Trump to revoke citizenship from flag burners
Trump just demonstrated one of the reasons I could not vote for him, even though I agree with him on quite a few things.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I can't help but feel that the collectivists that burn the flag and treat it in other disrespectful ways are deserving of contempt. The action is an insult to many, ignores all the sacrifices and good of our nation the flag represents. It is pure provocation and foolish. Some protesters have legitimate concerns and should use their right to assemble and petition. There are so many other ways to protest that do not insult and outrage so many.
That said: It is not something we should criminalize. It is something we may find offensive and should use our first amendment right to denounce. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," - "The Friends of Voltaire" (1906) written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
The POTUS-elect is entitled to his opinion, but he should never be empowered to unilaterally enforce his view. It is only offensive speech that requires first amendment protection. Universally approved of speech has no need.
Regards,
O.A.
I like it!
The overwhelming conclusion of studies done on the subject suggests that immigrants who ignore our immigration quotas do so to find jobs, not to mooch off of a welfare system.
As to "zero data," I would disagree. The term "anchor baby" should mean something to you. Being "caught" hasn't been a problem for years. They just have to cross the border again.
Great idea!
(For those who are not aware, the feds impose a large penalty tax on anyone who wants to take the production he has legally kept after taxes and relinquish his US citizenship (economic slavery) status to move to another country.)
On another subject, welfare that the minorities are so in favor of is really modern slavery by the white man. The white man gives a few crumbs that will be taken away if one goes out and work and keeps slavery alive. I read that somewhere.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s...
Quote "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"
And this isn't some millennial whining. This is a first amendment issue.
Even so, big deal. He says "perhaps" and it can't happen, so who cares? Don’t get your amygdala in a knot of inconsequentials. Move on.
I can surely imagine that there are a few examples of this, but they are not the majority in this case.
And this is not a minor issue, it reveals a complete lack of understanding of what the first amendment actually means, especially when you take into account his view of journalists and how we should change libel and slander laws to make it easier to sue others.
The press now has a special exemption and that exemption should be removed so they cannot report as fact what is only their imagination is. Anyone, other than the press, would be successfully sued under existing law. Trump, as I understand it, only wants to remove their Special Interest exemption.
2) Absolutely not the case. He wants libel and slander laws to be like in the UK where the party who needs to "prove" their case in a lawsuit is not the person bringing the lawsuit, but the person defending.
Example: I claim that Trump is an authoritarian.
US:
Trump sues me. He must prove that such claims are false. If he cannot, then I lose and pay him damages.
UK:
Trump sues me. He does not need to prove such claims are false, and even if I prove they are true as long as he can prove that he lost money, as a result I must pay him money. It essentially prevents people from telling the truth if it might harm someone.
Another way I have heard it put is that in the US, the tortfeasor must prove a claim to be true (that someone is lying about them). In the UK, the defendant must prove it false.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/24/media...
As to this article's interpretation of the law, I will not stand by it. But Trump has said that he wants our US laws to be more like the UK's. That is a fact. He wants it because it is easier to sue a reporter/newspaper there.
In my search of the internet, however, I have found that the general consensus is that in the UK all you have to prove are damages and that a statement was made. In the US, you have to prove that a statement was made, that there were damages, and that the statement made was untrue, maliciously made, knowingly untrue (a lie), or some combination of the above. Basically, in the UK if you say something true and it harms someone's reputation in some tangible dollar amount, you can be successfully sued for defamaiton.
Secondly, it is not without precedent, nor something Trump himself has not already suggested, that something that is currently decided by the states raises to the level of federal jurisdiction through the actions of a zealous politician.
IMO the most pressing issue is the war on drugs. It is by far the most expensive and expansive problem with our government today.
Paraphrasing. Don't recall his exact words.
At least Trump tells us his reactions to things like this. Now we have to evaluate things and decide what to DO, if anything.
Citizenship shouldnt be granted by birth in the first place. It should be earned.
My suggestion on flag burning and other deplorable demonstrations would be to require a permit or a license to demonstrate. It would only be fair to the rest of us where it’s the requirement of the government for us to get permission (a permit or license) to parade, to hunt, to fish, to drive, and all the other things requiring approval and documentation. Perhaps we should add a documented (or badged) individual registration in order to parade, demonstrate, etc., like that for fishing, driving, and the likes. The purpose of a registration/permit/license would be to properly identify those that participate and make them liable for the consequences of their actions, especially in the event of destruction of property or wrongful injury or death. It’s only the “fair” thing to do. Demonstrate without that registration/permit/license, go to jail as a fisherman can do. He can also lose his tackle and gear. The Fish and Game here also carry side arms. Demonstrations that destroy could be financed by sending out a bill to all registered demonstrators that they could share as restitution when their peers that caused damage could not be specifically identified. This would make it fairer to everyone.. OR, just revoke their citizenship and ship them out of the country..
I don't think it will work; after all, the realization that one is a hypocrite and should shut the hell up requires a rational mind. The left proves consistently that the collective does not possess this asset. However, if it is going to be screaming about something, it may as well waste its energy on this.
We simply need to stand together in ostracizing them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukURt...
Making laws against burning or other flag desecration activity weakens us - creating more victimless "crimes".
But, to play devils advocate, if they want to push these kinds of speech regulation laws, I think they are opening the door for new arguments to classify flag burning as a form of hate speech as well. The previous supreme court rulings were before this new line a regulations against hate speech.
I think it would be funny if this blows up in their faces and they now will have to argue against the idea of these stupid hate speech regulations. Even better, if Trump pushed the issue, they sue, and the supreme court rules that the hate speech bs is unconstitutional and then throws it all out.
