by Kimberly Blaker
President Bush has long held the
attitude
cars that
he (and only those who favor his actions, particularly his war in Iraq)) is the
epitome of patriotism. But in late July, dubya took it one step further; he
appointed himself the father of patriotism and our country.
Despite the bravery and undying efforts of our Founding Fathers and all the men
and women who courageously fought to free America from oppressive British rule,
giving birth to a United States that would be forever governed by, for, and of
the people, these noble men and women never placed themselves above our flag, or
what it ultimately represents.
With unbelievable boldness, President Bush recently took it upon himself to
autograph U.S. flags that were handed to him by employees of Beaver Aerospace
and Defense, during his late July visit to Livonia, Michigan.
Those who actually offered U.S. flags to be signed by the President may, to some
extent, deserve criticism, themselves. This is especially so given that the few
who actually care, at this point, to have the current President’s autograph,
hold an attitude that they have the market on patriotism.
The outlandishness of it almost leads me to wonder if the supposed-fans just
wanted to see whether our genius-president would actually take the bait—which he
did. But of all people, the President of the United States is surely aware of
what constitutes desecration of our flag.
According to US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 8 (g), titled “Respect for flag”:
“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 nothing else, the President should possess at least enough humility to not
elevate himself, or allow others to elevate him, above the status of our flag
and what it represents. The President could, and should, have courteously
explained that he cannot sign the flag, despite being flattered by such
requests. Maybe we should give the poor President the benefit of doubt; perhaps
he was momentarily caught off guard and suckered, or disillusioned, into signing
a single flag. But he failed to regain his senses after signing the first and
proceeded to sign more.
Regardless of the absence of laws prohibiting desecration of the flag, the
President’s deplorable actions went underreported. Particularly silent have been
the vocal proponents of a Constitutional Amendment to give government the
authority to render desecration of the U.S. flag a criminal offense that could
carry penalties under the law.
Fortunately for the President, those who believe wholeheartedly in freedom of
speech have thus far prevented the unrelenting drive to ban desecration of this
American emblem from succeeding. Nonetheless, on June 3, the House of
Representatives did muster just enough support for a Flag "Protection" Amendment
to pass, by a vote of 300 to125. The senate will likely vote on its passage
during the next session.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see how this is all played out,
especially given that the hypocritical Bush Administration supports passage of
the legislation that could ultimately ban flag desecration.
Kimberly Blaker’s The Wall™ appears weekly. She is editor and coauthor of the
The Fundamentals of Extremism: the
Christian Right in America. Send your comments to Kimberly Blaker:
TheWall@TheWall-OnChurchAndState.com © 2003, Kimberly Blaker
