Blogs 4 Brownback

March 19, 2007

Anti-war Protestors Burn American Flag

Filed under: Democratic Idiocy,Terrorism,Weirdos and Hippies — Psycheout @ 5:30 pm

During this past weekend, crazed anti-war protesters desecrated an American flag, burning Old Glory while onlookers cheered. The far-left anti-war movement proves their disdain for America with every action they take. Can we question their patriotism yet? [Ed Note: See Update 3 below.]
This disturbing incident was documented in the ironically titled Power to the People in Human Events:

The group sat down in front of the police to decide what to do. […]

They took a series of votes, decided to leave the bridge to the police, and backed off about 20 yards. Then, in one final act of “resistance” before vacating the bridge, one of them burned an American flag, to the cheers of all the rest. This incident went unreported in all of the mainstream media, despite the presence on the bridge of numerous journalists and photographers.

Jack Langer closes his piece with this observation:

I couldn’t help but notice that the anarchists – the supposed hardcore fringe of the movement – waited until they were safely out of range of the veterans to burn a flag. Afraid of the vets, afraid of the cops, they don’t seem to be good for much other than occasionally smashing storefront windows when there’s no one else around.

Disgusting. I think it says a lot about these hooligans and their disrespect for our troops and our veterans. Cheering the burning of our nation’s most cherished symbol, that many have bled and died for, is outrageous and should not be tolerated.

Needless to say, our man Sam has expressed support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit such wanton desecration of the United States’ flag — a very sensible position. There are some things which simply aren’t right. Flag desecratation is certainly one of them.

Update: To end on a lighter note, next month marks a special anniversary:

On April 25th, 1976 the Chicago Cubs center fielder rescued the American flag moments before it was to be burned by two protesters who stormed the field in a game against the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Hat Tip: mbecker908 over at Red State. Thanks for the memories!

Update 2: Related: See the Gathering of Eagles ad over at Hot Air.
Hat Tip
: Move America Forward.

Update 3: Thanks to Wit or Wisdom, I have my answer. Can we question their patriotism? Tom Delay says yes.

Update 4: Wit or Wisdom finds more mistreatment of our flag by degenerate protestors. The title says it all: Makes Me Sick. The photo will turn your stomach.

Update 5: Far-left “comedy” website mocks the 30,000 strong Gathering of Eagles: here, here and here. Have they any shame? Sadly, no. Beware of the comment sections. The commentariot are a bunch of rude potty mouths.

Update 6: Blogs for Bush has some photos of the anti-war protest in Portland which includes burning a flag and burning a soldier in effigy. These people are pure scum. See All Enemies Foreign…and Domestic at your own risk.

Update 7: This ups the ante on the classiness scale. Have these kooks no shame?

Perhaps the most disturbing scene of the afternoon, however, involved the man who pulled down his pants in front of women and children and defecated on a burning U.S. flag. This disgusting act actually elicited cheers from some members of the crowd, but we hope that the emotion it produces in the community is one of revulsion…

If that’s still not enough, read about a few fringe actors.

Update 7.1: Far-left “comedy” website chortles in Wait, We Didn’t Order The Poo Poo Blather. Sadly despicable.

Update 7.2: Apparently the leftist commentariot at Sadly No doesn’t believe the liberal media.

Update 7.3: Lyssie’s found proof. Will Sadly No apologize? Photo here.

Update 8: Hot Air has video of that soldier burning in effigy to drum beats and fevered chanting. Naturally an American flag goes up in flames as well. Portland anti-war kooks have no shame.

Update 8.1: Misha is not amused.

— Psycheout

72 Comments »

  1. How much more of this treason are real Americans expected to endure?

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 19, 2007 @ 6:32 pm | Reply

  2. Save a flag, burn a protester!

    This cowards really get my blood boiling. “Afraid of the vets, afraid of the cops…” That’s about right.

    How about a compromise? They can burn the flag, but only if they wrap themselves and announce it to their local VFW chapter first. Deal?

    Comment by JOE — March 19, 2007 @ 6:58 pm | Reply

  3. A sickening thing these people are. This does not fall under the category of free speech, as some would have us to believe. This falls under the category of: “If you hate it that much, then get out.”

