Tuesday, January 18, 2011

New low for the White House

Today, the Obama White House violated United States Code 36 USC 171, Use and Display of the Flag.

A very simple concept, it says that the US flag always flies highest when displayed in America, especially when displayed at a government building.

(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.

Get that?  Even the flag of the United Nations can only be displayed equal to Old Glory except at UN Headquarters.

I realize I am a stickler for flag etiquette.  I'm that guy that will stop by a bank or hotel just to tell them that they are flying their flags incorrectly-the US flag goes on the highest flag pole, then the state flag, then your company flag.

But this is the damn White House, where there are dozens of people whose sole job is to advise on protocol.  

Last thought-maybe if we hadn't increased the debt by 40% over the last two years of sole Democrat rule, we wouldn't have to kiss the ass of the Chinese 'president' when he visits the country he increasingly owns, lock stock and barrel.


Tommy Johnson said...

Dave, per your link - debt increases under Bush:

01/02/2001 - $5,662,216,013,697.37
12-31-2008 - $10,699,804,864,612.13

Remind me again on what you guys said about the cost of the wars, will ya?

Oh, wait - here's some of 'em:

ANDREW NATSIOS - “[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Nightline, 4/23/03]

MITCH DANIELS - said the war would be an “affordable endeavor” and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]

PAUL WOLFOWITZ - said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05; Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

And, of course, there's this one:

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties

And now you blame Obama for all our fiscal problems.

Shame on you, Dave.

Shame on you.

Dave Thul said...

Shame on me Tommy? I helped bring freedom to 26 million people. What's on your military resume?

The fact is that our current president has spent more on pork barrel spending in 2 years than Pres. Bush did on both wars in 8 years.

And of course you conveniently forget that there was this little thing called 9/11 that had a major negative impact on the economy and cost the government billions in recovery, repair, and legal settlements.

But despite 9/11, the recession he inherited from Pres Clinton, and the cost of keeping this country safe from terrorism after 9/11, Pres Bush still added less to the deficit in 8 years than Pres Obama will in 3 years.

Shame, indeed.