Flag burning … it’s protected speech

I am going to try to explain one more time for the thick-skulled among us a fundamental truth about the democratic republic we all call home … and are proud to do so.

It is that burning Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes, Betsy Ross’s most famous piece of stitchery is protected political speech. The protection lies in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the clause that declares that citizens have the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Donald Trump, the guy masquerading as POTUS, has issued an executive order that would sentence a flag-burner to a year in jail.

How can I say this diplomatically? No … can … do!

The nation’s highest court has ruled that the First Amendment’s protection makes flag-burning a legitimate way to speak out politically. It’s done so repeatedly. One ruling involved a flag-burning case out of Dallas when someone burned Old Glory in a public square. Someone filed suit. It found its way to the high court. Justices ruled the moron who burned the flag didn’t break any law.

I also want to stipulate one other point. No one ever should burn Old Glory in my presence if they intend to make a political point. I hate the notion of burning a flag I have served and honored for my entire life. I wore an Army uniform for a couple of years in the late 1960s and went to war in service to the Red, White and Blue. No one who has a noble political cause can persuade me of the validity of that cause by burning a flag. I am likely to turn against the cause simply by witnessing that act.

However, I know that the flag itself is not the issue. The flag is a symbol of what we value as a nation, as Americans. One of the valued aspects of being an American is the ability to protest government policy.

Even if that protest involves lighting a match to the cherished symbol of our freedom!

I cannot possibly pretend to know what kind of rationale Trump is using to sign that executive order. The man has rocks in his noggin.

Trump turns politics upside down

Give the man credit for one nearly impossible feat: Donald Trump has managed to turn conventional political wisdom upside down.

You want examples? Here are a few …

Trump calls himself a conservative. He isn’t. He seeks to gather as much power for the executive branch of government, as long as he is in charge. My traditional view of political conservatism meant that power not spelled out in the Constitution fell to the states, per the 10th Amendment. Not in Trump’s view.

Conservatives favor fiscal responsibility. No longer. Trump is piling up deficits that would make Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan do back flips in their resting places. He works to grant tax cuts to the uber-wealthy. He vows to slash trillions of dollars from the federal government but has managed so far to cut only a tiny fraction of what he promised.

Conservatives hate dictators and value democracies. Not Trump. He lavishes praise on demons such as Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and assorted hamfisted tyrants.

Trump has managed somehow to persuade Americans that he is a populist, that he cares about the little guy. He doesn’t give a rat’s ruby-red backside about anyone other than himself and the toadies who hang onto his every lying word.

It’s been said that even when Trump exits the political stage that this thing called Trumpism will remain far into the future. I hope it vanishes soon after Trump does. Conservatives used to rail against what they called bankrupt fiscal policies. Now they are writing them. We cannot sustain this march toward fiscal ruin.

Not wishing death

My comment in this brief blog post will be directed at a fellow who I must presume believes he is clairvoyant.

A Facebook friend — a member of my family — posted a ditty about Donald Trump not being seen for three days. I responded, “One can only hope.” This other guy, who I do not know, responded with a harsh rejoinder, telling me what I said was shameful and that “I want you to die.”

I couldn’t find the post when I looked for it, but I wanted to tell him that my death is inevitable, “but just not today.” Perhaps he took it down. Whatever.

Do I want Donald Trump to keel over? No. I don’t. My criticism of his policies has been harsh and I will not back away from what I believe are policies that will harm my beloved nation. But I damn sure am never going to wish death on the president of the United States of America. I am acutely aware that statements one posts find their way around the world in a manner of nano-seconds.

Therefore, I am not so stupid than to say such a thing out loud.

As for my private thoughts, that is where they will remain. Locked up and hidden from public view.

Ready, set … judge his place in history!

Some of you might think I am getting ahead of myself by posing this question … but I don’t think so.

The question: Is it too early to begin wondering how history is going to judge Donald Trump’s two terms in office as president of the United States?

Pay attention. Dude is a lame duck. He won’t seek another term in office because the Constitution won’t allow it. Congressional Republicans got alarmed in the 1940s after President Roosevelt was elected for his fourth term in 1944. They wanted to prevent what they feared would be an imperial presidency. So, Congress ratified the 22nd Amendment setting a two-term limit on presidential elections.

I wil concede that historians will have difficulty wrapping their arms around Trump’s two terms. How does history judge someone who wins a second term vowing to be his supporters’ “retribution” and then proceeds to follow through on that chilling pledge? It is clear to anyone with half a functioning brain that Trump wants to rewrite the rules of governance, seeking to scarf up more power for the chief executive than the Constitution currently allows.

Leading economists and constitutional scholars say he is breaking the law by invoking inflationary tariffs on imported goods.

There well might be a special category emerging for this guy. He won’t be judged by history purely by policies he supposedly favors. I say “supposedly” because he doesn’t seem to have a philosophical core that goes beyond what’s good for him.

His obituary will contain the word “impeached” in the leading paragraph. So, for that matter, will Bill Clinton’s obit. Trump went through two of them. You know what? There well might be more of them coming up if Democrats regain control of the House in the 2026 midterm election. The question, though, for Senate Republicans is whether they will find the courage to convict him and toss his sorry backside out of office.

You can bet your final buck that historians are preparing the first draft assessing what this guy has meant to the presidency and to the nation he was elected twice to lead. Therefore , it is not too early to begin that task.

Flaws run deep in Trump doctrine

Donald Trump and his gullible gang of MAGA goofballs are operating on a faulty assumption that the nation’s Constitution protects them against protests over the extreme overreach in which they are engaged.

They purport to be true-blue conservatives who are led by a president who is claiming that the office he occupies grants him authority essentially to break the law … as long as he is performing an official act.

Let’s see about that.

The reality, as I interpret it, is that the nation’s founders created a relatively weak executive branch of government. They invested equal amounts of power in Congress and the courts and charged them with the responsibility of exercising appropriate “checks and balances” against executive overreach. One of those branches, the legislative branch comprising Congress, essentially has rolled over for Trump. The Republicans who control both congressional chambers act as if it’s OK for the president to usurp their constitutional authority. Their acquiesence has emboldened Trump to keep reaching beyond his governmental grasp. So far so good, or so it seems.

That leaves the courts as the last man standing in Trump’s way. And we are beginning to see some signs of backbone among federal judges. Trump’s legal challenges are being swatted away by judges … some of whom appointed by Trump himself. That kind of independence is precisely what the founders intended when they created a system that grants judges lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

Yeah, that kind of judicial independence just pisses Trump and his MAGA minions off. Too damn bad!

The founders did not intend to build a government that invested limitless power in one individual. If Trump had any understanding at all of our democratic process, he would know that.

But he doesn’t. Nor do the 30% to 35% of the nation’s voters who adhere to the idiocy that flows from their leader’s mouth.