Flag vigilante: If cutting down flags is wrong, I don’t want to be right
posted at 9:59 am on October 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
From Fox & Friends, it’s the vigilante himself, Jim Brossard, representing nearly everyone who reads HA and some lawyer opposite him representing me. I like the latter’s point about how Brossard broke the law himself by failing to remove the flag without proper ceremony, especially vis-a-vis Brossard’s suggestion that the only thing he did wrong here was behave contrary to political correctness. It’s not a question of correctness, it’s a question of law, order, and property rights.
But never mind that. There’s some red, red meat rhetoric here about encouraging Americans “to take back our country” and to do so “quickly and decisively,” which always sounds reasonable coming from a guy known to display a large knife. I won’t waste any more of your time with blather, though. Enjoy.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I’m drawing smiley faces on the stars of a flag right now. Do you find this offensive? I’m using these as a template.
Big S on October 5, 2007 at 11:44 AM
The media asked the scumbag why he was flying it that way. The absence of his defense that he didn’t know it was wrong is enough to prove the guy was making a political statement. Brossard made the opposite political statement. And as I said, Brossard is willing to tak3e the heat and the scumbag Mexican isn’t. If he was, he would have defended his political statement regardless of how anti-American it would make him appear. And if I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to a citizen, it will be to the guy with the balss to stand up for his beliefs.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 11:44 AM
There’s always room for precedent.
No sh!t, Sherlock? And law enforcement wasn’t doing their job. That’s what we pay them for. Jim, by the way, did contact the authorities by his own admission. So, why are you misrepresenting the facts? Agenda much?
Yes, which included taking away his property. Not so fundamental when it’s no longer yours, is it? This point of my argument is addressing property being fundamental, not about the flying flag.
Again, property isn’t so fundamental is it? This, again, is my argument addressing property being fundamental, not about the flying flag.
eanax on October 5, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Nice, csdeven. And wrong, too. The owner is American. A moron, too, but that’s beside the point.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 11:50 AM
One little correction, Pablo…He may be an American citizen, but by flying that flag the way he did, he was pretty much saying he was a Mexican first. So, CS and everyone else is pretty much justified in referring to him as the “mexican.”
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 11:52 AM
I just listened to the local station relating their conversation with the guy, during the original report, and that is exactly what he told them. Some proof, csdeven.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 11:53 AM
One little correction, tickledragon…you mean “the Mexican scumbag”, don’t you?
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 11:54 AM
When a scumbag flies the Mexican flag above the American flag, he is essentially more Mexican than American. The political point he was making was not support for American citizens of Mexican descent. His support was for illegal Mexicans trying to takeover a significant portion of this country.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 11:55 AM
If you do not have enough common sense to know that while in the U.S it is wrong to fly another nations flag over the U.S. flag, I do not want you here, no matter who you are.
jed58 on October 5, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Nope, I meant pretty much what I said. But thanks for trying to better understand me. ;)
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Mr. Brossard, on behalf of the few American’s left who really care about this Country, I thank you.
Ask yourself: What would a free person do?
Wuptdo on October 5, 2007 at 11:58 AM
At the time the crime was committed, was there an established punishment or not?
If I was incorrect about contacting law enforcement, I apologize on that. However, it still doesn’t give Jim the right to do what he did. For the record, what agenda are you suggesting I have?
Because he committed an established crime, with an established punishment which includes property being taken away. Just like you don’t have the right to bear arms when you’re sitting in jail for committing a crime.
amerpundit on October 5, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Was the Civil War “legal”?
We’re heading in that direction as long as our government continues to disregard the will of the people.
gmoonster on October 5, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Just repeating the comment you were defending, td! ;-)
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 12:00 PM
When it comes to the bar owner or whomever he is, this was not an incident that happened over a couple of minutes. Even a TV station was there filming the flag. He KNEW what he was doing.
jed58 on October 5, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Cry all you want about who is stepping on who’s rights…fly any other flag besides an American flag around here and it won’t be up long. Just say’in…I’d cut it down my self.
