Video: Conservatives have a fee-vah and the only prescription is more flag vigilante!
posted at 5:07 pm on October 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Shawn Wasson says he spoke to the man himself, a.k.a. Jim Brossard, earlier this afternoon and asked him why he didn’t simply call the cops. Brossard’s answer: the cops refused to come. Why would the cops refuse to do that? Because, according to the ACLU, it’s not a crime to fly another flag above the stars and stripes:
While there is indeed a federal law regulating the display of the U.S. flag, that law is merely advisory and simply codifies standard government practice in displaying the American flag.
Several federal courts have examined this law and held that the flag rules are not mandatory and cannot be enforced. Indeed, if the federal flag rules were mandatory, they would clearly violate the First Amendment, which protects every American’s right to speak and express themselves, including their choice of flag to display.
I think they’re right, in which case Brossard doesn’t even have the excuse that he was doing the job American cops were supposed to, but didn’t, do. Now it’s on to the lawsuit, which he’ll lose — and then recoup the damages he has to pay 100 times over via donations from admiring conservatives.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Jim Brossard is the man.
The Race Card on October 3, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Maybe we should demand every Republcan and Democratic candidate comment on this case?
bnelson44 on October 3, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I will re-post my post from the last Jim Broussard thread, read it and think on it very hard.
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Probably.
Esthier on October 3, 2007 at 5:18 PM
You know AP, there are laws that are immoral (e.g. abortion) and there are immoral attitudes that are not addressed by laws. This case falls into the latter. And if you can’t see that, then you’re sanctimonious, self-righteous attitude is exactly what will destroy this country’s identity and culture.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Like I said in the other thread, if anyone wants to make up a list of laws that people should be allowed to ignore just because they feel passionately about them, fire away. The left will be more than happy to make up a list of its own.
Allahpundit on October 3, 2007 at 5:20 PM
I’d call this a “Love Crime”. A “crime” borne out of love for our country. There should be special consideration given to someone who commits a “Love Crime”. Like a reward.
bloggless on October 3, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Crazy Chester followed me, and he caught me in the fog.
He said, “I will fix your rags, if you’ll take Jack, my dog.”
I said, “Wait a minute, Chester, you know I’m a peaceful man.”
He said, “That’s ok, boy, won’t you feed him whenever you can.”
– The Band
mojo on October 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM
What would be the damages in this case?
RushBaby on October 3, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Is it wrong to break an immoral law??? Geez, this is not rocket science.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Practically nothing, I’m sure. The cost of the flag. There’d be a criminal fine, too, though.
Allahpundit on October 3, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Darn straight. I’ll donate. A nationwide cash cow to pay any fines. Spurring a flag defending frenzy, America f%&$ yeah!!
Theworldisnotenough on October 3, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Rush, they will probably make him wear a Mexican Flag for a year.
bloggless on October 3, 2007 at 5:23 PM
So I wonder what would happen if a lefty defaced a war memorial?
tarpon on October 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Harper’s Ferry? He certainly looks like John Brown.
The Apologist on October 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Meh, I can’t see what the big deal is if someone wants to fly the Mexican flag above the American flag. I think we can be secure enough about our country to not get all pissy when someone doesn’t respect our flag. I love America, but the flag? It’s just a piece of cloth.
Enrique on October 3, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Wonder what the neighborhood is like and if the bar can withstand the ramifications of a legal battle. I am sure the ACLU would love the case, but they don’t have to live there.
bnelson44 on October 3, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Jim Brossard, the American John “settin’about‘em Smeaton?
Danny B on October 3, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Jim Brossard rocks!!
crazy_legs on October 3, 2007 at 5:26 PM
This reminds me of John Brown and Thoreau’s defense of him on the grounds of moral necessity. Even Lincoln, who probably agreed in principle, but not action, distanced himself from JB on the grounds of action within the law, not without.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 5:27 PM
If this man faces charges in court, you will find plenty of people willing to pay his legal fees in order to get him out (as well as cleared).
