American Flag Blog

Americans are overwhelmingly and un-self-consciously patriotic, despite all the admonitions to the contrary coming from the America Haters. Just take a stroll down Main Street on the 4th of July in just about any town in America and the common thread will be the abundance of American flags. Like tomcats on a fence in the alley, the Socialist Brown Shirts at the ACLU, Moveon.org, People for the American Way, etc., never stop howling their message of America-the-Evil. But that weird and paranoid message only finds a home with a small and excessively noisy portion of Americans.

So where did this natural, optimistic and very overt patriotism come from? Unlike here, across the Atlantic in Great Britain a struggle for national identities is brewing. I say indentities because while some Britons see unity between England, Scotland and Wales, others don’t. And unlike here, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone flying a flag from their home.

In the wake of the subway bombings in London last summer, some of the leadership in the U.K. are trying to drum up interest in creating a consensus on a symbol of national unity, and in particular, a flag all will agree on. That may be an exercise in futility however, given that such a large chunk of the population are immigrants with their own ideas about what it means to be British.

In an article in the Boston Globe last month, Linda Colley, a history professor at Princeton University, summed up the problem nicely and at the same time, shed some light on our own unabashed patriotism. She points out that the British Monarchy has traditionally been the focal point of patriotism and therein lies the problem.

Whereas our national anthem celebrates our struggle for independence, the British national anthem celebrates the Queen. In other words, Britons owe their allegiance to the Queen, rather than to each other. Says Colley, “British schoolchildren don’t have the same citizenship rituals that American schoolchildren have. Some Brits would find it strange or offensive for schoolchildren to sing the national anthem and have the flag in the classroom.”

By extension, Colley’s argument is that the American flag and the various flags of Britain (the Union Jack, St. George’s Cross, St. Andrew’s Cross, etc.) represent two very different things. It’s no wonder that the school children in Great Britain don’t want to sing about the Queen every morning. After all, the British deposed their monarchy in a bloodless coup more than a hundred years before the American Revolution.

I would have written “Phoney George Clooney,” but it doesn’t rhyme.

It looks as though Clooney is the new standard-bearer for the arrogant and self-absorbed political shock-troops of Hollywood and his ire is right now directed at fellow liberal Arianna Huffington. Appearing Sunday in Huffington’s blog, The Huffington Post, where liberal bloggers from across America converge to exchange snippets of hatred for George Bush, conservative Christians, etc., some of the actor’s charming and witty statements were published.

For example, speaking to Democrat politicians who supported the war in Iraq early on, most notably Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Clooney had just two words, “F**k You!” Clooney was irate that Huffington would publish such public statements, but since they are public, he really couldn’t deny saying them. So instead, he lashed out at Huffington for potentially giving readers the impression that he had written the post saying, “I stand by my statements but I did not write this blog.”

Of course, he had no problem with the idea that people would believe he wrote the blog until he saw that some of his saltier comments were published. In the meantime, Huffington was left to defend what little credibility she has left.

Couldn’t figure out what this was when I first saw it. I suspect it’s just me, but in case you’re not sure either, it’s a giant American flag suspended over the basketball court at the NCAA regionals in Jacksonville.

You’re looking at the warm-up prior to the game between the University of Oklahoma and the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Notice that there are three balls converging on the net. You can tell they are all in the air because if you look close, you can see the shadows below and to the right of the balls.

I visit the local Post Office here in Park City almost every day and frequently run into a woman who, like we do, operates her own business. She is always pleasant and courteous and usually asks how everyone is doing and how things are going. Her son is Olympic gold medal winner Ted Ligety.

The reason I mention this is that I just read a New York Times story chronicling the woes of skier Bode Miller and the contrast was striking. He complains of the hate mail being sent to his parent’s home and complains about the Olympic hype.

But he brought this on himself and his family with his indifferent attitude on display in Italy. Perhaps he was under pressure to participate in the Olympics in order to keep his spot on the U.S. Ski Team, but that’s all part of being an adult, Bode. You accept your responsibilities and respect the people you work with and work for.

I wrote a post recently about the athletes through the years who were chosen to carry the American flag in the opening ceremonies. Just about every one of them considered it so great an honor that the very real possibility that it might take away from their personal performance was not an issue. In other words, these athletes considered their role as a representative of the United States to be of far greater importance than their personal achievements.

Ligety, who has worked hard for years preparing for his Olympic debut, handled the sudden limelight humbly, and represented his country well. Miller, on the other hand, didn’t really want to be at the Olympics, and it showed to his and our disgrace. After one particularly disappointing performance, Miller said on live TV that he didn’t know why he was having so much difficulty, after all, he wasn’t even getting drunk that much.

There is a huge gulf between two groups of athletes that mirrors our society. One group includes those that sacrifice to carry the American flag and those like Ligety who take the role of U.S. representative seriously. Then there is the group, including the likes of Miller, who are so utterly self-absorbed that they will disgrace themselves and their country, then complain about how poorly they are being treated.

