Another Hillary '180'

In yet another political move for Hillary to makeUnfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple
herself something she is not, Hillary is nowattempt to have it both ways.I would like to
co-sponsoring an anti-flag burning law.Senatorknow why the New York Times finds it
Hillary Clinton is supporting a bill to make it a crimeunfortunate that Hillary appears to try to "have it
to burn the American flag -- but she still opposesboth ways." Why is that so unfortunate? Is it
a constitutional ban on flag desecration. WCAX-TVunfortunate because Hillary is not able to fool the
Burlington, VTMrs. Clinton, out of which side ofAmerican public as easily any longer?Clinton says
your mouth do you feed yourself? In that oneshe opposes a constitutional amendment to
sentence, while it is not a direct quote, yououtlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court
contradicted yourself.If you want to make it aruled that flag-burning was protected by the First
crime to burn an American flag, why do youAmendment. But her bill is clearly intended to put
oppose a constitutional ban? Why do you wish tothe issue back before the current, more
keep it a 'freedom of expression' thing in oneconservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting
breath and co-sponsor an anti-flag burning law ina turnaround.
the next?In her public statements, Clinton hasIs anyone else getting confused by the blatant
compared the act of flag-burning to burning adouble-speak going on here? So if Clinton opposes
cross, which can be considered a violation ofa constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning,
federal civil rights law.The measure outlaws awhy is she wasting her time trying to bring this in
protester intimidating any person by burning thefront of a 'more conservative' Supreme Court
flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecratingthis time around? Doesn't Hillary Clinton have
the flag on federal property.Mrs. Clinton, ifbetter things to do, like criticize Bush for a war
someone intimidates me with burning a flag, he orshe states to support?Flag burning, while truly
she will just show his or her ignorance. Since thedisrespectful, is nothing more than people with no
flag means nothing to that person, it is justreal ideas trying to get some attention. While they
material and stiching. By burning that particularenjoy the freedoms of this country, they hate
flag, you are not hurting anyone, but onlythose same freedoms that give them the right to
destroying your own property.However, if anyonebe foolish. By offending people who may have
but touches my American flag in any disrespectfultook the time to listen to their points of view,
manner on my property or off my property, wethey have now lost any credibility as an intelligent
will have some serious problems. No one has aperson.These same people who would like to burn
right to vandalize my property.Of course, if thata flag would support Hillary through Hades and
same person were on my property burning aback. It would behoove her to keep her
cross, a flag, or whatever, he or she will meetconstituents strongly behind her.In yet another
my water-hose and I will have to take the properpolitical move to position herself for the
measures to get the tresspasser off my land. ItPresidential Elections of 2008, she is trying to
is that simple!I do not see why Senator Bobmake America think she is a conservative.
Bennett or Senator Hillary Clinton are evenHowever, Hillary does something or says
wasting their time passing this particular law. Isomething that shows her true colors at every
would like to think that, "intimidating any personother turn and completely ruins the image she
by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, orwishes to portray. Does she truly expect that we
desecrating the flag on federal property," wouldwill forget things she publicly says about the
already be covered by anti-vandalism laws,president or the war by going public practically the
anti-assualt laws, or maybe even criminalnext day with something that might impress us
tresspass laws. Could this be both Senators' wayknuckle-dragging conservatives? Thankfully, there
of getting some attention by politicizingare still many of us in this country who have a
patriotism?A New York Times [retrieved frommemory span longer than the regular commercial
the International Herald] piece puts it quitebreak.References
perfectly in the following excerpt:1. Sen. Clinton Co-sponsors Anti-flag Burning Law.
Her supporters would characterize this as anWCAX-TV Burlington, VT [Associated Press].
attempt to find a middle way between those who2005. Senator Clinton, Pandering. New York Times,
believe that flag-burning is constitutionallyThe [ONLINE] [retrieved from International Herald
protected free speech and those who want toTribune. 7 December 2005.
ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment.