There is not one American living within our borders that did not practice at least one of the rights granted to them by the first amendment to the United States Constitution today. It reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
For any educated patriot of our country, this is beloved language! This is what our forefathers wrote in that perilous time after fighting and giving their life's blood for freedom! Their mindset was that they would not tolerate any remote, central government that would dictate their personal liberties.
However, what the language of this amendment has been construed to describe is not the type of moral definition that the founders envisioned. You would think that the courts would be concerned about what the forefathers meant by their words, rather than what their words "could be interpreted as."
For example, would the forefathers have tolerated the freedom of expression that occurs in Buffalo, New York where the nude, exposed sodomites ride in the beds of trucks and walk down the street in defiance of God and decency? Would the freedom of expression that occured on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C. be tolerated, where over 100 students burned American flag after American flag in protest of the war on terror? How do you think Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independence, or James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, would feel of such "freedoms?" Can flag burning really be justified by the Bill of Rights, when the men that wrote them also were those whose blood was spilled in battle upon that flag? The flag that represents every freedom the Bill of Rights contains can be burnt based on the Bill of Rights itself? And this is "Constitutional?"
How many soldiers come home after losing their best friends in battlefield only to be greeted by others that are able to "express" their freedoms in an un-American way--anti-war protests (as if it's the soldiers fault)? Would the "great emancipator," Abraham Lincoln, the "President of Equality," have put up with such, or would he do what he did in 1860-1862, and lock up every anti-war newspaper editor in the Union?
It is described as "hate crime" to act against these activist, radical groups, yet the hatred they show our country is not given the same label. Can they really constitutionally burn dummies of our President and soldiers, as well as the flag? Or, let's be real about it: are these protesters even citizens?
Call it hate crime, but I hate the America haters! They have earned my hate with their hate.
Should we be allowed to be opposed to the war? Absolutely, it's a right you have. But to desecrate our flag, our military? Unless you're ready for war, as the colonists were when they did so against Great Britain, no you cannot!
I love God! And after that, I love America! Her enemies are my enemies, foreign and domestic! Flag burners are committing treason! And they should be treated as such. If you should burn our flag, please wrap yourself in it first! And if you can't stand behind our troops, then get in front of them! Notice I did not say behind our politicians; I'm not behind them either! I said our troops... those who just obey their orders like they're supposed to.
I have one piece of advice for those who would dare practice their "rights" by desecrating the symbol of those "rights." Don't try it in my front yard!