South Capitol Street

Will cutting the defense budget leave us vulnerable?
American Thinker Blog

From AP:

Palestinian Fatah supporters burn banners fashioned to look like Israeli flags, with an Al-Jazeera logo at their center instead of a Star of David, during a rally in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011.

Do you think you are missing out on the fun because you don’t have one of those nifty Al Jazeera Zionist flags?

Well, you are in luck!

Firas Press has been using a similar flag to illustrate the “Palestine Papers” articles, so here it is, suitable for printing – and public burning!

Another public service for our Arab friends by EoZ.

Elder of Ziyon

Perhaps if instead of flying it over their building, they’d instead worn the flag as a nifty bandanna…? The dust-up began when the delegation began flying the Palestinian flag over its headquarters on Wednesday. Per the moonies: WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (UPI) — The Palestinian delegation has hoisted a flag at its Washington headquarters for the […]
The Reid Report

The office of U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, says the freshman congressman is publicly condemning the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, for raising its flag outside its offices in the nation’s capital.

“The raising of this flag is an attempt to legitimize an organization with a known history of terrorist actions,” West said, in a written news release.

“By allowing this flag to be flown, the United States is extending a diplomatic right that we refrain from offering to even our own allies, like Taiwan. This action is a diplomatic slap in the face of our greatest of allies, Israel.”

He was joined by another South Florida congressperson and fellow Republican, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in condemning the flag-raising. They’re asking President Obama and the Department of State’s Foreign Missions to yank back the permission that was given to the PLO to raise it.

Broward Politics

CNN Political Ticker

More than 200 people, many of whom were veterans, descended upon downtown St. Charles, Mo., at noon Thursday to counter a 30-minute protest by three sign-carrying members of the controversial Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, a group most well-known for protesting at military funerals.

The Westboro protest came less than three weeks after the St. Charles County Council passed a measure to ban protests within 300 feet of military funerals beginning one hour before the funeral begins and lasting until one hour after the funeral ends.

Veterans representing at least si, Veterans of Foreign Wars posts came from as far away as Hannibal, Mo., 94 miles to the north, and DeSoto, Mo., 60 miles south, according to Roy Sherwood of VFW Post 2866 in St. Charles, Mo. Their mission: to make sure the Westboro protesters knew their message and actions against their fallen comrades were not appreciated.

“We fought for their right to do that, but we don’t agree with it,” Sherwood said. “We came down here as a group to show our support for our veterans.”

Navy veteran Harry Thomas of VFW Post 3444 in Overland, Mo., said he couldn’t understand why the Westboro protesters did what they did and chastised them for doing it.

“Anytime anybody wants to denounce that freedom, it’s wrong,” he said. “Either be for the country or get out of it.”

Army veteran Jim Sullentrop of VFW Post 312 in St. Charles echoed Thomas’ sentiments.

“I think it’s terrible,” Sullentrop e,plained after being asked what he thought of the Westboro people disrupting military funerals. “To disrupt a person’s family at that time? I don’t understand where they get the right to do that.”

Stephanie Rubach, a St. Louis-area nurse and active member of the St. Louis Tea Party, didn’t mince words as she e,plained why she came to the counter-protest.

“We’re here for America,” she said. “We’re here for our country and our soldiers. That’s what we stand for, and that’s why we’re here,” she added, “and we want them to know it.”

Asked what message he would deliver to the Westboro folks if given the opportunity, Sherwood said, “We don’t appreciate what you’re doing, you know it’s wrong, and the Good Lord will deal with you some day.”

According to a KSDK-TV report Wednesday, the county goes to court against the http://stlouisteaparty.com/ over this issue Jan. 18, the same date the City of St. Charles will vote on a measure similar to the one adopted by the county last month.

Big Peace

(Eugene Volokh)

So a two-judge majority on a Sixth Circuit panel held in Defoe v. Spiva held, arguing that:

A public high school that can put reasonable limits on drug-related speech by students [referring to Morse v. Frederick, which upheld such restrictions –EV] can put reasonable and even-handed limits on racially hostile or contemptuous speech, without having to show that such speech will result in disturbances. Expressions of racial hostility can be controlled in the public schools even if students in the attacked racial group happen to be mature, goodnatured, and slow to react. Schools are places of learning and not cauldrons for racial conflict. Moreover, expression of racial hostility can be controlled in the public schools even though such expressions are constitutionally permitted in newspapers, public parks, and on the street. Public school students cannot simply decide not to go to school.

Under Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School. Dist (1969), all student speech — whether racially offensive or not — could be restricted if there is substantial reason to think that the speech will likely cause a material disruption. But the panel majority here concluded that “racially hostile or contemptuous speech,” including the display of a confederate flag, can be punished even without such a showing of likely disruption.

I think this is wrong, for the reasons I gave when criticizing a similar Ninth Circuit panel majority opinion about anti-gay speech. (My summary of my argument was that the decision “is a dangerous retreat from our tradition that the First Amendment is viewpoint-neutral. It’s an opening to a First Amendment limited by rights to be free from offensive viewpoints. It’s a tool for suppression of one side of public debates (about same-sex marriage, about Islam, quite likely about illegal immigration, and more) while the other side remains constitutionally protected and even encouraged by the government.”) Nor do I think that Morse v. Frederick, despite its flaws, authorizes such restrictions; see here for an extended discussion, but the short summary is that both the majority and the Alito/Kennedy concurrence specifically limited Morse to speech that did not express a “political … message”:

[From the majority:] Elsewhere in its opinion, the dissent emphasizes the importance of political speech and the need to foster “national debate about a serious issue,” as if to suggest that the banner is political speech. But not even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of political or religious message. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession.

[From the Alito/Kennedy concurrence:] I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as “the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.”

And the wearing of a confederate flag does send a political message, and certainly a comment on a “political or social issue” — whether the message is that the Confederacy was right to secede, that the South should be proud of its Confederate heritage, or that white supremacy is a good idea. The intended and likely understood message may vary from context to context, but the message remains political.

Fortunately, there’s a petition for rehearing en banc pending before the Sixth Circuit, and I hope the court does agree to rehear the case en banc. For more on the legal arguments in favor of rehearing, see the national ACLU’s and the Tennessee ACLU’s amici curiae brief in support of rehearing, which strikes me as quite correct. (My one quibble is that I’m not positive that Justice Alito’s concurrence is necessarily the “controlling opinion” in Morse for Marks v. United States purposes), but I think that Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion is consistent with Justice Alito’s concurrence on this point, and the concurrence certainly should be seen as important to understanding that majority opinion.) See also this op-ed by lawyers for the national ACLU and the Tennessee ACLU.

Note, by the way, that the majority opinion in the Sixth Circuit case is the one that is labeled a concurrence by two judges. As the ostensible panel opinion says, “To the extent that there are any differences between this opinion and the concurring opinion, the concurring opinion shall govern as stating the panel’s majority position.” My criticisms are of this concurring opinion.

The Volokh Conspiracy

David Frum is reading Palin's new book. He focuses on this line from it:

But from what I’ve read, family life at the time of the founding was a lot like family life for Americans today: full of challenges, sure, but also full of simple pleasures.

Frum wonders how Palin could fail to mention American slaves:

 Palin is a candidate who habitually qualifies some Americans but not others as “real Americans.” That subdivision is a crucial element of her mental architecture, maybe the single most important element of her mental architecture. As I’ve written before, it’s that mental architecture that those who dislike Palin most dislike about her. Often and repeatedly, she writes huge numbers of people out of the American story. In that one throw-away sentence, she did it again.

It’s not a big deal in itself. But it reveals something, and not for the first time or the second time or the third time even. And it’s that something that her words reveal that is a very big deal indeed.

Pareene also reviews the book:

It is called "America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag," although if the leaked excerpts are any indication a lot of it seems to be "reflections on stuff Sarah Palin saw on TV."

Like "American Idol," which is a symbol of decadent liberal elitism. And, for some reason, "Murphy Brown," because inviting Dan Quayle comparisons is a really good idea. And the films "Knocked Up," "Juno," and "The 40 Year Old Virgin," which Palin likes because they are pro-marriage and pro-babies, even though godless Hollywood liberal elites made them.

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Big Government

The feel good story for the day.
American Thinker Blog

As the now-jailed Bakri himself declared while he was still in Britain a few years back. “We’ll Fly Black Flag Of Islam From No10: Hate Mob In Threat Over Jailed Cleric,” by Keir Mudie for the Daily Star, November 16 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

HATE-filled Muslim extremists vowed: “The black flag of Islam will fly above Downing Street.”

The protesters, supporters of jailed cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, made the threat while demanding his release from a life sentence in Lebanon.

Abu Saalihah, a student of Bakri’s, said: “We will not rest until the black flag of Islam is flown over the White House and 10 Downing Street.” Bakri, who was banned from Britain in 2006, was sentenced in his absence to life for training and fundraising for al-Qaida. He was then detained at gunpoint by Lebanese security services after refusing to recognise the court.

The 52-year-old has referred to the hijackers behind the 9/11 attacks as the “Magnificent 19″.

At the demonstration outside the Lebanese embassy in London, supporters clutched placards reading: “Release all Muslim prisoners” and used a megaphone to chant: “Lebanese burn in hell.”…

Jihad Watch

BLACKFIVE

(Eugene Volokh)

I blogged about the incident last week, when the school ordered the boy to remove the flag. Here’s the latest, from a letter posted on the Denair Unified School District site:

As most of you are aware, we’ve had a school issue that has risen to the level of national news coverage. This incident occurred on Monday, November 8th when a campus supervisor asked one of our middle school students to remove an American flag from his bicycle while he was on school grounds. This request was based on concerns for the student’s immediate safety, and to give school staff time to investigate a potentially dangerous situation, involving threats to this student.

While it is our responsibility to ensure that all students are safe at school, we also support every students’ First Amendment rights. We are dealing with the students who threatened to disrupt the school environment. And, the student involved in this incident is now again proudly displaying his flag.

We recognize that we live in the greatest country in the world and that we should all be proud to display the American flag. It’s unfortunate that the entire story of this issue has not been fully portrayed in the media. Denair is a wonderful community, filled with hard working committed citizens who support our schools and our democracy. I’m proud to lead the schools in this community and sincerely hope we can return the focus to our children and their education. We will be addressing the issue with our Board at our regular meeting Thursday, November 18 in the District Leadership room located at 3460 Lester Road, Denair.

Sincere Regards,

Ed Parraz

The superindent has also apologized for the incident.

The Volokh Conspiracy

As I suspected.

Yesterday, I wrote that the decision by Denair Middle School to forbid Cody Alicea from flying the American flag on the back of his bicycle probably had more to do with administrative cowardice than overt hostility towards patriotic speech. Confirming this yesterday in an interview with the local Fox affiliate that first reported the story, […]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks

“Some students” complained and the school ordered the flag off the bike for Cody’s “safety.”
American Thinker Blog