The American Standard Bearer

Attempts to characterize the war in Iraq as another Vietnam have not gained traction. While the differences  between the two conflicts could fill a book, I think the primary reasons for the apathy are simple.

A) Unlike Vietnam, the catalyst for the Iraq war were the simultaneous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

B) Saddam Hussein – a truly bad guy – is out of power and his crimes are documented.

C) And most importantly, the anti-war movement today looks nothing like the anti-war movement during Vietnam.

Here’s a photo of Cindy Sheehan (she’s the one behind the American flag) in Crawford, Texas over the Thanksgiving weekend, waiting for  people to show up so she can sign their books. Her handlers have tried to downplay this and other photos as misleading, but by all accounts, not many people bothered to leave their cozy homes for Crawford this time around. When your anti-war movement is really just a loose conglomeration of some very wacky fringe groups, cobbled together to give the illusion of solidarity, you should expect that the public will get wise eventually. Contrary to what the elites in the media would have us believe, the American people are not stupid.

An example of the cluelessness of some of the current crop of anti-war groups can be seen in the events leading up to Veterans Day in the town of Waterville, Maine. Bridges for Peace, a local anti-war group obtained a permit to place 2000 small white flags in the local cemetery. The choice of white flags irritated some veterans, as it should, and five men, not all veterans, were arrested pulling the white flags out of the ground.

After the fact, the mayor suggested that perhaps Bridges for Peace should have used American flags or at least put American flags alongside the white flags. Bridges for Peace spokesman Arne Springorum expressed regret for not displaying sensitivity by using the American flags instead of the white flags, but revealed his anti-Americanism in this statement:

"I don’t have a problem with the American flag, anymore than I have with the Iraqi flag. I don’t treat the American flag any different than any other flag."

Well, Springorum’s dis of the American flag, and by extension, America, didn’t get by undetected. Vance Tibbetts II, a U.S. Army soldier currently serving in Iraq, read Springorum’s comments and sent a very eloquent reply to the Morning Sentinel that contained this line:

"I proudly salute the American flag. I used to take all the things that we have in America for granted. That all stopped the day I stepped foot on foreign soil and saw with my own eyes the abused and oppressed."

The anti-war movement is littered with characters like Springorum who promote overtly political agendas and are full of contempt for America. It’s being kept on life support by a willing media but the vast majority of Americans aren’t buying what they’re selling.

The Drudge Report today features this American flag graphic along with a story headlined "Networks Plan ‘End Of America’ Shows."

At least two of the major television networks are planning shows about the destruction of America for the ‘06 season, hence the American flag in tatters. According to Drudge, who got his info from Variety, both ABC and CBS have two shows each in the works revolving around life in America after there is no more America.

According to the Drudge article, the TV show biz people are revved up about the upcoming season. Craig Erwich, Executive Vice-President of Fox says, "The creative community appears to be really inspired this year. It was an exciting time to be buying. I came away pretty encouraged about network TV."

The cynicism is so thick, you could cut it with a knife. The "creative community" apparently thinks that the end of America is worthy subject matter. It’s interesting to note that the proposed name of one of the shows is "Red & Blue," obviously refering to the divide between the red states and the blue states.

Picture in your mind all those folks in Mississippi and Louisiana, after having their lives turned upside down by a hurricane, with their homes and communities in shambles, raising American flags in the midst of all that. I think those people are more representative of what America is made of than the people who find it interesting to contemplate the destruction of America.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America…"

Forty years ago, virtually every school kid in America stood facing a small American flag attached to the blackboard and recited those words. And the raising and lowering of the American flag at the flagpole in front of the school was also a part of the daily ritual. No one questioned the reason and no one felt coerced. As a nation, we were all a lot more grateful to live in America then.

So the question is this: is it valid to question the motives behind the Pledge of Allegiance and can it legitimately be viewed as coercion or idolatry or religious indoctrination or any of the other excuses a few noisy individuals give to get the American flag out of the classroom.

My answer to all those questions is a resounding no. The purpose of the pledge is not to force little kiddies to worship the flag – a fabric idol – or to sign on to the State Religion, or to fall in lock-step with a particular political philosophy. It’s a lot simpler than that. Reciting the pledge is a public declaration that in fact, you are a citizen of the United States and an acknowledgement of the fundamental guiding principles of our nation, namely, liberty and justice for all.

The Constitution of the United States specifies that in order to be elected President, a candidate must be born here. The reason is simple – a foreign born individual may have allegiances to foreign powers that are unknown to the voters, and once in office, might implement policy detrimental to America but beneficial to the foreign power.

Our immigration policy of the last several decades is an example of policy that is detrimental to America but beneficial to a number of foreign countries. The unrestricted flow of people illegally into this country benefits only those employers who want to pay substandard wages. But the cost and risk to America is enormous. Schools, hospitals and jails are all straining under the added weight, and with no additional tax revenue, the rest of us are paying the bill. Meanwhile, the countries that immigrants come from get the opposite benefit of a lighter load on essential services.

The threat to our national security is perhaps the most urgent problem we face. Without a clue as to who is entering the U.S., what they are carrying with them and why they are here, we are exposing ourselves to a potential disaster on a much larger scale than the attacks of 9/11. Few of us doubt that there are terrorists within the borders of the United States, possibly with some very compact but nasty weapons, who are planning attacks.

As the immigration debate heats up in Washington, it would be helpful for Americans to recognize that the problem is not immigration, but legal immigration. Most of my ancestors were here well before the Constitution was ratified. I tell you this because there are many Americans with the same ancestral baggage who are resentful of immigrants and lament the changing landscape, but I’m not one of them.

I am of the opinion that the Founding Fathers gave us the foundation for an ever-changing future in the simple and unchanging Constitution. And I believe that most of them hoped that their grand experiment would eventually transform the entire world.

So let’s share what we have by recognizing that welcoming immigrants who yearn for liberty and justice will strengthen us, not weaken us. But let’s also demand respect for our sovereignty by strictly controlling our borders.

One hundred and fifty-six years before the American flag was adopted by the Continental Congress, The Pilgrims celebrated their first harvest with a feast. Of the 110 original colonists that landed in Plymouth Harbor a year earlier, in November of 1620, more than half did not survive the first winter. A passage believed to have been written by Edward Winslow, one of the  colonists, describes the feast:

"Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, Many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest King Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."

These were people who were willing to risk it all for the chance to create a better way of life for themselves and future generations and in the process, endured hardships that we today can hardly imagine. Yet, when the opportunity eventually arose to give up and return to England, not a single one left.

Today, we face a myriad of problems that have divided our country, yet we all have a lot in common. Of the many things I’m grateful for, one is that I had the good fortune to be born in the United States of America.

There are many people from all around the world today who are willing to leave everything behind and risk it all to come here. Why? Because, from the humble beginnings of the first colonies, America has grown to become the greatest example of freedom and opportunity the world has ever known.

We have something special that much of the rest of the world wants and we have to be willing to share it with them. As much as some people would like to return to an earlier time, it just can’t be done. Things change, the world has changed, and history marches on with or without you.

Some of us want to return to an isolationist policy, but in a world that is connected in so many ways that were barely imagined just a generation ago, it would be impossible to ignore a world that is waking up to the possibilities of real freedom and knocking on our door. Yes, we need to find a way to secure our borders to provide security against terrorism, but we also need to be ready to share with all those who come here in search of freedom and opportunity.

Flags can be powerful symbols and the American flag is perhaps the most powerful of them all. So it’s my hope that all Americans will recognize that the American flag represents the great things we have in common – freedom, opportunity and compassion.

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin January 9th. So brace yourself for seven more weeks of rancor and television ads.

The burning issue for me (the pun is intended) is the flag burning amendment that is awaiting a vote in the Senate.  Following a couple of Supreme Court decisions beginning with Texas vs. Johnson in 1989 that declared burning American flags is constitutionally protected free speech, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are hoping to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow states to ban the desecration of the American flag.

So what does the flag amendment have to do with the confirmation hearings of Sam Alito, you may be wondering? Well, burning American flags is one of the issues at the forfront according to new TV ad sponsored by conservative supporters. The ad in question goes after liberal political actions groups like The People For The American Way by correctly pointing out some key elements of their agenda:

"Their agenda is clear. They want to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and are fighting to redefine traditional marriage."

The ad then goes on to charge that Alito’s opponents "support partial-birth abortion and sanction the burning of the American flag."

Amazingly enough, The People for the American Way has no disagreement with most of the above statements. They only take issue with the part about the Pledge of Allegiance, according to  NBC news:

A spokesman for People for the American Way says the group has never advocated taking "under God" out of the pledge. However, a lawyer for the group did express support for a lawsuit that would have banned public schools from leading children in reciting the pledge.

Well, I guess there’s somehthing to be said for honesty. You don’t need to take "under God" out of the pledge if you’ve already banned the pledge from the classroom and thrown away those American flags too!

So will Alito, if confirmed, bring his considerable judicial experience to bear on the issues raised by this ad? Probably all of them except the one about burning American flags. That’s because the Court has already ruled on the issue multiple times and with a constitutional amendment in the offing, isn’t likely to hear about it any time  soon.

Once again, television personality Bill O’Reilly has raised the hackles of the liberal media. This time, he suggested that if the city of San Francisco doesn’t want military recruiters on campus, then they shouldn’t expect help from the military if the need arises, "Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al-Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

A little over the top? Well, maybe, but O’Reilly raises a good point. Whether the voters in San Francisco want to acknowledge it or not, the world can be a very dangerous place with lots of bad guys who don’t want to reason with us. And as usual, there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Prop 1 doesn’t actually bar recruiters from recruiting on campuses but rather, it challenges the city officials to offer programs that might be more appealing to students. And while San Francisco School Board member Dan Kelly paints the recent proposition in benign terms, saying that it will “strengthen the board’s resolve” to make sure recruiters “don’t have free access,” student organizations such as College Not Combat feel emboldened by the vote. Activist Bob Matthews says of the proposition, “We now have the moral weight of the city behind us, and it’s definitely a valuable asset to have in our corner."

But if you look beyond the rhetoric, you’ll find that the supporters of Prop 1 have a different agenda than simply wanting to end war. San Francisco State University has been smack in the middle of this debate starting on March 9, when around 100 war protesters and members of the International Socialist Organization, a group dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and very antagonistic to America, confronted five College Republicans military recruiters at a career fair and forced them off the SFSU campus.

But it doesn’t end there. Cindy Sheehan’s Palestinian flag-loving friends are firmly entrenched at SFSU. Sheehan herself has appeared there (it’s where she made the infamous statement that "George Bush is a terrorist") along with her friend and mentor, Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in Federal Court of conspiring with "the Blind Sheikh" to smuggle communications to terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

At that same event, student leftists actively proselytized fellow students by distributing flyers that asked, “Should we support the Iraqi Resistance?”

And a large chapter of the General Union of Palestinian Students has been active at SFSU for decades. GUPS is actually an arm of the PLO, falling under the PLO’s “Department of Mass Organizations.” Many GUPS, such as SFSU graduate and PLO negotiator Saeb Arakat, are recruited from the SFSU campus into the PLO.

When there’s more Palestinian flags than American flags on campus, it should give pause. The people of San Francisco may have acted out of sympathy to the anti-war message, but the message from the people who engineered Prop 1 appears to be something completely different. The folks at SFSU are clearly not against war – they’re actively encouraging war with Israel. And they’re not against recruiting on campus – recruitment for the PLO is alive and well.

Sooner or later, someone with the bully pulpit, perhaps O’Reilly, will connect the dots. Then the curtain will be drawn on these nefarious activities.

Rapper Chris "Ludacris" Bridges caused quite a stir when the news got around that he was wearing a Confederate Flag Jacket at the 2005 VIBE Awards where he performed a rendition of the Ray Charles classic, "Georgia." In fact, he found it neccessary to explain himself.

This flag represents the oppression that we as African Americans have endured for years; this is a symbol of segregation and the racism that reigned not only throughout the South but throughout the entire United States.

At the end of the performance, I removed and stomped on the flag to reveal my version of the flag; a flag comprised of black, red and green. Those are the colors of Africa. It is a representation and my interpretation of where we were and where we need to go.

Fair enough. The Confederate flag has come to represent racism to many people, particularly black Americans. Forget for a moment that the Civil War was not all about slavery, as some people would have you believe. The shameful practice of slavery existed in both the North and the South and only became an issue of the war when President Lincoln made it an issue to build support among urban Northerners. But that’s a discussion for another day.

It’s reasonable for people who’s ancestors were the victims of a great evil like slavery to despise the Confederate flag as a symbol  of that evil. And Ludacris is exactly right to denounce segregation and  racism.

So why didn’t he reveal an American flag in place of the Confederate flag. What’s this about his version of the flag? A flag with black, red and green? The colors of Africa? Is he an American or an African?

It sounds to me like he’s trying to continue the evil of segregation and racism instead of trying to end it. 

You gotta hand it to Cindy Sheehan – she’s not a quiter. As part of her ongoing effort to remain in the spotlight, she is about to release a book entitled Not One More Mother’s Child, which will be a compilation of material from various sources.

The catalyst for the project is Arnie Kotler, Buddhist monk and book publisher from Hawaii, who followed Sheehan’s exploits this summer. He read the various blog entries she made during those heady days and thought, "This is already a book. This is incredible." His publishing company, Koa Books, has already printed 20,000 copies to be released this Wednesday. Says Kotler of the urgency of the project, "We got it done as quickly as we could, and the deepest reason is to stop the war."

Reading the general description of the content of the book, it looks as though it will be as confused and haphazard as has been the activities and pronouncements of Sheehan herself. To those people who oppose the war with honest and patriotic motives, take a closer look at Sheehan before hitching yourself to her wagon.

A couple of days ago, I wrote of the plethora of Palestinian flags that have been waving everywhere Sheehan goes. That’s because so much of the supposed anti-war movement that Sheehan has willingly collaborated with is really a network of pro-Palestine, anti-Israel and yes, pro-terrorist organizations whose true motives are not to save the lives of American soldiers, but to get the U.S. military presence out of the Middle-East altogether. We’re making it impossible for them to operate unencumbered as they wish to do.

On the one hand, I empathize strongly with Sheehan’s grief over the loss of her son. I myself came desperately close to losing my two-and-a-half year-old daughter this summer and I can tell you that there can be nothing worse than facing the death of your own child. But I think that Sheehan’s grief has mutated into a particularly virulent cancer.

First, she has become enamored with her own celebrity, a condition that is obvious to all but her most loyal admirers. In a phone interview with an AP reporter from her home in Berkeley, California, Sheehan gushes with giddy excitement about, well, herself, "I never wrote anything more than a note to excuse my kids from school before Casey was killed, so to see something I wrote in print with my name on it is amazing!"

But the darker side of all this, and the side that I doubt will be played up in the book, is her association with some really dangerous and clearly anti-American people and organizations. For example, Lynne Stewart, the lawyer who was convicted of conspiring with the "Blind Sheik" Abdel Rahman, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 is considered by Sheehan to be a mentor.

Stewart’s crime was smuggling secret messages from Rahman to his followers in the Middle East calling for violence against Israel. While on the witness stand at her trial, Stewart was asked if she knew that these messages were in fact "fatwas" instructing followers to kill Jews. She replied that yes, she was aware of that but that Rahman had told her that killing Jews was a good thing.

Then there is British member of Parlaiment, George Galloway, who was a featured speaker at Sheehan’s March on Washington, which the press conveniently stayed away from. Galloway dressed in Palestinian head gear and had the Palestinian flag, not the American flag, flying on stage behind him. He delivered a scathing attack on the United States and President Bush after lying to the U.S. Congress about his involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Galloway apparently accepted quite a bit of cash from Saddam Hussein before he was driven from power – no wonder he’s angry with us!

Other groups in Sheehan’s circle of friends and supporters include, among others, ANSWER, The World Worker’s Party, The Muslim-American Society, and the list goes on and on. The one thing all these groups have in common is that they are rabidly anti-America and anti-Israel.