Not to mention a future pardon from a GOP President (if Hillary can be beaten that is).
Darnell Clayton on October 3, 2007 at 5:28 PM
The Apologist on October 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Looks like you were one step ahead of me!
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 5:28 PM
How many American schoolchildren would know the difference between the Mexican and U.S. flags?
profitsbeard on October 3, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Re: DAMAGES
Well it is an intentional tort, so that means he will probably be subject to punitive damages.
This means a jury could on the one hand nullify and side with him, or slap him with a large judgment even though there are little actual damages, depending on the biases of the jury.
If it weren’t for punitive damages, I think this case would have to be taken to small claims court or something.
kaltes on October 3, 2007 at 5:33 PM
The already have. I know a lot of Liberal illegal drug users, for example.
gmoonster on October 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Soooo, if someone paints a swastika on your church lawn, or destroys a bible, or burns a cross in a nearby park, what’s the big deal, right? After all its just a piece of property. Don’t get all pissy right?
If you think the flag is just a piece of cloth, leave this country. You don’t deserve to live here.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM
My heart agrees with the man’s actions but my head does not. I do not see where Mr Broussard went to the owner and simply asked him to change it. I agree with Allah that we can’t take things like this into our own hands and then scream when Liberals deface our landmarks. It boils down to the same thing. We can be tough without reverting to liberal tactics.
Of course if it had been the Christian flag on top, Liberals would have taken off their clothes in protest and flung their own Poo.
GoodBoy on October 3, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Hey, at least he didn’t take a leak on the Mexican flag in protest!
But what if he did……..the ACLU would have had him locked for ethnic intimidation for being such a nativist, racist bastard!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 3, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Enrique,
There’s a bigger point at stake here. 100s of thousands if not millions of illegal immagrants don’t seem to want to assimilate. Our ancestors came here to the US to become Americans, not to stay German, English, Japansese, ect.
gmoonster on October 3, 2007 at 5:38 PM
It occurs to me that there is potential in this case for a really positive outcome. Instead of heading to court, all ALCU’d up, the bar owner and Mr. Brossard could have a meeting, and make a gift to each other of their flags. A gesture like that could put a screeching halt to the backlash and counter-backlash that is sweeping this country.
RushBaby on October 3, 2007 at 5:38 PM
If his lawyer posts an address I’ll gladly contribute to his legal costs. This poor sick society is bordering on insanity.
rplat on October 3, 2007 at 5:40 PM
What are you? European? It starts with a warped sense of tolerance . . .
geckomon on October 3, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I’m glad the citizenship rights of this country are not subject to sanctimonious posters.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Maybe the Congress can vote on resolution condemn irresponsible flag flying. They must have a pretty good template together for grand standing measures by now.
dedalus on October 3, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I’ll setup and host the website for him. =)
bj1126 on October 3, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Um, are you talking about the 110th Congress?
RushBaby on October 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Most users (pot) I know are conservatives. Go figure…
deesine on October 3, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Unless there’s a specific law in the city against such activity, IT’S NOT A CRIME AT ALL. It’s a civil tort. Nevertheless, the federal law would override the city ordinance.
In fact, there should be no damages (compensatory or punitive) recovered in the civil case at all. The damage was incurred as a result of action taken in violation of a criminal law that existed at that time.
If a person observed someone selling cocaine and destroyed the packages. The drug dealer could not sue to recover damages for the lost cocaine. That’s the way it’s supposed to work…pre-ACLU.
It sounds to me, however, that Mr. Brossard has the gumpshun to stand up for what he believes rather than cave to the ACLU like so many before.
Lone Star on October 3, 2007 at 5:47 PM
I so totally agree with you. I am so glad that we allow anyone citizenship in this country, especially people like George Soro’s. Without his contribution to the fabric of our society this grand experiment of our founding father would collapse under its own weight.
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 5:48 PM
More flag vigilante!
More flag vigilante!
I got the fevah!!!
Seriously, I fly Old Glory every day outside my home and light her up every night. It may just be a piece of cloth, but it symbolizes all the goodness of our country.
When did Nationalism become a bad word?
NTWR on October 3, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Out of all the other immigrant groups that have come to this country and assimilated into the culture, I don’t remember any problems with the Irish flag being flown above ours or the Italian flag or the Japanese flag, or the Chinese flag or the German flag. So what is the problem with these particular immigrants?
conservnut on October 3, 2007 at 5:51 PM
As I understand it, that happened after WW2 in Europe. Part of the reason they “hate” us, they figure we are still to nationalistic and they are sooooo enlightened.
RushBaby on October 3, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Bad example. Enrique is an atheist, anti-Christian, amnesty supporting dirtbag. It’s more likely he’d be the one destroying the Bible.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Heh. Are you really Keith Olbermann???
Um, maybe its just me, but being a citizen of this country is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. But even more importantly, living here, is a PRIVILEGE, not right. You wanna talk about sanctimonious? Talk to the traitor in the mirror.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Got any pictures of that? I’m sure it’s happened once or twice at some point, but I can’t recall a single memory of any of these other flags being flown over the U.S. flag on our soil.
Please give us some examples of this happening.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 5:57 PM
One word…Reconquestia…..It’s not a fevered trutherish conspiracy theory, it is a hard cold fact of life. Those of us living in the south west know it all too well.
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Well I’m sure we agree that not anyone should be allowed citizenship.
My point is both sides of the argument are valid. I believe moral law supercedes nation-state law (as did some if not all the founders as you would like attest). But as a citizen I have an implied contract to uphold national law. Fortunately in a Republic, most of the time those are very close together. As such, it is fine to operate according to the dictates of one’s conscience (moral law if you will), but should expect to be held accountable by national law.
That’s actually my point with Brown. He wasn’t crazy; he was calm and deliberate. He knew the consequences of his actions and was prepared to die for them, as thus he satisfied the requirements of both his conscience and citizenship.
This is where I always disagree with AP on this topics. Whether someone labels you a nut or not is irrelevant, because as the end of the day you sleep with your conscience, not the RNC.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 5:57 PM
1) Gravity- I don’t remember Congres passing this and it’s outside of the power of an Executive Order.
2) Newton’s Laws of Motion-we fought a War for our independence from Britain and yet we keep these? No Acceleration without Representation!
3) Murphy’s Law- I mean if it were true, we’d have had a President Goracle.
4) Law of Averages- why be normal?
5) Law of Cosines- If you can’t qualify for the loan yourself, maybe you should reconsider.
trubble on October 3, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Conservnut, if you were intending to say that these other immigrants DON’T fly the flags above the U.S. flag … I apologize for taking your post wrong.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Occasionally a time comes when a law should be either ignored or defied. Some laws are bad. Some laws are good. It was, at one time, against the law for black people to vote. That law was bad. Action needed to be taken. Little things happen initially. A young woman refused to give up her seat for a white man on a bus. A movement began which lead to the civil rights act and bad laws were turned into good laws because it was determined that the citizens of the United States preferred the new laws.
These actions, like Mr Broussard taking his knife to the Mexican flag and Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat always come when there is a boiling point of emotions. They come when people refuse to take it any more. Mr Broussard is a man who refused to take it any more. Hopefully he can start a movement.
A liberal wise ass would then ask me, Zetterson, maybe the illegal aliens are ignoring the laws because they are bad laws. Why is their desire to change our laws any different then Rosa Parks? Perhaps they are at their boiling point? To which I would answer, Rosa Parks and Mr Broussard are/were American citizens, therefore their opinions matter. In addition to that 80% of American citizens don’t want the laws changed regarding illegal immigration. They simply want them to be enforced. So lets have a vote shall we?
Zetterson on October 3, 2007 at 6:00 PM
It is just you. The state does not exist to grant privileges. It is the construction of its citizenry (which always preexists the state) to serve it’s needs.
If you think I’m a traitor, then I suggest you listen to Peter Pace’s latest speech. He and I are on the same wavelength. A free exchange of ideas in civil discourse is the structural framework of our nation and a necessity of every free society.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 6:02 PM
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 5:48 PM
I mean to say as you (DG) would likely attest. Forget the -ly
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 6:03 PM
I was thinking of John Brown myself, lack of blood notwithstanding, but Andrew Meyer might be a more accurate analogue, comprehensibility notwithstanding. Looks like InstaGlenn got his wish.
Take that flag down, bro!
I also look forward to seeing which one gets his own show first.
I’m with Allah, though: You’d think that conservatives would think twice about an action that is basically a crime against private property, no matter what its symbolic value.
calbear on October 3, 2007 at 6:04 PM
That is not what I said. Your reading comprehension needs work.
Do you think that living in the USA or being a citizen of the USA is a privilege or a right? Yes or no.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 6:06 PM
If it’s alright to allow/ignore illegal aliens, then why not allow/ignore this?
Should the average citizen ignore/allow a crime taking place, and not do anything to prevent it?
Would that citizen get sued/arrested for not rendering assistance?
Like Seinfeld?
Kini on October 3, 2007 at 6:07 PM
So nice to see that when it comes to disrespecting America and its Flag, Allah P thinks it’s just fine because the LAW is “Advisory?!” And he seems to be afraid of a liberal’s response?!?
When we talk about Patriotism, THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN. This is AMERICA, that is the AMERICAN FLAG.
What the hell happened to you?
Mazztek on October 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Do you think that living in the USA or being a citizen of the USA is a privilege or a right?
Yes or noPrivilege or right. Which is it?Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I’ll donate to Mr Broussard long before I’ll ever donate to the RNC at this point. In fact, I’d be so happy to donate that it would make my soul feel good knowing I’ve helped this man.
ALLAHP… you write about him with a slight air like he’s a bad person. Do I even detect a tone that you think those who support him are bad too?
I guess maybe we should just let all flag poles owned by mexicans fly the mexican flag above the stars and stripes everywhere the two flags fly together? I mean, after all, mexican immigrants (illegal or otherwise) have made it painfully obvious that they’re just here for their own selfish profitable reasons and where their hearts and pledge of allegiance truly lies… haven’t they AllahP?
SilverStar830 on October 3, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I’d like to add, I understand that what Mr Broussard did was against the law. It was simple distruction of property. If I were a judge I would find him guilty. I would fine him $1.
Zetterson on October 3, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Perhaps you should have said I need to draw more steps in between your and my comment. I’ll restate, though if you feel the necessity to insult me again, I’ll leave you to your own verbosity:
No I am not.
You have a right to citizenship based on birth. That is not a revokeable privilege.
I, by no means, agree that the state should be able to export citizens of birth-right simply because they may disagree.
How can I answer that? I’m emotionally devastated. [sigh] heh
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 6:14 PM
He’s gone all “touchy feely” on us. But dam if he doesn’t break any laws!
AP. you live in NY. Did you:
1. Ever jaywalk there?
2. Ever cross against a light?
3. Ever sneak into Yankee Stadium?
4. Ever double park?
5. Ever break a parking meter so you could park for free?
6. Ever by from a street vendor that wasn’t licensed?
If you did one of these you broke the law! Shame on you.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 6:15 PM
You WOULD NOT find him guilty, because he is not guilty of committing a crime. Any judge of this case would be a civil judge and would find “for one party”, not pronounce guilt on any. You can’t pronounce “guilt” in a civil lawsuit.
Again, Mr. Brossard’s act is not a crime, but a civil tort.
Lone Star on October 3, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Answer my question knucklehead. However, your non-response is the answer.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Thank God he never displayed that knife in a threatening manner or used any force or fear to get that flag. As it stands, he’s done nothing but perhaps a misdemeanor petty theft. Otherwise, it would have been felony robbery and the water would be a lot hotter.
SilverStar830 on October 3, 2007 at 6:18 PM
From the other thread …
So a man disarming a thug who’s using it to rob a liquor store is wrong, since the gun is the property of the thug?
Makes sense to me. Damn vigilantes!
Oh wait. This lawbreaker was on his own property? So if a sniper was picking off citizens from that bar, would it be wrong for a marine to bust through the back door (breaking and entering) and yank the guy’s rifle (property) out of his hand, or would he be just another pathetic vigilante?
This entire argument is stupid. The cops weren’t doing their job. The flag was illegal. The Veteran put a stop to a crime. Period.
——————————-
Suggesting that a person should be prosecuted for breaking a minor law while in the process of stopping a crime is idiotic. Especially in this case, where the guy was on a public sidewalk and not private property as far as I can tell. Yes, the flag was purchased by the disrespectful invader, but it was being flown in a manor designed to symbolize the conquest of our Nation.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Me @ 6.14 – You have a right to citizenship based on birth. That is not a revokeable privilege.
And you insult my reading comprehension. We’re done here.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Actually, you’re incorrect. You are GRANTED citizenship at birth, yet that “privilege” IS indeed revocable and has been many times.
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Sooo, if the Southern Cross were flown above Old Glory….?
Would the ACLU still defend flying another flag above the American flag??
NTWR on October 3, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Please, please, please charge him with a crime and take it to court!!!
jed58 on October 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
SilverStar830, I like the passion but I don’t think AllahP thinks Broussard is a bad person. In fact, considering the fact that Allah’s suggesting Broussard to replace Mel Martinez as RNC Chairman in the next post, I think he kind of likes him. I also think that Allah’s intention was just to point out how a court would most likely rule on this case. The law is kind of a black and white thing. And Allah’s right about the law aspect of this. Its similar to the flag burning case. Its legal if you go out and buy your own flag and burn it. Its illegal if you steal someone else’s flag and burn it.
Zetterson on October 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
REVOCATION OF CITIZENSHIP
Gregor on October 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
AP, see what happens when you deny the existance of God? You and persons of your ilk have no moral compass. Legal or not, men have followed that flag into battle, given there lives so that our colors do not touch the ground. Flying the Flag of Mexico over our National Flag is the equivilent of shouting fire in a theater. Veterans will fight those who demean our flag or nation. If you do not believe that, go put a mark on the wall.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM
The system works!
frankj on October 3, 2007 at 6:26 PM
I hear what you are saying here Gregor, and I follow you. But the reality is, as you would agree I’m sure, that the whole construct is the citizenry creates the state to ensure rights. You can effectively argue that the state grants privileges, for example a drivers license, and so the state is the originator of priviledges. But in reality the citizenry has given up some of its freedom for collective sefl-interest, so the priviledges that the state grants are merely a measure of a return of something you already inherently possess.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 6:27 PM
True. I forgot he was holding a flag in the interview. The taking of one or more flags could constitute misdemeanor theft.
Lone Star on October 3, 2007 at 6:28 PM
This is the procedure for a naturalized citizen. I do not dispute this at all, nor am I aware that it affects native-borne. Am I in error?
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 6:29 PM
What I would love to see is the left’s reaction to the following senario: Mr Broussard buys about 100 Mexican Flags. He carries them all down to the front of the store and burns one every 10 minutes. He burns one after the other all day long.
The left would go bazerk about racial insensitivity etc! The hypocricy would be breathtaking.
Zetterson on October 3, 2007 at 6:29 PM
If you had read my post of
You would see that I am in fact contesting that any law was broken. Jim Broussard’s actions clearly fall within the scope of The Second Amendment,
In that his action fall so clearly under the Second Amendment’s militia provision no criminal complaint can be possible since the action taken was one protected by the United States Constitution itself.
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Easy up there chief:) I did read your post, I followed your stream of thought, to which I was adding my own.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Hmmm… thanks for the input Zetterson, but I do believe AllahP’s sarcasm is lost on you.
SilverStar830 on October 3, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I think Jim Brossard did the right thing and I support him. The question ought to be, “Is flying a foreign flag above Old Glory” against the law? If so, why was it allowed to remain there?
This patriotic man defended our country. He reached out to the police and asked them to do their job and they refused. Jim Brossard deserves a medal for being put in the distressing position to enforce the law of the land.
Kudos to Jim Brossard!
The ACLU bastardizes the laws of our land.
sinsing on October 3, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Still refusing to answer the question. Go post at HuffPo or Dkos. They avoid answering question too. You’ll be among friends.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 3, 2007 at 6:35 PM
The criminal is Jim Broussard because he damaged private property…
Flying the American flag on American soil above all other flags is just a guideline…
It doesn’t matter how broke the law first…
Lawsuit. Harrassment. Criminal. Racist. Facist.
This is how a Republic dies.
ScottMcC on October 3, 2007 at 6:35 PM
What I would love to see is the left’s reaction to the following senario: Mr Broussard buys about 100 Mexican
He’d probably get macheteed in the street by the Mexican Mafia or MS13 and that would be about the end of the story, at least in the MSM.
NTWR on October 3, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Sorry, should have used the long-awaited preview button…
NTWR on October 3, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Bullshit. If you truly loved America you would love the flag that represents her.
infidel4life on October 3, 2007 at 6:37 PM
wow… there’s a whole lot of crazy in this thread…
Yes, let’s do go down that road. Do you really want a discussion about who gets to decide what “moral” means? Let’s drop over to the DailyKos and have them generate a list for us of “immoral” laws we should all be breaking…
Aren’t we conservatives here? Aren’t we supposed to be the side of law and order? If everyone agreed what “moral” was, we wouldn’t need laws in the first place.
Lehosh on October 3, 2007 at 6:37 PM
And there is the proof that you just don’t get it.
It may only be a piece of cloth, but it’s what it represents that’s so much more important. For over 230 years people have sacrificed their blood and lives to make sure it keeps flying above the rest. To fly another flag above it in this country is an insult to those people and the people who are defending it now.
Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Hey Allah, was this another case of private property being taken?
You view this recent flag event as a person taking another persons private property, do you view the above as the same? I am just wondering.
I cannot speak for anyone else besides myself, but I do not view this as a crime. The crime was being committed by the store owner, he put an end to it. Had the store owner not been committing the crime there would have been no reason to take the flags down.
Does that make what he did legal? No. Was it right? In my opinion, just like Monday, it was right.
Voidseeker on October 3, 2007 at 6:44 PM
People fight and die for their country, not a flag.
Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:44 PM
And?
Flag burning is protected speech… but flag flying requires Vigilante Justice™?
Lehosh on October 3, 2007 at 6:45 PM
I suspect that Mr Broussard will pay his debt to the law,as I would were I in his shoes, whatever the case. As for the piece of cloth rant, I’ll continue to defend “that piece of cloth” against all comers. Hmm wonder if I’d ever NOT get hired with that on a criminal record ” rescued US Flag from desecretion.”
MNDavenotPC on October 3, 2007 at 6:45 PM
When a militiaman or US serviceman damages property in the defense of the United States, no law is deemed to have been broken.
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Nonfactor
Some see the country and flag as one and the same….. I know I do…. must make me a nut. I’m soooooo mortified.
MNDavenotPC on October 3, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Well, if that ever happened the call for frontier justice should go out far and wide. The line has been crossed many times by the illegal invaders and it’s quite obvious our government isn’t going to do anything, they worship at the altar of votes.
We either decide to give in or start fighting back.
darwin on October 3, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »