Michelle Malkin » Flag desecration of the day: Bill Ayers stomps on Old Glory

Flag desecration of the day: Bill Ayers stomps on Old Glory

By Michelle Malkin • May 5, 2008 07:35 AM

Here’s your Monday morning blood pressure-raiser.

The full Chicago Magazine article, titled “No Regrets,” is here with the color photo.

You know, conversations about that photo will not help the Obamas’ kids…

And in case you missed it, make sure you read John Murtaugh’s piece on how the Weather Underground terrorists tried to kill his family. Video here.

Like the Arizona Republic editorial board put it today: The 60s just won’t go away.

Here’s your letter of the morning from Greg Phares in today’s WSJ:

Elizabeth Wurtzel (”Obama’s Other Radical Friends,” op-ed, May 2) can be forgiven her youthful fascination with radical bomber Bernardine Dohrn. We all have ideas at 15 that seem silly from the perspective of middle age. Barack Obama’s reported close relationship with Ms. Dohrn and Bill Ayers is much more troubling and raises legitimate questions about his judgment and maturity.

In a 33-year law-enforcement career I had occasion to arrest many charming criminals. One of the most engaging was a California radical, rapist and prison escapee associated with the Symbionese Liberation Army (remember them?) who was living in Louisiana. When, after an intensive undercover investigation, I confronted him with his true name, he stuck out his hand and said “You must have talked to them in Oakland.” Indeed I had, and what I learned was chilling.

From all accounts, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn are equally charming. That does not nullify their crimes. Placing a bomb is one of the most evil of acts because the effects of a bomb are totally indiscriminate and incredibly devastating. Just ask a young Iraq War veteran who will live the rest of his or her life minus body parts. Just ask the families of those killed by Timothy McVeigh in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

There is little moral difference between Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn and McVeigh. Timothy McVeigh was simply a less charming individual and a more successful bomber. He received just punishment for his crime. Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn did not.

Greg Phares
Baton Rouge, La.

***

Previous: Barack and Michelle and Bill and Bernardine: The Obama/Weather Underground compendium

Also: I linked Tom Maguire’s excellent post last week, but here it is again for those who might have an opportunity to subject Obama to the Ayers/Obama/Chicago Annenberg challenge. An excerpt (go to the posts for all the links):

One might well ask – how would Obama characterize his involvement with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund?

…How closely did Obama work with the fund’s executive director, Ken Rolling (and what does Mr. Rolling have to say about this)?

What did Obama know of Bill Ayers’ involvement (which the rest of us now know to be extensive)?

Eventually, the CACF was viewed as a failure (the final report says it had “little impact”) – what did Obama learn from that?

Finally, there is a question of shared values; setting aside Ayers’ bomb-tossing proclivities of the 70’s, he has a very hard left approach to education; for example, he explained to Hugo Chavez and a Venezuelan audience that public education was a way to promote the revolution…How much of this did Obama know then? Or is this just another situation, as with Jeremiah Wright, where Obama simply didn’t know anything about the fellow with whom he was associating?

Posted in: Bill Ayers

Printer Friendly

comments (315)

trackbacks (33)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#312030

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

It’s quite sad to see so many people complaining about this simply to just ‘complain’. You provide no ’solutions’ for this alleged problem, you just try to make it more of a problem. You seem to care more about a ’symbol’ than you do the country that it is intended to represent. Your attempts to tie so many things together makes your original argument completely invalid. It appears that the Conservatives are no longer ‘for’ anything but ‘against’ everything.

Just to get this out of the way – yes, this is my first commment on Malkin’s blog. No, I am NOT a conservative.

In that call to come up with solutions, I didn’t see any solutions presented.

You’re not a conservative, but you want them to do the work and come up with stuff?

What else is new?
#312034

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:52 pm, aironlater said:

This is my whole point, you’ve said nothing.
“quod erat demonstrandum”

But by all means, keep writing…

You actually have a point?

Alright, i’m going to try and discuss this with the everyone else, run along now………
#312038

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm, USMCgramma said:

Freedom of speech is a precious right – but it doesn’t excuse lies, crude, rude and stupid remarks. /s/WWII Gold Star Sister Semper Fi
#312039

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm, aironlater said:

In that call to come up with solutions, I didn’t see any solutions presented.

You’re not a conservative, but you want them to do the work and come up with stuff?

What else is new?

….and there’s the best spin I’ve seen all day.

When someone points out what someone else hasn’t done, just claim that that person is too lazy to create a solution.

Come on, you’re going to have to do better than that.
#312044

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:56 pm, Salt said:

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, aironlater said:

That being said, are people like Ayers THE problem? It appears, to me at least, that these people are elevated to the status of ‘icon’ in order to rationalize why one certain movement is more important to America than another.

We likely would not be discussing Ayers if it were not for his connection (be it loose, tight, or whatever fit) to a candidate for the President of the United States.

I believe the gist here is that Sen. Obama seems to have some questionable ties to folks that have some rather radical ideas about America.

Ayers is not the icon, but the extent of Sen. Obama’s connection to him is worthy of discussion, no?

Personally, I don’t approve of Ayers tactics ( that being the bombings – though it should be noted that he was aquitted of ALL charges ).

You disapprove of the tactics of which he was acquitted? I am unclear of your stance here, either you believe he set bombs, or you don’t, right?

I thought the basis of the acquittal was due to a prosecution error in procedure, not a proof of innocence?
#312047

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:58 pm, feebiebabe said:

RUSTY. Do you have a comment for my SFSU College Republican article? Or are you just going to ignore my posting response to you (as usual, yawn).

aironlater – I have no clue who you are…but I am getting a massive headache watching you argue every other point other than the one posted. Your turn.
#312050

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:58 pm, undrseige247 said:

aironlater said:

If the Republican party had this type of scrutiny of their own candidates, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

What are you some sort of blockhead? the current cadre Democrats have to be the most corrupt party in US History. What are you stupid?
#312055

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:01 pm, undrseige247 said:

aironlater said:

When someone points out what someone else hasn’t done, just claim that that person is too lazy to create a solution

.

Lazy? You haven’t offered any solutions here either. Who the hell are you besides a lib who runs their yap?
#312058

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm, aironlater said:

You disapprove of the tactics of which he was acquitted? I am unclear of your stance here, either you believe he set bombs, or you don’t, right?

I thought the basis of the acquittal was due to a prosecution error in procedure, not a proof of innocence?

Perhaps I should have been clearer.

No, I don’t think that bombing anything is going to solve anything.
#312061

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm, feebiebabe said:

#288 – Well!!! That certainly is a relief.
#312063

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm, Salt said:

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, aironlater said:

If the Republican party had this type of scrutiny of their own candidates, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Have you been around here long, aironlater? I ask only because this statement would strike many of us here as funny, if only because we have been just as critical of Republican candidates.

Even so, this is a bit of a strawman.
#312068

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:07 pm, undrseige247 said:

Rusty:

Depending on the way things go you will either get a flag burning desecration amendment passed or expanded federal hate crimes legislation in the coming years. The way things look the Rainbow Flag will be protected before “Old Glory” does which makes be want to lose my lunch. Mark my words.
#312069

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pm, Salt said:

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm, aironlater said:

I asked:
You disapprove of the tactics of which he was acquitted? I am unclear of your stance here, either you believe he set bombs, or you don’t, right?

I thought the basis of the acquittal was due to a prosecution error in procedure, not a proof of innocence?

Perhaps I should have been clearer.

No, I don’t think that bombing anything is going to solve anything.

Sorry to all for multiple postings…

aironlater, I don’t think you intended an evasion here, but that did not answer the question.

Do you believe the Bill Ayers was involved in the Weather Underground bombings?
#312072

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm, libocrat said:

aironlater.
Yes, I am certain you are a liberal, and I’m certain you shyte your pants.

NEXT.
#312076

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm, feebiebabe said:

#293 – ROFLMAO!!!
#312091

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:29 pm, undrseige247 said:

Salt said:

we have been just as critical of Republican candidates.

Damn straight.
#312103

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm, zorro said:

As Dick Cheney might say, Hey Bill Ayers, wanta go hunting?
#312111

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, John Ansell said:

On May 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm, zorro said:
As Dick Cheney might say, Hey Bill Ayers, wanta go hunting?

Maybe we can get ayers to ride in Sen. Teddy’s car?
#312118

On May 5th, 2008 at 7:01 pm, kevrobin45 said:

OK. So you hate America. What do you want in its place? A country that doesn’t give you freedom of speech?

Just be thankful!
#312148

On May 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm, bear1909 said:

That’s 5 words, Bear.

Only pointing it out before one of the lefties do.

(Unless I missed the joke.)

By thunder…what a whopper. yep. it be 5.
#312215

On May 5th, 2008 at 8:43 pm, txvet2 said:

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, aironlater said: Personally, I don’t approve of Ayers tactics ( that being the bombings – though it should be noted that he was aquitted of ALL charges ).