    Comment by thelonedrifter — March 19, 2007 @ 8:40 pm | Reply

  4. […] because of it. These I can handle. These are not the ones whose patriotism I question. But those who burn the flag and such things, they are the traitors. There was a time in this country that government secrets […]

    Pingback by Tom Delay Questions the Patriotism of Protestors « Wit or Wisdom — March 19, 2007 @ 9:47 pm | Reply

  5. Yes, let’s all support the troops by shredding the Constitution!

    Comment by overthinker — March 19, 2007 @ 10:07 pm | Reply

  6. Better yet, let’s support the troops by…uh, supporting the troops. I know that’s a difficult concept. But give it some consideration.

    Now, be careful here, overthinker. Who’s exactly shredding what here and how?

    Comment by Psycheout — March 19, 2007 @ 10:17 pm | Reply

  7. overthinker, I think you must be doing some underthinking here. You can’t give any hard evidence that anybody supporting or perpetrating the war is shredding the constitution.

    But traitors get severe punishment.

    Comment by thelonedrifter — March 19, 2007 @ 10:26 pm | Reply

  8. I’m glad there were a lot of pro-troop people counter-protesting. These protesting and flag-burning scum should be deported. I can’t think of much else to say. I’m too angry.

    Comment by Red State Guy — March 19, 2007 @ 10:28 pm | Reply

  9. overthinker, sarcasm much appreciated.

    What country do the rest of you think you are defending? Calling for the death and deportation of the vast majority of this country (who are against the war) goes against everything America stands for.

    I’m calling you out. You have no defense.

    As for myself, I want to support the troops by bringing them home. Keeping them there so Bush and his supporters can save face is disgusting. Calling that supporting the troops is even worse.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 19, 2007 @ 10:43 pm | Reply

  10. […] Check out the comments thread here for a few examples of eliminationist rhetoric aimed at […]

    Pingback by Traitor-Speak: Whoa There, Conservaboy! « Fitness for the Occasion — March 19, 2007 @ 10:48 pm | Reply

  11. Hmmm, so the vast majority of the country is burning flags at anti-war anti-troop protests? I don’t think so, fitness. But thanks for trying. And thanks for stopping by.

    Also, please don’t burn any American flags at your next war protest. It’s a very tacky thing to do.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 19, 2007 @ 10:58 pm | Reply

  12. The country is against the war. Personally, I agree on the flag burning. Tacky. To say the least.

    Don’t you think the same applies to calling for the death/deportation of the protesters?

    What irks me are comments like these:
    “But traitors get severe punishment.”
    “They can burn the flag, but only if they wrap themselves and announce it to their local VFW chapter first. Deal?”

    Thanks for the hospitality sir.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 19, 2007 @ 11:19 pm | Reply

  13. I see your point here, and much of it I agree with, however, the true test of the Bill of Rights, and Free Speech, not this ridiculous Bong 4 Jesus claptrap, is the willingness to protech speech which is against the guarantor of those civil rights.

    While these scenes are disturbing, and in many ways hateful, this is the essence of what the Bill of Rights stood for with the framing of the First Amendment.

    Free Speech to those ideas that we love is not laudable, but Free Speech towards those ideas we despise is the basis of our Republic.

    So, while I disagree with the message and the method, and I hate what I see, part of me has to say, God Bless America. This is democracy at work.

    Hopefully, the incursions towards limiting Free Speech will be monitored by the Congress and the Judiciary.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — March 19, 2007 @ 11:25 pm | Reply

  14. Sure, fitness. Hospitality is my middle name. But just a friendly bit of advice which you can obviously ignore if you like: I wouldn’t throw around the label “eliminationist rhetoric” willy-nilly. Otherwise you’re going to wear it out with the kinds of wild things anonymous commenters say on the Internet (or even Usenet, yikes).

    I wouldn’t go crying wolf or nobody’s going to take you seriously when a real nutball lets loose.

    As far as the “VFW” remark, I can only assume it was meant as a conditional. Burn the flag if you agree to…[something unpleasant]. Given the cowardly nature of the, well, jerks in the story I referenced, they wouldn’t dare meet JOE’s condition: the part after the “if.” Checkmate, punks.

    And traitors do get severe punishment. They are executed, are they not? So it’s an uncomfortable fact, I suppose. Deal with it!

    Comment by Psycheout — March 19, 2007 @ 11:30 pm | Reply

  15. A very good point avoiceofreason. And I am not saying we should censor these comments, nor make them against the law.
    It is not a point of limitation, but rather a point of criticism.

    Comments like these wrap themselves in the same flag they disgrace.

    You are not speaking as a patriot when you call for the deaths of your countrymen over political speech.
    But you are absolutely free to speak in such a manner.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 19, 2007 @ 11:32 pm | Reply

  16. It is an uncomfortable fact? It is why I use the words “eliminationist rhetoric” with weight.
    1. Liberals are traitors
    2. “traitors do get severe punishment. They are executed, are they not? So it’s an uncomfortable fact, I suppose. Deal with it!”
    3. Liberals are to be executed.

    How is this not eliminationist?

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 19, 2007 @ 11:38 pm | Reply

  17. Comments like these wrap themselves in the same flag they disgrace.

    So you do have a problem with disgracing the flag. That’s good. Anti-war protesters should not burn flags. It is not speech. Don’t yell “fire” in a theater and don’t burn an American flag at a protest. Seems a sensible restriction to me.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 19, 2007 @ 11:39 pm | Reply

  18. Well of course. Really, it is a problem with disgracing what the flag represents.

    I agree. Anti-war protesters should not burn flags. It’s idiotic. Burning an effigy of a US soldier is sickening.

    However. It is speech. It is protected speech. Ditto for the calls for “severe punishment”. It is very appropriate to call it out as you see it: An ineffective and needlessly offensive act that goes against your ideals and politics. It is worlds apart from yelling “fire” in a theater.
    Burning a flag doesn’t lead to death. Yelling fire in a theater can.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 19, 2007 @ 11:46 pm | Reply

  19. Goodness gracious, nice 1,2,3, paranoid person. I don’t think you need to worry about it so much. Just don’t commit treason and don’t get convicted of it. I probably should have specified “treason,” since “traitor” is a word used loosely these days, on all sides.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 19, 2007 @ 11:49 pm | Reply

  20. Heh. There’s nothing paranoid about a straight-forward proof. I’m not worrying at all for my own safety here, simply pointing out the validity of my argument. Liberals are accused of being traitors for their anti-war position. Traitors are to be executed. Therefore people are calling for Liberals to be executed.

    As for the soundness of the argument, the very first comment calls the protest an act of treason. A traitor is “One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.” – (Free Dictionary). The first premise is met with the very first comment. If traitor is used loosely, it should not be.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 20, 2007 @ 12:51 am | Reply

  21. Congratulations, I got sucked in by your red herring, ffto. You got me to discuss other people’s comments rather than sticking to the subject of my original post. Well played.

    Boy do I feel silly.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 20, 2007 @ 1:43 am | Reply

  22. So you do have a problem with disgracing the flag. That’s good. Anti-war protesters should not burn flags. It is not speech. Don’t yell “fire” in a theater and don’t burn an American flag at a protest. Seems a sensible restriction to me.”

    Seems to me that someone who cries “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre is like the boy who cried “Wolf!” Do it once too often, and the firemen may not show up. Same with these flag-burning protesters. If they end up getting torched, they brought it on themselves to a certain degree.

    “However. It is speech. It is protected speech.”

    It’s incitement, and it’s treason. I don’t care what Brennan and a couple of other Commie Supreme Court Justices decided about it. The American people know it for what it is. They have a much better understanding of what America’s about than some activist court does.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 20, 2007 @ 3:25 am | Reply

  23. Hook, line and sinker, Psycheout. Nice response, Sisyphus. As kookbrain Kos says, “screw them.”

    Comment by Red State Guy — March 20, 2007 @ 6:54 pm | Reply

  24. I’ll bet ‘fitness’ is a flabby lib who heats his home with burning flags. No apologies.

    Comment by JOE — March 20, 2007 @ 7:32 pm | Reply

  25. I don’t normally advocate sendiing American citizens to Gitmo, but here I might. This is ridiculous.

    Comment by Jeff Davis — March 20, 2007 @ 8:57 pm | Reply

  26. I nominate flabby as concern troll of the month! What a clueless tool!

    Comment by Anti-Media — March 20, 2007 @ 9:01 pm | Reply

  27. I completely support anybody’s right to protest against what they feel is wrong. It’s one of the great benefits of this country that we have the right to speak up for what we feel is right. However, by burning a flag, protesters are just defeating themselves, and are insulting so many veterans who consider that flag to be the symbol of everything they fought for. Flag-burning is not just wrong, it’s pointless, as it serves no other purpose than to make the flag-burners look like a bunch of ungrateful idiots, regardless of the possible validity of their message.

