You expect more from a Congress that cannot tell the difference between symbolism and service? Indeed, without symbolism this current crop of dolts wouldn't even be in power. Were they to suddenly seek to actually SERVE the people they represent, they would be carried out of office on a rail.

Gays vs. Healthcare
Flags vs. Incompetence In War
Death Tax vs. Debt
Graft vs. US Infrastructure
Moralism vs. Education

You name it, they have a symbol to divert your attention. And when all else fails, they have FEAR.

Simpletons who cannot see beyond black and white live on your emotions. If they were to appeal to one's intellect they would be exposed for the charlatans that they are.

EXAMPLE

This is what happens to the FEW competent people they choose to put on the payroll. The stooges and cronies they usually get are happy to collect a paycheck and say all of the Fred Luntz approved phrases; the ones who want to SERVE are ignored because SERVING would mean exposing the incompetence of this administration. Can't have that. So, let's TALK about Cyber Security, but then ignore it like everything else that won't effect the next elections.

-----

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13589858/

U.S. cybersecurity chief abruptly resigns
Complained about lack of attention paid to computer security issues

WASHINGTON - The government's cybersecurity chief has abruptly resigned from the Homeland Security Department amid a concerted campaign by the technology industry and some lawmakers to persuade the Bush administration to give him more authority and money for protection programs.

Amit Yoran, a former software executive from Symantec Corp., made his resignation effective Thursday as director of the National Cyber Security Division, giving a single's day notice of his intention to leave. He kept the job one year.

Yoran has privately confided to industry colleagues his frustrations in recent months over what he considers the department's lack of attention paid to computer security issues, according to lobbyists and others who recounted these conversations on condition they not be identified because the talks were personal.

Oh...not too mention, if he did his job TOO well it would make their domestic data sweeps that much harder to conduct.

AfghanVet wrote:

"You name it, they have a symbol to divert your attention. And when all else fails, they have FEAR.

Simpletons who cannot see beyond black and white live on your emotions."
________

Coincidentally, waking up in a dreamstate on Monday this week, it occurred to me to write down all the major decisions in my life that I could recall (about 50 in total). Next to each I identified them as primarily being driven by emotion, expertise, or trust. Then I tabulated them up as good or bad decisions.

A pattern emerged. My bad decisions were driven in overwhelming proportion by emotions (although a couple of key good decisions were also driven by emotions). About 4 out of 5 good decisions were driven by expertise. Although fewer of my bad decisions overall were driven by trust, a much higher percentage of my decisions driven by trust were bad than decisions driven by emotion.

It turned out to be an enlightening personal exercise. Others may want to try it.

I agree, bad representative decisions are based on public emotion and trust.

The hardcore republicans are at it again!!! They figure the only way they can continue to hold on to their seats in the congress is to pick the hot button issues that are their base's pet peeves ie: Abortion, "Activist Judges", Gay Marriage, Flag burning, etc. With the 4th of July coming next week, what better time to start with this issue. They know that banning Flag burning is illegal, that it violates the Free Speech ammendment, but they can run home to their base and say: "See we tried to pass a law banning it but those damn democrats wouldn't vote for it, They are a buch of left wing traitors, I can hear McCarthy's speech about hollywood actors being "Communists" all over again. What we need to do is for everyone start writing letters to their home town newspapers and make sure none of these bunch of liers and crooks don't get re-elected. Look at what the republicans are saying about campaign finance and ethics in both houses of congress. the public doesn't care how well we get our pockets lined because nothing has been brought up on the subject recently.

Bill Frist proves yet again that he has nothing but contempt for the hillbillies, rednecks and yeller dawg democrats who put him in office in the first place: After pushing through an immigration bill that goes against both the beliefs and the economic interests of most of the Tennesseans who voted for him, does he really think he can regain our trust and loyalty by waving red flag issues like gay marriage and flag burning? Or perhaps having made Wall Street contributors happy with the immigration bill, he's now pandering not to the voters but to the organized religious right like Focus on the Family, the Catholic Bishops, and other apostates who he thinks can turn out foot soldiers as well as contributions for his presidential aspirations.

www.gregpalast.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

TREASON: "FIRING SQUAD" FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES?

Published by Greg Palast June 27th, 2006 in Articles

By Greg Palast

The Right Wing has gone hog-ass wild over the New York Times' "shocking" report that the Bush Administration is actually tracking terrorists' money transfers. Oh my!

The fruitcakes are in flames! "Stand them in front of a firing squad or put them in prison for the rest of their lives," says one pinhead on Fox TV.

For what? The stunning news that the government is hunting the source of al-Qaeda's cash? "Osama! You must stop using your ATM card! Condi Rice is reading our bank statements!"

Somehow, I suspect bin Laden already assumes his checkbook is getting perused.

It is worth noting that the fanatic screeching for a "firing squad" is a guy who claims to be a former CIA agent. No one can confirm his claim of course, but this character, Wayne Simmons, has made his career blabbering away juicy intelligence secrets to sell himself as an "expert," stuff far racier than the Times' weak report. Well, hypocrisy never stood in the way of the Foxes in the news house.

You want to talk "treason"? OK, let's talk treason. How about Dick Cheney telling his creepy little hitman 'Scooter' Libby to reveal information that led to the naming of a CIA agent? Mr. Simmons, do you have room in your firing squad schedule for the Vice-President?

And no one on Fox complained when the Times, under the by-line of Judith Miller, revealed the secret "intelligence" information that Saddam was building a bomb.

Yes, let's talk treason. How about this: Before the 9/11 attack, George Bush's intelligence chieftains BLOCKED the CIA's investigation of the funding of al-Qaeda and terror.

The "Back-Off" Directive

On November 9, 2001, BBC Television Centre in London received a call from a phone booth just outside Washington. The call to our Newsnight team was part of a complex pre-arranged dance coordinated with the National Security News Service, a conduit for unhappy spooks at the CIA and FBI to unburden themselves of disturbing information and documents.

The top-level U.S. intelligence agent on the line had much to be unhappy and disturbed about: what he called a "back-off" directive.

This call to BBC came two months after the attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Towers. His fellow agents, he said, were now released to hunt bad guys. That was good news. The bad news was that, before September 11, in those weeks just after George W. Bush took office, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) personnel were told to "back off" certain targets of investigations begun by Bill Clinton.

The agent said, "There were particular investigations that were effectively killed."

For the rest go to:
http://www.gregpalast.com/treason-firing-squad-for-the-new-york-times

The worm, it is turning...

Supreme Court Overturns Part of DeLay-Engineered Texas Redistricting Map

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201327,00.html

Although it pains me deeply to have this particular vermin in my state, I do find this amusing:

Delay Still Causing Trouble

A federal judge says it sounds like former Texas Congressman Tom DeLay withdrew from the House race when he resigned from the House, meaning that Republicans may not be able to replace him on the November ballot.

Lawyers for DeLay argue that the former majority leader didn't withdraw, but made himself ineligible by moving to Virginia, a distinction that would allow the party to select a new nominee.

But after hearing arguments for both sides, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said he thinks Delay "is not going to participate in the election and he withdrew." Sparks says he'll issue a formal ruling in the case early next week.

Emily,

What part of free SPEECH do you not understand? SPEECH is not the same as free ACTION (as in burning a flag - even though the Supreme Court in its muddled state has declared that it is) and what part of "PEACEABLY assemble" does burning a flag fit?

Blanche Brick-

Holding up a poster with a message on it is an action, though it is the kind of action intended to be protected by the First Amendment. Many actions are expressions of speech and are thus protected by the Constitution.

It is unclear why you think that fire precludes the peacefulness of an assembly. Is it because fire is really hot and therefore dangerous?

If you want to have flag burning regularly on street corners, than by all means pass the Flag-Burning Amendment. That would be the result. My understanding is there have been 4 incidents of flag burning this year in a country of 290 million. This amendment is a mammoth waste of time

dal

We seem to have a Chris Ford wannabe that has deceided to join this blog. They can only think the way that Rush Limbaugh, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, etc. tell them that they can think. anything that deals with abstract thought or issues can not be comprehended. if it doesn't fit their definition it's wrong and those bad activist judges need to be taken out and hung, at least in their way of thinking.

There are laws limiting how fast I can drive, what drugs I can buy and use, what I can say in an airport, how much clothing I have to wear, even what words I can use in refering to other people, etc, etc, etc. Why should I care whether there is a law prohibiting me from burning our flag? I don't think that 1 person in million wants to express his opinions that way, or would feel his freedom severely limited without that option. Freedom is not the issue here - its just politics - on both sides of the argument.

Blanche Brick-

If free speech only means the spoken word then you are saying that the vocally challenged (ie, mutes, disabled, etc) don't have free speech rights.

Just devalue and dehumanize an entire portion of the population why don't you!

oops... wrong person, I meant "Will in Texas". Sorry Blanche!

no, wait.. I was right the first time... my brain no worky right now.

"What part of free SPEECH do you not understand? SPEECH is not the same as free ACTION (as in burning a flag - even though the Supreme Court in its muddled state has declared that it is) and what part of "PEACEABLY assemble" does burning a flag fit?"

The problem is that the prohibition would be for that particular symbol. Symbols are the same as speech. They carry meaning. Burning anything is an ACTION, but what the amendment proposes is that burning a particular SYMBOL is to be constitutionally prohibited. By limiting the particular ACTION as to a particular SYMBOL, you have a limitation on free expression. The fact is that there are plenty of other rules which can apply to flag burning or any type of protest method that gets out of hand such as laws against disturbing the peace, or arson laws, or laws against destruction of property, or laws prohibiting burning of anything in particular places or at particular times. Watch the debate and read the reasons this amendment was proposed -- it was specifically to prevent DISRESPECT toward a SYMBOL. This is plainly within the realm of free speech, which is why the Supreme Court, packed with Republican appointees and not exactly known for liberal sympathies, was so united in its ruling.

What sickens me about all this is that rather than address the truly pressing issues before this nation such as our staggering national debt, our overstretched military bogged down in factional civil war in a foreign land, our woefully inadequate health care system, our looming environmental catastrophes, our elected representatives would rather argue about symbols and personal relationships.

AJ Meyer-

"Why should I care whether there is a law prohibiting me from burning our flag?"

Because that law was passed and deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States whereas the other laws you mention do not directly violate the greatest document in American history.

But your point is well received, I do not take kindly to political ploys by either side and my life would not be affected really either way by this amendment. I view it with cynical apprehension because it does appear to be a transparent ploy by the majority party (which determines what gets debated in Congress) and I refuse to participate in their favor.

It may shack a journalist like Ms. Messner, but the Constitution was not written with the 1st Amendment as it's core, it's centerpiece. That is why it and 30 some other "Oh, yeahs!" had to be added to fix the original document's screwups or add new features. The Constitution recognized the Right of the People to Amend - so any time the people want to - that is their freedom - and anyone calling it "destroying the Constitution" has no clue. The Federalist Papers showed that modifications were expected to better serve the Goals as time passed - Goals being those largely defined in the Preamble. Amending the 1st is no worse than Amending the Original with the 1st.

To hear some Lefties talking...they profess such faux reverence for it that they sometimes sound like Islamoids hearing someone wants a minor revision to the Holy Qu''ran. (Their phony reverence ends with the 2nd Amendment).

Emily gets idiotic - "it lived up to its duty to ensure no one -- most especially the federal government -- violates the rights guaranteed in the Constitution."

Emily. Emily. Emily. It isn't a dang Contract with immutable language - effectively fixing a democratic state into eternal prohibition of any change. It's a Constitution! Constitutions are reviewed and modified ALL THE TIME!!!! By the Will of the PEOPLE!!!!

As for flags, the All-Wise Lawyers in Robes who some imagine Rule over the People have set up the inconsistencies.

The black-robed ones, in their infinite wisdom over the masses, say:

It is OK to burn a flag in a community as guaranteed under the 1st, but SCOTUS has said that the same community can bar respectful display of the flag by zoning laws. And it is legal to display or burn the US flag on public land, but burning the "gay flag" is a hate crime, a provocation, and a disturbance of the peace. As is burning a cross. Or displaying the cross without ACLU say so.

Chris-

"It is OK to burn a flag in a community as guaranteed under the 1st, but SCOTUS has said that the same community can bar respectful display of the flag by zoning laws. And it is legal to display or burn the US flag on public land, but burning the "gay flag" is a hate crime, a provocation, and a disturbance of the peace. As is burning a cross. Or displaying the cross without ACLU say so."

I tested your hypothesis by displaying a burning cross draped in a "gay flag" (I didn't know what this meants so I found rainbow fabric and wrote "GAY" in big letters on it) and waited for the ACLU shock troops to arrest me. They have yet to show up so I'm skeptical. And I haven't been cited for hate-crimes yet.

Keep your fingers crossed for me.

Hey Ford,
I know a bunch of places that display a cross and big ones at that without the ACLU's say so, they are called churches. By the way do you know the proper way to destroy an old and tattered flag? By Burning that is how. How many of these ford wannabes know that it is illegal for displaying a flag past sunset to sunrise without a light shining directly on the flag. that's right all you right wing holier than the rest of us, limbaugh lover are breaking the law. Just as are the ones that put it in their pick-up windows or on their car antenna's
Just thought you might like to know a little flag trivia.

"I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

------

Hmmm...nothing about protecting symbols or said freedom or country.

Can anyone tell me how you retire a flag?

Hey afghan,
I think I did in my previous post, but I did leave out the part about the cutting away of the stars from the stripes though

By the way I seem to remember saying something like that just before they shipped my ass off to boot camp at Ft. Dix New Jersey.

Chris,

It must drive you crazy to have to support dopey garbage like this. However, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising coming from someone who's defining character trait is fear. Hell you ARE the demographic poster-boy.

I'm sure an Amendment to outlaw flag burning will look gloriously appropriate next to all of the other Amendments. Women's suffrage, freeing slaves, free speech...flag burning. Yup, our Founding Fathers would be proud.

Personally, I fought for the freedoms that ALLOW one to burn a symbol in protest; I don't think I would fight to restrict such a thing.

Of course, your impassioned defense of such rediculous tripe says that you either are truly ruled by your emotions or you are just another political pawn carrying out the Luntz/Rove marching orders.

Which is it?

It's good to hear that some people still care about free speech.

For all Ford's talk about how stupid it is to be offended that people are trying to change the consitution, he forgets that the constitution is one of the most important documents in the country. He can whine and name call all he wants, but that won't change people's opinions on the strength of the first amendment. Just because something can be changed, doesn't mean it should be, or that it is any less important. Just because drug laws *could* be appealed doesn't make the current laws on them any less valid.

Until it is changed, I will consider it my right. And if it is changed, I will continue to fight for the right that was guaranteed by our founding fathers.

Sorry Chris, you can't have my rights. I'm still using them.

Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989.

NUMBER: 1306
AUTHOR: Samuel Johnson (1709-84)

QUOTATION: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

ATTRIBUTION: SAMUEL JOHNSON

RELATED QUOTATION: "In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first."--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, at entry for patriotism, The Collected Writings of Ambrose Bierce, p. 323 (1946, reprinted 1973).

RELATED QUOTATION: H. L. Mencken added this to Johnson's dictum: "But there is something even worse: it is the first, last, and middle range of fools."--The World, New York City, November 7, 1926, p. 3E.
SUBJECTS: Patriotism

Of course, W wants the bill to pass because he can just ignore it with a signing statement anyway.

Signing Statement Database:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/signstateann.htm

Read and be disturbed.

It's ALL about SAYING it, not DOING it. It's all about emotions.

------

Al Gore: When Dana asked whether then-Gov. Bush's 2000 campaign pledge to limit CO2 emissions was a smart strategic move, Gore replied thusly: "'Well, if you define the word 'smart' in an antiseptic and clinical way that excludes any ethical dimension, then, yeah, I guess it was smart,' says Gore. 'Smart, if you're willing to say things that you know are not true. But that's what Karl Rove is known for. Bush's whole pose as a compassionate conservative was fraudulent. His budget was fraudulent. Even the idea that he would be staunchly opposed to nation building was fraudulent. I don't mean that he actually knew at the time of the campaign that he was going to invade Iraq -- because I don't think Cheney had told him yet [laughs]. But the statement on global warming, and the specific pledge to reduce CO2 emissions with the force of law, was part of a larger pattern. He was completely fraudulent from head to toe.'" From Rolling Stone, not out yet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

one more...

"You believe that flag burning shows disrespect towards those who have fought to preserve our freedoms. Punishing protestors shows an even more profound disrespect for the ideals that these people died for. An intact flag is worthless if it no longer stands for freedom. A flag burned to ashes challenges us to remember just exactly what freedom is." (Dr. Mary Ruwart, The Liberator Online)

What we can spect at the November elections.

Breaking news!!!!!!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com

Diebold's Walden O'Dell, a top Bush fundraiser, publicly committed himself to delivering his home state Ohio's votes to Bush. At Diebold, the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The brothers were originally staked by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council For National Policy , a right-wing steering group stacked with Bush true believers. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist Christian Reconstruction Movement , which advocates the theocratic takeover of American democracy.

The four companies are interconnected; they are not four "competitors". Ahmanson has large stakes in ES&S, whose former CEO was Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. When Hagel ran for office, his own company counted the votes, and his victory was considered "an amazing upset". Hagel still has a million dollar stake in ES&S.

Sequoia is the corporate parent of a private equity firm, Madison Dearborn , which is partner in the Carlyle Group . (Also see here .)

Meanwhile, SAIC is referred to a "shadowy defense contractor". They have gotten into the vote count game both directly and through spinoffs by its top brass, including Admiral Bill Owens, former military aide to Dick Cheney, and Carlyle Group honcho Frank Carlucci and ex-CIA chief Robert Gates. SAIC's history of fraud charges and security "lapses" haven't prevented it from becoming one of the largest Pentagon and CIA contractors, and will doubtless encounter few obstacles in its entrance into the vote counting business.

The mad rush to install these unverifiable computers is driven by the Help America Vote Act, signed by Bush! The chief lobbying group pushing for the act (while we dumb asses sat out here and thought, 'That sounds like a good idea!') was a consortium of arms dealers including Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin .

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html

Flag burning? Geez, its just a cheap political gimmick that gets trotted out every year, goes down in defeat every year, and is so utterly stupid an exercise that I'm surprised anyone even gets their panties in a twist over it.

Burning the flag is an act of political expression and as such, protected by the first amendment.

Political theater, nothing more.

country it might sad or even laugable.

I've paid taxes, I've worked too hard to watch this tomfoolery and feel much else but a deep and abiding hatred of all things bs.........

these people would black-ball you or use your sexual predeliction to ostracize you within the United States of America...

and even if they don't personally believe in it create a cloud of hatred towards you that might cause you to sustain personal injury....

and not even feel or think a thing about that aspect of their pandering to demagoguery....

any more than they cared about the 12,000 that died from firearms the year the made it against the law to file suit against gun manufacturers...

or how they made it illegal to buy drugs from Canada and Mexico just before they reduced Social Security benefits for medicine by $30 per taxpayer per month...to protect your pharmaceutical companies...

funny, these guys couldn't vote a better bill in to save their lives, and they don't obey the laws that they pass...

check the bush family ranches for _illegals_ Jeb most especially, since he'll be the next member of the bush royal family to be your boss...

.

e-mail all the universities to see if there
was ever a president of the United States
that was more mentally defficient then
jorge butch.

it's always weird to hear Congress rail against non-existent problems (US flag-burning) while doing little about things that are life-and-death ... like the incompetently designed and executed war in Iraq ... natural disaster response in the US ... port security in the US .. . power plant security in the US .... highway safety ... energy generation and efficiency ... illegal use of firearms in the US ... domestic violence ... tobacco subsidy by the government that criticizes it's use ... et cetera

The United States of America has a flag code and usually comes with the purchase of a U.S. flag, but a lot of people never read it. I guess all of you look at Old Glory as a rag, to use anyway you wish, to wipe your rear with, to spit on, to shine your shoes with, to use as a rug so you can walk upon it. I see it as every thing this country stands for and what every man and woman have fought and died for to give you, the freedoms you enjoy today. You can't go out and burn, vandalize monuments that are symbols without getting arrested and probably punished. You people would rather tear down anything right with America and that is why there is so many problems today, because you won't stick up for American values, like respecting and seeing that the American flag is protected, but it would be people like you we are protecting it from.

Chris wrote:

"It may shack a journalist like Ms. Messner, but the Constitution was not written with the 1st Amendment as it's core, it's centerpiece."

The core of the constitution is the structure of the American democracy, but in my opinion the first amendment protects the right that was most integral to establishing our democracy in the first place and remains most integral in protecting it now and in the future. The colonists were left mostly to themselves by England until after the French and Indian War. That's when England started levying taxes without regard for the colonists they were taxing. The colonists were very used to running their own affairs and had legislative bodies that worked with governors appointed by the King to run the colonies. Many of the members of these legislatures were very well educated and progressive. It was the time of the Enlightenment and the exchange of ideas at the time was relatively unimpeded. The well educated of the day read, discussed, and wrote about the philosophies espousing human rights, freedom, and ideas on governing. That fertile environment combined with the opression by the King and Parliament triggered the events that led to the American Revolution.

Before the colonists ever took up arms against the King, expression of ideas was necessary to foster the opposition movement, coordinate the opposition movement, and to allow it to grow into a movement for independence.

Time and time again its freedom of expression that tears down tyranny, sometimes aided by the force of arms as in our revolution and sometimes not as in India led by Ghandi, our civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., and South Africa led by Nelson Mandela.

Any attempt to undermine our freedom of expression, no matter how dressed up in patriotic sentiment, should be vigorously resisted.

Glory be! D. posted an independent thought.

Meanwhile, I think its time to send a bottle of Harry Potter bone growing serum to Arlen Specter and pray he grows a spine sometime soon, as he appears to be all that stands between us and unlimited executive power. Or I could send him some of my mom's osteoporosis medicine.

As much as I'm a traditionalist, and I truly and deeply value American heritage, I would like to have the option of flying the stars and stripes upside down if I feel the country is in distress -- and not be imprisoned for doing so.

I also would rather have some punks burn the flag than burn down a building (with folks in it), too.

Patriotic Americans can take the act at face value, they can protest it, and they can launch a counter demostration (have an early Flag Day). But even though I've carried the colors, cared for them and honor them, I also understand the flag isn't some mythical symbol. I won't go on a rampage if al-Qaeta stomps on it, or demand the execution of some Left wing nuts because they burned it on the steps of the Supreme Court. The USA is much more than a flag, a symbol that, in time, will likely change it's shape and style (as it has over our history).

To criminalize the ability to protest distaste in the government, in a visual way that leaves little guesswork, would've been wrong. One's loyality isn't to a flag, it's to our country and Constitution -- that sacred document that guarantees rights, not take them away.

Now burn the Constitution, and I'd kill the thug with my fingernails.

SandyK
Proud member of the C.L.A.W. V^^^^V

Lab Rat wrote:
===========================================
"How many of these ford wannabes know that it is illegal for displaying a flag past sunset to sunrise without a light shining directly on the flag."
===========================================

I'm old fashion and would bring it down at sunset. I also won't let it be rained upon (which is also the traditional way to respect the flag).

There's other curtesies for those in the military, like cased colors and such, but I've seen way too many flags in disrepair, and up on a rainy night.

When I was in school, we had to run clear across campus to take down the flag when it rained, even while class was in progress. If kids can do it, what's the excuse for grownups not too?

If folks truly care about the flag, take care of it, not let it be rained upon all night under a lamplight. That's disgraceful and sad.

SandyK

D: "Burning the flag is an act of political expression and as such, protected by the first amendment."

Circular logic. There are 10 or so major problems with the Constitution that should be fixed by Convention and Amendment before we ever got into low-level stuff like Flag burning....major problems that we have pushed off for generations as other countries + our towns and states do regular Charter/Constitution revisions.

Essentially, we have developed a "no change ever" faction of Constitution venerators that resemble the Islamists who claim the Qu'ran is the One Perfect Document that must never be reappraised given the passage of time. D's argument that the 1st Cannot be changed to bar Flag burning rests on fear of heresy and blasphemy - the 1st cannot be changed simply because it is the 1st, and was Divinely Inspired.

Major important changes needed given we are the country with the longest time between a revision and thus stuck with ossification and refusal to fix bad or obsolete ideas???

Some vital changes and debate needed:

1. `Clarity that the Judiciary is not above the People. This is not Israel, and SCOTUS is not the Sanhedrin. Language needs to be clear on where the Courts are limited from legislating from the bench, overriding the People. No more "emenations from penumbras of nonexistent law".

2. War powers need to be brought into the 21st Century. We are diplomatically prohibited from declaring war, or issuing letters of Marque. Coherent, new language is needed to adress how we will satisfy the demands of the Preamble in the modern world.

3. Clarity is needed on what war powers the Congress has, what are reserved to the Executive.

4. We made a bad mistake giving lifetime appointments in the manner of aristocrats past practices, to Federal Judges. No other country does that. Long fixed terms of 5-10 years have been found adequate to insure independence everywhere else.

5. We lack provisions for continuity of government in an era unforeseen by the Founders where an attack on DC with WMD could leave us with a successor President from the Cabinet with no executive experience and Congress neutralized from governing for at least 3 months due to Constitutional quorom requirements and lack of rapid succession. Meaning martial rule might be the default if a decapitation attack on DC is large enough - without a clear succession of government plan put into the Constitution.

6. We are the only remaining modern nation that allows birthright citizenship to illegals. The 14th must be altered. We are the only nation where the practice of abortion was never sanctioned by the Will of the People. Roe should be overturned and the usurpation of the voter's prerogatives ended with the matter given to the States to legislate.

7. The Judiciary issues mandates with no heed for the tax impact on the people. Mandates should be subject to voter review to approve or disapprove the added taxes or debt incurred. Congress & the Presidency must be held in check with a Balanced Budget component of the Constitution - except in national emergency and only then when borrowed funds are repaid in a specified time period so future generations are not burdened with debt they never voted to take.

8. The 2nd Amendment should be clarified. What are the clear limits to the Federal right of citizens anywhere in the USA to keep and bear arms? What arms are they limited from? Similarly, what does the 10th protect the States from, by way of blocking encroachments by an Imperial Federal Gov't.

9. Next to Israel, we have more lawyers per capita than any nation. The explosion of litigation paralyzes America globally compared to more nimble and free competitors, and adds a huge financial cost to each citizen. Reforms to the Constitution are vital. Meaning "loser pays" in tort lawsuits and the state reimburses accused found innocent, the accused DO have a right to a speedy trial measured in weeks, not years, and other measures that are rooted in the Constitution that give America a 2nd class legal system compared to other nations.

10. 230 years old, the Constitution has spun off a vast industry exploiting the confusion and interpretation woes about it's sometimes ill-written and archaic sections. Whole sections of the Constitution have become obsolete with time. Any revision seeks to make a document clearer and purge out the obsolescent matter. No nation has gone as long as the US has without a thorough review and revision of it's guiding documents. Again, this is not the immutable, holy Qu'ran we are taking about...

Don't even think of touching the Constitution, Chris. That document stays as is and only there to guarantee rights.

The Constitution isn't about censorship, allowing more privacy invasions, giving the executive branch more power (if you want that you want a King, and our country rebelled against such dictators).

Some things are sacred, the flag will change in time (like when another state is admitted), but the Constitution only has been amended a few times for a GOOD reason -- keep your bloody paws off it and the country works. Add prohibitionary amendments and watch crime and more develope.

I don't want to live in a hell hole where laws are broken to get by, and I don't want ANY group changing that document for some fair day or "hip" cause.

SandyK

I see SandyK is a Constitution-venerator in the same way the Muslims believe their 1400 year-old Holy Book is the perfect document to structure their society. They ignore that what worked well for them in AD 800 didn't work well in AD 1900 - so locked in were they against any reform or revision to their guiding document.

SandyK appears to have a similar view about the Holy Prophets that penned the one, perfect Document.

She ignores that States and towns in America periodically must revise and reform their Constitutions or Charters to make them reflect the reality of the times. And foreign nations do so every 70-80 years or so. That we haven't been forced yet so far to do it with our Constitution is a testimony to how well it was originally written 220 years ago after the 1st Constitution the same people wrote failed miserably.

But as time passes, the flaws and ossification of the Constitution grows, it's Holy Writ (to SandyK at least) less able to guide America optimally through new challenges - as I pointed out in my 10 suggestions for areas of badly needed reform & revision that make flag-burning trivial in comparison.

Worry not, SandyK. Because the only way we fix the accumulating flaws is when America gets deeper into it's decline as a well-functioning nation, and where critically needed revisions are realized and accepted by people from all spectra of society, and the bipartisanship that must come when America is seen as failing and in need of repairs is obvious to all but the most fanatical of the Constitution fundamentalists.

In a way, it's like with fundamentalist Islam, as it tries and fails to order modern life off the words of an archaic document - ignorance is the ultimate shield in preventing reform. An illiterate, poor Yemeni living in a hut made from goat dung sees no need to change the Holy Founder's dictums. Those seeing how badly reliance on obsolete words and law have made Islamic civilization fail with respect to the rest of the world, on the other hand, have to choose between reforming and revising Islam or accepting the perfection of the Holy Founder and seeking to destroy the modern world.

The last time we had Constitution-venerators blocking needed change to a flawed Constitution that was splitting the Country over the absolute 5th Amendment Right to property (i.e. - slaves) we paid for it with a Civil War that cost us 660,000 lives.

Now we are in gridlock over recurring crisis generated by flaws in the Constitution over War Powers flubs made 220 years ago, how we eventually created a Sanhedrin, not a judiciary, and numerous other matters that are unsolvable until the Constitution is revised and fixed. Scholars say the Civil War gave opportunity to fix some of the worst errors, but not all as consensus broke down quickly under Andrew Johnson. The same scholars said that the Constitution was in serious need of repair by the early 1900s, but has limped along until recently by the undemocratic creation of a "shadow Constitution" of those new rules and laws that are supposed to be compelled by the Constitution, but do not exist in words in the body of that document. The entities that are revising the Constitution informally have been the Ruling Elites, the expanding Federal bureaucracy by claims their new agencies derive from "emenations" of the Constitution, and of course the activist judciary considering rulings that revise the Constitution within their power - all of course bypassing the Will of the People. That worked until the last 40 years, whereupon we have been locked into recurring struggles about war powers, abortion, and a dozen other items that cannot be fixed until the Constitution is fixed. The Ruling Elites have split over everything but remaining rich, the Federal Gov't was made a junior partner by the American Sanhedrin, and the All-Wise Sanhedrin itself is no longer considered the Ultimate Power by most of the American People...

So, Chris - Why are any of the points you touched on important to this debate? Are you claiming that we should change the Constitution just because we can? Because it's old? Do you support a ban on flag burning, and if so, on what grounds? Why not amend the doc to expand rights? How about the ERA? Maybe you want to rewrite the whole thing? Ar ye fer it or again' it?

When they ("they" can be anyone you want) start rolling back the other rights guaranteed therein, how will you protest?

Tell ya' what: If I see someone burning a flag on TV, it isn't something I favor, but it won't keep me up at night. If these bumbling snake oil salesmen ammend the constitution to remove a right (especially a right to protest), it would bother me to my core. I might never get a good night's sleep again.

You wrote. "...America is seen as failing and in need of repairs is obvious to all but the most fanatical of the Constitution fundamentalists...". Exatly what are these "obvoius" repairs that are needed, and why? They don't seem too obvious to me. Failing? Things seem to have gone pretty well under this horribly flawed document that only you seem to see.

Please - propose changes, and tell us why they are vital to the continuation of our Republic.

Windbag.

Make the flag a document like a Treasury Note, two or three sizes, made of non-combustible fabric, very expensive and illegal to counterfeit or be used in clothing of any kind. Sorry for the politicians that love to surround themselves with flags and sorry for the used cars lots merchants. Maybe a crazy idea... however, the proceeds may be used to help balancing the budget.

Chris:

I must have scrolled right past your top 10 changes list. Sorry for jumping the gun, but the gist of my last post stands.

"low level stuff like flag burning..."

Exactly. Why are we even debating this? because of the Presidential/congressional bufoons you so blindly support - that's why.

As for the top 10:

1. The current crop of SCOTUS judges are pro government, anti-individual rights. How does that help "the people"?Nonetheless, not counting Clarence Scalia's two guaranteed votes, the people's laws have been interpreted by the justices, as is their function under the Constitution. They overturn Unconstitutional laws, and support those that fit. You want this to stop? Why not just do away with the courts altogether and make crime and punishment and determination of rights an administrative function?

2. I don't get your point on this one. However, Congress, your Congress, shirked their Constitutional duty, and now we're in Iraq. So much for giving these guys fewer restrictions on their ability to march us in to a steaming pile... We seem to have gotten into a war just fine without Constitutional authority. How's that workin' out?

3. The language clearly specifies these powers. Do you want them all shifted to the executive? First we need to stop calling every military intervention a "war" (although all military interventions could and should be viewed as acts of war). On second thought, we might want to start calling every militaty intervention a war.

4. "No other country does that." I seem to remember you complaining when the SCOTUS looked to european law to help guide them in making decisions, and now you're doing the same. Flip flop. I would tend to agree when it comes to Clarence Scalia, but that's just fear talking. I support our system for getting us here.

5. Yes. If our government is destroyed, we won't have a government. If there's really a threat there, wouldn't it be easier and more prudent and responsible to disperse our reps?

6. Birthright citizenship is one of the things that make us what we are. Why do you hate our country so? Roe was sanctioned by the Will of the People. The government doesn't have the right to tell a woman that she must carry a fetus. Furthermore, the relationship between a person and their own body as well as the relationship between doctor and patient are sacrosanct. You just don't like it. Stay away from the document.

7. Not a Constitutional issue. Unfunded mandates (examples, please)? You are now advocating referendums (or is it referendi)? That's very unRepublican. Balance the budget? These deficiencies can be fixed by fixing the other two branches. Saddling our progeny with debt? Who is th Borrow and Spend party? At least the Dems had the stones to levy taxes to pay for their bloated programs.

8. Not Constitutional issues. First part: that's a decided question. We get guns, but not nukes. Imperial Federal government? Iraq comes to mind. The Union trumps the states. It's that simple. this strikes at the core of "conservative" thought, what with their hereditary angst over loosing the war (the Civil War, that is). Our states are not Sovereign nations.

9. Not a Constitutional issue, but oh do I ever agree with this sentiment. However, we can easily fix the system without touching the Constitution. Removing the requirement for bar membership to practice law would be a good place to start. Cameras in every courtroom would also be good.

10. No, it isn't perfect, or in some cases relevant to modern times. It is, however the best Constitution ever created, and we'd be hard pressed to "improve" it (especially by removing rights of the individual). It's the Mona Lisa of law - sure we could repaint her dress because no one dresses like that any more, but I doubt the result could or would be interpreted as an improvement.

You should quit throwing the Qu'ran and Islam into everything you don't like.

I'd have to say that I find it insulting that Republicans are throwing around "rally" issues to get middle America back in line for the elections. With all of the problems we face right now, do we really need to be focusing on flag burning? I'm of the opinion that flag burning can wait until we've resolved other, more pressing issues.

I think it's sad that Republicans will be going back to to their home states with cries of "traitor" when discussing the flag burning vote and the views of Democrats on our present situation in Iraq. I am going to puke if I hear someone use the term "cut and run" again in an interview.

Ultimately the most depressing part of these "rally" issues is that they still work, and a large percentage of this country are sheep, and the Republicans know exactly how to get them back in line.

Just in time for November.

Emily, the most astonishing thing about all of this--and the most frightening--is the cavalier, almost resigned nature of the American electorate. They don't even seem to care that such a measure--a law passed by the Congress of the nation that boasts of the Bill of Rights. a nation that arrogantly preaches to other nations about their own superior values and even at times insists that other nations ought to adopt similar Constitutional values--flies insultingly in the face of our Founding Fathers and what they bequeathed to us.

In a recent Star Wars motion picture a member of the Senate of a democratic society much like our own uder assault from a malevolent force laments as follows: "So this is how liberty ends? To the sound of resounding applause?" Indeed, as another poetic minded critic once observed, patriotism really is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The cry that we were one vote away from some dictatorship is bunk. Put away the
"Revenge of the Sith" DVD and get real.
I've already seen the U.S. flag stylized in many ways and worn, but to burn it in protest is itself and effront to the very Veterans who fought (and some died) fot the people, their hopes and dreams, their very humanity, of the nation the flag represents. To burn it in protest...or to support those alien ideals that call for sugjugation, terror, and mindless murder of any freedom-loving people? The mask is off those who decry our Standard. We know what you really are, who you're allied with, and what you really want for yourself and those who oppose you. Pass the Amendment, and let our defamers flee from the Light of Truth because of whom they really are.

I am grateful this didn't pass. Patriotism in this country is all about symbology.

Show your love of country by flying the flag, affixing a bumper sticker to your car, or even wearing a piece of clothing that has the flag on it or is made from an entire flag. Six or seven years ago I witnessed the following from an E-9. In his farewell speech he draped himself in the U.S. flag and talked about his love of country. Besides being totally improper it hid the true hypocrite he was, a serial philanderer who hit on any woman in sight, even the wives of his friends.

Patriotism has become a billion dollar industry in this country. From coffee mugs to t-shirts to flags to bumper stickers. Ask those same patriots if they support a draft and the majority will tell you NO. Ask those same patriots if they will encourage their children to enter the military and go to Iraq and the majority will tell you NO.

Ask those same patriots who is the enemy and they will you it's godless, leftist Democrats.

I understand why politicians voted in favor of this amendment, but they have to realize what they are doing is akin to selling their soul to the devil.

They would better serve themselves and their constituents if they explained why they cannot support such an amendment. They would do better if they showed their support for this war by reinstituting the draft or encouraging their own children to enter the military.

They won't do this but will instead pander to the people who believe patriotism is a symbol, not an action.

Senator Feinstein should be ashamed of herself along with the other sixty plus who voted in favor of this amendment.

What Americans of all political beliefs should take away from all this is you are now seeing who has integrity and who doesn't. Cast your votes for the persons of integrity, not the ones who pander to the least common denominator and says to hell with the Constitution when they need votes.

As for you Chris Ford, if we listen to you, the Constitution is nothing more than fickle words that can be changed on the whim of whatever the electorate of the moment deems hot. Right now, George W. Bush and his asinine neoconservative viewpoint that as long as we are at war he is pretty much exempt from the Constitution.

People like you sicken me. You have this wretched ideology that mimics the likes of Tom Delay--an arrogant, Bible thumping moron whose education informs him that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that man was created whole out of the dust of the earth by some Supernatural being, that his Texas variety evangelical claptrap is destined to rule the world and that anything--anything!--that he and Bush and Cheney and Limbaugh and the rest of the dead-from-the-neck-up holy-assed crusaders do is blessed and legitimate.

Like one of their idiots over at the White House told Ron Suskind: "We create our own reality over here!" Right. And I do mean right.

What I find even more tragic is Senator Hatch deriding the Supreme Court for usurping the will of the people while the executive branch treats the legislative branch with contempt.

The greatest threat to this country comes from the executive branch its abuse of power.
Speaking of the Washington Post's priorities why did it dedicate so much to the flag amendment and nothing to the Democratic Intelligence Committee hearings on pre Iraq war intelligence?

One of the panelists said it was "The Vice President" who orchestrated the falsification of intelligence while another said that members of the administration did commit perjury when testifying before Congress.

If you want heroes, look no further than Congressman Jones from North Carolina and Senator Dorgan from North Dakota. They are both class acts, patriots our forefathers would be proud of.

The only "affront" here John of Denver is you--and others like you--who strip away our freedoms with a stinking, jingoist philosophy masquerading as patriotism.

There are too many "patriots" like you who trully do sully the real meaning of the flag. Read your history and stop sucking at the hind end of manipulative morons like Rush Limbaugh who pop illegal pain pilols while preaching morality to the rest of us.

Your kind is known in this town. We are onto you.

Smarfdy - "low level stuff like flag burning..." Exactly. Why are we even debating this? because of the Presidential/congressional bufoons you so blindly support - that's why."

No, we both agree flag-burning is minor compared to other Constitutional conflicts raging. What frosts me is how many people don't argue the merits of how to resolve those conflicts, but take a Fundamentalist Qu'ranic Scholar's approach, opting for a stultifying stasis instead: "The Holy Words as written by the Divine Founders must never be tampered with!!"

The Constitution is a sort of operating manual for American society. It exists simply to achieve the goals of the Preamble, primarily, along with some items enumerated within....basically by following instructions and doing such and such.

It is not Sovereign over "We the People". It is a piece of paper. "We the People" are the Sovereign Ones. We follow the paper's instructions, but retain the right to update, revise, or change it.

The claims of "Venerators" that they love it so much, with such religious zeal that they don't believe we should change a word of it as blasphemy or sacreledge...despite real problems emerging in using an obsolete operator's manual....are ridiculous.

The rebuttal of the 10 points I made simply dismiss what is current Constitutional scholars debate about the 10 leading problem areas tied up in Constitutional questions that prevent resolution.

If you wish to say the major matters of high concern to scholars are silly, that's your call.

But just to educate you a bit:

1. Decapitation strike of our government concerns and fixing the Constitution has had high level hearings in Congress and a Continuity of Government Commission is still working through opposition from Holy Constitution fundamentalists that AGREE that we would likely be under military rule and worse or with a non-functional House at best if DC was hit without warning by a WMD attack - but who still oppose any change to the Constitution as a diminishment to the Geniuses Who Wrote the Holy Script.

2. Birthright citizenship is one of the things that make us what we are. Why do you hate our country so?

Crap. It was written in 1868 to give citizenship to slaves who were born in the US, with any new arrivals thought to be best packed off to Africa. That was the intent, as scholars looking at the debate transcripts determined.

3. Roe was sanctioned by the Will of the People. Crap. It was decided by a 5-4 vote based on words not even in the Constitution but imagined as "an emenation of a penumbra of the privacy right, itself, the Founders kept cryptic. It is a societal issue the people of only a few States were allowed to weigh in on before their vote was usurped by lawyers in robes.

4. You deny or are ignorant of the inherent conflict between Article II and Article III War Powers.

Frankly, I could argue on each of the 10 points because all you can manage by way of rebuttal is the usual Lefty ideological gibberish that the judges are right, the document Holy, and no problem needs to be fixed....just debated on endlessly without resolution.

Jaxas - "People like you sicken me".

And from my side, we are not too fond of anti-American, enemy rights sympathizers like you.

Not that you could understand why. Or why your sort of people are so distrusted by the American electorate when it comes to national security.

You would think after 40 years of hugging N Vietnamese, sticking up for terrorist's "rights", burning flags, and the hateful, personal language the Left became habituated to under Marcuse you would have learned. Or developed thicker skins as ordinary Americans have finally tired of one-sided "racist, Islamophobic, bigoted, sexist, imperialist, etc." taunts, and started throwing well-deserved slurs back at you and other gutless traitors.

Chris Ford-

From many of your posts I feel safe in saying that you consider yourself a patriot. Can you tell me why? I'm not saying you shouldn't be, or you aren't; I just want to know what it is about America that compels your love and loyalty.

John from Denver-

Please feel free to respond also.

Hey Afghan Vet,
do you want to know something that I find quite amusing? Ford and the rest of the Right wing nuts can preach all their B.S. but they can't go and do what you and I did. Because we did our military service to our country therefore we should have the say about Flag Burning, because we put our asses on the line and had them shot at. So if anyone should have a say it should be us. Good old Bush made sure no VC or NVA regulars every invaded texas, and Cheney was so banged up he got a 4F waiver so he didn't have to worry about getting his ass shot at. These right wing bible thumpers that all they can do is preach their doctrine and send someone elses kid off to a war we should have never gotten ourselves into. They want to pay no taxes to support this country or its troops, they won't enlist in the military (That's a hint Ford) even after they moved the age requirement up again or encourage their relatives to join. All they can do is shoot their mouths off and call anyone who doesn't agree with them unpatriotic. I say since they like war so much that they re-instate the draft and no school deferments, no pull because their parents are rich or know someone and that they have to pull a manditory tour in a combat zone.

Just curious, Ford, but why do you think banning flag burning should be implemeneted? You seem to yell at anyone who says it shouldn't as it quells free speech, comparing them to Islamic fanaticals with their treatment of the Qu'ran. However, you don't actually debate the point all that much. Meanwhile, the people you are saying are too fanatical about the constitution are actually arguing why it shouldn't be banned, rather than simply saying 'its the constitution, you can't change it,' as you claim.

Give me a good reason that flag burning should be banned, and I may be willing to agree with you. Keep using this topic as a soapbox for your normal "Lefties are killing the world, but I can't prove it" speech and I'm more likely to laugh at your attempts at arguing your points.

Oh no, Lab rat said Ford won't fight for his country...... wait for the stories of pushing buttons!

The Wizard of Oz in running the country.
Lessee, shall we discuss the war, erosion of civil liberties, the flat-lining economy, the ENVIRONMENT...?
Nah! That's too boring. Let's make a big fuss about the FLAG until people are sick of that and then go back to making a big fuss because people with matching genitals fall in love. Then we'll make some moving speeches about soldiers and terrorism that show when know b-all about either and hope a disaster strikes so we have more photo opportunities.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Anyhoo, Activist Judges ahoy:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees

Chris the traitor wrote:
===========================================
"I see SandyK is a Constitution-venerator in the same way the Muslims believe their 1400 year-old Holy Book is the perfect document to structure their society."
===========================================

There's few things I'd kill for, and one of them is the Constitution...

*******************************************
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
*******************************************

Notice the line, "I will bear TRUE faith and allegiance to the same"? If you ever gave that oath, Chris, you can't pick and choose what parts of it to esteem. You consider the whole document true, and you put your heart in it to defend it.

We don't need al-Qaeta, we have our own home grown terrorists that think the Constitution is some sheet of paper to be used as toilet paper (and they want clean amendment sheets for every wipe).

>:(

I don't worry about flag burners (very easy to contain), I do worry about angry white guys who use the Constitution like those dorks used Jim Crow laws.

Stay out of the Constitution. The country works, and will work, if the Neros don't fiddle with or go mad and absolve it.

Your talk Chris is stuff treason is made of. >:(

SandyK

Chris the traitor wrote:
===========================================
"Scholars say the Civil War gave opportunity to fix some of the worst errors, but not all as consensus broke down quickly under Andrew Johnson."
===========================================

In case folks didn't know the real meaning of those words, that's code in Neo-CONFEDERATE (and angry white conservative guy) circles for abolishing these enacted amendments, that went into effect when Andrew Johnson was president...

===========================================
13th amendment (Abolishing slavery):

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
===========================================

And what they REALLY hate (especially the sections below):

===========================================
14th amendment (The government can't force any law that would erode the rights of citizens -- Due process clause; and citizens who honor the Constitution can't give assistant to the enemies of this country/Constitution [successionists and militias that rebel]):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[...]

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
===========================================

Now you know why I consider these bastards traitors? They want to fiddle with the Constitution to revoke the 13th and 14th amendments. Then they can go right back to even BEFORE Jim Crow laws.

Just look at Chris Ford's speeches, if he could get away with it, he'll pepper his posts with the "N" word and other filthy racial language. Tolerant folks don't use such language, only the racists among us.

Traitors need to be drawn and quartered, especially home grown terrorists.

SandyK

The typical leftist been on the political and cultural losing side all his adult life. He's tired of it. And he's found a website like daily Kos or Democratic Underground which, at last, makes him feel empowered. He is, in short, the typical member of the so-called netroots: the left-wing movement, organized around blogs, that seeks to "take back" this country from its usurpers. The netroots is a movement born of desperation and a sense of embattlement at being on the losing side of historical forces. It sees itself as the inheritor and the guarantor of true American tradition and identity, and it seeks to restore those things to their rightful primacy in national life. Critically, it choose to not merely fight its foes, but emulate them. It sees the prime virtue of its enemies as their ability to win, and if they can just crack the code -- if it can grasp the very methodology of victory -- then they will turn the tables, and victory will be theirs.
Sound familiar? It is -- to us. To the left, it's all very exciting, and all very new. And so we see the self-proclaimed netroots go through a trajectory very much like what the Birchers went through, albeit in highly compressed time. The elements are all there: the resentment, the conspiracy-mindedness, and especially the leaders with stupefyingly poor judgment married to Napoleon complexes. I've noted before that they are "frank proponents of outright mimicry of the mechanisms of GOP ascendacy." Add to this the horrifying, alienating statements ranging from the mockery of dead Americans at war to the derision of political opponents' personal sorrows. Add to this the demonization of the very people who should, in a sane world, be their friends and the formula is complete. Messianism and paranoia marry to make this.

Goto "The Fix" blog. It's the one that was covering YearlyKos (and ask Chris if he was in Marky's "Townhouse" too).

Daily Kos is going down, not because of the Republicans, out of sheer greed. Marky's been taking lessons from Abramoff and Nero, and got caught (with his buddy) with his hands in the till.

Worse, Marky's not even a Lefty ideologue (Kossacks got rimmed good over that one -- he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk [he just dances in his "Townhouse" plotting the next Democrat failure, instead]).

And just like a netkook (don't you just love these "net" terms?) he goes around yelling about lawsuits, too. The only thing he didn't mention (yet) is he has a secret friend in the FBI to help him out too (if he starts flaking on cabals, well, he's ready for the nut farm next).

Oh, retribution is sooooooo sweet! :)

SandyK

Freedom - "Give me a good reason that flag burning should be banned, and I may be willing to agree with you."

My position, as I elaborated to Smarfdy, is the Constitution now has major flaws in it that from lack of proper revision and update to it that are badly damaging our country.

Matters far more important than flag-burning, which would be way, way down on my own personal list of critically needed fixes.

My beef with those that oppose flag-burning as (1)The pinnacle of freedom of expression; (2)Constitutional fundamentalism - is that they are hypocrites on the Left that want to make cross-burning a major felony or fools that have attached some bizarre religious substitute fundamentalism to their belief that the Constitution is our Secular One Perfect Document that should NEVER be changed, defiled from what the Holy Founders wrote..

SandyK reflects that fanaticism on change as blasphemy:

===========================================

There's few things I'd kill for, and one of them is the Constitution...

Stay out of the Constitution. The country works, and will work, if the Neros don't fiddle with or go mad and absolve it.

Your talk Chris is stuff treason is made of.

*******************************************
The old twit then gets deranged and accuses me in her delusion of frequently "using the "N" word" (no, unlike her I come from an educated family where the "N" word is not spoken and tobacco is not chewed by women) and being against the freeing of slaves (13th) and all the stuff in the (14th), when all I want is an interpretation that the 14th was not intended to give every illegal spawning here a US citizen anchor baby so half a dozen or a dozen relatives can stay or come here. The woman is pathetic....and stupid of course......

==========================
Anyways, on flag burning. If all the vital corrections of the Constitution get done - which Congress won't do until the signs of American decline, partially generated by having a Constitution that is becoming obsolescent, become obvious to all Americans.....THEN....I would support some clarification. It's not worth a whole Amendment on it's own. IMO. But if we have to revise America's operating manual because the society and world we live in doesn't fit the Founder's well written operating manual drafted for a very different age 200+ years ago - then the Amendments should included with the rest of it in an overall revision.

Specifically, flag burning can be part of an overal cleanup where "protected political speech" is clearly distinguished from speech aimed at enraging and causing a riot. Someone who says they will be assembling, petitioning and protesting with a flag burning or a black hung in effigy is protected. Someone going into a black neighborhood and just hanging a black manniquen up or showing up at a Marine funeral burning a flag in their faces is not protected...but inciting riot...and deserves the violence beating or arrest arising from their public disturbance and riot-provoking.

But again, not to worry. America has big problems that are not being fixed in part to brainless "Venerators" who act like Islamists do when you suggest the Koran might need to be tweaked to allow Muslims to have a modern society. We will have to decline much further before we are compelled by events to fix the dysfunctional parts of the Constitution.

Hey nana...

You're joking - right?

Everybody knows that messianism and paranoia marry to make THIS:

The Bush Administration and its failed policies.

Where have you been?

"I see SandyK is a Constitution-venerator in the same way the Muslims believe their 1400 year-old Holy Book is the perfect document to structure their society."

I must admit that I always find Chris Ford's posts rather confusing. But, um... am I the only one who finds this one goes WAY beyond strange? Chris "My Patriotism is bigger than yours" Ford seems to miss the entire point of the Constitution. Guess what? It WAS created to be the perfect document on which to structure society (I am refering to the United States of America for those of you who are a bit muddled). One wonders why s/he thinks the Constitution was written in the first place.
This is my problem with anyone who clings to an idea set no matter what evidence others may present to the contrary. It requires mental contortions that are painful to watch.
Since I've started reading The Debate I've watched CF go from accusing people who disagree with the war in Iraq as being un-American to attacking some one who supports the document that shaped America.

I would say that way madness lies but some of us have already passed through madness and out the other side.

And one wonders what CF will do for the 4th of July.

Chris Ford-
"My beef with those that oppose flag-burning as (1)The pinnacle of freedom of expression; (2)Constitutional fundamentalism - is that they are hypocrites on the Left that want to make cross-burning a major felony or fools that have attached some bizarre religious substitute fundamentalism to their belief that the Constitution is our Secular One Perfect Document that should NEVER be changed, defiled from what the Holy Founders wrote."

Sir, I am unaware of any incidents where the burning of the American Flag was used to inspire terror or fear for one's life. Cross-burning cannot make the same claim.

On your second point, the Constitution HAS been changed, 27 times in fact. These amendments granted or clarified the rights of the people. The only amendment that could be conceived of taking away rights was the 18th, which was repealed by the 21st.

What exactly are the changes you would make to the Contstitution?

Chris Ford-
"My beef with those that oppose flag-burning as (1)The pinnacle of freedom of expression; (2)Constitutional fundamentalism - is that they are hypocrites on the Left that want to make cross-burning a major felony or fools that have attached some bizarre religious substitute fundamentalism to their belief that the Constitution is our Secular One Perfect Document that should NEVER be changed, defiled from what the Holy Founders wrote."

Sir, I am unaware of any incidents where the burning of the American Flag was used to inspire terror or fear for one's life. Cross-burning cannot make the same claim.

On your second point, the Constitution HAS been changed, 27 times in fact. These amendments granted or clarified the rights of the people. The only amendment that could be conceived of taking away rights was the 18th, which was repealed by the 21st.

What exactly are the changes you would make to the Constitution?

Chris-

There is already an existing process that hashes out whether or not an act constitutes "free speech" or a threat to public safety such as incitement, rioting, etc.

Chris Ford writes:

"Specifically, flag burning can be part of an overal cleanup where "protected political speech" is clearly distinguished from speech aimed at enraging and causing a riot."

Similar arguments have been used to limit speech by totalitarian regimes the world over. In a silly decision a long time ago the Supreme Court decided that speech could be limited. This is where we get the famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" phrase. It is possible to say that you have a right to say that freedom of speech (expression, etc.) is still absolute. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater can cause enough harm to other rights, such as property rights that it still doesn't make sense to make laws limiting speech. If you're interested read Schenk v. United States and Holmes' majority opinion and Hugo Black's arguments against Holmes but I digress. It was overturned anyway.

Any individual person who's willing to accept a limit on any kind of speech needs to sit down and think hard about what they're saying. The point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was for the majority to rule but also to protect the fundamental rights of minorities. Speech, especially policical expression, is a fundamental right.

Congress is asking for the power to limit expression in this amendment. I think Congress can screw enough up with the real and implied powers it has without it being given more power.

Every year this comes close to passing but it never passes because the Repubs. don't want it to pass. They always get a couple of their tribe to vote against it "on principle". A principled Republican, what a larf! It's just red meat for their base. Will their base ever wake up to the fact that they're being played? Naah, they're too stupid. I hope the amendment passes. If I cut a star out of the flag and burn it, can I be prosecuted? Lets see the courts determine what defines a symbol.

Turnabout wrote:

"Every year this comes close to passing but it never passes because the Repubs. don't want it to pass."
__________

Once it's passed what would they do two years hence?

Too much time has passed to rerun Willie Horton, although some new stereotype could be identified and substituted, perhaps a bald-headed white guy who served in Vietnam, which would seem to be totally PC. The one with hair (Kerry) has already been worked over.

Texas-trained politicians have no particular limitations on low-life imaginations to manipulate the herd. The only surprise would be a real issue popping up on the agenda before an election

Like "anti gay marriage" this one about flag burning was designed to fail. They got want they wanted.

"Emily, the most astonishing thing about all of this--and the most frightening--is the cavalier, almost resigned nature of the American electorate. "

Thankyou Jaxas. How is this happening?

How is it that our fathers and grandfathers were not paralyzed by their fear when American was attacked on December 7, 1941. Did they bleed and die on the beaches or Normandy or Anzio or Okinawa or Iwo Jima defending freedom, just so their kids and grandkids could hear the likes of Chris Ford saying a real American patriot must now be so paralyzed with fear that they must blindly surrender their freedom? Why don't we just go to Normany and spit on the American cemetery there?

smoke and mirrors,

to notice that they soldiers of the United States are being used by the Bush administration and cronies to make themselves rich....

everyone in bush's cabal, more correctly termed family has been working with his father for the last 55 years to make _this_ happen...

using the United States Government as a family resource....sort of like Nixon building his home in Florida and billing the government for it....

the soldiers think they're fighting terrorism, what they're really doing is paying for the development of beachfront condos on the Red Sea and Mediterraenean in about 7 years...

NSA/Negroponte/CIA/IRS/IRA/exceptional/cheyney...

hope you're looking boyz, these creeps need to go home,

help them.

.

Chris the liar wrote:
===========================================
"The old twit then gets deranged and accuses me in her delusion of frequently "using the "N" word" (no, unlike her I come from an educated family where the "N" word is not spoken and tobacco is not chewed by women) and being against the freeing of slaves (13th) and all the stuff in the (14th), when all I want is an interpretation that the 14th was not intended to give every illegal spawning here a US citizen anchor baby so half a dozen or a dozen relatives can stay or come here. The woman is pathetic....and stupid of course......"
===========================================

lololol

Any regular on this blog knows you're a racist, Chris. You're the only person here (who's not a sockpuppet anon) who uses phrases like "Jap".

Only ill-bred trailer trash use such language, as they have to be taught to hate (let alone why to say it). So thanks for letting us know more about your own background, let alone your taste for women.

When caught red handed (and trying to snow the readers), you go into a frenzy and doing exactly what you're projecting, too (as you go into these little meltdowns whenever you're in a box). Point is you don't expect another conservative to call you on your little racist gig (the appeal of the 13th and 14th amendments which is a hot topic among conservatives on their boards). Sucker, the difference is I'm an TR conservative, not some commie Neo-con, who'll sell our country off to the highest bidder.

It must burn that you can't get away with that trash, but it's called accountability -- and I'll pull on the carpet conservatives as well as libs who mess with Constitution, especially to REVOKE rights.

I take that oath dead seriously, Chris. I'll defend it against al-Qaeta, and I'll defend it from Neo-Con trailer trash that would throw our Founder's vision into a Gestapo prison.

Don't fear the libs, sucker. Fear other conservatives when you want to change not only a 230 year tradition, the heritage of the United States of AMERICA (that's AMERICA, not Israel).

Hang your head in shame, Chris.

SandyK

SandyK, the last five years have given me a new understanding of why the oath is to "protect and defend the Constutition of the United States against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC".

Chris Ford and his ilk are the DOMESTIC part.

Freedom is defended by the blood of patriots. Rather than inciting Americans to courage ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"), this administration incites FEAR. Rather than reminding Americans of who we are and what we stand for, this Congress rolls over and plays dead while the executive branch destroys the checks and balances that our freedoms stand on. It is left to SCOTUS to remind Americans of what makes this country worth dying for. Thank God the BA hasn't been able to destroy SCOTUS...yet. ONce they do they'll make themselves legal dictators.

burn the cobwebs of deceit!

clear them from your eyes!

good show, pip pip!

.

Constitution,

Years ago I saw the writing on the wall of this new Republican party, locally, when Neo-Confederates linked up with Libertarians (also "Sons of the South") to win elections. It's how Sonny Perdue became the first Republican governor in GA since the Reconstruction.

I learned then that it's many coalitions involved in this swing Right movement. On a national level everything is squeakly clean, and they polished off the corners to make the message look civil (like revoking AA because Blacks have triumphed over discrimination type deals). On a local level, the world didn't see the picketing at the local Black college with stars and bars from these Civil War enactors. Or how everyday politics is divided on race, too (and done so on purpose to divide and conquer).

So now in 2006 when the message of Andrew Johnson and all peeps out from the veil, suckers like Chris Ford are exposed of their roots. For those who don't follow that rhetoric it's over the head, but those who followed that crappy "The South will Rise Again" junk, spot it instantly.

Yes, I'm hypersensitive to that junk, because it's local, and I've seen what divisiveness it causes and it's hate firsthand.

Rereading what I wrote seems strong, but I won't pull any of what I said. I terribly dislike this militia; Neo-Confederate; successionist; Supreme Court stocking to revoke the 13th and 14th amendment -- thought it was only about abortion????; freedom reducing movement. It's dangerous traitor talk (you just need to read a 1/4 of what these twerps write), and I hope they're caught and tried as traitors as well (before they become actual terrorists).

BTW, way too many arms and explosives have been missing from Ft. Benning. Not just a few rifles and grenades, either. They just don't disappear in the "everything in triplet" Army supply system.

SandyK

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Chris Ford, John of Dever, and a smattering of other Bushphiles on this blog reflexively refer to those of us who do not drop to our knees and apply generous smoochings to the royal Bush hiney as "traitors".

Traitors to what? To an incompetent buffoon who blusters about an "activist" Supreme Court--the same activist Supreme Court that put his worthless behind in the Oval Office. A man of character, a statesman, would have acknowledged that he was not the choice of a majority of his countrymen and conceded the election. But not this fraud. He didn't care that it would rend the copuntry and divide us for a generation. He didn't care that he came out as second choice among the people.

In the final analysis, George W. Bush did what he always does when he loses. He snivels, whines, stamps his feet, falls down on the floor and roles over demanding that he be given what he wants. All of his miserable, pathetic, little priviledged, pampered life, he has had buttkissing sycophants running around like crazy to ensure that whatever little Georgie wants, little Georgie gets.

Well, that ended yeaterday when five grownups finally threw up their hands and said "No!" And that left the right's precious little pumpkin sputtering about how he had only gotten a "drive-by briefing". Wanna take any bets where the little pumpkin got his "drive by" phraseolgy? From his favorite Unkie Rush--you know, that old ped who wants to have Bush's baby.

They seem to have conveniently forgotten that Kennedy, Souter and Breyer, the majority of the majority on this decision, were appointed by Republican presidents.

CF:

Man! You're taking a beating. Sorry to say, you deserve it.

I don't really have the time to do this, but, oh well, the real world will have to wait.

A few things:

1. Re: the Constitution -
It should never be amended to remove the right(s) of an individual, especially if that right regards freedom of thought (regardless if the thought is held only by a single individual and patently offends every other man woman and child in the nation), expression (reiteration of previous paren.), due process (a government that can swallow a person without a trace would result), or separation of powers (the branches should be downright antagonistic towards one another).

To remove a right by Constitutional ammendment based on the fact that that act is offensive is antithetical to the Constitution in general, the Bill of Rights in particular, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg address (I have a feeling that this speech is much too sentimental for you), and our oft touted "freedoms".

2. Re: You being labeled a racist -
You do seem to have presented yourself as such in many of your postings. Specifically, your constant use of the term "Islamoids" (the "oids" part is what's important) seems to indicate a classic element of the mind-set of racism: the ability to reduce a person or group of people to less-than-human status. Several of my past posts in rebuttal to your statements have pointed this out. It can be quite offensive, yet I support your rights to free thought, free speech, and free expression. Keep in mind - just because you're free to do something, doesn't mean you should.

3. An observation -
The more I read blogs, and the more I converse with and debate my long-time conservative friends, the more I see a deep rooted Southern resentment against their Yankee oppressors to the north. This theme, or something very similar to it, got some traction in this debate. Maybe this is why they hate America so.

Since when is flag-burning a form of free 'speech'?? Burning a flag is an act that can, and should, be regulated. Communities across this country prohibit certain activities they may deem dangerous (.e.g., setting off fireworks) or lewd/offensive (public nudity). I believe if citizens of a community find burning a flag repulsive, they should have the right to ban it without having the ACLU getting its panties in a bunch. Also, remember that 66 senators voted for this bill...doesn't sound like just a fringe wing of the Republican party to me.

of evile flatulence, I say burn it..

and Mr. Right, you're just plain wrong...but I think you know that but like holding in a fart, you're incapable of using logick when gas will suffice.

.

OK, here's my question

Does anyone seriously think Cheney and Addington are going to be stopped by a little tiny thing like the Supreme Court? Who says they have to obey SCOTUS? Congress? Please, I'm ROTFLMAO. So far this Congress is a walking advertisement for needing Viagra.

We have a real problem here, folks. Dick Cheney can do anything he wants and it does not appear that anyone is going to stop him. Congress is impotent, there are no riots in the streets. Somehow, this nation has been brainwashed into believing that it must turn its back on a 200 year history of who we are and what we stand for in order to be "saved". I agree with Constitution - we might just as well go to a military cemetery in Europe and spit on the graves of our war dead who died for the American way of truth and justice exemplified in their oath to protect the Constitution of the United States.

So now they say this decision makes it likely that SCOTUS would also rule against the evisceration of the FISA court. So,if they do, whose going to make the BA start using FISA? With no oversight, how would we even know whether they did or not? Respect for Rule of Law is all that holds a democracy together. And this administration has none, and worse, has somehow convinced Americans that having it will hurt them. And we the people, instead of showing the courage that made this nation great, are suddenly too scared to remember who we are.

There is nothing that can stop this administration short of a big change in Congress in November.

Whine and seethe.
Seethe and whine.
The Lefty's light
No longer shines

me that there were 66 senators on their knees voting for "gay," rights with their lips, as they sacrificed their manhood for image...

is that what you're saying mr. right?

and you're one of them too?

you're not man enough to stand on your own?

that you need a label to protect you?

are you afraid of me? that's right.

"We can't be scared out of who we are."

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift

patriot1957-

There were enough people who weren't scared of Sen. McCarthy, and helped bring his house of cards down. I believe there's enough people who aren't scared of Cheney or his terrorist bogeymen to bring down his house of cards too.

Thanks wiccan

But I wonder if the McCarthy episode might have had a differ