Kaye Grogan
ACLU . . . sweating flag amendment passage and ratification
By Kaye Grogan
Here is my take on anyone desecrating the American flag: if you stomp on it, spit on it — or burn the American flag, you are not deserving of being protected by the many men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day. And you are degrading the lives of those who died in combat, protecting Americans, and innocent civilians in other countries.
If the stompers and flame happy ant-flag protestors view their actions as "freedom of expression" rights — well, they have a real problem other than just hating war or the symbolism associated with the American flag. Most view the reprehensible act as nothing short of "offensive" behavior.
No, I don't worship the flag, but I have a deep sense of pride and respect whenever I see "Old Glory" waving in the wind, because it represents freedom for deserving and "undeserving" Americans, along with adulation for the bravery executed by our fallen soldiers, who were anything but selfish or cowardly.
When former President Clinton was involved in desecrating the American flag in Russia, he was showing our enemies what he thought of America. This is definitely not the way to show respect for one's country. It was during this period that antiwar protestors set the stage for the immense disrespect now saturating our country, with the same destructive mentality, that was displayed in the 60's era.
A constitutional amendment to protect the flag is being considered for a vote in the house scheduled sometime this week. While this move is admirable — it shows an alarming trend — pointing out how far removed from civility some people actually are. When the leaders of a country have to pass and enact fundamental laws in order to preserve traditions that are hundreds of years old — the problem is much more deep-rooted than most initially thought.
If you ask me: with 81% in favor of the flag protection amendment, this is one of the times lawmakers had better be prepared for a political fallout if they oppose the amendment. I must commend the five Democrats — especially Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska who are supporting the amendment. But it doesn't say much for the majority of the Democrats who are in opposition of the amendment . . . right?
To even imply that the flag protection enactment would "infringe" on the "freedom of expression" is totally ridiculous! To point out how ridiculous: some might look at murdering someone as an expression of freedom . . . right as well.
Like it or not, guidelines must be drawn for those who can't seem to execute good behavior. Many think after they emerge from the "rule of thumb" environment from their parents — all of a sudden, they should have a license to act like hellions!
With only 28% claiming they would still vote for opponents of the flag amendment — this is not good news for congressional members who oppose the measure. And I have to wonder where the minds of the U.S. Supreme Court wandered off to — when they decided it was legal at least five times since 1989, for flag destroyers to be protected for their egregious behavior under the guise of "speech" protection.
Usually, people who practice challenging the system are attempting to dissolve or at the very least curtail authority.
Troublemakers are actually bred in society today by a long list of radicals, who are trying to appease their own hunger for disobedience to be acceptable, because they had to act somewhat civil during their growing up years. During the 60's, and the insurgence of slap-happy "hippies" puffing away at their mood swing Marijuana weeds, society suffered through a dark period of rebel rousing activity.
The "hippie" generation faded into the night for years, and the children of many of these "lawless" independent mavericks are now emerging to again challenge the system. The next-generation like their predecessors just wanna have fun and float off into the utopia they believe is owed to them for just existing. And if these "chips-off-of-the-ole' block" want to desecrate the flag, and act like a bunch of heathens — that too, is their right.
Evidently, the pro-American flag advocates are sure they have the required number of votes needed for passage and the support of the required number of states, to ratify the constitutional amendment to protect the flag from abusers.
As usual, the ACLU is in on the act opposing the amendment. What else could one expect from this group? But right now, they are "sweating" the possibility they may be losing this uphill battle.
Good! ...maybe the deodorant companies need a big "boost" in sales.
And that's just my opinion!
© Kaye Grogan
Here is my take on anyone desecrating the American flag: if you stomp on it, spit on it — or burn the American flag, you are not deserving of being protected by the many men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day. And you are degrading the lives of those who died in combat, protecting Americans, and innocent civilians in other countries.
If the stompers and flame happy ant-flag protestors view their actions as "freedom of expression" rights — well, they have a real problem other than just hating war or the symbolism associated with the American flag. Most view the reprehensible act as nothing short of "offensive" behavior.
No, I don't worship the flag, but I have a deep sense of pride and respect whenever I see "Old Glory" waving in the wind, because it represents freedom for deserving and "undeserving" Americans, along with adulation for the bravery executed by our fallen soldiers, who were anything but selfish or cowardly.
When former President Clinton was involved in desecrating the American flag in Russia, he was showing our enemies what he thought of America. This is definitely not the way to show respect for one's country. It was during this period that antiwar protestors set the stage for the immense disrespect now saturating our country, with the same destructive mentality, that was displayed in the 60's era.
A constitutional amendment to protect the flag is being considered for a vote in the house scheduled sometime this week. While this move is admirable — it shows an alarming trend — pointing out how far removed from civility some people actually are. When the leaders of a country have to pass and enact fundamental laws in order to preserve traditions that are hundreds of years old — the problem is much more deep-rooted than most initially thought.
If you ask me: with 81% in favor of the flag protection amendment, this is one of the times lawmakers had better be prepared for a political fallout if they oppose the amendment. I must commend the five Democrats — especially Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska who are supporting the amendment. But it doesn't say much for the majority of the Democrats who are in opposition of the amendment . . . right?
To even imply that the flag protection enactment would "infringe" on the "freedom of expression" is totally ridiculous! To point out how ridiculous: some might look at murdering someone as an expression of freedom . . . right as well.
Like it or not, guidelines must be drawn for those who can't seem to execute good behavior. Many think after they emerge from the "rule of thumb" environment from their parents — all of a sudden, they should have a license to act like hellions!
With only 28% claiming they would still vote for opponents of the flag amendment — this is not good news for congressional members who oppose the measure. And I have to wonder where the minds of the U.S. Supreme Court wandered off to — when they decided it was legal at least five times since 1989, for flag destroyers to be protected for their egregious behavior under the guise of "speech" protection.
Usually, people who practice challenging the system are attempting to dissolve or at the very least curtail authority.
Troublemakers are actually bred in society today by a long list of radicals, who are trying to appease their own hunger for disobedience to be acceptable, because they had to act somewhat civil during their growing up years. During the 60's, and the insurgence of slap-happy "hippies" puffing away at their mood swing Marijuana weeds, society suffered through a dark period of rebel rousing activity.
The "hippie" generation faded into the night for years, and the children of many of these "lawless" independent mavericks are now emerging to again challenge the system. The next-generation like their predecessors just wanna have fun and float off into the utopia they believe is owed to them for just existing. And if these "chips-off-of-the-ole' block" want to desecrate the flag, and act like a bunch of heathens — that too, is their right.
Evidently, the pro-American flag advocates are sure they have the required number of votes needed for passage and the support of the required number of states, to ratify the constitutional amendment to protect the flag from abusers.
As usual, the ACLU is in on the act opposing the amendment. What else could one expect from this group? But right now, they are "sweating" the possibility they may be losing this uphill battle.
Good! ...maybe the deodorant companies need a big "boost" in sales.
And that's just my opinion!
© Kaye Grogan
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
