In the newest example of “Jesus Kellyanne can you PLEASE take his phone away?” President-elect Donald J. Trump — who will soon be sworn in as our nation’s 45th Commander-in-Chief — took to Twitter this morning for one of his more stunning admissions in quite some time.
On the table is the issue of burning the American flag, perhaps in reaction to the news that a handful of college students in Massachusetts burned a flag this week in protest to the election results. Burning the American flag is a Constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment stemming from the SCOTUS 1989 case Texas v. Johnson. The landmark case under Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued that any statute or law that criminalizes the desecration of a venerated object like the American Flag violates a person’s First Amendment privileges as outlined by the Bill of Rights.
Despite the law, our President-elect seems to have different ideas for the future of our country:
“Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag,” Trump wrote. “[I]f they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” The Tweet is at least the first one in a while not to take bizarre aim at CNN, his favorite target as of late.
Someone absolutely needs to tell Trump to put away his Twitter account. He is acting like a petulant adolescent, not the president of the greatest nation in the world.
Trump has little knowledge of the law and plays to the dumbest person in the room. We might all want to punch someone in the face for flag burning or we might say we want to deport them or some other dire threat. We know we can’t but it feels good to say it. The difference is that WE are not the president, or soon-to-be president. Donald Trump is and he needs to stop acting like a teenager who is getting off on mouth-flashing.
Somebody needs to take away his phone. This man is behaving like a 10-year-old. To think he’s going to control the nuclear codes in a matter of weeks is downright terrifying.
Hypocrisy….
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/29/flashback-sen-hillary-clinton-files-bill-punishing-flag-burners-one-year-jail/
She’s done and thanks to all of the Hillary haters we have a con law professor being replaced by a con man. (Since Trump says he loves the poorly educated, let me clarify that con law is academic shorthand for constitutional law.)
You wanted to try something different and now you have what you deserve, a right-wing equivalent to Hugo Chavez, whose legacy is a shortage of food, medicine and toilet paper in Venezuela. Feliz Navidad.
@steve thomas
@Robin Hood
Your first mistake is your ascribing such high academic honors to our outgoing President. Were he the constitutional scholar you argue he is, he wouldn’t have the distinction of having racked up the highest number of Supreme Court loses of any modern President. The fact is, he was a “guest lecturer” at a law school: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/heres_what_constitutional_scholar_obama_really_taught_at_law_school.html
I guess you could stretch that our to “professor”, but looking at the number of times he’s been blocked or overturned on Constitutional grounds, I’d say he was absent during that time in law school, where they taught law.
Your second mistake is your attempt to rant your way through a deflection. The top post criticized President-Elect Trump (You know, the more I hear it, the more I read it, the more I say it, the more I write it…the better it is) for saying he’s in favor of prosecuting flag-burners. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of this criticism, seeing as Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a bill which would have done just that. Seeing as she was a member of the legislative branch, and could actually vote in favor of such a law, whereas President-Elect Trump (DING!) cannot enact such sanctions, seems a bit hypocritical…or just plain fault-finding for fault-findings sake.
But your comment….well that takes the cake. Breathe…relax. It’s two years till the mid-terms. Wouldn’t want you to have a stroke or anything. Having survived 8 years of Obama, I can tell you…you can do it. You will survive. The country rejected what you and the left were selling, but it’s not the end of the world. You just need to learn how to live with it…and Breathe in…Breathe out.
And try to have a very Merry Christmas.
Whatever Hillary did or did not do about flag burning, I am willing to bet the ranch that she didn’t tweet it. That’s the main difference. The other difference is that she isn’gt the PEOTUS.
As to Obama, your example of his lack of academic honors falls on deaf ears. The SCOTUS decisions have mostly been 4-5 decisions. “Winning” or “losing” has very little to do with one’s credentials and it has everything to do with political climate–a situation that has been stymying our country for a long time.
@MoonHowler
The most specific criticism I heard re: Obama at ChiLaw was that he didn’t participate much in the real academic scrum of the faculty. Good listener, but very engaged in other projects and not particularly interested in having his ideas tested in a give-and-take. Seems like a criticism that could be leveled at many adjuncts at top schools or junior players in a very senior environment. Who would I rather spend an hour with? Well, since Trump is PEOTUS, him of course, because if anyone needs to be reminded about the benefits of trade, peace, tolerance, connectivity, it’s him. But in the abstract… goes the other way.
@NorthofNokesville
Nor did he publish any scholarly work, which is a requirement for a professor. He published an auto-biography, ghost-written by Bill Ayers.
