22 Responses to “Flag-burning amendment on the front burner?”

1. Jimmy vthe Dhimmi Says:
   June 14th, 2006 at 9:03 pm

   Do you think states like California, Oregon, New Hampshire, ect… will pass it in their legislatures?

2. Monica Says:
   June 14th, 2006 at 9:06 pm

   This amendment is a terrible idea. If someone wants to burn the flag, they can have at it. They have the freedom to burn it, I have the freedom to mock them.

   I don’t want to make any physical items (which were probably made outside the US anyway) sacred. Not a flag, not a religious book, nada. I’m more concerned about sticking to our ideals and I think we can more than accomplish that without this amendment.

3. Sean Aqui Says:
   June 14th, 2006 at 9:21 pm

   Well, the story notes that all 50 states have, at one time or another, passed nonbinding resolutions endorsing an amendment. It’d be interesting, though, to see how they vote if the vote were to become meaningful.

4. E Says:
   June 14th, 2006 at 10:13 pm

   Yeah. What you just said. I’ve been trying to articulate my discomfort with Flag Day, and your post just nailed it. The supporters of this amendment are just waaaaaay missing the point to the extent that it would be incredibly funny if it weren’t so scary and sad for our democracy.

   Linked.

5. DosPeros Says:
   June 14th, 2006 at 10:51 pm

   “Up from the meadows rich with corn,
   Clear in the cool September morn,
   The clustered spires of Frederick stand
   Green-walled by the hills of Maryland.
   Round about them orchards sweep,
   Apple- and peach-tree fruited deep,
   Fair as a garden of the Lord
   To the eyes of the famished rebel horde,
   On that pleasant morn of the early fall
   When Lee marched over the mountain wall,–
   Over the mountains winding down,
   Horse and foot, into Frederick town.
   Forty flags with their silver stars,
   Forty flags with their crimson bars,
   Flapped in the morning wind: the sun
   Of noon looked down, and saw not one.
   Up rose old Barbara Frietchie then,
   Bowed with her fourscore years and ten;
   Bravest of all in Frederick town,
   She took up the flag the men hauled down;
   In her attic-window the staff she set,
   To show that one heart was loyal yet.
   Up the street came the rebel tread,
   Stonewall Jackson riding ahead.
   Under his slouched hat left and right
   He glanced: the old flag met his sight.
   ‘Halt!’–the dust-brown ranks stood fast.
   ‘Fire!’–out blazed the rifle-blast. [425]
   It shivered the window, pane and sash;
   It rent the banner with seam and gash.
   Quick, as it fell, from the broken staff
   Dame Barbara snatched the silken scarf;
   She leaned far out on the window-sill,
   And shook it forth with a royal will.
   ‘Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
   But spare your country’s flag,’ she said.
   A shade of sadness, a blush of shame,
   Over the face of the leader came;
   The nobler nature within him stirred
   To life at that woman’s deed and word:
   ‘Who touches a hair of yon gray head
   Dies like a dog! March on!’ he said.
   All day long through Frederick street
   Sounded the tread of marching feet:
   All day long that free flag tost
   Over the heads of the rebel host.
   Ever its torn folds rose and fell
   On the loyal winds that loved it well;
   And through the hill-gaps sunset light
   Shone over it with a warm good-night.
   Barbara Frietchie’s work is o’er,
   And the Rebel rides on his raids no more.
   Honor to her! and let a tear
   Fall, for her sake, on Stonewall’s bier.
   Over Barbara Frietchie’s grave,
   Flag of Freedom and Union, wave!
   Peace and order and beauty draw
   Round thy symbol of light and law;
   And ever the stars above look down
   On thy stars below in Frederick town!”

6. PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » On the Flag Burning Amendment Says:
   June 15th, 2006 at 6:24 am

   [...] Via Donklephant we have a USAT story from a few days ago that I missed on the pending flag-burning amendment that is set to come before the Senate. [...]

7. Joshua Says:
   June 15th, 2006 at 8:25 am

   (Cultural-conservative demagoguery + Democratic cowardice) x (Congress + every state legislature except Vermont*) = a phenomenally stupid constitutional amendment that will likely have precisely the opposite of its intended effect; i.e. more flag-burning, not less, as criminalizing the act gives it added protest value as an act of defiance.

   I can’t decide which amendment proposal is more stupid, this or the gay-marriage ban. But at least the gay-marriage ban was just a political ploy with no real chance of passing. With the flag-burning ban, the U.S. Senate is now all that stands in its way*, and that barrier is one vote away from being breached. Great, just great.

   *Last I heard, Vermont is the only state whose legislature is likely to reject the amendment, so unfortunately, once the amendment gets past the Senate, ratification is likely to be a slam-dunk.

8. Paul Brinkley Says:
   June 15th, 2006 at 9:27 am

   I don’t have much to add here. I feel like a lot of you, it seems. I’d never want such an amendment, and at the same time, if I caught anyone burning a flag, I’d want to punch them in the face.

9. Sean Aqui Says:
   June 15th, 2006 at 10:03 am

   When I was in ROTC, I’d probably have waded into a crowd to take a flag away from someone trying to burn it. Now that I’m older, I realize that’s not the proper response to idiotic speech: besides the risk of it turning violent (something that, frankly, I think the protester would like), it’s suppressing their free-speech rights.

   These days I would just stand there and mock them, pointing out that by burning the flag they are simply reaffirming the astonishing freedoms they live under, while at the same time guaranteeing that their specific point will be ignored by the larger public.

   But since the number of actual flag-burnings is vanishingly small, I doubt I’ll ever get the chance to do that. Which is why this amendment is frivolous as well as violative of fundamental American principles. It’s using a nuclear bomb to kill a gnat.

10. Richard Says:
    June 15th, 2006 at 11:01 am

    In an effort to find the simplest common denominator, conservatives have worded the flag amendment thusly: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.�

    We’re talking federal law here. So I have to wonder how this flag law will be written. According to the flag protocol taught to me by the Boy Scouts (note the intellectual level here), you don’t fly the flag at night or in the rain, and you burn it if it touches the ground or gets dirty.

    So what about these people who have tattered American flags attached to the radio antennas of their cars? And isn’t the post office desecrating the flag with its postmarks; do you stop the post office from printing stamps with the flag on it; would stamp collectors be subject to arrest for “possession of a desecrated flag�?

    And if you’re a demonstrator who wants to burn the flag, couldn’t you “accidentallyâ€Â? drop it onto the ground so you could then burn it — according to protocol? A flag law would have to address intent.

    We have the federal Airport Police, Telephone Police and Internet Police. It’s clear we’d have to have the federal Flag Police, and probably a special Flag Court.

    In 1989 and 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned flag-desecration laws in favor of First Amendment rights, both by votes of 5-4. I don’t think we can count on the latest stacked version of the court to sort any of this out.

    The result of the flag-wavers’ amendment, I fear, would be that no one would dare fly the flag — in the republic for which it stands, no less.

11. DosPeros Says:
    June 15th, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    In 1989 and 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned flag-desecration laws in favor of First Amendment rights, both by votes of 5-4. I don’t think we can count on the latest stacked version of the court to sort any of this out.

    Texas v. Johnson (i think?) is why or, rather, how this has come up and it is in the form of a constitutional amendment. Freedom of speech in its expressive form has the same constitutional protection as written or spoken “speech.” Unless the gov’t can prove that its prohibition is not directed towards the the substance of the speech, but prohibits the speech if non-substantative elements of the expression give a legitimate government interest to prohibit it. The state of Texas’ argued that blag burning incited violence or, at least could. That argument was rejected and rightly so in my opinion.

12. Meredith Says:
    June 15th, 2006 at 2:04 pm

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

    This type of amendment just allows Congress to make a law about flag-burning. The reason we would need this amendment is to get around the 1st amendment on flag-burning issues. However, I think the auotmatic next question would be which amendment trumps the other? And by the way, are we crazy to enact an amendment in order to get around the 1st amendment? (the answer is hell yes).

