. I’m sorry that her son had to end up in one of those caskets draped with an American flag. But the lose of her son doesn’t make the stupid things she says true.

In case you think that the constitutional issues that I and other like minded souls discuss in the public square are better understood by the lawyers, think again. An opinion piece appearing in today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer regarding the proposed amendment to prohibit the desecration of American flags proves my point.

Written by lawyer Jeff Isaac, who bills himself as the Lawyer in Blue Jeans (www.LawyerinBlueJeans.com), the piece is full of holes. To begin with, he refers to the flag amendment this way:

The pending flag amendment under Senate review prohibits "physical desecration of the flag of the United States," which means one cannot treat the flag "irreverently or disrespectfully." But, how enforceable will this inherently subjective law be.

The amendment does not prohibit the desecration of American flags nor is it a law. He’s wrong on both counts. The amendment in fact, authorizes Congress to pass a law prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. Whether they do or not is another matter. Here it is in it’s entirety:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Isaac then lists, as many opponents of the amendment do, some of the ways that the American flag is unintentionally desecrated by well meaning and patriotic citizens.

Consider these, among many, what-ifs: Can one wear a flag on his shirt or pants (torn blue jeans included)? Is a toothpick flag inserted into cupcakes disrespectful? Can one fly an old flag or one with fewer stripes or stars but looks like the real thing? What if, after our patriotic celebrations, a paper flag is thrown in the trash?

The amendment doesn’t and shouldn’t speak to those issues. If the amendment is passed by the Senate and ratified by the states, it will be up to Congress or the individual states to pass laws that deal with the issues. Does anyone seriously think that Congress will pass a law making it illegal to insert a toothpick with a tiny American flag on it into a cupkake?

As a lawyer, you would think that Isaac would know the difference between a law and an amendment to the Constitution. I guess that’s what happens when you cut classes in law school. There can be no legal challenges to the Constitution (other than by amendment), yet that’s how he frames his argument in the following paragraph:

Emotion is clearly clouding perspective on the litany of legal challenges this law will pose, not to mention tax dollars that will be spent on what will be a futile attempt to enforce the unenforceable.

And finally, Isaac does some hand-wringing about the threat this amendment would pose to our freedoms. Although he doesn’t spell out the ways that freedoms would be lost, I think it’s safe to assume that he takes a similar position to other opponents - that this amendment will somehow nullify the First Amendment. Of course, not all lawyers agree with that position. Refering to opponents of the flag amendment, Richard D. Parker of Harvard Law School sees it this way:

But they worry that any alteration of the Constitution – especially any “amendment of the first ten amendments” – is a wrong greater than any wrong it would correct. It is more important, so the excuse goes, to protect the Constitution than to protect the flag. This, however, poses a false choice. In fact, it turns things upside down.

For one thing, it confuses the Constitution with a controversial “interpretation” of it by the Court. The Flag Amendment would not alter the meaning of the Constitution. It was a handful of Justices who did that. What the amendment would do is restore to the Constitution the meaning it had sixteen years ago, its original meaning. By permitting protection of the flag, the amendment at the same time protects and preserves the Constitution.