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:56 pm, Salt said: I thought the basis of the acquittal was due to a prosecution error in procedure, not a proof of innocence?

Are you sure he was acquitted? I thought that charges were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct. That doesn’t equate to acquittal – in fact it might mean nothing more than that he had a liberal judge who sympathized with him. At any rate it’s irrelevant, since he cheerfully admitted his participation, and even bragged about how he got away with it.
#312237

On May 5th, 2008 at 9:12 pm, Rusty said:

The way things look the Rainbow Flag will be protected before “Old Glory” does which makes be want to lose my lunch. Mark my words.

On a city level, you’re probably right. And I promise you that if my city tried something like that, I’d be first in line to complain.
#312240

On May 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm, Dimsdale said:

300 posts later:

Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and admits to being one. His stomping on the flag was the act of someone that really doesn’t deserve the country he lives in. While legally permissible, it is neither advised or in good taste, and surely not what most would consider patriotic. If someone takes sufficient offense and punches you, it is a chance you take. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. (By the way lgm, running out the statute clock prior to a prosecution is not evidence of innocence).

Bottom line: Obama is defined by the company he keeps. He can’t get away from that, and the hole he has dug for himself over decades is getting deeper all the time. He should hire people to tell him what will cause political suicide. We are going to have to call mine rescue before long.
#312274

On May 5th, 2008 at 9:57 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

Rusty #301
Time to put your $$$ where your keyboard is and here is my challenge to you and the liberals on this board:

I will attempt to burn two flags in a park in front of lots of people; 1) The American Flag first, wait 30 minutes, and then 2) a Rainbow Flag. No speeches, no quoting scripture, just silence as I torch each flag on a BBQ grill to see which burning flag raises the most concern or which one gets me arrested and/or charged with a hate crime.

If history is any indication (read Philadelphia 5) then I expect to be arrested, charged with a hate crime for orientation discrimination and possibly fired from my summer job.

If nothing happens, then I will donate $100 to the liberal cause of your choise.

If I am arrested, or threatened with arrest then you must donate $100 to MM’s favorite charity or the Disabled American Veterans organization.

GSP
#312279

On May 5th, 2008 at 10:02 pm, feebiebabe said:

#304 posts later and Rusty still won’t respond to the College Republican burning of Hamas Flags at SFSU?

SHoooccckkkaahh!
#312282

On May 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm, GaMidnightRider said:

On May 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm, USMCgramma said:
Freedom of speech is a precious right – but it doesn’t excuse lies, crude, rude and stupid remarks. /s/WWII Gold Star Sister Semper Fi

GaMidNightRider snaps to attention and salutes you. Thank you for the honor of allowing me to thank you.

SEMPER FI
#312355

On May 5th, 2008 at 11:45 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

Just a piece of cloth? Is the White House just a building? Is the Statue of Liberty just another statue?

How far we have fallen. Free speech? It is no more free speech than pornography on public library computers. The Supreme Court may have decided it was a freedom of expression and in the process destroyed centuries of flag codes and respect due the one thing the whole world knows is the symbol of America. The symbol of the most free nation on the planet that millions of veterans have fought under that flag and many of them died fighting for what it represents.

Just a piece of cloth? Be thankful that vets are generally law abiding, because there are a lot of hippies and commies and other America haters who would come to know what it means to disrespect America if we were not law abiding.

It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag. –(Chaplain) Dennis Edward O’Brian, USMC

But not on my watch, Semper Fi.
#312358

On May 5th, 2008 at 11:48 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

AKGrizzly-well said!

GSP
#312526

On May 6th, 2008 at 7:28 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

alaskangrizzly said: (306)

How far we have fallen. Free speech? It is no more free speech than pornography on public library computers. The Supreme Court may have decided it was a freedom of expression and in the process destroyed centuries of flag codes and respect due the one thing the whole world knows is the symbol of America. The symbol of the most free nation on the planet that millions of veterans have fought under that flag and many of them died fighting for what it represents.

And the Supreme Court got that one right because if it is not a form of ‘political expression’ then what is that gets some people so upset to see it?

Answer me truthfully, would you be more proud to live in a country where 99.999999% of the people might be respecting the flag because of a law, (like in China or Cuba for example), or a country where there is ZERO doubt that the respect from 99.999999% can only be coming from one place – each individual’s heart?

Our country is of, by, and for PEOPLE so I’ll take the latter thank you. It is something that makes me proud and I won’t let myopic people like you take that pride away from me.
#312681

On May 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am, alaskangrizzly said:

Well, I’d rather be short-sighted in your view than let people destroy the symbol of freedom. You may see it as a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum, I see it as a grown adult openly showing they are no better than the terrorists who destroyed the WTC, damaged the Pentagon, and killed thousands of innocents by acting in the same fashion as said terrorists when they burn the symbol of freedom.

And unlike you, I will not stand idly by while morons like lgm and company pass legislation making it illegal to burn a rainbow flag, while burning an American flag is in fashion. Typical Liberal Hypocrisy. I will fight that hypocrisy, because some things are worth fighting for. And to me, the flag I served under and still live under means more to me than some commies right to spit on my service or my fellow vets service. Yes, they are trying to provoke anger. And yes, we know they are trying to provoke anger. But you’re suggesting that we shouldn’t drop to their demands and just ignore it. That may work well and fine with some things, but if we will not stand up and fight for freedom then you will quickly find yourself lacking those freedoms.
#313037

On May 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

You’re wrapping your flag in your military service yet there are many veterans who agree with me on this issue and do not want the flag to suddenly stand for something lower than the one they fought for, what it stands for right now. If you think an amendment will protect our flag from being desecrated, the amendment will leave a stain that ain’t gonna wash off.

I’m an equal opportunity opponent against ‘hate crime’ legislation whether its the rainbow flag or Old Glory; so you won’t find any traction against me there.

Like I tried to say, our country is not a flag, it is not coastlines, mountains, plains and rivers, it is PEOPLE with a precious Constitution written to guarantee rights. And our flag is not only the symbol of the Constitution – it is the symbol of the PEOPLE living that document. Almost every single one of those people respect our flag from their heart like I do and I am proud of that fact! You are not proud of that fact?

Burning a symbol does nothing to burn what the symbol symbolizes. You’ll find no scars on me from seeing some idiot burn our flag and doubt that you could find any on yourself. But if you pass a law against flag burning, the FEW idiots that ever desecrated our flag will be laughing and dancing in the streets victorious. Those few will relish being able to claim that they forced an entire country to place a limit on our First Amendment just because of them. Then THEY will be proud – and the first time they were ever correct.
#313090

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

I don’t think either one of us is going to convince the other who is correct and who values the Constitution and the flag more.

There are already limits (not outlined in the Constitution) on free speech and expression. Yelling fire in a movie theatre, yelling bomb on an airplane, running naked through the streets… will all get you arrested in most places. And for centuries the flag was in the same boat, a protected item that was a slight impingement on free speech that millions of Americans had no problem with for over 200 years.

Then the Supreme Court decides it belongs under freedom of expression to burn the flag. So now, because of that, if we make an Amendment to restore the dignity the flag once held for 200 years under flag codes we take away a section of freedom of speech given after the fact. You argue that would set a dangerous example of future abuses, and I would have to agree sadly that it probably would open the door to what is currently being pushed as hate crimes when it is really free speech. Europe is paying the heavy toll right now for allowing the PC mentality to run amok and hate crimes bills to be passed. Which is why that famous lady in France is facing charges for calling Islam a religion of death or something like that. Here in the US that is still protected free speech, in France and much of Europe not so much anymore. And that will be Europe’s downfall, their own laws used against them.

So I see your point, and in these deranged times when liberals run amok I could see the lesser of the two evils being allowed to happen to preserve free speech in the future. But the Supreme Court saying so doesn’t make it right, just like Roe vs Wade didn’t make abortion right it just made it legal.
#313141

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm, wighttrasch said:

If they’ve died to preserve a piece of cloth, it’s a horrible waste.

It’s not a piece of ‘cloth’–it’s a symbol. You know, those thingies that the liberal fascists love to throw up for our adulation? Quilts? Candles lit outside death row? Body bags on the parking lot of big Tobacco? Chaining oneself to a tree? The liberals scream & spray spittle when someone tries to come between them & their precious symbols. God forbid we should hold something, that is enduring & represents so much, so dearly.
#313297

On May 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

Rusty and the other trolls
Re: Post 303

What is with you guys? Not willing to take me up on the challenge?

Is it because you know that conservatives are right when it comes to the misapprobiation of hate crimes laws that they target our free speech and not yours?

Offer is on the table…..

GSP
#313301

On May 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

They are too busy suffering from TLHS (Typical Liberal Hypocrisy Syndrome) better known as “do as I say not as I do” to take you up on that offer GSP.
#313460

On May 6th, 2008 at 8:08 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

Silly me, I thought they were suffering from a coloncranioinversion.

GSP