Barack Obama and burning the United States flag

My book—The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam—is available by mail (not yet in book stores). See post on July 31, 2008 entitled The Black Sword.

I suggest you check out the following website if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com




https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367


The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”

Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.

I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:

September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do not plan to get to them until after the general election in November.

I do plan to discuss Iraq before the election. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

I didn’t have time Friday to write a post for tonight. Since there are only 6o days left before the Presidential election and since I don’t want to waste any of those days by not posting when I normally would, I am posting an article I originally wrote in 2006. I had intended to use it soon but not this soon. I am rearranging my posts somewhat to use it tonight. The original post:

News story on flag amendment (posted June 27, 2006)

On Monday June 26, 2006 the Peoria Journal Star published an editorial against a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the desecration of the American flag as a form of protest. The paper also had a small article about the issue on page A2. It was six paragraphs long and the by-line was AP (the Associated Press).

I don’t know what material if any was edited out of the article. The article as published had no positive comments in relation to the need for or desirability of the proposed Amendment.

The first two paragraphs declared “Senate leaders in both parties said Sunday there is no need for a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning, which the Senate plans to debate this week.

Protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech takes precedent, agreed Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., each their party’s second-ranking Senate leader. Both said they would oppose the flag-burning amendment.”

Repeating what I said in last night’s blog, the First Amendment does not say that flag burning is a part of our free speech rights. For most of our history, flag burning was not considered a part of our free speech rights. Our libertine Supreme Court (The direction of the Court is now changing because of the two appointments by President Bush.) ruled in one of many obscene decisions that flag burning was a form of protected free speech. Anyone who claims that the First Amendment protects flag burning without clarifying the circumstance is skewing the truth.

The truth is that every Senator who votes against the proposed Amendment is not “protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” Rather, the Senators are protecting the political decision of a libertine Supreme Court which altered the provisions of the First Amendment as established by historical precedent and the intent of the original writers of the Amendment. The protection was not recognized until the 1960’s and 70’s. The Court changed the intent of the First Amendment to suit their desires—the Court ignored the intent of the original writers of the Amendment.

From reading the first four paragraphs of the article, the obvious conclusion would seem to be that the proposed Amendment has no chance of being passed. The only information given is from those who oppose the Amendment. The article declares that the Amendment is not needed. The article implies that the Amendment is not supported by either Democrats or Republicans. The article quotes Senator McConnell who suggests that the First Amendment has protected flag burning for over 200 years—which, of course, is incorrect and terribly misleading. One might even wonder why it is being considered at all considering the information given.

But wait! The sixth and last paragraph completely changed the importance of the upcoming vote. “‘It is within one vote of passage. And I think that’s unfortunate,’ Durbin said.” What!!! It is possible that the Amendment might pass!

How is that possible? It takes a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to pass a Constitutional Amendment. If all Senators vote on the question, it takes 67 votes to pass the proposal. There are 66 Senators who might vote for the Amendment? Reading the first four paragraphs, I don’t know how anyone would arrive at that conclusion. Do you think the article was just a little bit slanted in opposition to the Amendment?

The above was written earlier today. According to WGN television news at 9:00 p.m., the Senate has voted on the proposed Amendment. 66 Senators voted in favor of the Amendment. The Amendment missed approval by one vote. This, of course, means that a majority of Senators voted for the Amendment and some Democrats voted for the Amendment.

I don’t know who voted against it. My guess is the usual libertine Democrat suspects. My guess is that both Senators Kerry and Kennedy of Massachusetts voted against the Amendment. Senator Durbin of Illinois was quoted in the article as opposed to the Amendment. My guess is that Senator Obama of Illinois also voted against the Amendment. Is it time to start voting libertines out of the Senate and the House of Representatives?