@steve thomas
He was not on tenure track, though he was invited.
Here’s what ChiLaw has to say: “From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
@steve thomas
Where is the proof of the ghost writing or is that just throwing it out and seeing what sticks to the wall?
My but we live in an age of disinformation!
Publish or perish is also a rather outdated, overly adhered to practice at major universities. It really proves nothing about how a person can effectively reach students. It’s also one factor that is driving up the costs of colleges. Some of those “publishers” draw ridiculous salaries based on what they published. The down side is they teach very few, if any in some cases, classes.
@MoonHowler
“Where is the proof of the ghost writing or is that just throwing it out and seeing what sticks to the wall?”
Ayers has claimed as such on numerous occasions, publicly. Whether or not he was being cheeky is another matter, but he has claimed to have written the book. He even did so when he debated Dinesh Disouza in public.
@MoonHowler
“Whatever Hillary did or did not do about flag burning, I am willing to bet the ranch that she didn’t tweet it. That’s the main difference. The other difference is that she isn’gt the PEOTUS.”
Right…because twitter (which didn’t exist when she was a senator) has the force of law, and the issuance of a mere tweet is all it’s going to take. Not like it was an actual piece of legislation or anything, being submitted for consideration to the body that actually MAKES law.
You do have one part kinda right though. She was a Senator. Not the President-elect…and she’ll never be. Her tweets are just tweets. Kim Kardashian will have more influence via twitter, than Hillary will. Sad thought I would imagine.
@Steve Thomas
Steve, you seem to be stuck in a rut. You are still Hillary hating even though she will not be president. You have stated that you weren’t pleased with Trump as the presidential candidate, yet you defend him at every bend in the road. Why?
What do your parents-in-law think about the threats to medicare?
@MoonHowler
Um….What? I’m stuck in a rut? Oh Ho! No ruts here! I am very much looking toward the future with great optimism.
He may not have been my preferred primary candidate, but he earned my vote. Now he’s going to be my President. I may not agree with all of his positions, but I do agree with enough of them, especially my big 3: 2A, rolling back regulations, a strong national defense which includes getting rid of all of these disruptive social engineering policies the outgoing admin pushed.
My in-laws? Ha! I identified as a “Trump Voter”. They are full-on Trump supporters from very early on. The are both very conservative (which is why we get along so well).
Seriously, what do your in-laws think of the danger to Medicare and Social Security? It actually frightens me to death.
@MoonHowler
Same scare tactics as always, used by the left to terrify seniors. You know what terrifies them? A total collapse of the system, as it is currently unsustainable.
You see, they fear for their grandkids. They know the entitlement programs must be reformed. They also know that the best way to preserve the system until reforms can take effect, is to get the economy really moving, people back to work, paying taxes.
Its a real fear for people using the system. I certainly don’t consider it scare tactics.
My “first mistake” might be expecting an honest discussion from someone who has an ax to grind. How am I supposed to accept an opinionated post as a fact in support of your argument?
My “second mistake” is not to anticipate that Trump-like head fake. Transition going poorly? Conflicts of interest? No problem! Just blast a flag burning protester! This scam worked in the campaign, right? And if you get called on it, just accuse the other side of diversionary tactic.
When Trump was the underdog you disavowed him and claimed to be concerned about Hillary. Now you embrace him. But when the discussion turns to your Frankenstein, bring up Hillary!
Who can trust the word of someone who engages in such tactics?
And then there’s the tactic of quoting Supreme Court decisions. When you have a court stacked with politically motivated appointments making politically motivated decisions about voting rights and campaign finance you are one step away from what happened in Venezuela. Their Supreme Court tried to reverse an election defeat for the government that appointed them. Sounds like Bush V. Gore, doesn’t it?
We now understand that when Trump observed that the system is rigged he was bragging rather than complaining. Some of his voters will be very angry when they figure out that they’ve been had.
@Steve Thomas
@Robin Hood
Ha…Haha….HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bitter…bitter….bitter. Perhaps stroking a check to Jill Stein to fund her recount scam might be cathartic.
When Trump was seeking the nomination, I disavowed him. I made no secret of that. Once he was the nominee, he had earned my vote. I made no secret of that, either. That’s what a loyal Republican does. That’s what I’ve done in every election since 1996, as my preferred primary candidate didn’t get the nomination. I’ve stated this previously on this blog as well.
Concerns about Hillary? You have an amazing gift for understating. I believe she is a traitorous criminal who should be in an orange jumpsuit, not a designer pantsuit. I’m ecstatic that she lost. I couldn’t be more pleased that the Clinton era is over.
Am I surprised that Trump won? More than just a little, but then again the DC Metro is a bubble. Am I happy that he beat Hillary, decisively? You bet I am. I’m not gloating. Were I a Trump supporter, rather than a Trump voter, I’d have earned the gloating.
And I didn’t/don’t expect anything approaching an intellectually honest discussion with anyone still smarting from this election. Like I said, I’ve been there TWICE over the last eight years. It sucks, and it’s going to keep on sucking for those who were 100% convinced that Hillary had this thing locked up. It’s going to suck when you realize that the GOP dominates state governments, and now dominates 2 of the 3 branches.
New levels of suckiness will be hit when Trump makes his first SCOTUS appointment, and likely a 2nd when Ginsberg has to retire, since she’s dying of cancer.
It’s going to suck when Obama’s legacy is systematically dismantled through rescinding of his executive orders, and a roll-back of his regulatory schemes.
It’s going to suck because there’s very little your side can do to stop it. Sure, you can rant and rave at Republicans like me. You can take to facebook and other outlets. You can make a racket, but you can’t stop it…and it’s gonna suck. Like I said, I’ve been there. I had that sinking feeling as the Dem house and senate rammed through Obamacare, and when he appointed 2 liberals to the supreme court.
It’s going to be OK though. You need to embrace the suck, since there’s no avoiding it. Like standing in a downpour with no umbrella. Embrace the fact that there’s no avoiding the soaking that’s coming.
You see, that’s honest dialogue. I also honestly believe that you won’t come to terms with it, either. Your side couldn’t stand GW Bush. How are you gonna handle Trump, a Republican House & Senate, and a conservative court? How will you handle Ralph Northam getting his clock cleaned in Virginia next year (and he will, I’m willing to put money on it). You’ll have to face the fact that the last 8 years was as good as it will be for quite some time. That will suck.
And if you are honest, you will emerge from your bubble, and admit that the Democrats blew it royally, and have lost middle America for the foreseeable future, have no bench, and their leaders are all on their way out. That will suck the most.
Suck? You should find more mature ways of expressing yourself. But you’re a Trump supporter, so there’s something you have in common with him.
The people in the bubble are the ones who believe Hillary will be prosecuted, the wall will be built and the swamp will be drained.
Virginia has elected a governor from the party opposite the president’s 9 time out of the last 10 cycles and the Democrats did carry Virginia this year. Place your bets.
We survived Nixon and he and his supporters showed much more class than what we’re seeing now. W lost the popular vote but he handled himself with much more class than we’re seeing now. He left Obama the Great Recession and it has taken at least eight years to recover thanks to the politically motivated obstruction by Republicans.
There is still the a filibuster rule in the Senate and that’s why we have a system of checks and balances. Each party took turns in 2004 and 2008 proclaiming a generational majority, but then came accountability.
@Steve Thomas
@Robin Hood
“Suck? You should find more mature ways of expressing yourself. But you’re a Trump supporter, so there’s something you have in common with him.”
Personal insults won’t change the fact that Trump won, and as someone who suffered through the Obama years, I can tell you it is going to suck for you. There’s no better way to convey what that is going to feel like for you. “Unpleasant” doesn’t quite describe it.
You want to lash out….be angry with your fellow countrymen (and women) for handing the reigns of power to someone who epitomizes everything you oppose. It’s visceral…, heart-rending, mind-boggling. Your world seems turned upside down.
In other words…it sucks. Been there. Done that. Got a whole drawer full of T-shirts. Try not to let it ruin your Christmas.
Why do you project your personal characteristics on others?
It appears that I am much older and more experienced, but this isn’t supposed to be about us, is it?
I learned to move on when Nixon got reelected. When will you?
@Steve Thomas
Much scarier stuff out there than Nixon.
@Robin Hood
“There is still the a filibuster rule in the Senate and that’s why we have a system of checks and balances. Each party took turns in 2004 and 2008 proclaiming a generational majority, but then came accountability.”
Yeah…you hold on to that. Been there too, remember? That’s a very thin hook upon which to hang your hopes for at least the next two years. I am sure that while Obama might have kept a few mementos of his time in the whitehouse, there will still be plenty of “phones and pens” to be had…not that I approve of executive overreach.
And have you forgotten about the states? The democrats are 1 state away from not even being able to block a constitutional amendment. Think about that, and what that signifies. Let Virginia go GOP next year…. Oh the possibilities!
Ok…that last part sounded like gloating. I’m sorry.
Moonhowler, I’m not sure Steve measures up to the “place for civil debate” or “blog for grown ups” standard.
This isn’t some high school rivalry football game for bragging rights. People make financial decisions that depend on Social Security, Medicare and pensions. The last time we got the privatization pitch we saw the Great Recession silence the self-serving lies coming from the finance and insurance industries at least for a while.
Buyer’s remorse can set in on either side of the partisan divide. In my lifetime we have seen it happen in 1954, 1966, 1974, 1980, 1992, 1994, 2006 and 2010. That’s calm, bipartisan and objective.
Haven’t we had enough of this adolescent foolishness?
Some of us have adult responsibilities to fulfill and very little time for endless and childish back and forth online.
@Steve Thomas
I am very concerned over what might be done to social security and Medicare. Remember when there was a move to make all pensions 401Ks? All sorts of arguments were made about why this would be a good idea and help people. Please allow me to be uncivil and say oh bullshit!
I worry that a bunch of freakishly rich people are sitting in the catbird seat making decisions that could be catastrophic for the middle class.
Steve is a Republican. He is a party person. I personally don’t understand being that much of a party person but I know that is where he is coming from.
I am not a party person. I lean Democratic but I have been known to vote for an occasional R or I. My worst fault is seeing the other guy’s point of view, even if I don’t agree with it.
Steve has his main issue–2A. I have my own main issue. Reproductive rights. While I support 2A to a degree, I am certainly not above placing some restrictions. Where is this going? I understand Steve in this regard–if you give an inch you get swallowed alive. That is what has happened with reproductive rights. So you dig in and you don’t cave.
That was just an explanation of why I consider Steve a friend, even though we rarely agree on main issues. We discovered a long time ago that we can always find some common ground. It is a difficult discovery process. I doubt that I will ever find common ground on the notion of thinking Trump is alright as president.
@Steve Thomas
Steve said: “When Trump was seeking the nomination, I disavowed him. I made no secret of that. Once he was the nominee, he had earned my vote. I made no secret of that, either. That’s what a loyal Republican does. That’s what I’ve done in every election since 1996, as my preferred primary candidate didn’t get the nomination. I’ve stated this previously on this blog as well.”
Is that like what we used to say here in the south about voting for a jackass if that is who was running?
I am curious what Trump did to earn your vote other than being the nominee. He did some really horrible, reprehensible things that I know violate your personal code of behavior.
BTW, what is your opinion of Petraeus if you feel Hillary is a criminal? Will you support him if he becomes secretary of state or defense or whatever the hell he is being considered for? Or…will you accept him because YOUR president selected him?
@MoonHowler
Fair questions deserve a fair answer:
“Is that like what we used to say here in the south about voting for a jackass if that is who was running?”
I recall the “yellow dogs” used to say “I’d druther vote for a yellow dog, than vote for a Republican. To your point: I voted for the what I saw as the lesser of two evils, or put another way, Record vs. Rhetoric. Trump said some offensive things. He said some awkward things. He said some inflammatory things. But words don’t rise to the level of criminal action. Hillary, IMHO, committed at the very least criminal acts, that IMHO rose to the level of espionage…then lied about it, then lied about lying about it. Oh…and she boldly campaigned on dismantling the 2nd amendment, and I wasn’t willing to trust that she was just pandering, considering she was actively involved (as First Lady?!) in the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban (2 lies for the price of one). 3rd, her foreign policy record was a disaster. Obviously, your mileage varied from mine.
“I am curious what Trump did to earn your vote other than being the nominee. He did some really horrible, reprehensible things that I know violate your personal code of behavior.
He said some really horrible things. No denying it. However, the stories of the few came forth and said “He did such and such to me” fell apart quickly, in my view. Hillary actually DID some things that violate my personal code of behavior…not to mention the law. Actions speak louder than words. Always have in my book.
What Trump actually did to earn my vote was; defeated all challengers in the primary, including my primary choice (Walker), secondary (Rubio) and tertiary (Cruz) choices as well. As someone who has actually facilitated the GOP nomination process, and expect others in my party to respect the outcomes as have I all of these years, Trump had my vote. What capped it was his very strong positions on the 2nd Amendment. No secret that this is my “go to the mat” issue.
Petraeus…definitely not my 1st choice, or second, or third. He is a convicted felon. He cheated on his wife, who by all accounts was a model officer’s wife and deserves much credit in her husband’s career successes. He let his ego get the better of him and had an affair with a groupie, who was writing a biography on him. Do I think his sharing of his personal journals, which contained classified information with someone who also held a sufficient security clearance, but lacked the official need-to-know rises to the same level of criminality engaged in by Clinton? No. But he did break the law. He also admitted to it, took his personal and professional lumps. I respect that.
He also joined Mark Kelly to create a gun-control group. This alone is enough for me to oppose his being SecState, as it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the 2A, and a lack of respect for individual liberty.
Alas, my preferred choice is out of contention (Bolton). I don’t think it’s a matter of my accepting him or not. I hope OUR president chooses someone else. Go Mitt!
@Robin Hood
Oh and they were really “had ” this time!
Wa Po:
Why is he feeding into the ignorance in this country? Is’t it the responsibility of the president to enforce that law? Why would he feed into this anti-intellectual movement?
Steve, you should go read the bill your alt-right website is citing. It actually upholds the constitutional right to burn the flag as a form of protest. It simply says one can not do so in order to incite violence. Trump on the other hand wishes to directly rescind a basic constitutional right. HUGE difference. I am surprised you did not take the time to do this basic due diligence before regurgitating Bannon’s published talking points. But this is what passes for conservative intellect these days, I suppose.
@Eric the Half a Troll
I did read the bill, including the “incite violence” clause. I also remember when the bill was proposed. I opposed it then, and oppose any efforts today to outlaw flag burning.
Truth be told, I don’t consider flag burning a “desecration” as it is the prescribed and preferred method of disposing of a flag no longer serviceable (the other being to cut it into 1″x1″ pieces and bury it). As a US Marine on “Colors Detail”, I had to burn an unserviceable flag or two, and I still do so today, when my own flags become tattered and worn. I do so respectfully.
What I classify as flag desecration was the “stomping” that the BLM movement engaged in, or dragging it through the gutter, like the Occupy Movement did…and if I were to recover such a flag, I would respectfully burn it…as is custom.
But you missed my point: Criticizing Trump for saying he’d like to see flag burners punished, but dismissing previous efforts to legislate a sanction for the act is hypocritical. Splitting hairs over “intent” is meaningless. Also, comparing a tweet to an actual legislative bill is absolutely ridiculous.
Also ridiculous is your branding Breitbart “alt-right”, IMHO. Stormfront…that’s an alt-right sight. Regardless, just because you find the source distasteful, doesn’t change the fact that Clinton, Boxer and a bunch of others wanted to outlaw flag-burning, if it met certain criteria.
I guess I have seen my fair share of flag burning, having come of age during the Vietnam War. I still don’t like it and people were often arrested, although who knows to what end. Back then, print flags were often part of your clothing. I remember a couple pairs of jeans I had that had flags sewn on the butt, etc. Questionable taste.
Back then, if you burned a flag in the wrong place, someone would give you a major ass-whupping and there wasn’t much you could do about it.
What I am saying is that NO Clinton et al did not want to outlaw flag burning, they wanted to outlaw knowingly inciting violence by flag burning. Their bill respects 1st amendment rights, Trump the Republican does not. Where is the conservative outrage about him trashing the constitution? Hypocrisy indeed…
I wish people would not burn the flag. Legal, protected speech does not necessarily equate to respectful, dignified, helpful, etc, speech.
But my wishes end with my own behavior, in a free society.
Both sides of the political aisle have issues here. Hillary has (or had) her own opportunistic dalliance with flag protection. But in practice, the Obama administration has left a lot to be desired, con law prof or not. To the positive, he’s been generally against “safe space” snowflake protection, is pushing consumer free speech with the “Yelp” law, and gave Sony a poke when they pulled down their anti-North Korea satire (though that’s their private speech, so kinda not his business). But his admin has pushed for fairly draconian and open-ended speech codes or using Title IX to smack down professors deemed offensive on stupid pretext. The “Innocence of Muslims” debacle during the Benghazi excuse-finding flap was not a proud moment for free speech, safe to say. The CJR even called out the admin for prosecuting more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined using World War 1 anti-spy laws.
Then there’s Trump. What can one say other than “settled law, Mr. PEOTUS.”
@NorthofNokesville
North, I agree. Desecration of a flag is offensive to me, but I’m not a little snowflake who can’t handle the offense. I want to jack-slap these millennials in their Che’ Guevarra shirts too, but they have a right to free expression.
It also means I can tell the snowflake who finds offense in my Gadsden flag or NRA hat to proceed to venture forth and engage in self-fornication.
@Steve Thomas
I didn’t know you had become tea party, Steve? Seriously?
@MoonHowler
“I didn’t know you had become tea party, Steve? Seriously?”
Do you think the Gadsden Flag was invented by the Tea Party? Seriously?
I have lots of flags that have actual historical significance, and understand the significance of each. The Gadsden Flag was the first flag used by the Continental Marines. I have had an affinity for this flag since I was a bald-headed recruit on Paris Island.
But you made my point: If I were to fly this flag, you would assume that I am “Tea Party” because you associate this with this group. Since you find this group to be distasteful, you would be offended at some level.
Say I had relatives who fought for the Confederacy, and was proud of this lineage (I don’t), and wanted to fly the confederate flag on a specific date to commemorate my ancestors. Someone else might look at that and think…”my neighbor is a Klansman”.
Now, I would obviously draw a personal line for something like the Nazi flag. But what about a PRC flag, or an old soviet flag, or a cuban flag, or Palestinian flag?
I can’t stand the fact that millennials think Che’ Guevara, a serial killer masking as a “revolutionary” is something to be celebrated as a fashion statement, but someone who wears and NRA hat (covered in USMC unit pins) should be subject to verbal abuse. That literally happened to me. Of course it was in down-town Seattle. This kid rolled up on me and started going off on the NRA as a bunch of murderers. I pointed to his shirt and said “that guy is a murderer, who not only killed political opponents, he had their families liquidated too. Go read a history book, or eff-off, or both” He got all “housed” by this.
No, I do not think the Gadsden Flag was created by the tea party. But I do know that they adopted it as their own symbol.
If a person flies that flag today, I assume they are T-Party. Now, if you have the flag displayed historically in your home, then that casts a different light on things. I love flags and their histories. However, if I drive past a neighbor’s house and there is a big ass confederate flag out flapping in the breeze …well…you know what I think.
I would certainly keep flag displays in my own home. I wouldn’t fly most of them out front though.
I have a rising sun flag from WWII. I have it displayed in a vitrine of collectables, including replacement medals awarded my father. I sure as hell wouldn’t fly it outside my home.
I do have direct lineage to the Confederacy. I probably wouldn’t fly the flag for any reason, outside my home.
@MoonHowler
I’m sort of a purest when it comes to flags flown outside. I know folks like to fly all kinds of flags. Rainbow flags, St. George’s Flags, Flags of their Alma Mater’s or their home countries. This is America, and barring any crazy HOA rules…
I only fly the National Ensign regularly. My Marine Battle Colors go up on 11/10 (Marine Corps Birthday) through 11/11 (Veterans day) and on Memorial Day. All the other flags are hung up in my workshop/mancave/bunker/fortress-of-solitude.
I don’t mind American flags or Virginian flags, hung properly. If Mr. Howler wanted to hang a UMD flag out on game day, I wouldn’t have a problem. I don’t even mind foreign flags when World Cup is being played. Other than that…I agree.
I think flags are beautiful. I think they are often used “in your face” at others.
It enrages me when any of the Confederate flags are used as dog whistles. I think it dishonors a group of people who pretty much lost everything.
I think most people who are at war with anything Confederate would be amazed to know how very little to say the average person had back then. Most didn’t have any control or decision making power over that war. Start with the women. They couldn’t vote and were discouraged from having opinions. Move on to your average farmer or tradesman–very little control. Once again, the rich were in control of everyone else’s destiny, which ended up being death, hunger, property loss, etc in many cases.
Trump will undoubtedly say and do many things that will cause some serious head scratching.
However, the incoming Administration has persuaded Carrier to keep 2000 jobs in the US and not go to Mexico. Trump has named an Attorney General who will enforce US immigration laws. Trump has named an HHS Secretary who has a plan to dismantle Obamacare.
Actions such as these will make up for a lot of head scratching.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html
Let me be the first here to congratulate former Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA) on retaining her position as House Minority Leader. Glad to see the Democrats are gleaning lessons from the past several elections, and have decided to “stay the course”.
Was that decided today? Dog Breath and I did dog training most of the day. I really liked the guy who challenged her.
And congrats to Mitt Romney for his new position as SoS.
Look at all of your daytime posts!
Are you getting paid to do this?
@Steve Thomas
Oh, and let’s not forget draining the swamp excludes Reince Priebus, aka, “Swamp Thing”
Is draining the swamp why QBE reportedly let Pete Candland go?
@Starryflights
I thought they were all in it together. Is it my imagination or are those folks always looking for an angle? I never think I am being dealt with straight up.