I've been watching a thread unwind over at Democratic Underground concerning Hillary Clinton's support for a federal law prohibiting desecration of the American flag in some forms. To be precise, THIS is what the bill Clinton supports would prohibit:
* Destroying a flag with the intent of causing violence;
* Threatening someone by burning a flag;
* Damaging a flag that is federally owned or that belongs to someone else on federal land.
I see no problem with this. But the leftwing wackjobs over at Democrat Underground do. And boy do they have a Hillary hatefest going on! A couple of examples:"this fascist move is really beyond the pale - of all the things that she wants to appear "moderate" - is to criminalize flag burning."This is the new definition of 'craven.' Hillary is over as far as I am concerned.
This bill would put burning the flag in the same realm as burning a cross. Don't do it to incite violence. Don't do it to threaten someone. Don't do it if it is Federally owned or privately owned on Federal property. The right to burn a flag should not transcend someone's safety or property rights. To read how the far left is reacting to this makes one wonder if they truly understand the issue.
It isn't as though Clinton is endorsing a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning. In fact, back in July of this year, Mrs. Clinton said, "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."
But what of a couple of the left's darlings? What is their take on the issue? Well, Dennis Kucinich
once supported a Constitutional Amendment outlawing flag burning. In fact, he flipped flopped, voting for it
before he voted against it.
How did the Democratic Underground's thread starter take THAT news?it's hard to believe that he would have done that. And if he did, it's not widely known.
Even after being shown proof, Mr. More Liberal Than Thou didn't really want to believe it.Wes Clark
, who I am a big supporter of but has become somewhat of a hero on the far left, supports a Constitutional Amendment outlawing flag burning.
When that was pointed out in the thread, it was largely ignored.
But the most ironic point made there was that Howard Dean
(who I support as the DNC chair) indirectly supported a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning! Although in 2002 Dean said, "I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment," he supported a VT state legislature decision
voicing support for protecting the flag and suggesting Congress pass a constitutional amendment as an option in providing such protection.
Specifically, the resolution urged Congress to "take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag."
Further, according to liberal writer Joe Conason
, "Around that time, Dean rather pompously declared that politicians should declare their positions on the flag issue before voters went to the polls in 2002. That requirement didn't apply to Dean himself, as he "coyly" told the Rutland Herald, because he wasn't on the ballot that year."
That, too, was pretty much ignored. But I'm sure you're not surprised.Enter Jerry Springer
I've been contemplating this entry to my blog for several days now but I've procrastinated, thinking something else migdevelopope to add a little more substance to it. Thhappenedned today while I was listening to the Jerry Springer show.
Springer brought up Clinton's flag burning position, packaged it with her position on the Iraq war, and asked if Hillary was moving to the right or pandering to the rightwing. I decided to call in and not only mention the positions of Kucinich, Clark, and Dean on the flag issue, but also to remind Springer that Clinton's position on the Iraq war now is in keeping with that of the majority of Americans, i.e., that U.S. troops should be withdrawn only when certain goals are met.
So, I get Springer's call screener on the phone. I tell her about Kucinich, Clark, and Dean. She tells me that Jerry wants to concentrate on the Iraq issue and asked me if I thought Hillary was taking the stance she was because she is a woman and needs to appear "macho." I said, "No, she's taking the position because the majority of Americans feel that."
Click! She hung up on me.
I called back. Click! She hung up before I could say anything.
I waited a few minutes, called back, and said, "Before you hang up, I want you to know I am a Democrat, an officer in my county party, and I hold a vote in my state party. It is obvious you don't want a dissenting opinion on the air, especially from Democrats!"
She said, "you were off topic!" Click! She hung up again.
So there you have it. What more can I say about this topic?