~B (TX) :)
Brian on October 5, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Pablo, you corrected him for the fact he said “mexican” rather than “American”. I don’t recall you correcting him for the “scumbag” part. Therefore, my defense of the word “mexican” is irrelevent to the “scumbag” part.
Nowhere did I say I was for or against the use of “scumbag”. It wasn’t germaine to my defense of CS’s terms.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:03 PM
So, the anti-Brossard crowd says taking it down was bad, and the flag laws are unenforceable. I guess this means we just have to get used to it?
It’s a traveshamockery.
thebriand on October 5, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I like it. Good word, thebriand
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:05 PM
AP and the rest of you are now aligned with the ACLU. And we all know where their priorities lay. With this response, how soon will it be before every scumbag in this country will be flying their country’s flag above the American flag?
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Personally? I would have cut down the Mexican flag, and left the American one there. But that’s just what I would have done.
But then, I also want to see flag burners drawn and quartered, shot, or burned at the stake. Far too many people use the flag as a diaper to do the things they want to do, and then smear the results on us who hold the flag in the highest of honor and respect. I understand that they’re using their freedom of speech. And so am I.
I stand with all my forefathers who have fought for the flag and this country. I respect them, and thank God that they gave their lives so that I could live free.
To see some idiot flying another country’s flag–and I don’t care WHAT country it came from, be it Mexico, China, Canada, or some minor country in Africa–above ours? That’s wrong. He got what he deserved.
In my (arrogant) opinion, if you’re going to place something BEFORE or ABOVE the “America” part, then leave here and go live there. As Gen. Colin Powell once responded in an interview, “I’m not an African-American. I am an AMERICAN!” I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. If you claim to be from THIS country, then be an American.
And don’t let idiots like this guy get away with putting another country’s flag above ours. Too many people have died for our flag. Even if you don’t agree with them, you really do need to respect them. They died for you–and no greater love is there than for a man to lay down his life for another.
jedijson on October 5, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Hey CS…not arguing WITH you or anything. But at least if folks started doing that, we’d know EXACTLY who’s with us and who’s loyalties lie on other shores, yeah?
It’s sort of like why free speech is so good. The more an idiot talks, the more you know exactly where he/she is. ;)
It was just a thought…more than an argument.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Property rights are NOT absolute. Try putting up a fence too close to your neighbor’s yard. In some places the neighbor can tear it down.
Also we have the right of citizen arrest. This is -not- vigilantism, despite some ignorant noise to the contrary.
The Guy who put the Mexican flag up over the US flag got off lightly, IMHO. If he loves mexico so much, he should go back.
dogsoldier on October 5, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Now that’s a clever tagname. I had to sound it out, but once I did. Golden.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Thanks, but it’s not mine.It’s from an old Miller Lite commercial.
thebriand on October 5, 2007 at 12:10 PM
jed58, where’s the part of the story where someone, anyone, went and talked to him and explained that displaying the flag as he did was a disrespectful breach of protocol?
I haven’t seen any of that. What do I see is that someone put a call in to the TV station, they sent a camera down there and Brossard showed up with a knife. Coincidence? Probably not.
What does a camera being present have to do with the state of his knowledge?
I can’t help seeing some parallels here between this and the reaction to the Dreaded Cartoons of Blasphemy. There’s a right way and a wrong way to address such insults and this isn’t the right way.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Um, the muzzies were threatening to cut people, not flags. Not really a good comparison.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:14 PM
He said he didn’t know it was “against the law”. But he certainly knew it was wrong. He had been flying his flags correctly before he replaced them with new ones and decided to put the Mexican flag on top to support the Hispanic community. Since when are the goals of the Hispanic community at odds with the goals of the Americans in general? I’ll tell you when. When ICE raids a McDonalds and arrest several ILLEGALS who were working the jobs “Americans wont do”.
