Article

2010-05-21 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Veteran Ordered To Remove Flag From Outside Home

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-21 04:38|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Under pressure, a New Hampshire housing complex has reversed course after banning a Navy veteran and his neighbors from displaying the American flag in front of their homes. - Fox

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-05-21 07:33|| 2010-05-21 07:33|| Front Page Top

#2 rant on....

Its rare that I disagree with a mod, but moving is the last thing he should do. He needed to take a cue from the left and sue them for a civil rights violation. The real problem with the right is expressed in the mod comment. We on the right, do our damndest to respect others and their property rights and we dont want conflict. While, if I flew some flag at my home that offended some left winged nut I would get sued and in an effort to make everyone happy I would be force to take down the flag. It is time the right stands up to this type of action and fight back and not just slink away. We, the right, are partially responsible for the state we are in, in this country. We "moved away from the moonbats in Berkley, LA, NY and now they have gon crazy with power. They know they can chip away from the right until we are where we are now, where the police are wrong for asking a criminal for id. We need to get agressive or we will suffer another four years of the freak in the white house and the ultimate demise of our nation. It all starts with little things, like a flag.

rant off...

Posted by 49 Pan 2010-05-21 09:19|| 2010-05-21 09:19|| Front Page Top

#3 1) Gorb isn't a mod.

2) I think Gorb was being sarcastic (at Rantburg? No!)

3) I think the sardine is a fine idea if it comes to that.

Posted by Steve White 2010-05-21 10:37|| 2010-05-21 10:37|| Front Page Top

#4 49 Pan: Those are my comments, not a mod's. If I had the power and authority of a mod-bat, I'd have sinktrapped most of the Obozo administration long ago and we'd be worried more about Britney's latest escapades here instead.

But my thought is that the apartment is the private property of some other jerk owner, not the private property of the tenant. So, you gotta live by the owner's rules.

If you could bring it to court under Freedom of Speech/Expression or something like that, but it seems that would have been tried by now. Maybe I'm wrong.

Looks like this guy was sharp enough to get it tried in the court of public opinion, thereby getting a summary judgment in the court of public opinion and short-circuiting the lawyers.

Maybe he did just what you suggested via the avenue that makes the most sense.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-21 10:40|| 2010-05-21 10:40|| Front Page Top

#5 I think Gorb was being sarcastic (at Rantburg? No!)

Not this time. Not even about the sardine. :-)

I just can't imagine what else to do other than to respect the property owner's rules. The owner should theoretically be able to get away with telling the guy that no dogs are allowed, no people with blue eyes are allowed to park on the street, no handicapped access will be provided, or whatever, or whatever else he wants. Otherwise, he wouldn't really be the owner, would he? There may be laws to the contrary though. If anyone knows about the law here, I'd appreciate comments about what authority the owner has in this situation. Is the owner private, or more publicly owned? Do things switch over only if government funds are involved? A certain number of tenants or apartments? Or by merely providing housing does the "owner" have to follow state rules regarding handicapped access, potable water, electricity, housing quality, parking, and maybe even displaying the flag?

Seems to me at least things like the latter ought to be unquestionably under owner control. Wouldn't want to violate the owner's rights if they happened to be anti-American, would we?

(That last question was somewhat sarcastic this time!)

Posted by gorb 2010-05-21 10:50|| 2010-05-21 10:50|| Front Page Top

#6 There are many examples of stupid people who get in to the position of decision making without knowing what the hell they are doing. In this case, the management people of that New Hampshire housing complex are the same kind of stupid for they forgot that they were stepping on the rights of American citizen to display the American flag on American soil. They forgot that they could be prosecuted for treason once they forbid their tenants, especially US Citizens to display American flag as their display of patriotism. Some stupid arguments the management could forward, that the American flag offend some or their tenets of foreign nations and these will also like to display their foreign flags on the rental property. Well, they can not. Fist of all, no flag of another sovereign nation is allowed to be displayed on US soil or US controlled land and properties except in compounds of foreign embassies and UN buildings which are considered temporary foreign territories in USA. Second, no court in USA will ever grant landlords the absolute control of their tenants for it is not acceptable under local, state or federal laws and third, the disfiguration of American flag not its display on American soil is prohibited. Those who do not like our National flag, have absolutely no right to impose their preference to those who express their pride for the sacrifices they have done for our nation and to each and every one of US citizens, who salute our national flag with hope and dedication. In my opinion, those New Hampshire housing complex management people deserved to be lynched in broad day light and in public.

