The Right of Patriotism


Some of you may have heard over the past week about a young man named Cody Alicea out in California (surprise!) who was ordered by his school (Denair Middle School) to remove the American flag that he displayed on the back of his bicycle. Supposedly this was necessary because the flag, which he displayed in honor of veterans like his grandfather, was a threat to school safety.  According to the superintendent,  Cody’s flag threatened his own safety because some minority students were upset that his American flag didn’t cause the same outcry that their Mexican flags did back on Cinco de Mayo.  To add insult to injury, the school told him to remove the flag theMonday before Veteran’s Day, despite the fact that he had flown it for two months before it miraculously became an “issue”.

The good news is, Cody’s school was soon forced to reverse their decision when they found themselves neck-deep in the patriotic outrage of Americans from around the country.  In fact, he got an American Legion motorcycle escort (around 100 bikes according to one report) the day he returned to school with this flag:

Of course, is it any surprise that the liberal knee-jerk reaction is to immediately target a patriotic kid like Cody as the problem instead of the malcontents who prefer to honor a foreign nation over America?  Not at all.  In fact, Cody is merely the latest in a string of incidents where patriotic young Americans have been targeted by school officials who deemed their peacefully expressed patriotism to be offensive or dangerous.  No doubt the liberals of Denair Middle School are privately disappointed that their little assault on America (and its veterans) disguised by safety concerns failed to fly under the radar.  I can’t help but wonder how many of them do escaped undetected.

What all this brings me to is a few thoughts about the “right of patriotism.”  We hear a lot in this country about our guaranteed rights and freedoms: the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a trial by jury, et cetera (if the Latin here leaves you a little blank, then I recommend you peruse the Bill of Rights for a refresher), and we hear quite a bit about patriotism and love of country—but what about a right of patriotism?  Of course, I recognize that this right is protected by an umbrella, so to speak, of other rights, specifically those found in the first amendment—freedom of speech, assembly, and the press in particular.   Personally, I also find it a bit odd to even think about a right of patriotism, just because I take so deeply for granted that it exists.  Even the most oppressive, totalitarian countries in the world encourage (and often force) their “citizens” to celebrate country and display their “patriotism”, perverted though it might be; so how could this right be challenged in the United States?

Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that the United States is just the place where it can be challenged.  While I think it’s fair to say that Americans generally expect patriotism (defined, I should add, as a love for or devotion to one’s country) from their fellow citizens, we don’t force it from anyone–in fact, we hold dear the right to say differently. This in itself does not create a challenge to the right of patriotism; however, a problems arises when those who choose to abstain complain that they are “offended” by the patriotism of those around them and then demand that it be reduced or eliminated altogether.  These leftist types have in effect invented a new right for themselves–the right to not be offended.  A right that applies, of course, only to minority groups, whether racial, philosophical, or religious.  It is perhaps the height of political irony that in the United States, a country that values freedom above any other, our right to express devotion to this and many other ideals is challenged under the deceptive aegis of “tolerance”.

This short piece is a rallying call.   The great weakness of those who love our country and freedom is that we too often take for granted the ability to express that love, and we end up sitting idly by while it is undermined by the forces of progressive tolerance.  It up to each of us to individually challenge this norm, first by courageously using our right of patriotism, and second by standing united with those individuals, like Cody Alicea, whose right is challenged by the radical, “tolerant” left.  I believe that these anti-patriotism forces are generally shocked when their sneak attacks are met with the kind of patriotic fervor and outrage that generally forces them to backtrack and recant.  Let us make sure that this is always the case.  Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little tolerance deserve neither.


Even Snowe Gets It?


With all the recent posturing by certain Senate Republicans unwilling to contemplate a loss of discretionary spending power in form of an earmarks ban, I must admit that my own Senator Snowe was among the last I expected to get it right.  I am, however, always open to life’s pleasant surprises, including this one in the form of this press statement from her website:

“The American people have spoken loud and clear that they are angry with the nation’s current fiscal policies, highlighted by out-of-control government spending and the burgeoning federal budget deficit.  Earmarking may account for less than one percent of overall federal expenditures, but it is an issue of how government is spending Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.  In that light, the moratorium on earmarks that I will support in tomorrow’s Senate Republican Conference may be a small step, but it is an important step to demonstrate that we are listening and that Congress gets it.  At the same time, we must also work in Congress to establish a system to ensure that federal agencies are spending the appropriations funding they receive responsibly, appropriately, and with transparency.”

Not bad, although I would give the ban a little more recognition that “a small step.”  Still, in RINO-speak, I think one small step is probably code for a painfully giant leap.  Hopefully this will lead them to a few more giant leaps in the near future.  (Like stopping the new START treaty cold perhaps?)

Of course, with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell having a change of heart on the whole matter, this is less surprising that it would be, but I’m happy nonetheless.  If this a real change, rather than political maneuvering, I would be a little surprised, but I guess maneuvering your way to listen to the voters is better than just plain ignoring them.  I also imagine that this may have something to do with self-preservation.  The 2012 campaign season is not that far off, and the easy tagline “Senator RINO fought against earmark reform despite the clear message of 2010″ is one that’s best avoided.

final bit of irony: upon the McConnell shift to support the ban, Sen. McCaskill (D-MO) issued a statement supporting the ban as well, proudly pointing to her no-earmarks record.  If nothing else, this just goes to show that while the GOP’s decision to impose an no-earmark diet on themselves should be applauded, it is indeed a small step in the overall journey to forcing Washington as whole onto a diet of less money and less power.  We have a long ways to go to see if our representatives in D.C. really learned anything from 2010.

(Thanks to my dad for the heads-up on the Snowe press release.)