Research - Rehabilitation - Re-Employment

Sgt. Shaft 05/26/2003

Dear Sgt. Shaft:
A flag-protection constitutional amendment – “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States” – was the first bill introduced in the House in the 108th Congress.

It should soon pass in the House easily, as it has four times in the past. Although the outcome in the Senate is less certain, the good news is that we will get a vote in this Senate, unlike in the last Congress where the Senate leadership refused to allow their colleagues the right to vote on it.

We are sure of 64 of the 67 votes needed to send the amendment to the states, but five senators who expressed opposition to the amendment have never had to vote on the issue. One wonders how easy it will be to vote against the right of the people to protect their flag given what the country has been through recently and in the face of an extraordinary renewal of patriotism.

There are three senators (Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards) running for president who say they support flag burning as speech. But, it is a far cry from casting a vote against the flag-protection amendment as a senator to supporting flag burning as a presidential candidate, in a climate in which such a position would be well known. Ironically, many of these candidates expressed outrage over the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 26, 2002, that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Sen. Lieberman said he had not heard of a more ridiculous decision. Yes, he has. The 1989 5-to-4 ruling that called flag burning “speech” was just as ridiculous, and he supported it.

Thankfully, we now have the support of the president.

We have heard from many opponents that our troops fight for the rights of flag burners. Who among them would tell our troops that they are fighting in the sandstorms of Iraq so that their flag can be burned in America?

One of the most difficult obstacles is media opposition. Too many in the media lie and distort the facts, and they intimidate those who disagree with them. We may be seeing in Iraq, and since 9-11, the rebirth of a more responsible, patriotic media, much like that which supported the “greatest generation” in World War II. The old, familiar left of the 1960s was drowned out in Iraq by a new generation of reporters living and dying with the troops. On their way out are the Mike Wallace-type of reporters who would refuse to save an American patrol about to be massacred so they could get a story; reporters who praise the enemy and call our pilots “cowards.”

The Constitution is too important to be left solely to the courts. Judicial distortions of the simple concept of freedom of speech have given us pornography, would deny us prayer and the Pledge, make it legal to burn the U.S. Flag but illegal to burn your draft card or money or your mail box — or a tag on your mattress box.

The ruling on cross burning is a perfect example. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled April 7 that cross burning is protected speech, unless it is done to intimidate. Was there ever an example of cross burning not done to intimidate? The one justice who said cross burning had nothing to do with the First Amendment got it right. Burning a cross is unlike burning any other symbol in our society, and it is not intended to communicate anything other than fear and hatred. The same is true of flag burning, because our flag is also unlike any other symbol in our society.

I hope that all your readers will learn how their congressional representatives stand on the flag, and let them know where the people stand.

Maj. General Patrick Brady, U.S. Army, Retired
Board Chairman, Citizens Flag Alliance
Indianapolis

Dear Gen. Brady,
As you have previously stated so eloquently in a prior letter, “In their darkest moments, in the midst of the horrifying loneliness of combat, surrounded by noise, fear, fatigue, and the terrifying, unmistakable, indescribable smell of blood, warriors turn to symbols for comfort -- a letter, a photo, a holy medal, a lock of hair”, and especially, Old Glory.

Shaft Kudos
The Sarge is looking forward to joining the Blinded American Veterans Foundation and their guests at the 18th annual congressional awards reception on June 12, 2003, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. in Room 334 of the Cannon House Office Building. The annual event, held in conjunction with the Foundation's Flag Week observance, honors members of Congress, the media and volunteers.

The recipients of the 2003 George "Buck" Gillispie Congressional Award for Meritorious Service are U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ) Chairman of the Hose Veterans Affairs Committee.

The Carlton Sherwood Media Award, named in honor of the Pulitzer and Peabody Award-winning journalist and highly decorated U.S. Marine Corps Vietnam veteran, will be presented to John McDermott, Irish Tenor, and columnist and author Tom Philpot.

This year's recipients of the George Alexander Memorial Award for Volunteer Service are Jonathan Buth, Account Executive with Pfizer, Inc., Ralph deToledano, Columnist and author. The Foundation's Corporate Volunteer Award will be presented to Ted Hentor, technology for the blind guru.

A joint Color Guard will set the stage for the awards ceremony and the Marine Corps Brass Quintet will entertain guests with a medley of patriotic music.

The congressional reception precedes the BAVF Flag Week picnic on Saturday, June 14, in Silver Spring. As usual, the gregarious Chef Lakis, who can usually be found at his cart at the corner of 18th and K Streets, N.W., will be preparing his famous hot dogs. Picnickers will be serenaded by live music.

This years picnic will be in honor of the late BAVF volunteer, Richard Beans.

Send letters to Sgt. Shaft, c/o John Fales, P.O. Box 65900, Washington, D.C. 20035-5900; fax to 301-622-3330; call 202-462-4430 or email sgtshaft@bavf.org.

BAVF Home | Who We Are | Sgt. Shaft | Flag Week | Links | Financials | Search | Contact BAVF

BAVF - P.O. Box 65900, Washington, D.C. 20035-5900

Copyright BAVF 2003