Thursday, September 24, 2009

RE: United States Code Title 36 Chapter 10

Chuck Norris, scofflaw...
(If you insist on posting a modern USA flag, too, then get one that is tea-stained to show your solidarity with our Founders.)
What, deliberately stain the Flag? For display? There oughta be a law!

Oh, wait...

Hat tip to Steve Benen.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel as much contempt for Chuck Norris' views as any other leftie I know, but I have more than enough love for the Constitution to let him stain, burn, mark, paint, deface the flag any way he wants.

I don't imagine though, that he wants to extend that same freedom to those who burned it in protest again war and hatred.

6:19 AM  
Anonymous Terry Parkhurst said...

The argument is oftentimes presented that our troops have fought to preserve the right to make a statement, by burning the flag. That may be true.

But there is a law against defacing the flag; so the desire of Chuck Norris to stain the American flag with tea might run counter to that aspect of the law.

However, flag burning, as a statement, usually gets a pass from any court that rules on such activitiy, under the protection of speech ruling. So we can probably expect to see a lot of tea-stained flags, in the very near future.

The flag becomes imbued with the blood of those who died defending it, to my mind. As anyone reading this blog probably knows, in the (American) Civil War, it became or primary importance, not to let the flag - whether CSA, USA or local regimental - fall, either onto the ground, or into the hands of the enemy.

For that reason, would that the American flag would be left alone by those making a statement. Flying it upside down, is as much as many of us can stand.

Maybe if more of the protesters - on the right or left - were willing, or capable, of using words to do so, they wouldn't feel compelled to deface or burn Old Glory.

11:02 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home