    Furthermore, there are many variations of scenarios that need to be covered by the law. “Desecrate” is not the same as “burn,” so you could probably be in trouble for a variety of things besides setting the flag on fire. What if you let it touch the ground on purpose. What if you use it as an article of clothing? What if you burn it because it touched the ground (which is the only proper way to dispose of the flag), but the flag police don’t believe you? Also, what is the penalty going to be? If it’s just a small fine, that’s not going to deter anyone. On the other hand, if the punishment includes jail time (more than a week tops) or a large fine, that punishment would be highly disproportionate compared with other crimes, and therefore may be cruel and unusual.

    Sean answered another question I had, which had to do with whether I was missing the memo about all the flag-burning going on.

    Finally, who supports this amendment anyway? I haven’t even seen anyone on this blog argue that we need the amendment (with the exception of Dos: I don’t know whether he agrees or disagrees with the amendment because I don’t like to read poetry).

    This truly is a waist of everyone’s time.

13. chesty Says:
    June 15th, 2006 at 3:23 pm

    The First Amendment protects a person’s right to be an asshole. I don’t like people who would burn a flag either, but they have the right to demonstrate. Sorry, but there it is.

14. Alan Stewart Carl Says:
    June 15th, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    Should this amendment pass, nothing will really change. The vast majority of us have no desire to burn the flag so it matters little as to whether or not there’ s a law prohibiting the act.

    And that’s exactly what I think makes the amendment so idiotic. Why pollute the constitution with an amendment that is wholly unecessary? Those of us here can talk big and fret with sincerity about it being a supression of free speech but, let’s be honest, speech will survive just fine. The real issue here is just how petty minded and childishly superficial so many of our leaders are. If THIS is the kind of issue they think rises to the level of needing a constitutional amendment, then I seriously question their ability to recognize and address the real issues of the day.

15. Brian in MA Says:
    June 16th, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    Flag burning is one of those things that is extremely stupid to do but should not be prosecuted. However, if you’re going to burn the flag, buy it with pride and burn it with pride, we’re one of the few countries that lets you get away with it.

16. Meredith Says:
    June 16th, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    My boyfriend and I were at the grocery store last night, where we saw some flags. I’ll be honest and say that I felt an ever so slight urge to buy them and, well . . . you know, while it’s still legal.

17. Media Studies Institute Says:
    June 20th, 2006 at 11:10 am

    This legal brief (excerpted below) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit argues that the entire Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and should end. http://rexcurry.net/pledge-of-allegiance-newdow-rio-linda.html

    The brief is filed in case # 05-17257, Michael A. Newdow, et al., v. Rio Linda Unified School District, et al., by Dr. Rex Curry, an attorney. A pdf version of the full brief is at http://rexcurry.net/pledge-of-allegiance-newdow-rio-linda.pdf

    CONTENTS: The entire Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional (including the explicit 2-word deification) in government schools due to its anti libertarian use for the worship of government and in light of new discoveries including the fact that it was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Shocking historic photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html

    QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the entire Pledge of Allegiance (or even the explicit 2-word deification alone) violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment, in government schools due to its anti libertarian use for the worship of government and in light of its history as the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. More information is at http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html

    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT: The Pledge was written by a Christian Socialist who hated the U.S. Constitution and who wanted to destroy the U.S. Constitution and individual rights because he perceived it as a document that was intended to limit the size and scope of government, and that it would not allow the totalitarian government desired under Christian Socialism. The pledge was intended to push Christian Socialism in government schools through robotic ritualized chanting for the worship of government, socialism and its graven image (the flag).

    ARGUMENT: Long ago, before government became so massive and before the USA’s growing police state, most children were not educated in government schools. Even after government schools began to be imposed (with more taxation), there was no flag, and no robotic chanting in worship of government and its flag.
    All of that changed.
    For nearly fifty years, laws have been used to compel that flags be placed in each classroom and that teachers begin each day by leading children in robotic chanting in worship of government and its flag.
    Until the previous panel’s courageous decision in this case, and its progeny, it seemed all was lost and no hope existed. Elk Grove Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). All previous decisions that upheld the pledge in the past were made in utter ignorance about the pledge’s putrid past, fostered by decades of propaganda repeated in government schools. Even the United States Supreme Court decisions seem to be based on propaganda and ignorance (and therefore of questionable precedent). The other briefs filed in this case are also of questionable value in that they were probably penned by people who have similar ignorance, supplemented with years of learning propaganda. It is hoped that this brief will help to educate everyone about the pledge’s horrible pedigree.
    The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a self-proclaimed Christian Socialist who wanted the government to take over all schools in order to impose his dogma on everyone.
    The original pledge was merely a small part of a much larger ceremony that was replete with religious references and worship when it first appeared in the Youth’s Companion Magazine (September 8, 1892). The pledge is as unconstitutional as would be the rest of the ceremony in which it began. It is even more unconstitutional with the in-your-face 2-word deification that was added in 1954.
    Francis Bellamy had been a preacher who was chased out of that profession because he used it as a pulpit for his Christian Socialism. After leaving there, Francis continued to push his Christian Socialism, but switched to using the government and government schools as a mandatory method to continue his obsession.
    The people who hired Bellamy at the Youth’s Companion and who gave him his pledge assignment were familiar with, and embraced, Bellamy’s “Christian socialism.” Francis had written and worked for his theology openly before then. In addition, Francis was cousin and cohort to Edward Bellamy, an internationally famous Christian Socialist. Both Bellamys had been openly involved in the national socialism movement and the “Nationalist” magazine.
    The Bellamys hated the Constitution because, way back then, people actually thought that it was supposed to limit the size and scope of government. The Bellamy dogma was supposed to have been impossible under the Constitution. Francis never mentions the Constitution in his original pledge ceremony.
    Most government school students do not know that the 2-word deification in the pledge was not in the original. Undersigned counsel was the first to point out that Francis Bellamy did use the phrase in his original pledge ceremony. That ceremony also touts “Organic Christianity,� a new age, God and religion in various ways.
    A relative of Francis has been quoted as saying that Francis would have objected to the insertion of the phrase in 1954. That might be true in the sense that Francis would not want other people altering his work. It is probably not true in the sense for which the relative’s claim is usually offered. There is no reason to think that the 2-word phrase would have bothered Francis at all if Francis had thought to put it in his own pledge. Francis was pushing “Christian Socialism.” The phrase was in the ceremony but not in the pledge. That it was not in the pledge seems almost an oversight (and it also ruins Francis’ pledge beat, but that wasn’t the point was it?).
    Francis’ original ceremony also makes cryptic references to Edward Bellamy’s Bible of National Socialism, and the industrial army, and states “We, the youth of America, who to-day unite to march as one army under the sacred flag, understand our duty.�
    Due to his work at the Youth’s Companion, Francis has been described as an advertising pioneer. It would make more sense to say that he was a very successful propaganda pioneer. He was America’s Leni Riefenstahl. His work was more lasting and is still insanely popular to this day.
    Francis Bellamy was the cousin and cohort of Edward Bellamy, the author of “Looking Backward 2000-1887″ an international bestseller that was called the “Bible of National Socialism.â€Â? It was so popular that it was translated into every major language, including German, Russian, and Chinese. It immediately inspired a supportive political movement with “Nationalism Clubsâ€Â? worldwide.
    The Bellamy dogma inspired socialists everywhere, including in the countries of the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): 65 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 49 million slaughtered under the Peoples’ Republic of China; 21 million slaughtered under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
    The dogma and the pledge also inspired violence in the USA against people who would not join in the worshipful chanting. Some perceptive people back then were not ignoramuses and had not been taught propaganda in government schools all of their lives. Religious children saw through the socialist’s pledge and they refused robotic chanting because it was the worship of government, socialism, and a graven image. The government schools persecuted and expelled children who would not comply, arrested parents, and even took children from parents on allegations of “unfit parenting.” There were acts of grotesque violence inspired by the pledge against people who would not join in the robotic chanting.
    The Bellamys adored the military and they wanted to nationalize the entire economy, and make everyone ape the military. They also called their dogma “military socialism� and they wanted government to take over all schools in order to create the “industrial army� from schoolchildren and spread their totalitarian vision. Francis was pleased to adopt his co-worker’s suggestion that the pledge’s initial gesture should be the military salute.
    The initial military salute was held for the phrase “I pledge allegiance� and then the hand was extended outward toward the flag. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by children extending the military salute while perfunctorily performing the forced ritual chanting. Photographs confirm it and that is why such photographs are never shown in schools, in the media, in court decisions, and are difficult to find. Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the military salute led to the salute of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSGWP). The NSGWP salute is an extended military salute via the pledge.
    The straight-arm salute with the palm down was not an “ancient Roman salute� and the “ancient Roman salute� is a myth. There are various ways that the myth could have begun: early silent movies (all well after the Pledge spread) used the pledge gesture in fictional Roman scenes; Francis was from Rome, New York and he referenced Rome in the original pledge ceremony. Mussolini also eventually adopted the salute and some people might have called it the “Roman salute� in reference to his location, and from there others mistakenly assumed that the description referenced an older history in Rome.
    Francis’ original description had the palm turned upward as if to say “Here is the flag.� But that does not change the fact that his pledge was not performed in that manner, and he knew it was not performed in that manner, and he apparently never objected to it being performed with the palm down.
    It would be fascinating to know what Francis Bellamy was thinking in the 1920′s (when the NSGWP began). In 1931, Francis Bellamy died in Tampa, Florida at age 76. He died just as his salute and ideas became even more infamous. He had lived long enough to see part of the socialist slaughter in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the beginning of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party aping his straight-arm salute.
    Even when it was performed with the palm up, intelligent people still feared the bizarre ritual, and even moreso when the 1930′s arrived.
    Many religious people were persecuted for refusing to give the straight-arm salute to the national flag. That was the national flag of the USA and of Germany. It was happening in the USA (to the stars and stripes) and in Germany (to the swastika flag) at the same time.
    There were good reasons to consider the pledge and the salute to be the sacrilegious worship of government. The world forgets that German National Socialists did not call their symbol a swastika. Most people do not know that a cross was worshiped as the notorious symbol of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The group called their symbol the Hakenkreuz, not the swastika. Hakenkreuz means “hooked cross.” The term “swastika” was a bad translation for “Hakenkreuz.” Even the UK and the USA also used the term “crooked cross” (and hooked cross, armed cross, twisted cross, lucky cross) before “swastika” became dominant. The eventual dominance of the term “swastika” might have occurred in part as an effort to slander a foreign symbol, in an effort to distance the cross from its association with German Christian Socialism.
    Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, Professor Rex Curry discovered that it was also used sometimes by German National Socialists to represent “S” letters for their “socialism.” With a 45 degree turn of his Hakenkreuz, the leader of German National Socialists combined the cross with collectivism, merged church and state, meshed religion and socialism, and mandated the worship of government. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
    People forget that members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party did not refer to themselves by the n-word (the modern hackneyed shorthand term). They also did not refer to themselves with the common f-word either.
    That type of forgetfulness breeds ignorance and myths about the pledge. That type of ignorance is shown in an old pledge case from the U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). In Barnette [at 628], the Court noted that, “Objections to the salute as ‘being too much like Hitler’s’ were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, and the Federation of Women’s Clubs. (Fn. 3) Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Fn. 4). What is now required is the ‘stiff-arm’ salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of [319 U.S. 624, 629] America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’
    The Court’s footnote 3 stated “The National Headquarters of the United States Flag Association takes the position that the extension of the right arm in this salute to the flag is not the Nazi-Fascist salute, ‘although quite similar to it. In the Pledge to the Flag the right arm is extended and raised, palm Upward, whereas the Nazis extend the arm practically straight to the front (the finger tips being about even with the eyes), palm Downward, and the Fascists do the same except they raise the arm slightly higher.’ James A. Moss, The Flag of the United States: Its History and Symbolism (1914) 108.â€Â?
    In the footnote, Moss uses the hackneyed shorthand terms that were NOT used by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and Moss follows the modern habit of never using the actual name of the Party. Thus, Moss (and the Court) is prevented from making any connection to the Bellamy dogma of National Socialism (of which Moss was probably unaware anyway). The descriptions of the foreign salutes is not only inaccurate, but Moss thus misses their source in the early Pledge of Allegiance, with the question never even crossing his mind. The section states that the original Youth’s Companion describes a different gesture, but the section fails to face the fact that the Youth’s Companion gesture is NOT how the pledge was actually performed (until, as Barnette notes, people started to complain about the fact that it was the SAME, and the government realized that they weren’t mandating the original description. Later, the government gave up and went for the hand-over-the-heart. It is amazing that Congress decided to inject itself into the mess, and that it did so after the USA was in WWII).
    There is support for the religious connection from other authors who compare the Holocaust under the National Socialist German Workers Party to an Inquisition (including religious persecution) undertaken by the leader of German National Socialism under his religious beliefs.
    Many of those people in Germany were persecuted, and some were killed. They were also persecuted in the USA for refusing to perform the straight-arm salute in worship of the national flag and the government during the Pledge of Allegiance.
    Jewish Folks and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and blacks and people of various races and backgrounds were required by law to perform the straight-arm salute in government schools in robotic chanting every morning at the ring of a government bell (just as it is done today but with a different gesture). The USA was doing the straight arm salute to the national flag for three decades before German National Socialists started doing the same thing.
    Some of the major Supreme Court cases in the USA started in the 1930′s and weren’t decided until the 1940′s. At first, the religious children were unsuccessful as plaintiffs and they were expelled from the socialist schools for refusing to perform the straight-arm salute and robotically chant the pledge. The children had to use the many better alternatives, including home-schooling and their own church or temple schools, but they (and their schools) were often persecuted by socialists there also.
    It is sad to note that during the same time period in the USA, religious folks who were fleeing the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSGWP) were turned away from the USA, and knowingly sent to suffering and death. That happened because of socialists who support restrictions on immigration and restrictions on every American’s right to hire, to do business, and to freely associate. It was similar to today. Socialists in the USA still support restrictions on immigration and they reject the right of every American in living with, marrying, renting to, selling to, buying from, hiring (as housekeeper, lawn man, doctor, nanny, teacher etc) any person with whom that American wishes to associate. People forget the past.
    The Bellamys were bigots, racists, and xenophobes and they obsessed about immigrants coming into the USA. They wanted to impose a heavy-handed method of brain-washing immigrants and all Americans into accepting their Christian Socialism. Because of the Bellamys, the USA has a long history of turning immigrants away from being good Americans and independent capitalists, and in turning immigrants into socialists who are dependent on government.
    The Bellamys promoted a government takeover of schools. When the government granted their wish, the government schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official government policy. It served as a horrid example for three decades leading to the beginning of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the practice in the USA even outlasted the Party by more than 15 years.
    In 1939, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics joined as allies to invade Poland in a pact to divide up Europe. After WWII, Stalin and Mao went on to kill even more people. It led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): 62 million killed under the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 49 million under the Peoples’ Republic of China; 21 million under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
    Many Americans are sad examples of how places like that come into existence, grow so large, last so long, and kill so many. The Bellamys were an example of how places like that come into existence, grow so large, last so long, and kill so many.
    At the height of National Socialism abroad, the USA’s government deliberately fell farther into the same abyss with national numbering of humans imposed in 1935 with the social security system. The federal government was growing massively and attempting to nationalize the economy in many ways. The US Supreme Court struck down much of the new legislation as unconstitutional until justices were pressured by the “switch in time that socialized nine.”
    Authors of books about the Pledge of Allegiance try to make their stories relevant to current events. Such stories are relevant to the fact that the present government in the USA is anti libertarian and is out-socializing the previous administration by more than double and growing (in social spending ALONE). The demonic dogma of socialism and human sacrifice is still growing all over the world.
    The USA still follows similar anti libertarian policies promoted by the Bellamys. Many socialist Bellamy policies caused the USA’s big, expensive and oppressive government and its growing police-state. The Pledge still exists along with laws mandating that teachers lead the robotic pledge chanting every day for twelve years of each child’s life (though the salute was altered). The government still owns and operates schools, including the same schools that imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official government policy. The U.S. practice of imposing segregation by law in government schools and teaching racism as official policy even outlasted the National Socialist German Workers’ Party by over 15 years. After segregation in government’s schools ended, the Bellamy legacy caused more police-state racism of forced busing that destroyed communities and neighborhoods and deepened hostilities. Those schools still exist. Infants are given social security numbers that track and tax them for life. Government schools demand the numbers for enrollment.
    Real Americans don’t pledge allegiance. Real Americans declare their independence. It is in keeping with THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776). If government’s schools taught the true history of the pledge, then no child would chant it. If Americans knew the truth, then the pledge would cease to exist.
    Fight the flag hags and their flag fetish. Government’s schools should not teach kids to verbally fellate flags each morning. It is like a brainwashed cult of the omnipotent state. For adults it is childish. The Pledge of Allegiance is emotional masturbation.
    The federal government has no place in education and it is tyrannical. Federal flags are at schools to prevent liberty and to impose National Socialism. The Pledge is the most visible sign of the USA’s growing police state.
    Remove the Pledge from the flag, the flags from schools, and the schools from government.

