People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

A Veteran And The Flag

I received, in response to a post this morning regarding flag burning and Hillary Clinton's attempt to suck up to conservatives, the following response from a reader:


I'm NOT in favor of a flag burning ammendment. I served 22 years active service. I've protected that flag in every time zone. I've been in Greece and Spain during their elections and seen it burned overseas. I have the flag that draped my father's casket. I well up with tears while standing for the national anthem at a sporting event. I cover my heart with my hand now that I'm not in uniform. I stop when I see a tattered flag flying and tell the owners that it needs replaced. I remember all those who died to keep that flag flying.

I don't oppose a flag burning ammendment for anything so noble as the right of free speech. I just think that constitutional ammendments should be very few and far between. On that note, I don't think that a state law banning the burning is unconstitutional. I also don't want to see a prayer in school amendment either. Jesus told us to pray in secret. I can pray anywhere I want and no one is the wiser.
This from a man who was prepared to pay the ultimate price to defend us and that tatterered flag of ours.

You gotta love these guys.

You Missed The Point

In response to a post this morning regarding President Bush and his foolhardy attempt at taking Christ out of Christmas, I received the following email;
Jerry, the Christmas card the president sent out included a quotation from the Book of Psalms, which is not in the New Testament. Your citing this passage is just more evidence that the Bush White House is trying to placate the left.

Well. I've said on occasion that our president has done far too much to mollify his enemies. But do you really want me to believe his lifting a passage from Psalms rather than putting Merry Christmas on his Christmas card is a bald-face attempt to avoid the sticky subject of Jesus' birth? For all they know about the subject, the Godless left probably thinks Psalms is a car made in Sweden.

You too need to ease up a bit.

You Need To Learn To Pick Your Fights

We have a new controversy. Laura Bush sent out a Christmas card that included no reference to the word Christmas. And certain Christians are upset about it.

Bush's greeting criticized
President's card for the holiday omits reference to Christmas; some conservatives are angry.
Alan Cooperman, Washington Post

WASHINGTON-- What's missing from the White House Christmas card? Christmas.

President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy "holiday season."

Some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A.
Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

"It bothers me that the White House card leaves off any reference to Jesus, while we've got Ramadan celebrations in the White House," said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. (link)
So. George Bush, a man who has been widely criticized for allowing his fundamentalist religious beliefs to influence his decision-making, a man who was savaged for naming Jesus as his favorite philosopher, a man who has been accused of seeing himself as a "Messiah figure" (link), has caved in to the anti-God left.


If you look closely at the infamous card, you'll find that it indeed does not wish anyone a Merry Christmas. But it does provide the following words;

Psalm 28:7
Sounds blatantly politically correct to me. Look. You people need to get a grip. There are plenty of instances, arising each day, in which Christianity comes under assault from the angry left. But this ain't one of 'em. Rejoice. Be merry. And have a Happy Holiday.
Click on image to enlarge.
Photo courtesy of the Republican National Committee.

On Flag Burning

I've always been conflicted when it comes to the subject of burning the American flag. It is a treasured symbol and should be protected from desecration, but I'm of the belief that the Republic will survive even if left-wing beanbrains set a match to Old Glory (I use as support for that argument the fact that thousands of morons have torched the Red-White-And-Blue and we as a nation have endured it reasonably well).

I also understand, on the other hand, that some people are deeply wounded - if not enraged - by the political act that attends to it. There are many in this country who treasure the flag and demand that it be protected as the living symbol of our freedom.

So I'm okay, I guess, with laws backing criminalization of flag-burning. But does it rise to the level of amending the Constitution? I don't know.

All that having been said, I have trouble understanding the rationale of those who argue that we would be doing damage to the Constitution (actually an amendment thereto) if we passed another amendment. The Roanoke Times makes the argument - sorta:
Briefly put...
The Roanoke Times

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has joined an effort to criminalize flag-burning by statute as an alternative to the proposed constitutional amendment to achieve that ill-advised end.

Clinton appears to be groping for a way to "compromise" the protected nature of political expression for political gain.

With an eye set firmly on a 2008 presidential bid, Clinton would better demonstrate traits of a worthy stateswoman by reversing her rank sell-out of the First Amendment. (link)
Hmm. So we can't amend the Constitution because we would create a conflict with an amendment to the Constitution? Does that mean we did irreparable damage to the USA when we passed Amendment XXI?

And the sell-out of the First Amendment, make no mistake, began when it was distorted beyond all recognition by the likes of the Roanoke Times editorialists who find in the words "abridging the freedom of speech" to mean a person is protected when he sets fire to a cloth flag.

Not to mention the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" meaning the United States government shall prohibit all free exercise of religion on public property.

Sell-out indeed.

Talk About Snail Mail ...

News must travel very slowly to Charleston, WV. If you've ever been caught in the frequent back-ups at the I-77 tollbooths, you'd have no trouble believing it to be true. But this - from the Charleston Gazette - struck me as odd:

Media bias
Republican attack

KENNETH Tomlinson was appointed to the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by President Bill Clinton. No doubt Clinton brought in the Republican and former Reader’s Digest editor in an effort to bring “balance” to the news outlet so often accused of liberal bias.

Two years ago, Tomlinson ascended to CPB chairman — and simply tried to replace this perceived bias with a Republican slant, according to a recent report by the agency’s inspector general.

The report contains evidence that, despite denials, Tomlinson coordinated his activities, including hiring decisions, with White House operative Karl Rove. (link)

The (rabidly liberal) editorialist goes on to demand that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting remains a bastion of liberal idiocy.

Nothing strange there.

So what is odd about this piece that appeared in this morning's paper?

It was last month's story.

Somebody get these people a modem and landline. Good grief.