Not that I am in favor of flag burning and fully understand Trump's irritation at this action. But I think if it is your property and you want to burn it, then you should have that right - it's not really an issue of freedom of speech. It is a matter of personal property laws and the fact that I should be allowed to do with my property as I see fit.
Now, if these protesters take a flag from a poll somewhere, and it is not theirs - or there are open fire regulations in the area where they are, then get them for theft or open burning - but not simply because people don't like it.
People on the left have to get used to the idea of hearing things they don't like without trying to silence the other side, rioting and destroying other peoples property, etc... just as those who think this should be banned have to accept the same.
...and it should be legal!
Intentionally burning the flag of the country of which you are a citizen is a pretty strong indication and message that you dont want to be associated with the country and should leave it.
I think citizenship should be something that is earned by agreeing to the constitution and accepting the language and culture of the country. It shouldnt be a matter of birth anyway.
I have wondered why existing laws regarding incitement and disorderly conduct are not applied.
Respectfully,
O.A.
burning is likely a low priority.
Just like I suggest to my snowflake collectivist myopic bleeding heart apologist acquaintances Trump will only spend 1/2 his time promoting bigotry.(sarcasm).
I also an appalled that anyone should even suggest that citizenship should be revokable!
BTW I'm not saying the two cases have the same leal merit but am saying both were bad decisions and needed to be changed.
Plenty of people are unafraid to say what they think, and they do it without sounding like an orangutang. Having a big mouth and no filter is not a virtue. What Trump lacks is tact.
From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
Tactfulness:
"Do not confuse appeasement with tactfulness or generosity. Appeasement is not consideration for the feelings of others, it is consideration for and compliance with the unjust, irrational and evil feelings of others. It is a policy of exempting the emotions of others from moral judgment, and of willingness to sacrifice innocent, virtuous victims to the evil malice of such emotions.
Tactfulness is consideration extended only to rational feelings. A tactful man does not stress his success or happiness in the presence of those who have suffered failure, loss or unhappiness; not because he suspects them of envy, but because he realizes that the contrast can revive and sharpen their pain. He does not stress his virtues in anyone’s presence: he takes for granted that they are recognized."
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution “The Age of Envy,”
Not sure she would have if the Hill had won. a third Obama term (or worse)would have put the USA on the mat. NOt sure it would have been a KO but it certainly would have been very bad and very close.
The strength of America is that our founders let the cat out of the bag and established a nation based o individual rights and it survived. It is not always on the right path in the short run but it will take a lot more than a blip here and there to divert the path of 320 million individuals. We do not always agree, nor do the right thing but there is little reason to believe that any of our little failures will lead to its demise, just like our planet is not going to die because we exhale co2 from our bodies and our machines.
Individual, adult life spans are short terms in the measure of events and like looking at a graph of your investments over time, there is a big difference in your mood when looking at the month, year, 5 year, 10 year and from inception trend lines. Sometimes when you are in an uncontrolled skid you can recover by taking your feet and hands off of the gas and wheel so the vehicle will self correct. To the degree that Trump is willing to do this we can unleash the force of the free market with pent up energy like we have never seen before but few are crazy enough to just let go. So far, The Donald looks like he might be wise enough to throw some chum in the water for the sharks to go unnoticed and cutting the ropes restraining the forces of recovery. In any case he can do no worse than the past 40 or so captains of this ship.
I'd rather say that our nation is like a giant building. In the beginning it was created with a solid foundation that as long as we built above the foundation, the building would remain strong. The problem is that we've not only built skyways and balconies of massive sizes, we've actually chiseled away at the foundations themselves, undermining the great strength that should have allowed for significant, measured expansion. Thus the building is horribly lop-sided and out-of-balance with weakened foundations similar to the Tower of Pisa. They have taken physical steps with that building to shore up the foundation because the ground it was built upon is liquefying under it and threatens to tip it completely. Our nation is in similar straits, but we have made little or no effort to shore up the foundations and none at all to eliminate the dead weight that threatens to topple it completely.
Our economic collapse is not only inevitable, it is imminent.
Already gross manipulations have irrevocably altered our economic foundations.
Banks no longer loan out money held in depositor's accounts.
They now loan money borrowed directly from the Fed.
Why? Because who keeps money on deposit when a "high yield" savings account offers 0.95% interest.
Remember when "CASH" was one of the three pillars of your investment portfolio? When Money Market Funds were considered a valid option? When you maintained a mix of Stocks, Bonds and Cash?
That has changed in just the last 20 years and it will not come back. It cannot come back.
We have already passed the point where market forces could make us behave.
Years ago demand for the T-Bill softened to the point we had to start "creating" money to buy our own bonds.
But they cannot turn back. Only by manipulating interest rates to impossibly low levels can we continue to afford even the interest on that mountain of IOU's.
And no one, NO ONE, is talking about this.
Only a Balanced Budget Amendment has any hope of saving us, but no politician ever will ever curb his own spending.
I love America. But we are living at the end of the First American Experiment.
Oh, it will still be called America - but the Constitution as we know it will be gone. Set aside as a racist white-man's folly to be rebuilt in the modern Socialist Model.
The future is still bright. Wisdom learned will not be lost.
I am optimistic about the Big Picture Future. But not ours.
THIS America is lost.
Maybe not. In Atlas Shrugged the pins were pulled out from the economy and the country fell flat. The land, resources, people, technology and will to be free still existed. How long to rebuild? 240 years, doubtful.
Agree.