[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Air Force action 'entirely inappropriate'
Source: One News Now
URL Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/national- ... -action-entirely-inappropriate
Published: Feb 13, 2015
Author: Chad Groening
Post Date: 2015-02-13 14:42:54 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Military or Vets Affairs*     Subscribe to *Military or Vets Affairs*
Keywords: None
Views: 7940
Comments: 34

A conservative military watchdog says it was completely inappropriate for an Air Force commander to allow the display of a hybrid flag that advances the radical LGBT political agenda on base.

Writing for The Blaze, former Senior Airman Brian Kolfage accounts that he was driving through Davis Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson when he saw an American flag with rainbow stripes, instead of red and white stripes, flying high on a two-story house.

Kolfage complained to base officials that that flag violates a section of Title 4 that states the American flag "shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field."

But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), thinks the decision was made to accommodate a political agenda.

"This was exhibitionism of a political point of view. It was entirely inappropriate," she exclaims. "Other forms of political expression on a military base also are ruled out, so for the Air Force to make an exception for the sake of a flag that is the hybrid of the American flag -- and the LGBT flag is inappropriate itself -- but to allow that display on a military base, the Air Force authorities who made that decision should be held accountable, because they are the ones who are out of line here."

Donnelly concludes that this incident is a consequence of Barack Obama's imposition of LGBT law on the American military. Subscribe to *Military or Vets Affairs*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

#3. To: redleghunter (#0)

[Article] Kolfage complained to base officials that that flag violates a section of Title 4 that states the American flag "shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field."

But several days after his complaint, the installation commander ruled that the flag does not violate federal law and can remain flying.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), thinks the decision was made to accommodate a political agenda.

Senior Airman Kolfage and CMR President Donnelly are wrong and the installation commander did what the law required. The First Amendment protects unpopular forms of expression, including this one. The complainants reliance on Title 4 for enforcement action is unfounded.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress

The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions

Updated April 14, 2008

John R. Luckey
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Order Code RL30243

Excerpt from introductory summary, unnumbered page

This report presents, verbatim, the United States “Flag Code” as found in Title 4 of the United States Code and the section of Title 36 which designates the Star- Spangled Banner as the national anthem and provides instructions on how to display the flag during its rendition. The “Flag Code” includes instruction and rules on such topics as the pledge of allegiance, display and use of the flag by civilians, time and occasions for display, position and manner of display, and how to show respect for the flag. The “Code” also grants to the President the authority to modify the rules governing the flag.

Excerpt at 1: [footnotes omitted, emphasis added]

On the national level the Federal Flag Code provides uniform guidelines for the display of and respect shown to the flag. In addition to the Code, Congress has by statute designated the national anthem and set out the proper conduct during its presentation. The Code is designed “for the use of such civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments” of the federal government. Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups.

Excerpt at 2: [footnotes omitted, emphasis added]

In addition to the Flag Code, a separate provision contained in the Federal Criminal Code established criminal penalties for certain treatment of the flag. Prior to 1989, this provision provided criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson (which held that anti-desecration statutes are unconstitutional if aimed at suppressing one type of expression), Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag. This law imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-13   17:08:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan (#3)

Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag. This law imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.

This doesn't necessarily mean in all cases Flag Burning (or burning of symbols deemed "sacred" to certain people) are impossible to prosecute, does it?

As noted on another thread, does "Fighting Words" come into play as an expression or act of provocation?

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-13   17:18:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Liberator (#5)

This doesn't necessarily mean in all cases Flag Burning (or burning of symbols deemed "sacred" to certain people) are impossible to prosecute, does it?

As noted on another thread, does "Fighting Words" come into play as an expression or act of provocation?

Burning a flag is protected free speech and not subject to anyone's legal objection that it constitutes fighting words, at least not until SCOTUS carves out a "fighting words" exemption. If someone assaults the person burning a flag, that person is guilty of assault. The cost of having free expression is having obnoxious free expression. Having an image of Jesus in a bottle of urine in another form of protected (artistic?) expression.

Also, one would need to make sure why the person is burning a flag to determine if it is offensive. Title 4, Sec. 8(k) provides, "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." The proper means of destroying a flag is by burning it, but that would not include stomping on it at the same time.

I suppose it is best to endure the obnoxious expression than to give the government the power to carve out exceptions. The government might carve out an exception that makes it an offense to criticize the president or the government. Again.

See, from the Sedition Act of 1798:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and mali­cious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to ex­cite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by

FIFTH CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 75. 1798.

597

the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not ex­ceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-13   18:01:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: nolu chan (#7)

One would need to make sure why the person is burning a flag to determine if it is offensive.

Thanks for addressing this issue and the citation...

Isn't this determination a subjective matter? What may be considered "offensive" to a Muslim or Black President, may be something totally different than to a Christian or White President. This is as dangerous and as much subject to political prejudices as any Kangaroo Court.

Rhetorically speaking, Counselor, Shouldn't the motivation and results of a flag burning be subject to the degree of provocation as a catalyst of death, violence or harm? As an aside, might burnings other "sacred" objects to other respective groups also fall under this category under the auspices of "Hate Crime"?

IF any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and mali­cious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President...

...convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not ex­ceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Good info to know -- that the most one can be fined for telling the truth about politicians and their possible treason and lies is...$2000. The bad news is the possible minimum length of imprisonment: TWO YEARS. God only knows what kind of incarceration the State can use by law, given the arbiters for "cruel and unusual punishment" is also relative.

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-13   18:19:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 10.

#18. To: Liberator (#10)

Rhetorically speaking, Counselor, Shouldn't the motivation and results of a flag burning be subject to the degree of provocation as a catalyst of death, violence or harm? As an aside, might burnings other "sacred" objects to other respective groups also fall under this category under the auspices of "Hate Crime"?

I have never made a claim to being a Counselor, lawyer, attorney, or much of anything else.

The Courts decide. I sometimes try to report what they have decided. Such is not necessarily an endorsement of every decision they make.

Arguing arguendo, should Salman Rushdie be silenced because his words could act as a provocation and catalyst of death by fatwa? Perhaps people could be prohibited from speaking against Obamacare in some neighborhoods. Or Fox News could be blacked out in Liberal dominated states, and MSNBC could be blacked out in Conservative states. Once the power to regulate obnoxious speech is given to the government, it empowers them to regulate any speech desired by declaring it obnoxious.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-02-13 21:32:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com