Posted by Annon 2010-05-21 10:52|| 2010-05-21 10:52|| Front Page Top

#7 In my opinion, those New Hampshire housing complex management people deserved to be lynched in broad day light and in public.

Lucky for them they just took down all the flagpoles!

Got any references on these laws? They make sense, but are they for real? Are they law, or just custom? I would think that they would have been cited by some lawyer even on CNN or MSLSD by now.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-21 10:55|| 2010-05-21 10:55|| Front Page Top

#8 Make sure to drop a sardine into the space behind each outlet cover as you leave.

I dunno. There's nothing like the stink of a dead rat. Scares people when they find it too.

I think in general I'd be on the side of property rights and then let the market place settle it. You don't want American flags? You don't want to provide access for the handicapped? Fine. You might lose a few tenants but, hey, it's America.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-05-21 11:57|| 2010-05-21 11:57|| Front Page Top

#9 I was not sure who it was Gorb, thanks for clearing it up. If it was a gay flag ordered to be taken down, the left would have burned the complex to the ground, slandered the owner, and posted the tax returns of all the tenants to slam them. The left has no respect for the law, our government supports the left, look at AZ and the cross in the mojavie as examples. They dont care, we the white middle cass tax payer is the enemy to them. They slam us, call us bigots, dumbgun toting morons, and the whole time taking our tax dollars and creating more laws to support illegals and terrorists. We on the other hand hand wring and pander to the left, allowing them to twist and contort the laws to their benifit. The aprtments are not private property, no more than wall mart is, it is public domain. Im pissed and enough is enough.

Today the DOJ removed the cross from the Mojave desert, even after the supreme court said it could stand. Splitting hairs to find a reason they took it down. This country is on the road to failure.

Posted by 49 Pan 2010-05-21 13:22|| 2010-05-21 13:22|| Front Page Top

#10 A small slice of Limburger on top of the water heater, too.

Posted by mojo 2010-05-21 16:33|| 2010-05-21 16:33|| Front Page Top

#11 I've been a small-time landlord, are there are laws, both federal and state, that have to be complied with. Some examples: dwelling space and building comply with all building codes, a window in every bedroom, maximum occupancy, no discrimination against potential or current tenants on the basis of race, creed, sexual orientation. Landlords may discriminate on the basis of children or number of children, pets, behaviour -- drugs, drunkenness, loud parties -- and exterior decorations. We used to permit up to two children to non-master bedroom, and up to two cats/dogs, but charged $15/pet because of the extra wear and tear.

In this case, the owner made a rule about those decorative flags that some people are so keen on, exactly so they wouldn't have to fight about gay rights flags, Easter bunny flags, "If you don't recycle you'll go to hell" flags, etc, each of which would annoy some of the other tenants; the unthinking EJL Management clerk applied it to the Stars'n'Stripes as well. The right way to handle this was indeed publicity rather than going to court.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-05-21 16:57|| 2010-05-21 16:57|| Front Page Top

#12 The Congressional Research Summary of the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005:

Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 - States that a condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent an association member from displaying the U.S. flag on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use. States that nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with: (1) federal law or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag; or (2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium, cooperative, or residential real estate management association.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-21 18:29|| 2010-05-21 18:29|| Front Page Top

#13 Cool! There is very encouraging, with the exception that section (2) looks like it was written to invite a court case or three. Unless the apartments have enough money to throw at this probably losing cause, it looks good enough to make them back down.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-21 23:06|| 2010-05-21 23:06|| Front Page Top

00:13 OldSpook
23:57 OldSpook
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:19 gorb
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:16 gorb
23:14 lex
23:11 gorb
23:06 gorb
23:05 lex
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:43 gorb
22:34 gorb
22:34 Perfesser
22:33 gorb
22:25 Asymmetrical
22:21 Frank G
22:15 Lumpy Elmoluck5091
22:04 JosephMendiola
22:00 Asymmetrical