RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL PAUL D. EATON STATEMENT ON DONALD TRUMP'S TWEET ON FLAG BURNING

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Washington DC - This morning, Donald Trump tweeted that Americans who burn the flag should be imprisoned, or have their citizenship revoked, even though the Supreme Court decided burning of the flag was a First Amendment right.  
 
In response to Trump's comments, Retired Army Major General Paul D. Eaton, senior adviser to VoteVets.org, released the following statement:
 
“Donald Trump is attacking the very first amendment in the Constitution, that every member of the military swore to protect – the freedom of speech and expression.  The idea that any American should be jailed or see his or her citizenship revoked for exercising that right is chilling.  
 
Further, it raises questions about what Donald Trump would want to do with those people, if they lost their citizenship, and all the other Constitutional protections that come with it – from due process rights to protections against cruel and unusual punishment.  What would his intent be, after taking away someone’s citizenship?

http://www.votevets.org/press/retired-major-general-paul-d-eaton-statement

[still_one]

1. For one thing if they lost their citizenship, they could be considered refugees, which would making

it much easier to immigrate to Canada

[marybourg]

4. The same Supreme Court, plus

international agreement, make it impossible to deprive a citizen of citizenship.

[still_one]

5. I know

[marybourg]

6. But apparantly at least one

orange-haired insomniac doesn't.

[alfredo]

31. But if the president does it, it's not illegal ;)

[salin]

2. extended logic... if protester carried arms

how likely is it that Trump would suddenly be in favor of taking away second amendment rights for those protesting with arms?

[Doreen]

39. Guns are not safe either.

As soon as his government sees people protecting themselves from it guns will soon be taken away.

[Hoyt]

3. I bet 90% of vets with those stickers that say "my oath of enlistment never ends" don't agree.

[Cracklin Charlie]

21. Maybe they will listen to the Retired Army Major General...

When he tells them what their sticker means.

Hope springs eternal.

[Martin Eden]

7. Demagogue Don didn't put that much thought into it

He's an impulsive juvenile trying to impress the twits who follow his tweets.

[humbled_opinion]

8. I am sure after they lose

their citizenship, it is simply a matter of claiming they are enemy combatants and shipping them off to GITMO to undergo the new Top Secret torture (we are told we don't do).

[smirkymonkey]

9. 1000

[keithbvadu2]

10. The flag they burn

?1434891904

[malaise]

36. Perfect

[Bob Loblaw]

43. Maybe he should burn

that Gold's Gym shirt. It doesn't appear to be working for him.

[keithbvadu2]

11. The flag they respect

?1434818045

[elmac]

22. The poster boy

of the new ameriKan Reich

[alfredo]

32. I'm going to steal those two images.

Dylann Roof is probably a hero to the White Nationalist AKA alt-right.

[spanone]

12. thank you general.

[rusty fender]

13. Just read on Newsweek.com that Hillary

Clinton cosponsored, with Sen. Bennett of Utah, a bill that would make burning or desecration of the US flag punishable by a year in jail and a $100k fine What was she thinking?

[MADem]

14. PLEASE. She co-sponsored that bill to fend off a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT on the same topic.

The bill did not pass - but it gave a bunch of Republicans bragging rights to say they voted against flag burning.

And she was one of MANY Democratic co-sponsors.

It's like throwing a pork chop to a rabid dog so they don't eat your baby.

[rusty fender]

18. Thank you for telling me

what she was thinking!

I think that cosponsoring that bill was pandering to the right-wing wackos. I seriously do not think that a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning would have even passed in the Senate, which would have been necessary to get it to the states.

[MADem]

19. The bill was defeated by not too many votes in the Senate.

That was no slam-dunk. There was vote-counting going on with that thing. It was targeted and purposeful.

I don't think Barbara Boxer or the other Dem co-sponsors were pandering, either. Sometimes, you have to take a step back before you can take two forward. Better to sacrifice a pork chop than a baby.

[baldguy]

15. The people who can't or won't bother to understand how politics *WORKS* voted for Donald Trump.

[rusty fender]

24. I've been a DU member for ten years.

I'm not a member of JPR so you can go insult someone else. I posted a fact about our candidate, a fact that I was unaware of. A law banning the burning of the flag, regardless of one's motive in cosponsoring such a law, is wrong, plain wrong.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

26. I've already checked that.

You just don't post that often so hence my conclusion.

And I repeat Hillary lost so why do you deflect from the guy who is in office?

[rusty fender]

34. Because it can't be wrong for one

and right for the other. We have to be honest and consistent. If not, then, if we had been a presidential candidate we might pick an SOS who has been convicted of mishandling classified material when throughout the campaign we accused the other candidate of doing the same thing

[demmiblue]

37. 1

I think that he tweeted this, in part, to troll Secretary Clinton.

He is livid that she won the popular vote, so he used this as an attack on her Democratic/liberal bonafides.

I also think that Senator Sanders is correct when he intimated that this is really a shot across the bow to those who dissent, or plan on dissenting. Dissent and you will be dealt with, harshly.

A two for the price of one tweet, if you will.

[rusty fender]

38. You may be right about that, however

I am bothered that this law was cosponsored by Democratic senators, lawyers themselves, who knew that the SC had already ruled that such a law was unconstitutional! This is what is boggling my mind now

[ancianita]

17. And what's a US president and military going to protect if not citizens' constitutional rights?

[elmac]

20. They protect Corporate profits

US presidents and military have a long record of protecting US economic interests. I think the last time military was involved in protecting constitutional rights was in the early 1960's.

[ancianita]

23. I hear you. I just want someone to acknowledge that people's constitutional rights mean

something, or why else should we bother to make democratic values battle against market values at all.

There's no humanity in having a government that protects the exploitation rights of corporate boards and nothing else.

[elmac]

25. very true

the word humanity has no meaning in a plutocracy.

[ancianita]

28. Thats what The People are always there for. To remind governments about humanity.

[alfredo]

33. GHW Bush shifted our intel community from fighting the enemy to protecting corporate interests.

We still had an intel operation, but its focus was shifted.

[Angry Dragon]

41. +1,232

[evilhime]

27. Misdirector and Chief

The man is the master of misdirection.... all kinds of investigative journalism that is getting traction is coming out, so he is tweeting his little fingers off to change the subject and to fire up his base. This is red meat for his supporters - flag burning, along with illegal votes for the criminal. Never sell thi modern day P.T. Barnum short. If there is one thing he mastered at Wharton it is how to market himself. He lies like the rug on his head - badly but he tells his audiences what they want to hear, and they never bother to compare notes.

[tclambert]

29. From the Flag Code (United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1):

§8.k The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.


The Flag Code also says the flag should never be used for advertising, draperies, embroidered on cushions, or used as wearing apparel.


I remember hearing a story about the flag as apparel. Back in the '60s, hippies sometimes used the flag to patch their blue jeans, partly as a protest of the Vietnam War. Conservatives of the day were outraged, and wanted to pass laws making the practice illegal and severely punish anyone using the flag as clothing or part of clothing. Then some fashion designer made American Flag bikinis . . . and all efforts to punish flag clothing ceased.

[Aristus]

42. Not to mention that Duck Dynasty dickhead who uses the flag

as a sweatband.

No outrage from the below-average half of America...

[shadowmayor]

30. Off to Gitmo with the flag burners

1) Take away one's citizenship.
2) Label them as an enemy non-combatant.
3) Send them as a detainee to Gitmo.

This is the culmination of the fantasy these "Don't tread on me" assholes hope for. Or a quick bullet to the head.

There's an under-current of frothing, fearful, angry "patriots" who would explode on the populace if given the right leader and the right message. Most Americans really have no idea of the seething, hateful, rage that infects our country.

[Cha]

35. Yes they have the right to burn our Flag but I wished they'd burn

this one instead..


Josh Greenman
✔ ?@joshgreenman
If you must burn a flag to express your outrage at Trump, choose this one. Setting the stars and stripes aflame will only help him.
5:36 AM - 29 Nov 2016
568 568 Retweets 967 967 likes

https://theobamadiary.com/2016/11/28/celebrating-we-the-people/#comments

Mahalo, Yo

[treestar]

40. I'm glad he said that

too many think the military defends some other country, one in which the military is glorified and not under civil power.