    Comment by lyssie — March 21, 2007 @ 8:00 am | Reply

  28. That pic really makes me MAD. Stupid old jerk.

    Comment by JOE — March 21, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  29. Lyssie, that is a very sharp point.

    I’m not quite sure whether responding to some of the…uh… flabbier comments would do any good at all. It’s fascinating logic.
    Blogger states calling dissenters treasonous is wrong
    Blogger is cleary a fatty fat fatty head!

    Hmmm.

    Psycheout, it was a very entertaining exchange! I look forward to more bouts.

    Sisyphus, I don’t see the substance of your argument, beyond the weak “commie” dig at the judges. Have you got anything else?

    Let me give you a hypothetical. The US government is taken over by the “Yay-Castro-Party (YCP)”. The YCP bans personal guns,
    personal property, and moves to make all speech monitored by the government. To give in is see every right of self-determination
    collapse utterly. With no weapons, and no words, how can we resist? In a last ditch effort, citizens everywhere march on DC.
    At this massive protest someone burns a flag, and says “This is our country! This is our country burning in front of you! If this fire makes your blood boil, you are still American! There is still an America as long as you rage against what we have become! Stand with me and demand our freedom back!”

    In such a situation, I’d think flag burning was both appropriate and effective. Then again, whether a right is exercised in an appropriate and effective manner by some has no bearing on whether or not it should be a right for all. They’d ban all sorts of things if that was the case.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 21, 2007 @ 11:12 pm | Reply

  30. Nice try ffto, but burning the flag is still the passtime of anarchist wackjob leftists. Burning the symbol of our nation is never “appropriate and effective.”

    Too bad you can’t get this through your head, but then you’re a kook who fantasizes about Che or Castro or Chavez taking over our country, so we understand this.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 21, 2007 @ 11:21 pm | Reply

  31. If I think it is not appropriate or effective to burn the flag normally, and I give you a situation where it becomes so because of a political force we must oppose, how on earth could you think I “fantasize” about that force taking over?

    To say destroying a symbol is never appropriate and effective (or is it just our American symbol that is beyond reproach?) could be an interesting argument if made with an attempt at effort. For example, burning a symbol is itself destructive, and destructive political acts have never yielded productive political results. (Although that argument would be cleanly defeated with a little history).

    I was hoping for more of a “nice try” on your part. Your argument consists of dangling premises that go nowhere, and ad hominem attacks.

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 21, 2007 @ 11:57 pm | Reply

  32. Well, you can’t say I didn’t give it a half-hearted attempt. I was trying to go easy on you. It’s an uphill battle to defend something as scummy and disgusting as burning Old Glory to make a statement. The only statement that is made is, “Hey, look at me! I’m a jerk!”

    Comment by Psycheout — March 22, 2007 @ 12:42 am | Reply

  33. I think very few of us liberals are for burning the flag, although we are for the right to burn the flag if people want to as political speech.

    Whether or not you or I like it isn’t the issue – the whole point of free speech is that you and I don’t have to like it, and protecting political speech is important.

    It isn’t treason and it isn’t protected because of ‘activist’ judges – it is protected because protecting free speech isn’t just protecting speech you agree with.

    The tyranny of the majority is something to avoid, not encourage.

    Burning a flag may not be effective and it may be offensive to some people but it doesn’t bring physical harm to anyone.

    You can condemn it all you want and I’ll condemn it with you, but it isn’t and shouldn’t be illegal.

    I’m not a White Pride member but if White Pride groups want to spread racism I’m all for them having the right, although I disagree with the message.

    It offends me when people make excuses for the Walter Reed scandal but I don’t call them traitors or ask that their excuse-making be made illegal.

    If you think free speech only applies to what doesn’t offend you then you really have no idea what free speech is or why it is important to protect.

    What’s the point of protecting only speech the majority of us agree with?

    Comment by Random Observer — March 22, 2007 @ 3:19 am | Reply

  34. Update 5: Far-left “comedy” website mocks the 30,000 strong Gathering of Eagles: here, here and here. Have they any shame? Sadly, no.

    Actually they’re mocking pundits who invented this number of attendees (exceeding all other combined crowd estimates by 5-10 thousand) and those who repeat it without a sliver of rationale. So add yourself to the list.

    The attendees aren’t being mocked and even if they were you would hear little objection. After all, the vast majority of them are a bit preoccupied with being non-existant.

    Makes for a distinct lack of vocal outrage same as it does for a lack of attendees signatures on your official roll call.

    Comment by Kilo — March 22, 2007 @ 3:32 am | Reply

  35. Seems to me that someone who cries “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre is like the boy who cried “Wolf!” Do it once too often, and the firemen may not show up. Same with these flag-burning protesters.

    Actually it wouldn’t appear to have much in common with flag-burning protesters unless there is some symbolism I’m missing here.

    The stronger example of “crying wolf” would appear to be the rally orgainsers who’s attendence was swelled by people told that they had to turn up to protect landmarks from damage.

    Not fire damage mind you, or from wolf attack, but the analogy works just as well.

    Comment by Kilo — March 22, 2007 @ 3:46 am | Reply

  36. I agree that we have to protect even that speech which offends us, and yes, flag-burning does offend me and many others. I still maintain, however, that in most cases, it winds up hurting the protesters more than that which they are protesting. By burning the flag, they alienate a large segment of our society. As well, the burning of the flag becomes the focal point of their activities, and often winds up obscuring what it is that they are actually trying to say. When one engages in extremist behavior, it becomes all too easy for everybody else to dismiss that person as a nutjob. And even if said person has a valid point, they’ve immediately lost much of their credibility.

    Comment by lyssie — March 22, 2007 @ 8:52 am | Reply

  37. yes. some idiots burned a flag. does that somehow represent the views of everyone who thinks this insane, unnecessary and illegal war should end? NO.

    plus, you need to point your fake outrage somewhere else.

    perhaps you could get a little upset over the fact that bush sends our soldiers to war without the proper and necessary equipment, then screws them when they get back home with poor medical care and an almost non-existent support structure?

    I doubt it. That would take pulling your head out of your [posterior] and actually using it to think.

    Still upset about Jane Fonda? She was relevant 40 years ago, so it would make sense if you were.

    Comment by prozacula — March 22, 2007 @ 9:18 am | Reply

  38. Prozacula, I just wanted to let you know that we edit posts for profanity here. This is a family-oriented site, and obscenities will not be tolerated. Thank you for posting.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 22, 2007 @ 10:34 am | Reply

  39. Given that the Parks Service does not estimate crowd sizes (and has apparently disavowed any estimates attributed to them by Gathering of Eagles organizers), where does the 30,000 figure come from, and how has it been verified?

    Comment by Robert — March 22, 2007 @ 11:07 am | Reply

  40. I agree, prozacula, that Hanoi Jane is irrelevant. I just wish someone would explain this to her.

    Robert, you might want to take a look here. Glad to help.

    I think very few of us liberals are for burning the flag

    Well at least you admit it. Those of you who do should really knock it off.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 22, 2007 @ 11:22 am | Reply

  41. the word used in the bible to describe the donkey jesus rode is considered profanity around here?

    well dagnabbit, old codgers.

    Comment by prozacula — March 22, 2007 @ 12:32 pm | Reply

  42. I was referring to Psycheout’s donkey. Pull your head out of your donkey, psycho!

    Comment by prozacula — March 22, 2007 @ 12:33 pm | Reply

  43. “the word used in the bible to describe the donkey jesus rode is considered profanity around here?”

    That’s not how you used it, prozacula. You understand the difference.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 22, 2007 @ 12:43 pm | Reply

  44. The only reference I found was a link to the GoE website. Also, a bit of digging led to
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/wheeler032207.htm

    an article by a SUPPORTER of the GoE event, who states he attended. He estimates attendance at just over 5,000.

    Comment by Robert — March 22, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  45. Well, Robert. 30,000 is “over” 5,000. That is a fact. You have to be careful when you read slanted media stories. I’m not saying it’s a distortion, but still one has to be wary.

    Also, seeing that Washington D.C. is not in Canada, I’m not sure how accurate an article from the Canada Free Press could really be. I’m a little pressed for time right now, so I’ll maybe check the article out later. And thanks for the tip.

    Regardless of what the turnout actually was (5-30k) the big story is that thousands of patriotic Americans turned out to protect the veteran memorials from the anti-war kooks and showed that America is behind the troops. G-d bless them all!

    Comment by Psycheout — March 22, 2007 @ 3:17 pm | Reply

  46. Makes for a distinct lack of vocal outrage same as it does for a lack of attendees signatures on your official roll call.

    Kilo, most people don’t like to give out their personal information on the internet. Do you respond to every offer of Nigerian money or requests to update your bank or paypal account info you get in your email box?

    Comment by Psycheout — March 22, 2007 @ 3:42 pm | Reply

  47. Also, Psycheout, I’ve been searching and have yet to find any statements by any of the anti-war groups (or anyone else, other than GoE and people quoting them) indicating that that the Vietnam Memorial was going to be a target of any kind.

    If there is any documentation (from any disinterested party) for this claim, I’d be most interested in seeing it.

    Comment by Robert — March 22, 2007 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  48. I’m sorry Robert. I’ll have to admit that my areas of focus do not normally include the anti-war movement. I’m more focussed on getting Sam Brownback the GOP nomination.

    This post was a more general interest current events one. I don’t have time to research this for you but would be interested if something turns up.

    Considering the kind of vandalism and anti-American displays that went on at the anti-war rally in Portland, the possibility of vandalism in D.C. was very real.

    See the Blogs for Bush link in Update 6 above to see photos of the kind of obscenity what went on in Portland.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 22, 2007 @ 5:28 pm | Reply

  49. There were not 30,000 protesters. The Malkin blog just uses a fake estimate from the Parks Service which has been totally debunked. There is NO reason to believe there were even close to 30,000. Everyone who was saying that said it was because the Parks Service gave that estimate, which is totally false.

    Malkin and the GOE website are just repeating the same fabricated piece of info. Nobody can find any indication whatsoever that there were 30k protesters there.

    The troubling part here is that the GOE website and Malkin are obviously lying without compunction. They simply made up a figure and made up a fake source for the figure.

    Comment by Random Observer — March 22, 2007 @ 5:49 pm | Reply

  50. “There is NO reason to believe there were even close to 30,000. Everyone who was saying that said it was because the Parks Service gave that estimate, which is totally false.”

    A good rule of thumb is that for every active protestor, there are at least 10 other people who agree with him but can’t (or won’t) do so publicly that day.

    So, even if there were only 25,000 protestors, that means there are at least 250,000 people who agree with what happened. That’s cause for alarm, and pretty scary. Especially if that’s only in that region. If the figure holds true nationwide, we’re looking at 5 or 6 million people who actively favor the defacement of national monuments and symbols. That constitutes a grave threat to our national security.

    We need to find out who these people are before we have another flag burning, another Liberty Bell incident, or something even worse- defacement of Arlington National Cemetary, for example.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 22, 2007 @ 5:57 pm | Reply

  51. “A good rule of thumb is that for every active protestor, there are at least 10 other people who agree with him but can’t (or won’t) do so publicly that day.”

    How is that a good rule of thumb? It is interesting (and I’m thinking of the million strong marches/protests), but I just don’t see a way to prove that point one way or the other. So why suggest only 10? Think big! For every active protester, there are at least 500 inactive protesters!

    I somehow doubt there is an army of monument defacing punks just waiting to descend upon our precious national symbols. What a specious argument, and all to “find out who these people are”?

    Then what?

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — March 23, 2007 @ 12:01 am | Reply

  52. “I somehow doubt there is an army of monument defacing punks just waiting to descend upon our precious national symbols. What a specious argument, and all to “find out who these people are”?”

    Of course you do, that’s why you’re a liberal. If “naive” is the answer, “liberal” is the question.

    “Then what?”

    Then, we deal with them by any means necessary. Of course YOU’d probably rather we armed them with spray paint cans and cigarette lighters, but some of us still value this nation’s trappings and symbols. To me, letting someone burn our flag is like letting someone yank your mother’s dress off on the street. If that’s not an incitement to act in the protection of another, I don’t know what is.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 23, 2007 @ 4:37 am | Reply

  53. Kilo, most people don’t like to give out their personal information on the internet. Do you respond to every offer of Nigerian money… Comment by Psycheout — March 22, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

    Well no Psycheout. So that would be a reasonable explanation for why people wouldn’t give personal details on a petition. Something nobody has questioned.

    What has been questioned is that there is nothing to suggest 30,000 GoE attendees turned up other than the GoE’s own unsourced claim. Something which is contradicted by all non-GoE crowd estimates and photographs of the event taken by all sides. This doesn’t involve privacy and personal information.

    So a better question would be do you display the same tendencies as these 30,000 attendees Psycheout ?

    That is, drive hundreds or thousands of miles specifically to be present at a demonstration of numbers for a cause, then spend the whole day (somehow) frantically dodging anyone taking a photo so that this display of numbers couldn’t be recorded by anyone.

    Done that before ? Know anyone who has ? Find 30000 people doing this in unison plausible ? No.

    Frankly one can only assume that if you are gullible enough to actually believe this 30,000 claim then you are probably far more familiar with Nigerian banking scams than the rest of us.

    Comment by Kilo — March 24, 2007 @ 3:44 am | Reply

  54. “That is, drive hundreds or thousands of miles specifically to be present at a demonstration of numbers for a cause, then spend the whole day (somehow) frantically dodging anyone taking a photo so that this display of numbers couldn’t be recorded by anyone.”

    Even if those photos were taken, the moonbat media wouldn’t publish them. It’s in their vested interest to keep the size of this rally underreported. They know only too well how real Americans feel about this sort of rampant leftism.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 24, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  55. Again, there HAVE been photos taken, many of which have been posted at websites by groups supportive of GoE’s goals.

    None of these photos supports the 30K claim.

    No evidence (other than GoE’s unsubstantiated claim) of NPS’s
    estimate of 30K has been presented.

    No evidence (other than GoE’s unsubstantiated claim) of the
    anti-war protesters targeting or planning to target the Vietnam
    War Memorial, or any other memorial, for nefarious purposes
    has been presented.

    I _have_ located (as indicated above) an online article by a self-professed supporter of the event, who attended and reports on the crowd size.

    Comment by Robert — March 24, 2007 @ 6:41 pm | Reply

  56. God Bless George W. Bush, And America!!
    This summer I plan to walk from the west coast to the east coast in support of our troops, I will carry OUR flag with me, I hope That I am supported and not spit on, I hope that nobody tries to burn my flag, they will have to kill me.

    Comment by A REAL AMERICAN — March 24, 2007 @ 9:26 pm | Reply

  57. I’m right there with ya, brother! That’s what America is all about. God bless those troops.

    Comment by JOE — March 24, 2007 @ 10:53 pm | Reply

  58. What do you want Robby? 30,000 pictures of one pro-troop counter-protester each? The anti-war kookbats are garbage. Its time to take out the trash. I trust GOE over the moonbat media any day.

    Comment by JOE — March 24, 2007 @ 11:08 pm | Reply

  59. Those who support the terrorists over our soldiers while calling themselves Americans are traitors.

    Those who place thier political fortunes on America’s defeat in the GWOT (including Iraq) are traitors.

    Those who work tirelessly to see America lose this war are traitors.

    Traitors need to be dealt with.

    Most liberals are showing themselves to be the enemy within as they seek to see the terrorists win this war, and they are working to see America lose, just as they did during Vietnam.

    Comment by jdawg — March 25, 2007 @ 11:21 pm | Reply

  60. Well said, jdawg.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 26, 2007 @ 12:03 am | Reply

  61. “Even if those photos were taken, the moonbat media wouldn’t publish them.”
    Comment by Sisyphus — March 24, 2007 @ 10:47 am

    Well okay. That doesn’t change the fact though that people attending and supporting the GoE rally did take photos, have published them and these photos show no such numbers.

    Comment by Kilo — March 28, 2007 @ 6:51 am | Reply

  62. “No evidence (other than GoE’s unsubstantiated claim) of the
    anti-war protesters targeting or planning to target the Vietnam
    War Memorial, or any other memorial, for nefarious purposes has been presented.”
    Comment by Robert — March 24, 2007 @ 6:41 pm

    Well that’s not technically true.
    There was that lone post at indymedia that said “bring some paint” which was, by a pure stroke of luck, publicised on FreeRepublic within the hour.

    Comment by Kilo — March 28, 2007 @ 6:59 am | Reply

  63. “Well okay. That doesn’t change the fact though that people attending and supporting the GoE rally did take photos, have published them and these photos show no such numbers.”

    Those were the photos they wanted you to see. Wake up, moonbat!

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 28, 2007 @ 9:08 am | Reply

  64. […] the Flag Filed under: Defending America, Terrorism — Psycheout @ 6:42 pm Here we go again. From the New York Post: Yale Guys Nabbed in Flag Burn. Three Yale University students, including […]

    Pingback by Yale Moonbats Torch the Flag « Blogs 4 Brownback — April 5, 2007 @ 6:42 pm | Reply

  65. I came across this site when I googled “burn a flag for jesus.”

    I myself am a Christian who tries to love and follow my Lord Jesus Christ. In that sense, we all probably have a lot in common.

    So I hope we can all agree that the American flag is only a symbol – and a paltry one compared to the cross. And as a Christian, we are not to worship idols, even red white & blue ones. What kind of Christian would get bent out of shape because someone burns a flag.

    I would think followers of Christ, the prince of peace, and his radical teaching in the Sermon on the Mount WOULD get bent out of shape over a murderous and unjustifiable war, over death for greed and a lack of love.

    So – Christians – Love the Lord. Stop this War. Screw the flag. Oppose all idolatry.

    RME
    Chicago

    Comment by Christian Anarchist? — April 10, 2007 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

  66. Wow, this thread has grown! Christian Anarchist, I have never thought of the flag as something worshiped as an idol.
    Certainly food for thought!

    Comment by fitnessfortheoccasion — April 10, 2007 @ 4:58 pm | Reply

  67. “Traitors need to be dealt with.”

    Comment by jdawg — March 25, 2007 @ 11:21 pm

    oooOOOoooh, a ‘final solution’ for the liberal problem…JA!

    Comment by Sean — May 21, 2007 @ 9:44 am | Reply

  68. […] at B4B have documented some of the recent examples of flag burning, including one fellow who took a crap on a burning American […]

    Pingback by Save a Flag: Burn a School « Blogs 4 Brownback — November 3, 2007 @ 4:12 pm | Reply

  69. I’m gonna go burn a Confederate flag, just for kicks.

    Comment by Linus — November 3, 2007 @ 4:32 pm | Reply

  70. “On April 25th, 1976 the Chicago Cubs center fielder rescued the American flag moments before it was to be burned by two protesters who stormed the field in a game against the Los Angeles Dodgers.”

    The moonbat media conspires with the UN, the mayor of Chicago, the other baseball franchise owners (except those in Texas), and Barack Obama to keep the pious Chicago Cubs down. One day, the Cubs will finally win the World (that is, the part that matters) Series. I think their victory would send an excellent message to America that it’s cool to be pious, and would stop Helioleftist defecation permanately.

    Comment by bobcorker — April 30, 2008 @ 4:53 pm | Reply

  71. what would happen if someone were 2 burn an american flag or just watch it burn 2 ashes in front of them…what the fuck will happen 2 them, answer that fucking question or tell me why does the american government lie about war contributions that they took part in then try 2 cover it up???

    im just saying

    Comment by kyru — October 13, 2009 @ 10:36 am | Reply

  72. Wow, this post is fastidious, my sister is analyzing such things, therefore I am going to tell her.

    Comment by call of duty black ops 2 in 3d — June 20, 2014 @ 4:39 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: