Barack Obama and burning the United States flag, part 2
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
.gif)
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
On my last post, I used an article I had written in 2006 in relation to a vote in the Senate to establish a Constitutional Amendment to prevent flag burning as political protest. Tonight, the second article I wrote in relation to that issue after going onto the internet and determining who voted against the amendment.
By the way, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which is also mentioned in this article, are both part of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment declares: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
After the original post, I am including a few comments. The earlier article:
“Thursday, June 29, 2006 Should human sacrifice be allowed?
It seems I was wrong. I wrote on my June 27th blog that flag burning was not protected until the 1960’s and 70’s. According to an article published in the Peoria Journal Star on June 28, 2006, page A1 the change occurred later. The Supreme Court ruled “in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech….” Consequently, in relation to our 200+ years of independence, flag burning has been protected for less than twenty years of that long history. It is now protected not by Constitutional provision but rather by Supreme Court edict.
As I wrote on that blog of the 27th, the Senate failed to pass the proposed Constitutional Amendment by one vote. The following information is from www.senate.gov. If you go to that website, you can get the Senate roll call votes. It is a handy site to visit to find out how your Senators and other Senators are voting on issues.
However, I was right about another comment I made. Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama from Illinois voted against the Constitutional Amendment. Senators Kerry and Kennedy from Massachusetts voted against the Constitutional Amendment. Not surprisingly, carpetbagging Senator Clinton voted against the Constitutional Amendment. In all, three Republicans, one Independent, and thirty Democrats voted against the Constitution Amendment. The thirty-four culprits included:
McConnell, Republican from Kentucky
Chafee, Republican from Rhode Island
Bennett, Republican from Utah
Jeffords, Independent from Vermont
Pryor, Democrat from Arkansas
Boxer, Democrat from California
Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut
Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut
Biden, Democrat from Delaware
Carper, Democrat from Delaware
Akaka, Democrat from Hawaii
Inouye, Democrat from Hawaii
Durbin, Democrat from Illinois
Obama, Democrat from Illinois
Harkin, Democrat from Iowa
Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland
Sarbanes, Democrat from Maryland
Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts
Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts
Levin, Democrat from Michigan
Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey
Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico
Clinton, Democrat from New York
Schumer, Democrat from New York
Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota
Dorgan, Democrat from North Dakota
Wyden, Democrat from Oregon
Reed, Democrat from Rhode Island
Leahy, Democrat from Vermont
Cantwell, Democrat from Washington
Murray, Democrat from Washington
Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia
Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin and
Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin
In the past and possibly even today far away from the prying eyes of the public, we know that individuals murdered and sacrificed young children in the name of religion. We also know that some acts are so repugnant that they can not be allowed even if done in the name of religious worship.
The same is true for the deliberate burning of the American flag as a form of political protest. It is repugnant. We know that freedom of speech is not unlimited. Freedom of speech has never been nor should it ever be an absolute freedom. We also know that effective political protest can be accomplished without burning the American flag. We further know that such action was not allowed until recent Supreme Court decisions allowed it.
The original writers of the freedom of speech amendment did not intend that clause to be used to allow illegal acts to be committed in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech referred to political debate on the issues of the day—not actions. The Supreme Court redefined speech to cover acts committed. Now, because of that redefinition, literally thousands of different actions might be defined as free speech—chaining oneself to a tree, nude dancing, burning the flag, burning an empty building, going on a hunger strike, burning oneself alive, bombing a building, laying in front of automobile traffic, human sacrifice of young children, smoking in a no smoking area. Name an action: to the Supreme Court it might be protected as free speech!!! I have no doubt that if the writers of the Amendment were alive today, the vast majority of them would look the members of the Supreme Court in the eye and say: “You lawyers!!! Actions are not speech! We were talking about political debate; not disobeying the laws of the nation. By your imposed definition, any thing could be defined as free speech. How ignorant can you be!!!”
The Constitution of the United States does not allow flag burning as political protest. The decisions of the United States Supreme Court allow it. Congress has every Constitutional right to propose a Constitutional Amendment to reverse a repugnant Supreme Court decision.
Is it time to remove libertine Democrats from positions of power in this nation?”
The Democrat Convention to nominate a Presidential candidate for 2008 ended in late August. I did not watch the convention but, of course, read articles about it and heard some selected portions of it from the news.
Note the following:
■ Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic Presidential nominee, voted AGAINST the Constitutional Amendment.
■ Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was a speaker at the convention, voted AGAINST the amendment.
■ Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was the 2004 Democratic nominee for President, voted AGAINST the amendment
■ Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who was the 2nd choice of Democrats for the Presidential nomination, voted AGAINST the amendment.
■ Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who is up for reelection this year (I included him because I also am from Illinois as is Barack Obama), voted AGAINST the amendment.
■ Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, who is the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, voted AGAINST the amendment.
All of these Senators seem to believe that burning the American flag is a legitimate form of political speech as mandated by the Supreme Court—not as mandated by the Constitution of the United States.
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
On my last post, I used an article I had written in 2006 in relation to a vote in the Senate to establish a Constitutional Amendment to prevent flag burning as political protest. Tonight, the second article I wrote in relation to that issue after going onto the internet and determining who voted against the amendment.
By the way, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which is also mentioned in this article, are both part of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment declares: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
After the original post, I am including a few comments. The earlier article:
“Thursday, June 29, 2006 Should human sacrifice be allowed?
It seems I was wrong. I wrote on my June 27th blog that flag burning was not protected until the 1960’s and 70’s. According to an article published in the Peoria Journal Star on June 28, 2006, page A1 the change occurred later. The Supreme Court ruled “in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech….” Consequently, in relation to our 200+ years of independence, flag burning has been protected for less than twenty years of that long history. It is now protected not by Constitutional provision but rather by Supreme Court edict.
As I wrote on that blog of the 27th, the Senate failed to pass the proposed Constitutional Amendment by one vote. The following information is from www.senate.gov. If you go to that website, you can get the Senate roll call votes. It is a handy site to visit to find out how your Senators and other Senators are voting on issues.
However, I was right about another comment I made. Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama from Illinois voted against the Constitutional Amendment. Senators Kerry and Kennedy from Massachusetts voted against the Constitutional Amendment. Not surprisingly, carpetbagging Senator Clinton voted against the Constitutional Amendment. In all, three Republicans, one Independent, and thirty Democrats voted against the Constitution Amendment. The thirty-four culprits included:
McConnell, Republican from Kentucky
Chafee, Republican from Rhode Island
Bennett, Republican from Utah
Jeffords, Independent from Vermont
Pryor, Democrat from Arkansas
Boxer, Democrat from California
Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut
Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut
Biden, Democrat from Delaware
Carper, Democrat from Delaware
Akaka, Democrat from Hawaii
Inouye, Democrat from Hawaii
Durbin, Democrat from Illinois
Obama, Democrat from Illinois
Harkin, Democrat from Iowa
Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland
Sarbanes, Democrat from Maryland
Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts
Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts
Levin, Democrat from Michigan
Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey
Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico
Clinton, Democrat from New York
Schumer, Democrat from New York
Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota
Dorgan, Democrat from North Dakota
Wyden, Democrat from Oregon
Reed, Democrat from Rhode Island
Leahy, Democrat from Vermont
Cantwell, Democrat from Washington
Murray, Democrat from Washington
Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia
Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin and
Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin
In the past and possibly even today far away from the prying eyes of the public, we know that individuals murdered and sacrificed young children in the name of religion. We also know that some acts are so repugnant that they can not be allowed even if done in the name of religious worship.
The same is true for the deliberate burning of the American flag as a form of political protest. It is repugnant. We know that freedom of speech is not unlimited. Freedom of speech has never been nor should it ever be an absolute freedom. We also know that effective political protest can be accomplished without burning the American flag. We further know that such action was not allowed until recent Supreme Court decisions allowed it.
The original writers of the freedom of speech amendment did not intend that clause to be used to allow illegal acts to be committed in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech referred to political debate on the issues of the day—not actions. The Supreme Court redefined speech to cover acts committed. Now, because of that redefinition, literally thousands of different actions might be defined as free speech—chaining oneself to a tree, nude dancing, burning the flag, burning an empty building, going on a hunger strike, burning oneself alive, bombing a building, laying in front of automobile traffic, human sacrifice of young children, smoking in a no smoking area. Name an action: to the Supreme Court it might be protected as free speech!!! I have no doubt that if the writers of the Amendment were alive today, the vast majority of them would look the members of the Supreme Court in the eye and say: “You lawyers!!! Actions are not speech! We were talking about political debate; not disobeying the laws of the nation. By your imposed definition, any thing could be defined as free speech. How ignorant can you be!!!”
The Constitution of the United States does not allow flag burning as political protest. The decisions of the United States Supreme Court allow it. Congress has every Constitutional right to propose a Constitutional Amendment to reverse a repugnant Supreme Court decision.
Is it time to remove libertine Democrats from positions of power in this nation?”
The Democrat Convention to nominate a Presidential candidate for 2008 ended in late August. I did not watch the convention but, of course, read articles about it and heard some selected portions of it from the news.
Note the following:
■ Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic Presidential nominee, voted AGAINST the Constitutional Amendment.
■ Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was a speaker at the convention, voted AGAINST the amendment.
■ Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was the 2004 Democratic nominee for President, voted AGAINST the amendment
■ Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who was the 2nd choice of Democrats for the Presidential nomination, voted AGAINST the amendment.
■ Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who is up for reelection this year (I included him because I also am from Illinois as is Barack Obama), voted AGAINST the amendment.
■ Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, who is the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, voted AGAINST the amendment.
All of these Senators seem to believe that burning the American flag is a legitimate form of political speech as mandated by the Supreme Court—not as mandated by the Constitution of the United States.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:37 AM
2 Comments:
Leaving aside 1st Amendment issues, why should any of those Senators vote to ban flag burning. What overwhelming public interest is served by restricting the ability of the citizenry to burn the flag as form of protest. Protest has been part of the American political culture since before the United States was formed, the founding father engaged in many forms of protesting themselves, some of which were more far more destructive than flag burning. Who exactly is harmed by the action of burning the flag in protest? Is you United States as nation so weak or its dignity so fragile that it is harmed by a protester burning a flag? For that matter if someone purchase a flag, that flag becomes his personal property and who are you or anyone else to them what they can do with their property.
...please where can I buy a unicorn?
Post a Comment
<< Home