The guy is a scumbag who supports the takeover of this country by illegal Mexicans and Brossard let him know what he thought about it.
It’s about time.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Did you watch the video? Did you see Brossard, knife in one hand, flag in the other, saying “I want somebody to come fight me for this?”
And again, I said parallels. I didn’t say they were exactly the same thing. Let’s leave the putting of words in other people’s mouths to Media Matters.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I’m not going to change my stance because it one time aligns with the ACLU. When MM’s videos were pulled off YouTube for criticizing Akon, the EFF helped her. The EFF usually spends its time fighting terrorist-monitoring programs.
And if it turns out the person you’ve citizen arrested didn’t commit the crime, you can be charged with unlawful detention.
amerpundit on October 5, 2007 at 12:16 PM
… Colmes?
thebriand on October 5, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Interesting you say that right after putting words in mine.
Pot..meet kettle.
Oh, and his threat was still to the flag, not to a person.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:19 PM
And you know this how, csdeven? Because you’re psychic? The same way you know that Fred! is a manwhore?
Suppose Brossard had walked into the place and said “Dude, you can’t fly those flags like that.” If the guy told him to get bent, then you’d have a point and he would too. But he didn’t. And we don’t know that the guy wouldn’t have said “Oh. Let me fix that.”
Well, you do, it seems…but I question the authority of your “sources”.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 12:20 PM
In Nevada there is no punishment specified, but it would seem the punishment could be leveled by a judge anyway. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems logical that all misdemeanors can be punished even though there is not punishment specified.
This isn’t a huge deal for me. I’m only mentioning it because I noticed it while researching.
My issue is the reaction relative to the behavior of the scumbag business owner.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Uh, no dear. You said “So, CS and everyone else is pretty much justified in referring to him as the
‘mexican.’” I pointed out that csdeven called him “the Mexican scumbag”, filling in the part of his quote, which you were defending, that you left out.
No, he said he wanted somebody, which would be a person, to come fight him for the flag. While holding a K-bar.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Uh, no again, dear. As I’ve stated, I was defending a WORD, not the full statement. YOU put the word “scumbag” in my argument.
He was daring someone to come stop him. Not threatening the guy that had the flag with violence for putting the flag there. Still different. NOT a parallel.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:27 PM
More of an invitation than a threat.
thebriand on October 5, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Money!
bernzright777 on October 5, 2007 at 12:30 PM
A*shole and moron.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 12:31 PM
I have to agree here. Since the law cannot be constitutionally enforced, then the bar wasn’t breaking an enforceable law by doing what it did.
The only law breaker is the man who let his emotion get the better of him.
I agree with the man’s emotion, but he was wrong here.
I still though contend that things like this are going to continue and possible escalate unless our politicians listen to their own citizens instead of allowing illegal aliens to flock in here as they’ve been able to do for so long.
I’m not excusing the behavior, but I do see a way to curb it.
Esthier on October 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM
If there is a law against an action, yet it has no punishment, is it still a law? Or is it merely a suggestion?
Confused here.
Darnell Clayton on October 5, 2007 at 12:34 PM
I live in liberal NY where the men wear butter-soft loafers and carry i-phones in manpurses. Mr. Brossard looks like a MAN, and sounds like a patriot. I don’t look like him, but wish I did. I probably look “acceptable” to liberal left and right coat motherfucers.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 12:35 PM
OK, I guess you need this spelled out for you.
THE SCUMBAG MEXICAN HAD BEEN FLYING THE FLAGS PROPERLY PREVIOUS TO THIS RAID BY ICE ON THE McDONALDS. He knew it was wrong and probably assumed it was illegal. This is the typical mentality of Mexicans who selectively understand the rules governing this country. They selfishly do whatever they want until they get caught and then claim ignorance. If this moron didn’t mean it, he should be apologizing for disrespecting the American flag instead of justifying it and casting aspersions on a patriot by saying he was glad no one was hurt.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Yes “Pablo” he meant “Mexican Scumbag” Said Scumbag was out side the building and watched as Brossard took down that flag. He was aware of what was going on and probably knew, if he is an American citizen, when to school in this country, and put up a flag pole on his building where is bar was located that he was symbolically placing the flag of Mexico over that of the United States. The police were notified and did nothing. AP, you need to do a little studying. Who was the man who said “damn the United States, may I never hear her name again”? Those of you who think this flag is not very important need to read the history of the flag during the Civil War. Brossard’s act should serve as a warning to those who disrespect our Flag, big s, that there are those of us, who have served our country in the military putting our lives on the line, who will not tolerate the disrespect. Law or no law. Got it?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM
No, I asked you if you were really defending csdeven’s comment. You’re familiar with these things, I presume: ???????
Right. Basically saying “I’m taking your property and if you want to stop me, you can come fight me.” With a K-Bar in his hand. That’s actually bordering armed robbery.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Source, establising that connection, please. OKAY? I’D REALLY LIKE TO SEE IT, CSDEVEN!!! IF YOU COULD PROVIDE A LINK, THAT WOULD BE GREAT!! THANKS!!
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 12:41 PM
He says that the authorities were called several times before he took action. If this is true, he did nothing more than make a “citizens arrest” and took the flag into custody rather than the business owner.
MrC_5150 on October 5, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Is it possible to disagree with Allahpundit without accusing him of being a crazy liberal? Just wondering.
packsoldier on October 5, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Why are Mexicans so outwardly proud of their crappy, backwards, corrupt, dysfunctional little banana republic anyways?
Zetterson on October 5, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I would be ashamed of my country if I were Mexican
Zetterson on October 5, 2007 at 12:49 PM
The comparison is still a stretch. A BIG one. Your armed robbery comparison is more apt. Stick with that one.
Are you asking me if I’m familiar with question marks? That is a truly stupid question…and not witty in the slightest.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:52 PM
This isn’t philosophically or primarily about property rights, and the rule of law, or conservatism. This Reno incident resonates with so many people because it is an example of what many people realize was going to happen sooner or later. That is, some large percentage of Americans feel/fear that sooner or later, they will have to get personally and perhaps physically involved in issues (illegals taking over neighborhoods, police standing by idly while lawlessness goes on (Folsom), Ahmadinejad’s and Chavez’ walking freely in our streets, Congressmen visiting our enemies, freakish Hollywood celebrities being treated as ambassadors, vile creatures like Rosie piped into our livingrooms, etc, etc.) that the government and police previously took care of for us.
People are curious to see how this will play out. Will others come to Brossard’s defense? Will the legal system get involved? What would a jury do? Will there be a response from the Hispanics involved? In what way will society move by this particular push? Is it the beginning of something larger, or just an isolated incident? What is likely to happen to me if driven to do the same thing.
This is an amazing American political drama unfolding. To reduce it to a discussion of the legality of walking off with the flag, is akin to focusing on whether or not there was ever an insurance payoff to those who lost money over the dumped tea. It misses the central point.
JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Many in Mexico and the U.S. will soon claim the Southwest U.S. as their (mexcian) Palestine. The numbers are here, agitation has started, now will come violence.
jed58 on October 5, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I wouldn’t go that far, but I do wonder why they don’t live there if they’re so proud of it?
Esthier on October 5, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Well, most people have a strong affinity for their home states. I can understand that Mexicans still love their country, because it was home, regardless of the crappy, backwardness of it.
It is mostly the corruption of the government that makes it that crappy and backward. So, it’s really their government they don’t like…they can still love their country.
No faulting them there.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Yes. I disagreed with Bush for getting Israel to give up Bethlehem to (essentially) terrorists, but that doesn’t mean I don’t support him.
(and yes, I’m assuming you were being facetious there, too.)
jedijson on October 5, 2007 at 12:58 PM
….doesn’t mean they can come here and try to turn this country crappy and backward while breaking our laws.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 12:59 PM
That’s not the only parallel. Not all of the Muslims were threatening violence. Many of them were insisting that other rights should be curtailed so as to protect their sensibilities. Their argument was that free speech should take a back seat to Mohammed, so that they not be outraged. The argument here seems to be that the rule of law should be thrown out the window so that we not be outraged.
There is no right to be unoffended.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 1:00 PM
COMPLETELY possible…and preferable. We love our Allah!
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 1:00 PM
It is not illegal to burn your own house, so no you can’t stop someone from doing it.
That being said, I am happy that Jim broke the law.
It’s a safe bet that not too many “Americans” patronize that bar.
You are either an American or you aren’t. No such thing as an african American or mexican American.
This bar owner has chosen not to be American.
Gooch on October 5, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Just to save this dialogue going much further, I’ll give you that YOU see a parallel. Does that help?
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 1:03 PM
I am glad he did it. He might be the John Brown of the illegal alien issue, but I support him.
100 years from now, some kid will be singing the rallying cry of 2008…
Jim Brossard’s beard lies a moldering without a shave
Jim Brossard’s beard lies a moldering without a shave
Jim Brossard’s beard lies a moldering without a shave
But his truth goes marching on!
Sensei Ern on October 5, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Boy, what a can of emotional worms. I’ll restate what I said in another thread on this.
I’ve done essentially the same thing as Jim before, I encountered a situation where another flag was flown above the US flag. I hauled them both down, hauled up the US flag, folded the other, and returned it to the owner and informed them of the flag code.
Where Jim crossed the line, was in TAKING the US Flag from the owner, and throwing the Mexican flag on the ground. He should be cited for that. The bar owner should also be cited for violation of the flag code. I believe that, in this particular case, the penalties would about even out and judge could simply give each probation and be done with it. I would be pleased with that outcome. If it came down to it, I’m sure that plenty of Mexican-American (it hurts me to write it that way, but I guess that’s the correct way to say it these days) organizations would pony up any fines and legal costs. I also assume that Jim would have no problem finding the same assistance.
NOW, let’s ponder this. If you witness a crime being committed, are you to A) run to the police (yes, that’s an acceptable response) or B) intervene if you are able (yes, that’s also an acceptable response) or C) do nothing (that is an unacceptable response).
In this case Jim saw a crime being committed, and he personally intervened. Just as I would. I would suspect that many here would also personally intervene if they saw an actual crime being committed. I commend them for that.
The only problem in Jim’s case that I see, is his leaving with the US flag. I don’t see any problem with him taking the improperly flown flags down, just as I would have no problem tackling a purse snatcher. Just as I would have no problem drawing down on an armed robber and putting two in his chest. I wouldn’t take the woman’s purse home with me, and I certainly wouldn’t take the armed robbers loot.
In an ideal world, Jim should have either handed both flags back to the owner and calmly informed him of his violation. Emotions however caused something different to happen. It also would have been acceptable for Jim to immediately take the US flag to the police (I’m not sure if he did or did not do that). However, again, emotions got in the way and unfortunately Jim committed a crime.
BUT, the crime wasn’t taking down the flags, taking down the flags was the equivalent of a citizens’ arrest. The crime was taking the US flag with him. For that, I can’t forgive, but I can understand.
I know AP is trying in part to play Devil’s advocate, and I personally appreciate that about AP, I just think that; AP if you’re going to play Devil’s advocate, play it all the way out. Yes, the theft of the US flag was wrong, but YES, the improper flying of the flag was wrong. Two wrongs, make two wrongs, but along with those two wrongs, was a right, and that right was Jim’s correction of the obvious and blatent disrespect of the flag and violation of the flag code.
Chastise Jim for taking off with the flag all you want, don’t chastise him for taking it down. Unless of course you’re going to chastise me for tackling the next purse snatcher I come across.
