Posted on 10/03/2007 5:33:07 PM PDT by SandRat
A Mexican bar owner in Reno Nevada flew the Mexican flag above that of the United States. Only problem is that this is specifically illegal under United States Code Section 7, Title Four, which states,
(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.
The brazen effrontery of the bar prompted an American veteran to cut down both flags. But when CNN reported on the event, they managed to significantly skew the perception. The CNN report simply states that the veteran was angry that the Mexican flag was placed above that of the US- no mention was made that it was in fact illegal under US law. CNN compounded their offense by showing in their video clip, not the actual words of the relevant US code that outlaws this action, but instead 'flag rules' taken from USHistory.org, thus downplaying the actual offense, by suggesting that athe law is in fact merely recommended behavior. As in so much relating to the illegal alien lobby, apprently it is OK with CNN for immigrants to disrespect and/or disobey the laws of our country, but let one American try to react, and they scream bloody murder. Balance? What balance? Cross-posted on StoneHeads.
I was a Navy SEAL who first fought in the American Civil War, where I sabatoged Stellar Destroyers with Tholium Bombs. After that, I was transferred to the Panama Canal, where I landed on Omaha Beach with the rest of the Israeli Defence Force. It was on that bloody beach that Robert the Bruce knighted me General, and I learned how to cavalry charge a submarine.
"Robert the Bruce knighted me General"
Man, you are really old.. :)
They were protesting a tax, not repelling an invasion. At Lexington and Concord they were repelling an invasion. And they shot people.
Of course, I don't advocate killing illegal aliens. But when you invoke the rhetoric of war, and you use that to excuse lawless acts, the logical end result is violence; that is how wars are fought and invasions repelled.
Aren’t nearly all flags all-weather flags these days? I don’t remember the last time I saw a flag, at least not one designed for outdoor display, that wasn’t made of artificial fabric and sturdy stitching. It won’t mildew. and won’t tatter in anything less than gale-force winds.
No, we have been trying to find one that’s as good as our previous one....(without having to spend a fortune). We purchased our most recent flag from the VFW (we thought ,hey that would be an awesome place to buy one...never thought about it before), it was an all weather flag, but it only lasted 2 yrs! The stars are still in mint condition, but the trim on the border of the entire flag is thread bare..
ps: but the trim on the border of the entire flag is thread bare..AND the entire flag is faded. (we brought it in on a regular basis too)
The physical act of burning a flag is the same act, regardless of which flag or whose flag it is. There are laws restricting outdoor burning, and laws against destroying someone else’s property, endangering others or inciting a riot. There are also laws against harassment and terroristic threats. All f those laws could apply to many instances of flag-burning.
But when you start passing laws based solely on the symbolic content of the act, the First Amendment becomes an issue. If I burn a US flag, a Nazi flag, a copy of the Bible, a copy of the Constitution and a copy of Where’s Waldo side by side, they’re all subject to the same penalties.
With some exceptions, of course. Time, place and manner count for a lot — Rallying Klan members have the right to burn a cross on private property as long as they obey environmental laws and have the permission of the property owner. But if they burn a cross on someone’s lawn, the nearly inescapable conclusion is that it’s a threat.
If you want to put it in military terms, the influx of illegal aliens is an infiltration, not an invasion.
Um, how shall I put this? Wrong.
The USC is the United States Code. It is the body of Federal Law, usually referenced as the USCA, or United States Code, Annotated, which is the standard legal reference and includes footnotes on the current judicial interpretations of each provision. The states follow a similar model -- for example the laws of Georgia are compiled in SCOGA -- the State Code of Georgia, Annotated.
The USC is enforced by the FBI, BATFE, USCG, ICE, TSA, EPA, OSHA, IRS, and the rest of the fed alphabet soup, whether you choose to work for or do business with the federal government or not.
That's really rough on the poor horses, but it's still not as strenuous as the air cavalry.
Actually complete and correct. The CFE applies to the USA, and to your dealings with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.