Donald Trumps March to the Death Camps Begins!

Earlier today November 29, 2016; Donald Trump tweeted out the following on or about 6am:

Now we know the hyperventilating regressive left thinks that Donald Trump is Literally Hitler. So it is not too far of a leap for them to think this will begin the march of the imprisonment of political dissidents. Yes. I do think this is delusional thinking however, it is not too far a leap for someone going hysterical and saying. See! Here we go he's going to round people up and gas them! I do not doubt that we will hear this argument on the internet shortly. And...The Daily Kos doesn't disappoint at the end of it's article. I agree with most of their argument then they go here.  

From a civil liberty standpoint I am in agreement with the left leaning publications like the Daily Kos, & The Politico in general. Politico gives a rational argument, however, it appears that the repressive left isn't completely in line when it comes to freedom of speech. The Slate just yesterday called for a ban of Donald Trump from Twitter. You know close down speech they don't like. This is how the regressive left wants to have its cake and eat it too. I want to to ask without regard to left right persuasion to agree censorship is bad?

I must say I'm not in favor of disrespectfully burning Old Glory. However, burning the flag in some circumstances it is necessary. Before you have a embolism, understand to properly retire an American flag you have to burn it. So, right there the Trump statement starts of fall apart.   

Or is the President-Elect in favor of jailing that radical group VFW or the American Legion? Skip down to after the video if you want to ignore the flag retirement story.

Since I'm on the topic of retirement of Old Glory my preferred method is first separating the blue Stars as the states should never be broken up, then breaking the stripes into smaller pieces, then doing a remembrance of those that passed in war, or have honored us with their Service be it Military, Police, or Firefighter. Whereas, the Pledge of Alliance is spoken, then a memory or name of those that has given service to our nation is stated as the stripes are placed into the flame. At the end, the blue banner is placed into the fire, stating we stand united, and honor those which allow us to live free.


Where Donald Trumps argument continues to fall apart is that we are beginning the trend of outlawing speech because it hurts our feelings. Again though I find flag burning personally disgusting, it does not harm me in any way. It doesn't harm anyone else, outside of feeling mad, or upset. Well if we're lucky maybe the protester is burnt just a little for being contemptible. If we outlaw flag burning because of how we feel what is to say that Social Justice Warrior types won't ban words or other expressions of speech which  causes them become triggered when they return to power? And they eventually will. We cannot just send people to jail because they make us feel bad. This a very dangerous precedent.  

I hear the right questioning how is burning the flag speech? The SCOTUS 1989 TX vs Johnson decision stated that flag burning is protected political speech. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia cast the deciding vote. How did he make that logical choice? It is simple. When you disrespectfully burn the American Flag you are symbolically calling the destruction of the Union. So, what someone is doing is destroying the USA in effigy.  Effigy has been considered political speech even prior to the foundation of the nation. Even during the time of the Boston Tea Party American patriots burned government officials in Effigy. Though reprehensible flag burning is indeed political speech.

Weighing in on the psychodrama is Ari Fliecher calls for denaturalization or more accurately not granting citizenship to permanent residents of the U.S. This however is a more interesting political argument inasmuch; if you euphemistically call for the destruction of the United States of America are you being faithful to the idea of full assimilation? At what point are should there be consequences for political speech? Is it appropriate for a Green Card holder to call for the destruction of the US? At a certain point you can't join the military should you be involved with a group that has called for sedition or the violent over throw of the nation. So is burning the flag an act of sedition, and therefore reason enough to deny a immigrant naturalization? I don't know to be honest. I think it will need someone more learned in the vagaries of the laws and juris prudence to speak more authoritatively on that point, but it does create an interesting mind exercise. I like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Or do you think this is more like the nuremberg laws and yes we're on a very dangerous slippery slope?

Brian Gagetdoc CeeComment