‘O’ SAY CAN YOU SEE?
Is Obama’s face on U.S. flag illegal?
President’s mug on more than 20 altered Old Glory banners
By Chelsea Schilling
At least 20 American flags with the stars removed from the blue field and President Barack Obama’s face inserted are still available on numerous eBay auctions – but, according to a state code, the listings may violate the law.
The listings were posted by ucandoit45, mekaitlyn-2008 and jaysterd.
The U.S. flag code does not specify penalties for desecration or misuse of the United States flag, but each state has its own laws for such issues. According to the Revised Code of Washington, the eBay items located in Washington may constitute improper use of an American flag:
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Improper use of flag prohibited.
No person shall, in any manner, for exhibition or display:
(1) Place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, color, ensign or shield of the United States or of this state, or authorized by any law of the United States or of this state; or(2) Expose to public view any such flag, standard, color, ensign or shield upon which shall have been printed, painted or otherwise produced, or to which shall have been attached, appended, affixed or annexed any such word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement; or
(3) Expose to public view for sale, manufacture, or otherwise, or to sell, give, or have in possession for sale, for gift or for use for any purpose, any substance, being an article of merchandise, or receptacle, or thing for holding or carrying merchandise, upon or to which shall have been produced or attached any such flag, standard, color, ensign or shield, in order to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark or distinguish such article or substance.
Desecration of flag.
No person shall knowingly cast contempt upon any flag, standard,
color, ensign or shield, as defined in RCW 9.86.010, by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon said flag, standard, color, ensign or shield.Improperly using or desecrating the American flag is considered a gross misdemeanor in the state of Washington.
Read the rest of the story with pictures on WND.com
I remember the Porpoise Show audience being virtually all teachers and students, and the whole lot of us sitting together shoulder to shoulder like sardines in a can. I remember the porpoise tricks, the leaps, the playing with the ball, and the intentional and playful splashing, all to the delight of the crowd. Most of all, I remember studying the trainer with his voice commands and hand signals to the porpoises awaiting instruction. I remember the trainer’s nearby bucket and the fish chunk rewards he liberally doled out to each porpoise after every trick. “How cool to be a porpoise trainer,” I thought.
When the show was over the crowd filed out, passing near the edge of the pool. As fate would have it, I was able to get the attention of one of the porpoises. I raised my right hand to shoulder height and, pretending I had a piece of fish between my closed fingers, I began a horizontal zigzag motion with my wrist. To my shock and astonishment, the porpoise began vertically rising out of the water. With my classmates screaming and my teacher turning menacingly to see whom it was causing the commotion, I lowered my hand down by my side as quickly as I could and the porpoise correspondingly dropped in the water.
The excitement was over as fast as it had begun. But what I remember most of the incident was the porpoise watching me as I filed out of the complex with the rest of my classmates. I could swear that porpoise was giving me the dirtiest of looks for not having tossed him his duly earned fish chunk.
Looking back at my experience, I see it as a type of metaphor for today’s political situation. I see the porpoise trainer as President Barack Obama, the audience representing the world, and the porpoises in the pool as the American people.
Plucked from the freedom of some vast ocean and to the cheers and delight of the world, President Barack Obama is taking away our liberties and training us to be world pleasers, rather than world leaders. Look how entertaining we can be with every trick he gets us to perform. Through his techniques of behavior modification, look how he weakens our military, takes over our banks, our auto companies, and before you know it, our health care! Watch us jump through his hoops and make a big splash. Do what he says and get your fresh stimulus fish chunk handouts. Be careful though. If you do not perform to his liking or choose to cause trouble, you might just go without.
Read the rest at The American Thinker.comRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Gene Healy: Obama is becoming the omnipresident
“No-drama Obama”? The president’s flight to Copenhagen last week to make a personal pitch for holding the 2016 Olympics in Chicago was an audacious move — and a dramatic failure. “Second City Absorbs Its Latest Defeat,” read the (rather snotty) headline in the New York Times.
But shed no tears for Chicago. As a 2006 report from Europe’s leading tourism trade association concluded, there’s “little evidence of any benefit to tourism from hosting an Olympic Games, and considerable evidence of damage.” With a projected half-billion-dollar deficit next year, the Second City is better off without the Games.
We can’t say the same for Obama’s reputation after his in-person appeal failed to get his adopted hometown past the first round of voting. What new project can the president undertake to save face?
How about … reforming college football? In a post-election “60 Minutes” interview last November, Obama called for selecting the national champion via an eight-team playoff: “I’m going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Perhaps those of us who oppose national health care and cap and trade shouldn’t complain that the president seems so easily distracted. But you have to wonder: Does Obama think there’s anything too frivolous to merit the president’s attention?
Obama’s failed Olympic gambit was dumb politics. But it’s also bad policy for the president to involve himself in nonpresidential issues, reinforcing as it does an infantile and unhealthy view of presidential responsibility.
Obama didn’t invent that view of the presidency, he inherited it. Over the course of the 20th century, the public, conditioned by the media’s relentless focus on presidential action, came to view the chief executive as a national father-protector, with a purview far broader than the limited role the Constitution sets out for him.
Nor is Obama the first president to involve himself in minutia. In his 2004 State of the Union, for example, President George W. Bush urged major-league baseball and football to “get tough, and get rid of steroids now.”
And Bush periodically played the role of national fitness coach, meeting with food company executives to hammer out “a coherent strategy to help folks all throughout our country cope with” childhood obesity.
Faithfully executing the laws, protecting the country from foreign attack — and helping Americans “cope” with their kids’ Dorito cravings — the president’s portfolio is vast indeed.
But Obama has forged new frontiers in triviality. He’s the president of all things great and small: He calls for “a cure for cancer in our time” while also promising to stand behind the warranty on your new Ford Fusion.
With the two wars he’s running and his ceaseless efforts to micromanage the U.S. economy, you’d think he’d have plenty to do. But in his televised speech to America’s schoolchildren last month Obama took time out to urge students “to stand up for kids who are being teased” and “wash your hands a lot.”
He just can’t help himself. Six months into his presidency, the Politico reported, Obama had already “uttered more than half a million words in public.” In one whirlwind week last month, the president made his third appearance on “60 Minutes,” gave a major speech on the financial crisis the next day, and made a record five talk-show appearances the following Sunday. And on the eighth day, he did Letterman.
Obama’s incontinent approach to presidential responsibility doesn’t seem to be helping him politically, however. August was the toughest month of his young presidency, and it began with the ridiculous “beer summit,” in which the president gratuitously injected himself into a disputed arrest by a local cop in Cambridge, Mass.
Given how much bloom has come off the rose since then, Obama’s decision to stake some prestige on securing the Olympics is baffling. What was the point of getting himself into an irrelevant fight that he might well lose?
More importantly, why would Obama go out of his way to encourage the public’s irrationally broad view of presidential responsibility? Isn’t the president’s job hard enough?
Obama has become the omnipresent omnipresident. But a man who is everywhere, promising to do everything, may end up accomplishing very little, and he’s sure to disappoint.
Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of “The Cult of the Presidency.”
I continue to be amazed at the naivete of people who keep giving President Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt concerning his radical appointments, saying his administration isn’t doing its job in vetting the appointees. When will they wake up to the reality that Obama is deliberately picking people, such as Kevin Jennings, who share his radical values?
When prescient commentators were warning of Obama’s radical friends and colleagues, such as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, during the campaign, his apologists diverted proper scrutiny, saying it’s absurd to judge Obama by association. Even flawed cliches can work wonders when you have the entire mainstream media flacking for you.
Then when the radicalism of “green czar” Van Jones came to light, the left’s reflexive reaction was that Jones was being victimized by an extremist element on the right and that the Internet itself had now been exposed as “an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information.” It was only when Jones’ own extremism became too obvious to deny that the left shifted its line of defense to: Obama’s team let him down by failing to vet Jones.
As I wrote at the time, “It’s not Obama who didn’t vet Jones, but the MSM who have never vetted Obama. Had they vetted Obama, they would have realized that he is Van Jones.”
It seems that if you wait long enough, the Obama administration will get around to vindicating its legitimate critics, such as those of us who warned that Obama was insincere when he pretended that the public option was not an indispensable component of his health care scheme. (We hear that he’s recently conducted a series of secret meetings with members of Congress, trying to cobble together a majority on a bill that includes the public option.)
Indeed, with his appointment of Kevin Jennings to head the Education Department’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Obama has vindicated those of us who said that the Jones selection wasn’t a failure of vetting, but about Obama’s appointing a like-minded radical.
Now that Jennings’ radical homosexual activism has been exposed, the Obama administration hasn’t said: “Oh, sorry, another one slipped through our relatively new vetting process. The president will fire him, and we’ll pick someone who reflects the president’s values.”
Read the rest on GOPUSA
By George Will
WASHINGTON — In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas’ trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.
Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about … themselves. Although the working of the committee’s mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago’s bid for the 2016 games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.
In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns “I” or “me” 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences was sufficient to convey the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago’s case compelling.
In 2008, Obama carried the three congressional districts that contain Northern California’s Silicon Valley with 73.1, 69.6 and 68.4 percent of the vote. Surely the Valley could continue its service to him by designing software for his speechwriters’ computers that would delete those personal pronouns, replacing them with the word “sauerkraut” to underscore the antic nature of their excessive appearances.
And — this will be trickier — the software should delete the most egregious cliches sprinkled around by the tin-eared employees in the White House speechwriting shop. The president told the Olympic committee that: “At this defining moment,” a moment “when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations” in “this ever-shrinking world,” he aspires to “forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.”
Good grief. The memory of man runneth not to a moment that escaped being declared “defining” — declared such by someone seeking to inflate himself by inflating it. Also, enough already with the “shrinking” world, which has been so described at least since Magellan set sail, and probably before that. And by the way, the “fate” of — to pick a nation at random — Chile is not really in any meaningful sense “inextricably linked” to that of, say, Chad.
Read the rest At Real Clear PoliticsRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )