American Flag Blog

Every school child in America once learned that the American flag should always be treated respectfully. That meant folding it properly, being careful not to let it touch the ground when handling, not defacing it in any way, etc. Now things seem to be different. The image of the American flag is used in all sorts of ways including bikinis, designer checks, and motorcycle gas tanks.

So that begs the question, if you display the image of the American flag in an unorthodox way out of love for your country, should it be considered disrespectful? It’s really the age-old question of legalism versus intent. Those of you familiar with the New Testament of the Bible will recognize the debate. Jesus spurned most of the religious leaders of his day because their legal arguments were good but their hearts were bad.

A debate revolving around legalism vs. intent is raging in the Atlanta suburb of Duluth, Georgia, and an American flag is at the heart of it. On the Fourth of July, several neighbors on a quiet cul-de-sac painted an American flag on the pavement in the center of the cul-de-sac as a civics lesson for their children.

There it sat for months until neighbor Glen Coryell complained to City Administrator Phil McLemore. McLemore maintained that the flag violated an anti-graffiti ordinance and would have to be removed and besides, if the flag is allowed to remain, what’s to prevent someone from painting any old picture on the street.

Then Mayor Shirley Lasseter jumped into the fray defending the flag art, and starting a running battle between herself and McLemore. And Coryell’s contention that the flag amounts to a pro-war statement prompted the originator of the street-flag to respond. Vietnam vet Richard Hutchinson, speaking by phone from New Orleans where he has been helping in the clean up effort, had this to say, "Some people have their underwear on too tight. It wasn’t meant to be a statement for the war."

Up to this point, the argument really was about politics, but now some veteran’s groups are pointing out that painting an American flag on the street is disrespectful. 81 year-old Don Ogden, who fought in WWII is one veteran who thinks the display is no way to treat the flag, "They say they’re trying to teach the children respect for the flag. Well, that’s not what you’re going to do when you put it on the road where people can drive on it and a dog can poop on it."

But Hutchinson, who has been asked to clean it up and has refused, says that it’s not an American flag - it’s a painting of an American flag. And so the battle continues.

The consequences of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag are likely to have significance far greater than the issue of flag burning.

The flag burning amendment passed the House last summer and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. If it passes, it will then require ratification by the states, so it’s not exactly a done deal. But if it survives, it will be perhaps mark a turning point in how the courts view the Constitution.

While watching Brit Hume’s program on religion in America last night, I learned a very interesting nugget of information. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the opinion in the 1947 Everson vs. Board of Education in which religious schools would no longer be eligible for Federal funds, was once a member of the KKK.

The significance, according to the program, was that Justice Black was outspokenly anti-Catholic and was afraid of the growing influence of Catholics in American politics. He resurected a passage in a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association  assuring them that he was a protector or religious liberty. The passage alluded to a "wall of seperation" created by the first amendment that prevented the Congress from dictating religious beliefs.

Jefferson’s meaning was clearly not to prevent religion from informing public policy and debate, but to prevent government from influencing religious institutions. But Black used the phrase to politicize a Court that, up until then, had interpreted the Constitution as it was written. Black wrote that the First Amendment “was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State,” and that it  “must be kept high and impregnable.”

Most Americans believe that the Constitution calls for a "seperation of Church and State" when in fact, it says nothing of the kind. They might be shocked to realize that our modern understanding was actually the creation of a former Klansman who used the Court to further his own political agenda of attempting to freeze Catholics out of the political process.

A similar concept holds true in the flag burning debate. It is commonly believed that the First Amendment  provides for "freedom of expression,"  a concept the encompasses behavior when, in fact, the word "expression" doesn’t appear there.

An amendment to prohibit the burning of American flags will send a message that if activist judges want to use the courts to further their own political agendas, the American people are willing to fight back.

Oh no, look who’s back in the news! We’ve watched Cindy Sheehan as she and her supporters desecrated American flags in various ways in Crawford, then waved the Palestinian flag in Washington. And now she’s taken the desperate step of flying to Europe to see if she can stir something up there.

Earlier today, Sheehan held a live demonstration of her now famous facial contortions while as many as 100 demonstrators protested the war in Iraq outside the US Embassy in Madrid, Spain. Last week, Fidel Castro’s Prensa Latina (Latin American News Agency) predicted that "Mother Courage" (Sheehan) would "Shake (the) US Embassy (in) Madrid." A hundred people, give or take fifty, watching spellbound as Sheehan performs her facial antics is not exactly what you might think of as "shaking" the Embassy.

If Sheehan had brought along some American flags and a box of kitchen matches, I’m sure she could have drawn a sizable crowd with a flag-burning party. But alas, hind-sight is 20-20. The real issue here, of course, is why has Sheehan taken her road show to Madrid? Because she has lost what audience she had here in America.

Her triumphant return to Crawford, Texas for the Thanksgiving weekend was a complete flop. The first Camp Casey, held last summer, was initially covered extensively by the press who were hoping that it would grow into something meaningful. But when radical groups like ANSWER, with their mile-long Palestinian flag and their pro-Palestine, death to Israel message, took over the show, the press left in a hurry lest they be embarrased.

The press, particularly the television people, avoided her Washigton, D.C. protest and they were not about to give her air-time in November. And now that the tide seems to have turned in Iraq, no one from the political left here in America wants to be seen with her.

Good news about Iraq is finally being reported and it seems that the Iraqi people are embracing democracy in a powerful way. In fact, just a month ago, it looked like Iraq would be the main campaign issue for the 2006 elections. But now, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is saying that the war in Iraq will not be part of the Democrat Party agenda for the 2006 campaign.      

It’s already old news that Hillary Clinton has thrown her considerable political weight behind a bill to make the burning of American flags illegal in certain cases. Clinton is the co-sponsor of Utah Senator Bob Bennett’s flag burning bill.

Of course, any bill that bans the burning of the American flag will be struck down in the courts practically before the ink is dry. No one who is familiar with the flag burning issue takes this effort seriously.

That’s why it seems surprising that Clinton is being attacked for pandering not by conservatives but by liberals who are presumably her supporters.

In a Washington Post op-ed piece yesterday, columnist Richard Cohen accuses Clinton of “Star Spangled Pandering” saying that “the flag bill along with other examples of Clinton’s willingness to court political reactionaries raises disturbing questions about who, exactly, she is.”

And a paper from my old stomping grounds, the St. Petersburg Times, summed it up this way, “The Democratic Party doesn’t need another candidate who lacks the backbone to take a clear, principled stand, and it certainly doesn’t need a candidate who doesn’t believe in the First Amendment.”

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Liberals, and liberal reporters in particular, who otherwise admire and support Clinton and look forward to her Presidential campaign really don’t mind the pandering part of the equation. They know she will have to move towards the middle if she hopes to have a shot at it.

But they view this particular episode of political positioning as playing fast and loose with the First Amendment and they are truly offended by it. Cohen frames it this way: “The First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred… Her sponsorship of the flag measure calls for reconsideration all around — either by Hillary Clinton and her support of the flag bill or by liberals and their support of her.”

Hillary has proved to be a lot smarter than her supposed allies who are now skewering her. She knows that a key part of the Constitution, namely the First Amendment, and how it will be interpreted in the future may rest with how much traction she can get with Bennett’s bill.

If Clinton and Bennett can succeed in shifting the focus in Congress toward their flag burning bill and away from the flag amendment, the amendment effort will be dead.

In the latest battle over property rights, a Virginia man is fighting for the right to display his American flag. Joe Roth of Williamsburg Bluffs, Virginia has filed suit against his homeowner’s association to keep his flag.

Joe’s trouble began when he installed a small flagpole in his yard and hoisted an American flag. Within days, the local homeowners association mailed a letter demanding that Roth take the pole down. The association cited as a reason the fact that the architectural committee had not reviewed or approved the structure.

Roth countered that the disclosure documents do not specifically prohibit flagpoles and besides, Virginia law holds that a homeowner’s association cannot prevent a homeowner from displaying the flag of the United States unless specifically prohibited in the deed restrictions.

Roth is just a guy who wants to fly his American flag on his own property and is apparently well within his rights to do so. And he is not unlike many others across the nation who are facing similar assaults on their property rights - that’s why many states have adopted laws similar to Virginia’s.

The most basic right we have as Americans is the right to own property without threat of confiscation. It is the one right that guarantees freedom. Yet it is the one right that we are currently in most danger of losing, thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain in Kelo vs. the City of New London.

The concept of an individuals right to own property, though taken for granted by most of us, is likely to be challenged with more frequency and more intensity in coming years. There are groups, such as the ACLU, who have as part of their agendas the abolition of property rights.

ACLU founder, Roger Baldwin once said, "I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." I think we should take him seriously.

A day after the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams and the silence is deafening. No riots, no protests, nothing. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Mike Farrell have all packed their tents and gone home.

The above photo shows several protestors outside San Quentin Prison prior to the execution, burning an American flag. Yes, that’s right. Burning an American flag! As we all know, burning American flags is just the thing to engender sympathy for your cause with the American public. The above flag-burners - wearing masks no less - perhaps gives us some insight into why this latest episode in the death penalty debate couldn’t gain traction.

There is certainly room for a serious debate over the death penalty, but not when one side or the other resort to nasty invective and politicization.

To begin with, when the usual suspects - Jackson, Sharpton, etc. - parade into town, a growing number of Americans are wise to their manipulations of emotional events for personal gain. Their mere presence on the scene carries a negative connotation for many.

Then, marginal entertainers like Mike Farrell, who is more or less unrecognizable to anyone who was not a fan of the long-gone Mash television series, come on the scene spouting all sorts of hyperbole designed to insult the vast majority of Americans. For example, on the Larry King show on CNN, Farrell said of death penalty proponents, "…you sit there and lick your lips about the death of a human being, you disgust me."

And finally, the various carnival side-shows such as the masked banditos pictured above who believe that burning American flags is more or less the appropriate activity for any protest occasion, serve to suck any remaining credibility from the effort.

If the people who wish to abolish the death penalty ever hope to win the day, they are going to have to lose the various nut cases (flag burners) and opportunists (Jackson and Sharpton) and debate the issue in a sober and honest way. To suggest that "Tookie" had redeemed himself is utterly ridiculous. To suggest that one who has been convicted of violent and vicious murders can escape justice by writing a children’s book would be a dangerous precedent if we wish to reduce the level of violence.

"Tookie" Williams was a founder of one of America’s most violent street gangs, he refused to the end to admit guilt for the hideous murders he committed and was sentenced to death for twenty years ago and he continued to be involved in illegal activities while locked away.

It would be better if Mike Farrell and others like him would stop trying to hold a thug like "Tookie" Williams up as an example of someone who deserves clemency and instead, focus on the more legitimate moral issues of execution. A lot more people would listen.

Speaking of flags (were we speaking of flags?), I received the following in an email from a close friend, and it really raised a red flag for me. I’m sure she sent it to me knowing that I would be able to relate. I hope for your sake that you are not in a position to relate the way I did:

Recently, I was diagnosed with A. A. A. D. D. - Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder.  This is how it manifests:

I decide to water my garden.

… As I turn on the hose in the driveway, I look over at my car and decide my car needs washing.

… As I start toward the garage, I notice that there is mail on the porch table that I brought up from the mail box earlier.

… I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car.

… I lay my car keys down on the table, put the junk mail in the garbage can under the table, and notice that the can is full.

… So, I decide to put the bills back on the table and take out the garbage first.

… But then I think, since I’m going to be near the mailbox when I take out the garbage anyway, I may as well pay the bills first. I take my check book off the table, and see that there is only 1 check left.

… My extra checks are in my desk in the study, so I go inside the house to my desk where I find the can of Coke that I had been drinking.

… I’m going to look for my checks, but first I need to push the Coke aside so that I don’t accidentally knock it over I see that the Coke is getting warm, and I decide I should put it in the refrigerator to keep it cold.

… As I head toward the kitchen with the Coke, a vase of flowers on the counter catches my eye–they need to be watered.

… I set the Coke down on the counter, and I discover my reading glasses that I’ve been searching for all morning.

… I decide I better put them back on my desk, but first I’m going to water the flowers.

… I set the glasses back down on the counter, fill a container with water and suddenly I spot the TV remote. Someone left it on the kitchen table.

… I realize that tonight when we go to watch TV, I will be looking for the remote, but I won’t remember that it’s on the kitchen table, so I decide to put it back in the den where it belongs, but first I’ll water the flowers.

… I pour some water in the flowers, but quite a bit of it spills on thefloor.

… So, I set the remote back down on the table, get some towels and wipe up the spill.

… Then, I head down the hall trying to remember what I was planning to do.

… At the end of the day:

* the car isn’t washed

* the bills aren’t paid

* there is a warm can of Coke sitting on the counter

* the flowers don’t have enough water,

* there is still only 1 check in my check book,

* I can’t find the remote,

* I can’t find my glasses,

* and I don’t remember what I did with the car keys.

… Then, when I try to figure out why nothing got done today, I’m really baffled because I know I was busy all day long, and I’m really tired.

… I realize this is a serious problem, and I’ll try to get some help for it, but first I’ll check my e-mail.

Don’t laugh — if this isn’t you yet, your day is coming!!

I hope you enjoyed that as much as I did. It helps to find a little humor in the aging process.

With talk that Congress might not extend the Bush tax cuts, a couple of thoughts occur to me. First, how can it be that 160 years or so after the start of the industrial revolution, and hence, the transformation of economies around the world, so many have such a poor grasp of basic economics. And secondly,that there are three kinds of politicians - those that have a good understanding of basic economics, those that do not and those who do but continually push for what amounts to a destructive policy for purely selfish reasons.

When the question of whether tax cuts are generally beneficial or destructive, the pro-tax cut people correctly cite examples where tax cuts produced more productivity and revenue. And the higher tax crowd will either invoke fears and superstitions (ie. "Voodo Economics") or pander to class envy (ie. "Tax cuts only help the rich").

So it leads me to wonder: There’s enough smart people out there with a voice - why don’t they spend some  effort and resources getting the message out about how tax cuts actually will produce more economic growth and therefor, more revenue. It’s really very simple.

Let me take a stab at it - I’ll use our flag business as an example. First, we should define what a tax actually is. In simple terms, it’s a percentage levied against a given transaction. In the case of income tax, the transaction occurs, for example, when an employer issues a paycheck. The important concept here is that money is only taxed when it changes hands.

Let’s say that Jack just got paid last night and he’s got a pocket full of cash. On the way to work this morning, he stopped at the cleaners to pick up his shirts for which he paid the cleaner $30.00. The cleaner is now subject to pay income tax on that $30.00. An hour later, the cleaner is out sweeping the sidewalk and notices that the American flag he has hanging on the front of his store is looking a little ragged.

Back inside, he goes online, finds our store and buys a brand new American flag for $30.00 (really $29.95 but close enough). Now we have $30.00 that we will owe income tax on. Checking our inventory, I find that I need to order an item from one of our suppliers for, you guessed it, $30.00. Our supplier just recieved $30.00 for which they will be subject to pay tax on.

But wait, there’s more. It’s payday at said supplier and one of the employees, we’ll call her Edwina, smiles as she looks at her check because she notices that the amount that has been withheld for income tax is less than it used to be. Then she stops on the way home to buy gas for the SUV. It comes to exactly $30.00 for which the gas station owner will be liable to pay tax on come April 15th.

We have the same $30.00 involved in six transactions in a 24 hour period that each generated tax revenue. It’s not how much money is in the economy, but how frequently it moves.

Now let’s see how the same scenario might pan out in a bad economy. Jack recieved his paycheck and along with it, a pink slip. He walked to the cleaner’s this morning (can’t afford to drive right now), paid for his shirts and told the cleaner of his misfortune. With a worried expression on his face, the cleaner told Jack that quite a few of his customers have been laid off recently, so it looks like he’s going to have to lay off one of his workers until things pick up again.

An hour later, he’s out sweeping the sidewalk when he notices his ragged looking American flag. He decides that if he cleans it (after all, that’s what he does best) and maybe cuts off a little of the end and re-sews the hem, he can probably get another few months out of it.  And there’s been a significant drop-off in visitors to Flagstuff.com. As a result, that $30.00 item is still in our inventory so we won’t be ordering another one just yet.

Meanwhile, our supplier has been struggling and asked their employees to accept a pay cut until the economy improves. Edwina sold her SUV and bought an old used clunker to make ends meet and she rides her bicycle to work whenever the weather is good to save money.

Notice that this time, there were only three transactions and a considerable amount of economic carnage along the way. And if we continue that scenario, next week, there will be only one transaction - Edwina’s paycheck.

In the first scenario, due to a lower income tax rate, people have more money, are more willing to spend and more people are employed. In scenario number two, the tax rate is higher, people think twice about spending, are more interested in finding ways to avoid spending and less people are employed.

But here comes the important part. In both scenarios, it was the same $30.00 - no more or no less money in the economy. There were just less transactions, the money moved less in scenario number two. Let’s say that the government collects 20% on each transaction in the first example and 35% in example number two.

First scenario: Six transactions x $30.00 = $180.00 x 20% = $36.00 tax revenue.

Second scenario: Three transactions x $30.00 = $90.00 x 35% = $31.50 tax revenue.

It’s a simplistic example, but adequate for demonstrating the principle. I’m certain that there are people a lot smarter than me with the connections and ability to reach a wide audience who  could make the case in a more eloquent and understandable way than I ever could. I just wish they would do it and put an end to these ridiculous tax debates once and for all.

Just weeks ago, it seemed like the Democrat Party had turned the corner, winning a key elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Now the picture may not look so rosy.

Following some ill-prepared comments by Democrat Party Chair Howard Dean and Senator John Kerry, the Republican National Committee is trying to capitalize on the gaffes with a new video. The video shows an unidentified hand waving the white flag of surender superimposed over the images of Dean and Kerry and begins with this message, "Democrats have a plan for Iraq. Retreat and defeat."

The comments that have caused such consternation within Democrat ranks begin with an interview Dean gave to a San Antonio radio station in which he said that the "idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

Then Kerry appeared on Face the Nation and made this ridiculous assertion, "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not … Iraqis should be doing that." …Ouch!

Critics are complaining that the white flag is taking it too far, but also acknowledge that Dean and Kerry have it coming. One Democrat strategist told the Drudge Report, "This is way over the top, but we have no one to blame but Dean, Kerry and others who continue to pander to the anti-war activists within our party."

And other Democrats are speaking out publicly. North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy had this to say, "My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up." And, "He is not hired to make major policy announcements on behalf of all the Democrats. As our party chairman I believe he needs to focus on the nuts and bolts of winning elections."

I saw the results of a poll on TV this morning that said that some 60 plus percent of Americans believe this country is headed in the wrong direction. The popular scapegoat is the President which forces us to ask, what part or parts of American life do they perceive to be going wrong, and exactly what does the President have to do with it?

I suspect if you asked that question, the answers you would receive would be all over the map and very little would be anything the President has any control over. So while a constant clamor comes from certain quarters calling for Bush’s head, the true threat to America and our freedoms is allowed to advance virtually unhindered. I’m speaking, of course, about our judiciary.

I think that the efforts currently in Congress to protect the American flag perfectly frame the problem of our courts. In their zeal to effectively rewrite the free speech clause of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court twice in recent years ruled that burning American flags constitutes "speech."  This willingness to change the original meaning of the Constitution seems fairly innocuous when it applies to American flags, but the effects can be disasterous in other arenas.

A case in point are the events unfolding in Riviera Beach, Florida. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court made a slight modification to the Constitution that, unlike the flag burning issue, has had a devastating effect for many Americans. Prior to this year’s Kelo vs. the City of New London ruling, the Federal Government could only seize private property if seizing said property was necessary for the public good. The "takings clause" has traditionally applied only to projects such as highways and schools.

The Court expanded the original meaning and intent to now include any project that might be construed to have some public benefit. So now, if a developer wants to, say, pay well below market value for the homes of 6000 residents of a town, and force them via court order to accept the deal, so that he can build luxury condos and a marina for rich people, there is very little standing in his way. He need only make a deal with the mayor or city council and everybody’s happy. Except, of course, the 6000 people who will have to find new homes in a new place for maybe half of what their old homes were really worth.

In case you think that the above example is a little exageration on my part, think again. I’ve  just described in a nutshell what is going on in Riviera Beach. Mayor Michael Brown, in conjunction with a New Jersey developer, has been moving his project forward for months now with little mention in the press and no outcry from groups like the ACLU that claim to be the champions of the downtrodden.

Until now, that is. TV and radio host, Sean Hannity took a trip to Riviera Beach and interviewed the Mayor. In one exchange, Hannity asked, "Is that the America we want to live in where you take a person’s home?" And Mayor Brown replied "The America we want to live in is one that talks about personal sacrifices that you and that your colleagues talk about every night."

Mayor Brown has a very twisted concept of personal sacrifice. To him, the poorest of Riviera Beach should sacrifice their homes, their friends and everything they hold dear and just leave. All so that Mayor Brown can line his own pockets and he and the remaining residents can climb up the social ladder.

The right to own property without fear of confiscation is what our American Revolution was fought for. If Mayor Brown is allowed to succeed, he will have provided us with  a very poignant reminder, as we watch thousands of people being evicted from their homes on TV, of why our ancestors were willing to risk death to win for us the right to own property.