Jason Coleman on October 5, 2007 at 1:06 PM
It’s also my understanding that Jim is perfectly willing and ready to accept punishment for his violation of taking the US flag with him. That’s the correct position for him to take.
Jason Coleman on October 5, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Gooch…Not meaning to nitpick, but it is illegal to burn your own house. It’s called “arson”.
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 1:08 PM
I’d like to drop kick that f*cking lawyer.
“We live in a country of laws…”
THAT AREN’T BEING ENFORCED DUMBASS!!
In which case it’s perfectly acceptable to do what Brossard did. God bless him and let’s see more of it. If our President and our law enforcement officials are too chickensh*t to do anything about it we will.
thareb on October 5, 2007 at 1:11 PM
**ceremony** Now that’s a good one.. thanks for the laugh.
In NY they put up the Puerto Rico flag .. at least they are almost a state of the U.S.A.
ceremony ..he he he ..thanks again.
redrock on October 5, 2007 at 1:18 PM
So long as Allahpundit successfully manages to frame this issue as a property rights issue not only is he correct that Jim violated another citizens property rights he also obfuscates the real issue in play here.
The real issue is not one of property rights save for in the greater sense of public property of the sovereign states of the United states of America.
No the real issue is one of national sovereignty. Is the United states a sovereign nation. And if so, what are the responsibilities of it’s citizens to maintain that sovereignty.
The second amendment to the constitution clearly enumerates both the rights and responsibilities of the individual citizen to uphold and protect the sovereignty of this great republic.
While an individual committing a criminal act does have rights, those rights are not construed to be license to abdicate the sovereignty of this nation.
Furthermore the second amendment makes it quite clear that any individual engaging in any act defending the sovereignty of this nation shall not be deemed to have committed a crime.
The claim may be advanced that the citizen flying the Mexican Flag above the US flag was acting in accordance with the rights enunciated in the First ammendment.
This however is a false claim since the positioning of a Flag is a statement of national sovereignty. Once that individual placed the Mexican flag above the US flag he was de facto declaring Mexican sovereignty over sovereign American territory.
As such any failure to challenge that assertion by any citizen would amount to an abdication of sovereign American territory. No individual citizen has the right to do this, and is in fact bound by the constitution to defend US sovereignty.
This is the meaning behind the second amendment phrase “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”
Any challenge to that assertion therefore falls under the second Amendment protection of American sovereignty.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 1:19 PM
You’re kidding right? It’s the video link you left for me. The guy actually said he replaced his flags and decided to put the Mexican flag on top. Ask yourself this question: Why was he flying it correctly in the first place? By accident? Jeeze you are an ignorant cuss.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:24 PM
It looks like no one wants to answer your question Talon. But you make a good point. If I saw my neighbor burning down his own house I would stop him because it could potentially spread and burn down my house as well. While I may be arrested for tresspassing and for the assault and battery that would probably be required for me to stop him. That would be a risk I would be willing to take.
Again. Broussards actions were illegal. I stand by them because he did the right thing. And if need by I will happily contribute to his defense fund when the ACLU come for him (Because you know they will).
Scorched_Earth on October 5, 2007 at 1:25 PM
I double dawg dare ya to try it 8^)
Might want to remember Jim Croce’s “Bad Bad Leroy Brown”, though. ‘Specially if he’s still packin’ that toothpick.
El Cazador on October 5, 2007 at 1:25 PM
The real question here is one of appropriate response. Brossard says he called the cops and they didn’t do anything. Check. But how about talking to the owner, explaining the proper protocol and reasonably asking him to comply with it?
If he’d done that first, I’d feel a lot better about the direct action he took. But he started out with ranting and waving a K-bar around.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 1:27 PM
As long as you have the proper permit for the fire itself it is not arson, you are wrong.
Gooch on October 5, 2007 at 1:29 PM
The way I see it is that if the Federal Government fails in it’s responsibilities to defend America, a sovereign nation, the responsibility falls back to state and local authorities. If state and local authorities fail in their responsibilities, this demonstrates that government has failed and needs to be reformed or replaced. Until one or the other happens, the government either fulfills its primary obligations or is replaced with one that does, the people have little choice but to take action to protect their neighborhoods and their nation.
I agree with AllahPundit to a point, this is a law and order issue, but law and order is meaningless when corrupt officials refuse to enforce it, as has been the case for many decades now. After government breaks down and fails to enforce law and order, which is rooted in the notion of sovereignty, the responsibility falls back to the citizens. It is inevitable that patriotic citizens will take matters into their own hands with increasing frequency until something changes at some point in the future. Based on the many historical examples, this situation will eventually lead to violence, which is unfortunately often directed against the wrong people.
And no, I’m not referring to government enforcement of a law governing the proper display of an American flag; I’m talking about securing our nation. Flying a foreign flag over an American flag on American soil makes a statement that an external force has claimed dominance over America, or at least one portion of it. The statement is one of foreign invasion and I would argue that foreign invasion and conquest of America are not protected by the 1st amendment.
FloatingRock on October 5, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Of course it’s possible. Allahpundit’s position while commendable for its accuracy and grasp of scope of property rights fails however to account for the national sovereignty aspect of property rights. It is in fact national sovereignty which guarantees property rights, without national sovereignty you have no property rights.
Hence in this light while Allahpundit is correct regarding property rights he is also incorrect in that national sovereignty trumps individual property rights. It is this constitutionally enumerated right of the state that permits Eminent Domain and allows the state to set aside federally protected lands.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 1:35 PM
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Well said; Sad that some would see this as property rights.
MarkB on October 5, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Point taken but how often does THAT happen? If you’re going to demolish a house, you usually just knock it down, you don’t burn it.
Most often if someone is setting fire to a house, it’s not because they have permits…
tickleddragon on October 5, 2007 at 1:38 PM
No, the proper response to usurpation of national sovereignty is not polite negotiation. The proper response is defend national sovereignty first, then negotiate the offending parties terms of surrender.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 1:40 PM
From that video:
“He said that he did not know that what he was doing was against the law.”
Verbatim. And yet you see something else in it, through your magical powers. Please provide the quote that you think says something about how he was flying the flags before, and better yet that ICE raiding McDonald’s was any sort of a factor here. I’d wait, but I know you can’t do it because it simply isn’t in there. Unless, of course, you look at it through a patented csdeven crystal ball.
Coming from a certified loon like yourself, I’ll take that as a compliment.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I like the latter’s [the lawyer] point about how Brossard broke the law himself by failing to remove the flag without proper ceremony
Old lawyer trick – arguing the strongest point of a weak case.
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM
That’s not a usurpation of national sovereignty. It’s a breach of protocol. The power and authority of the nation are completely unaffected by an improper flag display.
And who, precisely, do you expect that American citizen to surrender to?
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM
The only way I could think of a GI ever crumpling a flag in this manner is if he/she were about to get his/her a** blown off. And, AP, what does it say to you that a soldier in mortal danger would take the time to rescue the flag?
baldilocks on October 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Why was he flying it correctly before the ICE raids in Reno?
Answer that question you stupid a$$.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Wrong, there is no permit for burning a any structure down. It is a violation of fire codes every where in the United States. There are far to many hazards involved and burning is never a permitted method of demolition.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 1:45 PM
One huge ATTA BOY for Jim.
oakpack on October 5, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Gee, AP…I thought the proper removal statute was in regards to the American flag. I don’t think this statute means other flags.
If I remember it correctly, then I think the guy has a case. If it’s ambiguous, then he can still argue the statute about the American flag above all others.
Frankly, I think his actions are applauded for very specific reasons. We are all sick of having to follow rules that don’t seem to apply to others…breaking one that’s so minor compared to those broken by the opposition is admired by many frustrated law-abiding citizens.