If word of this gets out, let’s hope Venezuelan bon vivant and President, Hugo Chavez, has his private jet gassed up and ready to go.

Chavez, who rode a wave of populism to power in 1998 promising to end the endemic poverty that has plagued the country, has been keeping himself occupied creating monuments to his own rule while poverty continues unabated. His latest endeavor has been to change the seal on the Venezuelan flag to reflect his own political idealogy.

One of the several changes Chavez has ordered for the flag involves the horse which has been pictured running to the right for well over a century. Not any more. “The white horse is now liberated, free, vigorous, trotting toward the left, representing the return of Bolivar and his dream,” says Chavez referring to Venezuelan freedom-fighter Simon Bolivar.

What may seem like a minor change at first blush is destined to be very costly. Not only will every Venezuelan flag have to be changed, no small endeavor in itself, but all the currency, official letterhead, etc. In other words, Chavez is costing his country millions of dollars, at least in part, so that he can depict the horse on the flag as a reflection of his own politics - running to the left.

The only problem is that some experts on heraldry have begun to question how Chavez could have possibly been led to make such a sophmoric mistake. According to heraldic conventions, direction is always determined from the point of view of the emblem or shield, not the viewers standpoint. To a viewer of the new Venezuelan flag then, the horse appears to be charging to the left, but from the viewpoint of the horse, it is clearly galloping to the right. Oops!

Not to worry however. If Venezuela continues with the age-old South American tradition of constant political upheaval, before long the left will be replaced with the right and all will be well again with the flag of Venezuela.

The issue of whether American flags or the flags of foreign nations fly over American ports has suddenly become a political lighting rod. The fact that support or rejection of the deal with Dubai cuts across party lines only serves to muddy the issue with the average American.

We here at Flagstuff.com are firmly in the camp with those who believe only American flags should fly over American ports. I won’t pretend to be an expert on all the ins and outs of port operation, but after hearing most of the main arguments on both sides, it seems pretty clear cut.

To begin with, all the talk about free trade is just a red herring. That argument is coming primarily from those, the President included, who pay lip service to national security but who really don’t place a premium on national sovereignty. They use feel-good terminology like “globalization” and “global economics” while opening our borders and exporting jobs.

Proponents of the Dubai deal issue dire warnings of economic protectionism. But keeping foreign management out of U.S. ports has virtually nothing to do with free trade. Regardless of the managing entity, our ports will continue to operate in the same way - no restraint of trade - no additional tariffs. In the case of Dubai, Bush is using our ports as a political and diplomatic tool.

Even more cynical is the charge of racism. Let’s be exact in our definition of racism, taken here from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” In the case of Dubai, or any other Middle Eastern country (excepting Israel), we are dealing not with a race, but with a religious idealogy, namely Islam, that has a stated goal of the destruction of infidels. That’s us folks.

But the most compelling reason to rid our ports of foreign control and firmly plant the American flag where it belongs, is one-and-the-same issue as border control. In an age when the rules of engagement have shifted radically, we need to control what and who comes in and out of this country as best we can.

Politically, the President’s attempt to involve Dubai in our ports management may have looked good from a foreign policy standpoint. You know, send a message to other Middle Eastern countries that we’re really not as bad as they think we are. But from a domestic standpoint, it’s nothing but a minefield, and bad policy as well.

It doesn’t matter whether 5% or 25% or 50% of the containers coming into our ports are checked. We have determined enemies who are well aware that one of the most fruitful ways to ship large amounts of bad stuff into the U.S. is via container. Since it’s just not feasible to open and search even the majority of containers, let alone all of them, it’s only a matter of time until we are attacked with something that can be traced back to one of our ports.

The upside to a deal with Dubai is negligible. Appeasing Middle Eastern governments with lucrative financial deals will ultimately not benefit the United States one wit. The downside however, will be disasterous. If and when we are attacked with some material that wiggled it’s way thru port security, both Dubai and the American politicians who supported the deal will be held accountable. That’s why Congress was so quick to scotch the deal.

Nobody knows how to use a flag for dramatic effect like aging dictator Fidel Castro. At great expense, Castro erected 138 very large flagpoles topped with Cuban flags just outside the U.S. Mission in Havana in February.

The intent was no doubt twofold - first, to block the view of the Mission’s windows from the Cuban population. Staffers had posted signs featuring quotes of Dr. Martin Luther King which Castro apparently finds offensive. And second, to intimidate the Americans by confronting them with the huge mass of flags everytime they peer out the windows.

Castro’s paranoia is somewhat understandable. After all, we have Americans promoting the dangerous idea of liberty to Cuban passersby. The next thing you know, they’ll be storming the Palace. But now, Castro and his henchmen have taken their paranoia a little too far.

At the World Baseball Classic in San Juan, Puerto Rico, while the Cuban team was facing off against the Netherlands, a solitary man situated behind home plate and in full view of the cameras, held up a sign that read “Abajo Fidel.” That prompted the Vice President of the Cuban National Institute of Sports to leave his seat and make a mad dash towards the man with the sign in the hopes of squelching this unseamly show of dissent.

The Cuban bigwig, Angel Iglesias, was instead nabbed by Puerto Rican police and carted off to the station house where he received what was probably his first ever lesson in American civics. Not to be outdone however, Castro launched a political harangue by way of his personal newspaper, Granma, labeling the whole event as “a cowardly incident.”

And to top it off, Cuba’s Revolutionary Sports Movement accused U.S. and Puerto Rico of encouraging “the cynical counterrevolutionary provocations.” That last line was no doubt written by the big man with the beard and cigar himself.

Consider that this is the guy the ACLU and Dan Rather fall all over themselves kissing up to at every opportunity.

Maybe the war in Iraq is like Vietnam after all - at least in one respect. The lefties of today, just like their counterparts of thirty-plus years ago, demonstrate contempt for the military every chance they get. I know - I was one of them thirty-plus years ago.

The very same people that preach “compassion” show absolutely no compassion for the soldiers who are risking their lives to protect ours, or worse, for the soldiers’ families. Consider the case of Stacey Kelly, a resident of Tampa, Florida.

Stacey’s husband David is serving in the Army over in Iraq. Shortly before leaving, David came home with a “Support Our Troops” sign that stands all of 30″ high. It was placed unobtrusively by the front corner of the garage next to an American flag.

In an age when too many of us consider the value of our homes to be far more important than a close-knit community, the deed restriction is the weapon of choice to keep your neighbors in line, and the Kelly’s Westchase neighborhood is no exception. Deed restrictions prohibit any signs except “For Sale.” So technically, the Kellys are in violation of the restrictions.

But in the real world, laws and rules are not always enforced and usually for good reason. Knowing the circumstances, not a single one of Stacey’s neighbors has complained and in fact, most of them are very supportive and appreciative of the sacrifices the Kellys are making for them.

Nevertheless, the homeowners association has slaped the Kellys with a $100 per day fine as long as the sign remains up. Homeowners association president Daryl Manning is the one, at least officially, who imposed the fine and at first blush, you might be inclined to give him a pass. Manning is a member of the Army Reserve and has spent some time in Iraq.

So if Manning is so sympathetic with the Kellys and what appears to be the wishes of the rest of the neighborhood, why did he find it neccessary to impose such an extreme punishment? After all, a hundred dollars a day is a lot of money to most of us but especially to an Army Private.

My guess is that Manning is using his service as a screen to mask his real antipathy towards the U.S. military. Perhaps as a Reservist, he never intended to see actual combat and he’s bitter for being called to serve. Or maybe he’s just a closet lefty. In any case, his position is not only ridiculous, but revolting as well. And who knows, if it wasn’t a lot more difficult to get away with, legally speaking, Manning may have demanded that the American flag be removed as well.

With critical congressional elections coming up later this year, it looks as though the American flag will be a central issue, and that’s not neccessarily a good thing. Republicans are planning to squander this issue soley for political gain.

The U.S. House of representatives passed a constitutional amendment a year ago that would pave the way for states to pass laws protecting American flags from desecration. The Senate originally was scheduled to vote on it last August but put it on the back burner and now we know why.

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist announced yesterday that the amendment, written by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, would be introduced to the floor of the Senate in late June. Political analysts like the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato see it as a political ploy to crank up the Republican base. It’s timed to coincide with the start of the all-out push to Election Day.

By framing the issue as one of patriotism, the Republicans may miss the opportunity to expose the larger issue - the liberal penchant for using the courts rather than legislatures to advance radical political goals.

Hatch’s American flag amendment is a response to the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs Johnson in which the Court redifined the First Amendment free speech clause to include “expression” or “expressive conduct.” In other words, not only is what you say as an American citizen protected by the First Admendment, but what you do as well. Hence, burning an American flag in public is now protected but so are a whole host of other physical acts, just as long as it can be shown that the intent is political dissent.

There is an opportunity for conservatives to use this issue as a warning shot to the courts that when they take a swipe at the wishes of the American people, the American people will slap back. The liberals know exactly what is at stake. Watch for them to begin to label this with scary rhetoric, using terms such as “dangerous amendment” and the like.

Cindy Sheehan, that perennial America hater and defiler of American flags was hauled off to the slammer yesterday in New York City.

I’m wondering how they choose the hapless unfortunate who, at great personal peril, must perform the strip-search. Do they draw straws? Is that officer compensated with hazard pay? I get a mental picture of the call coming in - “We’re bringin’ her in,” and the precinct clears out in about 30 seconds.