[proud2b4family]

With the advent of opposition movements to Pres. Obama's policies, I found out about usrevolution2.com, which sells a new flag design that, the proprietor hopes, will spark a new, peaceful "revolution" to improve government by scaling it back and giving Americans back their freedom.

Have a look at that site at http://www.usrevolution2.com and let me know if you have any opinions, or if there is any flag code violation in flying such a flag on one's private property. I have one, and have been flying it according to normal flag etiquette (lit up at night with solar charged lights, taken down when I know a big storm is coming).

I have it also as my profile pic on Facebook and Twitter and have gotten a couple of inquiries as to whether I mean it as a secessionist flag, and even if it's a flag from some other country. I love the opportunity it gives me to comment on the circumstances in which we find ourselves and win them over to a cause I firmly believe in (giving representational government a new life by voting out wholesale the entire lot of crooks that currently inhabit the halls of power in our nation).

Anyway, let me know your opinion. Thanks.

[Peter Ansoff]

There's a long tradition of using variations on the US flag to promote political causes. Historically, my impression is that most of them have been used to communicate liberal messages (peace sign in the canton instead of stars, stars replaced by dollar signs or corporate logos, multi-colored stripes, etc.) rather than conservative ones. The use of the "stars-in-a-circle" to symbolize a new revolution is ironic, because that design is more legendary than factual. As best we can tell, most real Revolutionary-War-era US flags had the stars in straight rows. However, the Roman numeral II is a nice double-entendre, standing for both the "Second Revolution" and the second amendment.

As to whether it violates the flag code, I guess that's a matter of interpretation. The code says "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature." If the shoe fits . . .

giving representational government a new life by voting out wholesale the entire lot of crooks that currently inhabit the halls of power in our nation

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a bit inconsistent. That "lot of crooks" is in power because they were elected to their offices via our democratic process, in accordance with our Constitution and laws. Fortunately, those same documents give you and others the freedom to make comments like this -- there are many other nations whose citizens are not so lucky.

Peter Ansoff

[USRevolution2]

Hi

The New Flag of the Second American Revolution also has a deeper meaning . . . you see, there are "two" times in history "13" came together and changed the course of all mankind . . . The Last Supper when a faith was built on a "Foundation of Love," and when the 13 colonies came together and wrote a Constitution "Framed in Freedom." With a "Frame of Freedom" on a "Foundation of Love" a "House of Liberty" was built, and this is their legacy to us. This "House of Liberty" is the same one Ronald Reagan referred to, and it must not go into foreclosure! This is the deeper meaning of the 13 stars and the Roman numeral "II."

Jeff McQueen
www.USRevolution2.com

[Peter Ansoff]

Hello, Jeff -- welcome to the forum. We look forward to hearing more about your thoughts on the flag, patriotism, etc.

Do you happen to recall what the context was of the Reagan's reference to the "House of Liberty"? I believe that the original quote was from the poet John Milton, who referred England as "this vast city, a city of refuge, the mansion house of liberty . . ."

Peter Ansoff

[USRevolution2]

Hi:

I hear Rush Limbaugh play a clip of Ronald Reagan, who referred to the House of Liberty I have tried to find it on the internet (YouTube) but no luck so far . . . Do you folks make flags in the USA? If so, where? Perhaps ypu could quote me 1,000 3'x5' durable polyester flags with my (and Betsy's) design?

You can see thedesign at www.USRevolution2.com



Jeff

[Greengo]

I am sorry, but I can't go along with this idea of doing things. I was brought up to beleive in th flag. To want to change it to promote a second revolution is a load of crap.

Peter, this has been a good forum. But to me this goes overboard. Maybe our goerment needs change. We just did this the last election. I hear people say, "Look what your President has done now!" (I am a Democrate). I ask those people, "what country are you from? If he's not your President, you don't belong here." Change is good, but leave the FLAG out of it!!!

I am done here. Leave the FLAG alone!!! 200 + years of "real" Americans have given the ultimate price (THERE LIVES) to get it the way it is today!!!

Like I said, " I am done here".

Greengo

[Peter Ansoff]

Hi, Greengo!

I'm sorry that you feel that way, and I really hope you'll change your mind about leaving us. As we all know, not everybody sees patriotism and symbolism in the same way, and the whole idea of the forum is to promote discusssion of different points-of-view. Politically-inspired variations on the US flag have a history going back to the 19th century, and Jeff's "2nd Revolution" flag is a current example of that. Whether it's an appropriate use of the flag or not is an interesting issue that's worthy of discussion. Again, that's what the US flag forum is for.

Again, I hope that you'll stay with us!

Best regards,

Peter Ansoff

[CultureGeek]

I disapprove of disrespecting the flag to make a political statement but also feel very strongly that excluding it from the first amendment than anything anyone, even these imbeciles, can do to a single American flag. However, to call them "patriot flags" is profoundly dishonest. They are desecrated flags. What OP proposes is no different from burning the U.S. flag to make a statement. It is reprehensible political speech, but this is America, and you're allowed to say reprehensible things here unless your speech meets a very narrow standard, and this is as it should be, because freedom of thought (well, I'm not sure it's the right word where Beck is concerned, but freedom of psychotic raving counts as free speech too) is what matters most about America.

I do, and I am expressing my opinion here (free speech applies to me too), feel that this Glenn Beck movement urging people to desecrate the flag is part of an attempt to delegitimize the duly elected President of the United States.
I think that the "peaceful" *wink* *wink* revolution" crowd include as much alarming imagery as possible when referring to the duly elected President of the United States (dog whistle politics of the worst sort if I ever saw it), and use the word "revolution" as much as possible. Taken together, what they do borders on incitement. It is reprehensible, it is racist, it is dangerous, it is disloyal....

...And it absolutely must be permitted until and unless it meets a very narrow standard of incitement to, or threat of, specific and comparatively immediate violence,

The government should keep an eye on who frequents those sites, just like they do the Al Qaeda recruiting sites, because the Tea Party has a demonstrated penchant for violence. Terrorists who twist Christianity differ from those who twist Islam only in their methods.

Glenn Beck is morally responsible for the deaths of four Pittsburgh police officers, even though he cannot, nor should he (I said I'm for the First Amendment, and I meant it), be held legally responsible.

To paraphrase Voltaire, I disagree completely with what OP has to say AND think that OP is disloyal, stupid, racist, and irresponsible to say it, but I will STILL defend to the death his right to say it.

However, the USA Flag site does not have to reproduce that incitement. They are not the government, their free speech protects their righyt to make that call.

[Peter Ansoff]

Greetings, everyone,

As you can see from the posts in this thread, patriotism means different things to different people. The purpose of this forum is to encourage discussion of those differences. Unfortunately, patriotism is also a subject that people tend to get very emotional about, and conversations about it often degenerate into shouting matches in which the participants call each other Communists and Nazis. The discussions are welcome here, the shouting is not, and we'll continue to do our best to tread the fine line between the two.

There's another interesting aspect to this particular thread, and that's the historical angle. Variants of the US flag have been used as political symbols for quite some time. Some feel that the current "second revolution" flag is desecration -- would the same be true, for example, of a flag with a peace sign in the canton instead of stars? As I recall, those were common during the Vietnam era.

Peter Ansoff

[CultureGeek]

Per the flag code, yes, and the same rules (i.e. the First Amendment, and the precedent defining incitement very narrowly, which is as it should be) apply.

The point that I am trying to make here is that there is an important difference between recognizing the importance of the right to say reprehhensible things, and approval of those things. It is the same point Voltaire made.

1. What the "peaceful *wink* *wink* revolution" types are saying is irresponsible, inciteful, and reprehensible. They should not say it.
2. They should still be allowed to say it, but by the same token, I am allowed to express my opinion of that decision. It is their decision, but I think it is the wrong one.
3. Their right to say it does not obligate anyone to reproduce what they are saying, nor is it a guarantee of employment (e.g. the firings of Coulter, Dobbs, and Imus.)
4. The choice to reproduce someone's inciteful speech is a moral choice that USA Flag Site cannot abdicate. I am not telling USA Flag Site what choice to make, I am pointing out that it is a choice.
5. Arguing about what patriotism means is the domain of politics.
For example, if people like OP are going to call desecrating the flag in order to delegitimize the duly elected President of the United States (for reasons that really have very little to do with policy or wanting a better outcome for this country) a patriotic act; I have the same right to say that it is not. That is political discussion.

However, if we are going to have such discussions, it is likely to change the tone around here.