Miss_Anthrope on October 5, 2007 at 1:48 PM
I dare you to provide a permit to burn your house down. When homes are demolished, it is done with a bull dozer with a water truck hosing down the debris to PREVENT fire. Ya know, gas lines, electrical boxes, hazardous materials etc.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Again you are wrong, placement of a flag is a declaration of national sovereignty, declaring sovereignty for a different nation within the territory of another sovereign nation is usurpation of that nations sovereignty and technically constitutes an act of war.
Only because it was done by a US citizen without the overt approval of the Mexican government does it fail to be an act of war. It none the less constitutes a willful and premeditated act of usurpation of national sovereignty.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 1:51 PM
I guess it depends on if he owns said flag…
Darksean on October 5, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Whether he violated some law or statute is of no importance. It was an act of the heart and conscience and as long as he knew and accepted the consequences then a trip through the Constitution and a pile of law books is irrelevant.
rplat on October 5, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage. Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbors. If you look into your own heart, and you find nothing wrong there, what is there to worry about? What is there to fear?
Confucius
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 1:56 PM
In the type of situation referred to, the flag would be the property of the unit to which the soldier belonged.
Another instance in which a flag might be crumpled to the chest of a soldier: he doesn’t have anyone to help him fold it.
baldilocks on October 5, 2007 at 1:58 PM
AP is right about the rule of law, but just because something is legally right, doesn’t always make it morally right. Broussard was wrong by taking the flag off of that pole. He now may face, trespassing, vandalism and petty theft charges since he kept the flag and removed it from the property.
Morally however, he was correct to do the right thing and remove this flag. Displaying any other nations flag above the US flag is the equivalent to giving the “Middle Finger” to all those who have fought and died for that flag and to all Americans who believe in the spirit of our great nation.
I don’t buy the bar owner’s excuse that he didn’t know what the rule was. While he may not have known about the law, the bar owner had been flying the flag in the correct manner until a recent raid took place in the neighborhood that got some of his fellow Hispanic citizens detained and possibly deported. So in protest, he buys new flags and displays them INTENTIONALLY, in this despicable manner.
As long as he understands the price he may pay by breaking the law. I tip my hat to Mr.. Broussard. He is a fine American in my book!
Scorched_Earth on October 5, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Give it up, guys. Allahpundit’s Johnny Law from the High Ground schtick is traffic bait. You can’t win. It’s an exercise…
Anyone that doesn’t acknowledge that “the law’s the law” and condemn whoever broke the law last in this chain of events is the guy Allahpundit gets to use his law degree to prove said guy doesn’t know anything about the U.S. Constitution and is some uneducated, ignorant reactionary that is destroying the Republican Party from within. And every sputtering, flag-waving response from anyone that doesn’t agree with Allahpundit is derided as emotion over reason. Again, “the law’s the law” is the only acceptable response in the comments of this thread…
…unless your response outlines a Constitutionally-sound and reasonable legal method on exactly how to change the law, Allahpundit will always win this argument.
You must stop thinking like human beings and start thinking like lawyers if you want to end this ridiculousness.
ScottMcC on October 5, 2007 at 2:14 PM
They weren’t there to do it, so Jim Brossard did
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM
csdeven,
Who says he was? Who says he had flags up at all?
Your appropriate response will include direct quotes, thankyewverymuch, Mr. Magical Brilliance.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Screw the rules. Colonel Sanders did a good thing.
Kevin M on October 5, 2007 at 2:22 PM
So, every flag placement is a declaration of sovereignty? And every foreign flag placement is a usurpation of American soverignty? Then why is there a protocol, codified into Federal Law, for doing just that?
Because it is you who are wrong, doriangrey.
OK, that’s just plain funny.
Pablo on October 5, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Interesting argument you’ve made. I think it’s wrong on its merits however, because the property is a primary tangible issue in this case and sovereignty is a symbolic secondary issue. Ie the flag is property but by flying the MX flag, we did not cede that terrority for the US. Interesting argument, but not wholly compelling.
Spirit of 1776 on October 5, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »