All This Just For a Flag? Asks Michelle Obama

The Washington Times (September 13, 2011):

Photo: ASSOCIATED PRESS Michelle Obama steps into 2012 presidential campaigning on Thursday with a speech to the Democratic National Committee's Women's Leadership Forum

The internet was buzzing this week with video of First Lady Michelle Obama apparently showing extreme disrespect to the American flag at a ceremony in honor of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. As police and firefighters fold the flag to the sound of marching bagpipers, a skeptical looking Mrs.... Obama leans to her husband and appears to say, “all this just for a flag.” She then purses her lips and shakes her head slightly as Mr.... Obama nods. (This is not the first she has been caught making similar comments about the flag and for a very long Time candidate Obama did not salute the flag or wear a flag pin on his lapel).

Just for a flag? If that is what she said it is regrettable. Even with all her years being around those who hold high public office Mrs....... Obama does not seem to understand the purpose and importance of ceremonies. They reaffirm the bonds of loyalty and fellowship that cement our national unity. Yes, at one level a flag is just a colorful piece of cloth. But it symbolizes much more. It is the emblem of our land and all its ideals. It has been present at every major event of any importance to the country, battles, celebrations, meetings, and the lunar landings. It is a symbol of unity that transcends party, faction and time. It is something uniquely and explicitly American. Men and women have fought and died for it. Our enemies hate us for it and burn it in the streets. All that should mean something.

Perhaps Mrs...... Obama thinks that all the pomp and circumstance she experiences in her daily life has something to do with her, rather than the unofficial office she holds. If so she should disabuse herself of that notion quickly. The official gestures of respect shown to her are the same shown to any First Lady, and if she wasn’t married to the president she would be just another citizen. Ruffles and flourishes are not hers by right, but by coincidence of marriage. Yet this is the same woman who said she had never in her adult life been really proud of America before her husband ran for president, so it is no wonder she might dismiss a flag ceremony as just so much nonsense.

All this just for a flag? Has anyone said, “All this just for Michelle Obama?”

Troops will and have risked their lives all over the world to raise and defend the American flag

That question, All this just for a flag?, is the same attitude that has created a situation where U.S. Military for 20 years, risk their lives protecting freedom and our flag, and only get 50% of their pay on retirement.  While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full-pay retirement after serving one term. Troops will and have risked their lives all over the world to raise and defend the American flag, a symbol of freedom and hope, but our first lady and president don’t understand that. That should worry every American!

This is what having a first family who doesn’t understand or doesn’t value America, the flag and the Constitution leads to

 

We are not far from the end folks.  We can't take much more political correctness.  This picture was taken at the AZ state capitol yesterday (don’t have the specific date).

The news will not show it and the Capitol Police and Homeland Security would not let Americans or any of the Veterans that were there do anything about it.  My husband and his friends were threatened with arrest and were told they would be booked under federal charges if they did anything. 

I am sending this to you so that you in turn can all start Emailing/Sharing it with everyone they know.  It is totally uncalled for and people need to see it.  This is not about politics and rhetoric, it is about a direct threat to our country, disrespect and hate. Those of you that don't live in Arizona will maybe get a chance to see the other side of what the news is telling you.  If this offends you greatly, then I have truly accomplished what I set out to do. I understand that sometimes we don't see eye to eye on certain things, but that is the right our forefathers fought for.  I am an American before anything else. 

For those of you who choose to dismiss this: If you believe that this is okay I believe you are a traitor to this country and everything it stands for.  I am not a racist and I am not a Nazi, this has nothing to do with race, it has to do with respect to the country that is continually taking you in and turning a blind eye to your agenda.  Homeland Security was designed to identify and defend America from Terrorist acts yet yesterday it let illegal and legal citizens of this country desecrate the Flag.  People were spitting on it, stomping on it and burning it with cigarettes.  One soldier who had just returned from Iraq tried to grab the flag and was thrown to the ground by the Capitol Police and Homeland Security.  It amazes me how many people will stand against the American People while prospering from our system and our government.  To those of you that will forward this to your friends or post it on your blogs I applaud you for the courage to stand up for the country in which you live.

A proud Arizonan… a proud American

Sad and Disgusting - Please Share

Election 2012 is not a choice between two men or two parties.  It is the choice between two ideologies and the survival of the America and the Constitution given us by our Founding Fathers. 

There is no room to remain uninvolved or neutral this time around.

Ask Marion~

Fight for Old Glory… Will Media Help Sell the New Obama Flag

Raising the Colors – Ten Years Later

Technorati Tags: ideology,American flag,freedom,symbols,American pride,Michelle Obama,first family,Election 2012,choices,Arizona

Man Detained by Police for Displaying Patriotic Bumper Sticker

The Department of Homeland Security Strikes Again
A Special Report by Archie Jones, American Vision Staff Writer

A customer service representative at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemary in Ball, Louisiana alerting him that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker from The Patriot Depot and displayed it on his car.

The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden.  The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it.  Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights.  By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake   was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights.  The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty.  Those threats included—and include—illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law. 

MAY SPECIAL: Pick Any 5 Bumper Stickers for ONLY $10!

The mission of The Patriot Depot is to rescue our country from the tyrannical clutches of the Left. One way we can do this is to send powerful conservative messages to our fellow citizens. These bumper stickers rally the conservative base and might convince fellow Americans duped by Liberals to rethink their beliefs. That's why we are offering this very special deal...Pick any of five bumper stickers for ONLY $10! — We have several more from which to choose!

Retail: $25.00 • ONLY $10
ORDER TODAY!

The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.”   Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration.  But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election. 

The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion.  Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition—and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states,

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.

Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough.  Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse.  They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!

Order your 2-pack of these stickers today for only $9.95 and get FREE SHIPPING!

OR...

Get a FREE 4" x 5" Mini "Don't Tread on Me" Bumper Sticker!

(We've added just $.97 to cover our costs for postage, the envelope, and credit card/PayPal transaction fees. There's no profit for us -- we just want to get the word out!)

The Destruction of Miss California… And Freedom of Speech

Checked on your freedom of speech lately? If not, consider the plight of 21-year-old Carrie Prejean, a student at San Diego Christian College who was selected first runner-up in the Miss USA pageant last month. During the question and answer part of the competition, Prejean was asked whether every state should legalize gay marriage. Smiling brightly, the young woman said: "I think that I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there."

Most polls show that the majority of Americans agree with Prejean, including the president of the United States. Yet since she made that statement as Miss California, the woman has been persecuted in the media.

MSNBC allowed a guest to call her vile names, and the far-left cast of characters on that cable network has delighted in mocking and demeaning Prejean almost nightly. The left-wing blogs have been especially vicious, and now, even her own pageant is turning against her: She's being investigated for possibly violating pageant rules by giving unapproved interviews. Of course, she gave those interviews trying to defend herself against media assaults.

This is a disgraceful exposition with wide implications for all of us. Here we have an American citizen answering a direct question respectfully and honestly and being punished for it. You don't get more un-American than that. Where is the American Civil Liberties Union on this? That great defender of free speech has been totally silent. Once again, the ACLU displays its biased hypocrisy like a giant float-balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

And where is the National Organization for Women? A young woman is being victimized by hate speech, actually being called a "b*tch" on a variety of television programs, and NOW has no comment? Again, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Finally, where is the homosexual community? Do they not respect freedom of speech? They don't want to be punished for their expression, right? It would be incredibly smart for a gay leader to pull a Voltaire and publicly state, "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it." So, who's going to be courageous and step up on this one?

Gay marriage has been defined by some of its supporters as a civil rights issue. Isn't freedom of speech a civil rights issue? Therefore, let's call this Miss California deal exactly what it is -- a gross violation of the spirit of America. If a 21-year-old pageant contestant can be persecuted for uttering an opinion based upon a sincere belief, then all of us are at risk, as well.

By Bill O'Reilly - Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?"

Related Articles:

Trump Says Miss California Can Keep Her Crown - Good Man... Good Job... Good For Freedom of Speech

The Elephant in the Room: Obama vs. United States

The president is contemptuous of American values. And one key nominee prefers the judgment of other countries and global elites.

By Rick Santorum

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions. His nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer constitutes further evidence of his disdain for American values.

This seemingly obscure position in Foggy Bottom's bureaucratic maze is one of the most important in any administration, shaping foreign policy in the courts and playing a critical role in international negotiations and treaties.

Let's set aside Koh's disputed comments about the possible application of Sharia law in American jurisprudence. The pick is alarming for more fundamental reasons having to do with national sovereignty and constitutional self-governance.

What is indisputable is that Koh calls himself a "transnationalist." He believes U.S. courts "must look beyond national interest to the mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime. ..." He thinks the courts have "a central role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law" and should "use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system."

Koh's "transnationalism" stands in contrast to good, old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty, in which our Constitution is the highest law of the land. In the traditional view, controversial matters, whatever they may be, are subject to democratic debate here. They should be resolved by the American people and their representatives, not "internationalized." What Holland or Belgium or Kenya or any other nation or coalition of nations thinks has no bearing on our exercise of executive, legislative, or judicial power.

Koh disagrees. He would decide such matters based on the views of other countries or transnational organizations - or, rather, those entities' elites.

Unsurprisingly, Koh is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, which could subject U.S. soldiers and officials to foreign criminal trials for their actions while fighting for our security. He has recommended that American lawyers work to "undermine" official American opposition to the court.

If only Koh's transnationalism ended there. Our Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? Koh believes it should be reinterpreted in light of foreign and international law to pay "decent respect to the opinions of humankind."

Old fogies like me believe we ought to pay more attention to the opinions of the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the people who have lived under it. If Americans want to end the death penalty, they can do so through their elected state representatives.

If foreign opinions trump those of Pennsylvanians on capital punishment, why not on other issues? Why not, indeed: Koh thinks "international comity" trumps American sovereignty. He believes that, since certain nations recognize a right to same-sex marriage, our courts should, too. He wrote that "the principles of human dignity and autonomy that are the essence of the modern right-protecting democracy demand that civil marriage be available to all couples and that the equality of all citizens triumph over historical attitudes."

What's beneath this legal jargon? Simply this: Even if marriage in Pennsylvania has always been understood as involving one man and one woman - even if Pennsylvanians, through referendum or constitutional amendment, decide it should remain so - none of that should count. What should count are the views of courts in other nations or international bodies.

"I'd rather have [Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who used the wrong reasoning in Roe to get the right results," Koh wrote of the landmark abortion case, "and let other people figure out the right reasoning."

Stunning and revealing: Koh tells us it doesn't matter if the right to abortion can be found in the Constitution. In fact, he concedes that Blackmun's reasoning was wrong. But it is up to others to get it right. How? By finding out what the United Nations, European Union, or particular European nations think.

Koh tops the list of Obama's potential Supreme Court nominees. Is this what Sen. John Kerry meant when he once suggested that American policy must pass a "global test"? Or what Barack Obama meant when he said last week that we have failed to "appreciate Europe's leading role in the world"? Or when he spoke of "change we can believe in"? And just who are "we"?

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

Related Articles:

• The Humbling of a Superpower