To whom is your question directed? See post above re: property rights. If the flag belongs to the post office, then no. No one can take it down and burn it. Pretty simple stuffOriginally Posted by JK/SEA
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
so me being a taxpayer that paid for that post office flag is off limits...got it.
If he replied that you could burn it, would your response have been that you as a taxpayer who helped pay for that flag do not want the flag you paid for burnt and therefore there should be repercussions?
Dude!
You've got it all $#@!ed up.......
Your "tax money" goes to Alabama not some federal post office in Wa.
Boston Tea Party....
burp.
its all good....
burp.
Cheers!
Ain't life grand in 'Merica?
LOST IN AMERICA.
BURP.
Last edited by JK/SEA; 11-30-2016 at 12:47 PM.
Too many people getting completely steam rolled by God emperor. He is getting idiots to come out and spend political capital they do not have. All for a price of a tweet.
I don't get it, what is all this hoopla about?
There is already a law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 33 › § 700
18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties
(a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
(Added Pub. L. 90–381, § 1, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291; amended Pub. L. 101–131, §§ 2, 3, Oct. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 777.)
He really may be an evil genius.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...p-tower-video/
Last edited by AuH20; 11-30-2016 at 02:01 PM.
Good dialogue.
Tucker Carlson vs. Flag Burner (11/29/2016)
According to this "no one should ever be offended" reasoning, a Muslim shouldn't be punished for assaulting someone who ridicules Mohammed.
Flag desecration laws are nothing more than expressions of political correctness.
As far as "lefty loons" being the only ones opposed to such laws, who knew that term included Antonin Scalia, who joined the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, which struck down Texas' flag desecration statute?
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Not only do I have a God given right to burn any symbol, I can do anything else with it that I would like (as long as I own it). What do you people think that piece of cloth is?? Something Holy? Is it alive?? Does it have magical powers?? NO! It's just an inanimate object that has no life and no rights.
In fact it's amazing how silly people sound when they get all puffed up thinking someone would "dis-respect" their holy symbol...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
So does that mean when the Texas statute was struck down that 18 U.S. Code § 700 was also rendered null? (If so , good) Everyone keeps saying it is not illegal to desecrate the flag but as I showed above it clearly was illegal at one time and if a law is struck out it is usually voided in the USC, which at least cornell.law has not reflected in their online copy.
I think I have found an answer:
1968: Adoption of Federal Flag Desecration Law (18 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) — Congress approved the first federal flag desecration law in the wake of a highly publicized Central Park flag burning incident in protest of the Vietnam War. The federal law made it illegal to "knowingly" cast "contempt" upon "any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it." The law defined flag in an expansive manner similar to most States.
1969: Street v. New York (394 U.S. 576) — The Supreme Court held that New York could not convict a person based on his verbal remarks disparaging the flag. Street was arrested after he learned of the shooting of civil rights leader James Meredith and reacted by burning his own flag and exclaiming to a small crowd that if the government could allow Meredith to be killed, "we don't need no damn flag." The Court avoided deciding whether flag burning was protected by the First Amendment, and instead overturned the conviction based on Street's oral remarks. In Street, the Court found there was not a sufficient governmental interest to warrant regulating verbal criticism of the flag.
1972: Smith v. Goguen (415 U.S. 94) — The Supreme Court held that Massachusetts could not prosecute a person for wearing a small cloth replica of the flag on the seat of his pants based on a State law making it a crime to publicly treat the flag of the United States with "contempt." The Massachusetts statute was held to be unconstitutionally "void for vagueness."
1974: Spence v. Washington (418 U.S. 405) — The Supreme Court held that the State of Washington could not convict a person for attaching removable tape in the form of a peace sign to a flag. The defendant had attached the tape to his flag and draped it outside of his window in protest of the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State killings. The Court again found under the First Amendment there was not a sufficient governmental interest to justify regulating this form of symbolic speech. Although not a flag burning case, this represented the first time the Court had clearly stated that protest involving the physical use of the flag should be seen as a form of protected expression under the First Amendment.
1970-1980: Revision of State Flag Desecration Statutes — During this period legislatures in some 20 States narrowed the scope of their flag desecration laws in an effort to conform to perceived Constitutional restrictions under the Street, Smith, and Spence cases and to more generally parallel the federal law (i.e., focusing more specifically on mutilation and other forms of physical desecration, rather than verbal abuse or commercial or political misuse).
1989: Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397) — The Supreme Court upheld the Texas Court of Criminal appeals finding that Texas law — making it a crime to "desecrate" or otherwise "mistreat" the flag in a way the "actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons" — was unconstitutional as applied. This was the first time the Supreme Court had directly considered the applicability of the First Amendment to flag burning.
Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, was arrested during a demonstration outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas after he set fire to a flag while protestors chanted "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Brennan, the Court first found that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech subject to protection under the First Amendment. The Court also determined that under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), since the State law was related to the suppression of freedom of expression, the conviction could only be upheld if Texas could demonstrate a "compelling" interest in its law. The Court next found that Texas' asserted interest in "protecting the peace" was not implicated under the facts of the case. Finally, while the Court acknowledged that Texas had a legitimate interest in preserving the flag as a "symbol of national unity," this interest was not sufficiently compelling to justify a "content based" legal restriction (i.e., the law was not based on protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but was designed to protect it from symbolic protest likely to cause offense to others).
1989: Revision of Federal Flag Desecration Statute — Pursuant to the Flag Protection Act of 1989, Congress amended the 1968 federal flag desecration statute in an effort to make it "content neutral" and conform to the Constitutional requirements of Johnson. As a result, the 1989 Act sought to prohibit flag desecration under all circumstances by deleting the statutory requirement that the conduct cast contempt upon the flag and narrowing the definition of the term "flag" so that its meaning was not based on the observation of third parties.
1990: United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310) — Passage of the Flag Protection Act resulted in a number of flag burning incidents protesting the new law. The Supreme Court overturned several flag burning convictions brought under the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court held that notwithstanding Congress' effort to adopt a more content neutral law, the federal law continued to be principally aimed at limiting symbolic speech.
1990: Rejection of Constitutional Amendment — Following the Eichman decision, Congress considered and rejected a Constitutional Amendment specifying that "the Congress and the States have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The amendment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds Congressional majorities, as it was supported by only a 254–177 margin in the House (290 votes were necessary) and a 58–42 margin in the Senate (67 votes were necessary).
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/desecration.htm
I've decided my symbol of choice to display will be the Gadsden flag. I considered an upside down old glory, but I'm not really interested in making national news. I just want people to leave me the f alone. I LOVE my privacy. I put a Ron Paul 2012 sign at the end of my driveway. I was getting sick of the DEMONkRATS thinking the last owners (obvious DEMONkRATS) still lived here.
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 318–19, 110 S. Ct. 2404, 2409–10, 110 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1990)
"***Government may create national symbols, promote them, and encourage their respectful treatment.9 But the Flag Protection Act of 1989 goes well beyond this by criminally proscribing expressive conduct because of its likely communicative impact.
**2410 We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949), vulgar repudiations of the draft, see *319 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), and scurrilous caricatures, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Johnson, supra, at 414, 109 S.Ct., at 2545. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. The judgments of the District Courts are
Affirmed."
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
-Tao Te Ching, Section 57
It is not my graphic; however, it does have significance because clearly Killary lies more than she tells the truth. Ergo,m how can one tell when the Clintons are lying?
Answer: When their lips are moving.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius
“They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020
Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...5/?pnref=storyHot Under The Blue Collar, Episode 11
Last night on the tee-vee, as I flicked back and forth between my most trusted sources of cable news, I saw a number a college students setting fire to the American flag. Some of the students said they were "angry." Others said they were "disgusted." But many others were anxious to explain why they had become “fearful” of the American Flag. Interesting.
At Hampshire College, The President, Jonathan Lash, has actually removed the flag from his campus, in response to students who expressed “fear and discomfort” when confronted by the sight of Old Glory. He offered this explanation: “Removing the flag permanently from our campus will better enable us to focus our efforts on addressing racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and behaviors.”
As I dropped one of those giant round ice cubes into a tumbler of Whistle Pig, I couldn’t help but wonder if President Lash was unaware that billions of people around the world are routinely subjected to horrific levels of racism, misogyny, and bigotry that far exceed any injustice in modern-day America. Furthermore, I was curious to know if President Lash really believed that removing our flag is a better way to assuage the fears of his frightened students, than simply educating them about the undeniable fact that no country on the planet affords its citizens more liberty than this one? Finally, I found myself wondering as to why the President of Hampshire College would allow his students to pay for their tuition with federal dollars – federal dollars provided by the same government whose flag was no longer suitable to fly at his school.
Here’s the problem. Tuition at Hampshire College is about $60,000 a year. That’s not a problem because it’s expensive – it’s a problem because 85% of Hampshire students qualify for some form of federal financial aid. http://bit.ly/2gsZxnk. That means that We the People are enabling schools like Hampshire to sell a liberal arts degree for approximately $250,000. With $1.3 trillion dollars of student debt currently on the books, I found myself thinking how nice it would be to hear a more persuasive argument from those who will happily take money from a country whose flag they despise.
I turned the channel, and watched another group of students dance around another pile of burning flags at another expensive university. I couldn't tell where they were, but occurred to me that wherever they were – it probably wasn’t a trade school. To my knowledge, no one has ever burned a flag at a trade school.
I wonder why that is?
I have no idea, but the thought reminded me that I had yet to post Episode 11 of Hot Under the Blue Collar. It features a graduate from one of those schools – a guy named Scott. Scott studied to be an electrician, and his comments, though not nearly as expensive as Daniel’s, are far more… illuminating?
Carry on,
and don’t play with matches.
Mike
Not just website editor but big cheese (ahem) at Breitbart, whose original owner mysteriously suddenly died (ahem again...after making "cheesy" statements on camera about certain bigwigs....reminiscent of Russert's fate after asking Kerry and Bush about S&B on MTP). Subversion is the name of the game.
Last edited by devil21; 12-01-2016 at 03:49 AM.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
You realize that non citizens pay taxes too right? I'm not talking illegal immigrants. People here on H1B visas, for example, pay taxes just like everyone else. If this laughable idea were to pass the gubmint would come up with a "Native born, tax paying but has no rights American" categor to put them in. Hell be 18 and have sex with a 16 year od and you are practically a taxpaying non-citizen. You can't vote. You can't get a job. You can't even have your door open on Halloween. But the gubmint still gonna git its (your) money.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
This should be the new official flag of RPF.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
And when Michelle Obama becomes president she won't use some version of this law against Tea partiers.Trump is the deliberate dumbing down of the liberty movement.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
And who's side is Trump really on and which flag is he going to protect? Thiis is what conservatives think they are getting with team Trump.
This is what they are really getting.
and this....
Team Trump is sellots supporting a sellout. Alex Jones is the worst at this point. Now AJ is pimping Bilderberg supporters of Trump as proof that Trump is pro liberty. BIzarro world.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
OK, I guess it wasn't just TheCount.
My comment was meant to be humorous, tongue-in-cheek. The process it refers to is officially renouncing US citizenship. This does indeed eliminate the special tax liability faced by US citizens, namely that the U.S. government continues to obnoxiously claim that you owe them taxes even if you are living abroad and have no US income! They tax your Swiss income that you earned entirely in Switzerland, or Chinese income, or Lesothoan income -- they don't care. Renouncing is the only way to legally escape. This is what Facebook co-founder What's-His-Face did, and moved to Singapore, as a prominent example.
It can be a lengthy, costly, and tedious process, though. If one could simply burn a flag instead, that would be an incredible shortcut and better by 1000 times! Again, this was meant as a joke, and some did get it and enjoy the humor, but it was kind of an inside joke, it's true. Sorry for the confusion!
Fortunately for me I stopped listening to AJ 10 years ago after he called me a "communist" on his talk show. He's just another performer trying to increase his paycheck (which is certainly within his rights)...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
Tucker is a moron. He doesn't understand basic individual liberty and he insults his guests.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us