18. jvtkudqh - Google Search Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    [...] [...]

19. Meredith Says:
    June 22nd, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    WTF on two comments up? BTW – A friend of mine told me that he burned a flag to see what all the hubbub was about, and I guess if you enhail the smoke, you can get high. There are no side effects – including adverse health effects. I now believe that it’s obvious why the government wants to ban flag burning. I’m glad that’s all cleared up.

20. FLAG ON THE PLAY Says:
    June 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    Congress is now debating a resolution to amend the Constitution prohibiting desecration of our flag. The House of Representatives has just approved it and the motion now goes before the Senate, which is expected to approve it by a narrow margin.

    Good.

    I am wholeheartedly in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning desecration of the great Stars ‘n Stripes. Before presenting the motion to the States for ratification, the new amendment should be strongly worded so that the flag receives its proper respect and must, without reservation, include the following provisions:

    1) The right to display The Flag freely shall be limited to the federal government.

    2) Display of The Flag shall be restricted to federal land and federal buildings.

    3) Possession of The Flag by persons other than those within the federal government or in the direct employ of the federal government shall be strictly prohibited.

    4) Sales and distribution of The Flag, its image, or any facsimile thereof shall be solely the responsibility of the federal government. Commercial or non-commercial sales and/or distribution of The Flag, its image, or any facsimile thereof by any private or state institution, company, entity, or individual shall be strictly prohibited.

    5) Display and usage of The Flag, its image, or any facsimile thereof for any occasion and/or use shall be strictly prohibited except as stated in number 1) above.

    6) The Flag shall be referred to only as “The Flag of the United States of America”. Any other reference to The Flag (including well-known designations such as “Old Glory”, “Stars ‘n Stripes”, “Bars and Stars”, et. al) shall be strictly prohibited.

    7) Oral reference to The Flag by persons or institutions outside the federal government shall be limited to normal conversation, hereby defined as non-amplified and non-disseminated conversation between no more than three (3) persons at any one time. Oral reference to The Flag shall not exceed more than two (2) references per hour per gathering as prescribed by number 6) above.

    8) Oral and written references to The Flag in recorded and broadcast media, whether digital, analog, or by other freely disseminated means, shall be strictly prohibited.

    9) The Flag shall not be deified, venerated, exalted, or used to further idolatry. This applies to any individual, group, commercial/non commercial enterprise, organization, gathering, media, or any other entity outside the federal government.

    10) Any display, use, sale, or expression regarding The Flag not expressly authorized by this document shall be strictly prohibited.

    This should just about do it. No more tacky lawn displays, stupid lapel pins, inane pledges, and cheap TV graphics. No more flag-waving media pundits, infuriating bumper stickers, and ugly coffee cups (Made in China). No more wasted time before ball games. In short, no more disrespect to the sacred symbol of our beloved Homeland.

    But until such time that these protections to The Flag are fully in place, I will do with the flag pretty much damn well as I please. Whether its wrapping myself in it or using it to train puppies, it’s my flag as much as yours.

    As it always should be.

21. Lily Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 4:00 am

    To put forward one software BPS CD Ripper / Grabber
    
    BPS CD Ripper / Grabber – BPS CD Ripper / Grabber extracts audio tracks from CDs to WAV, OGG Vorbis, MP3 and WMA.

22. brenda song pictures Says:
    October 30th, 2007 at 8:09 am

    brenda song pictures…

    Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Constitutions are so last century
• Candidate Sauerberg Suggests That Senator Durbin “Hates” America
• McCain Wishes He Would Have Picked Mitt Romney