Last week, John Spencer met with members of the American Legion from throughout New York State at its state convention in Rochester.  The topic on the tip of many people's tongues was the flag amendment.
John Spencer fully believes the flag must be protected with a Constitutional Amendment.
"I'm still steaming over the flag burning amendment, which failed to pass by one vote," said Spencer following the American Legion convention. "People were visibly upset and angry over Hillary's vote against protecting this symbol of our freedom."
You can count on John Spencer holding Hillary Clinton accountable on her disrespect of the American flag.
"She can explain it legalistically, but that's not going to work, not for a presidential candidate," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "This will just give additional fodder to her critics, on the left and right."
It's not going to work in New York either.
John will need your support, financially and through word of mouth.  Also, don't hesitate to comment on The Spencer Blog.  We want to hear from you.
"We're taking the fight right to my liberal opponent, explained Spencer. "Team Spencer is giving you the podium to take the fight right to Senator Clinton with us."
Today may be Flag Day, but don't count on Sen. Hillary Clinton backing a constitutional amendment to ban burning Old Glory.
Clinton (D-N.Y.) has co-sponsored a bill to ban flag-burning. But she said yesterday she opposes enshrining that in the Constitution - although her vote could turn the tide for a proposed amendment coming up in the Senate later this month.
"I'm voting against the amendment," she said. "I've always been against the amendment."
U.S. Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist from Tennessee lamented the bill's defeat by one vote.
"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," expressed Frist. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."
One vote.  Hillary's vote.  Senator Clinton should be held directly responsible for this fiasco.
Democrats like U.S. Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana supported a Constitutional Amendment.
"The flag is a symbol of our country and of respect for our veterans. I felt the flag deserved protection," said Bayh, a potential presidential candidate who joined 65 other senators last week in voting for the flag amendment.
Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Bayh and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Of course, Hillary Clinton voted against the flag amendment.  She's pandered on this issue so many way that she has forgotten why it is important.  Liberal courts are carving up our Constitution and this is as much about preserving the work of the Founders as protecting our flag.
A year after announcing support for a ban on flag burning, one she has called "despicable," Senator Clinton voted it down.
What changed?   Nothing.  Clinton is obsessed with 2008 politics and has never cared about New York.
An Iowa poll showed John Edwards beating her, so Senator Clinton rushes to the left to secure her liberal base. It's sad that New York's junior Senator would callously oppose flag protection to appeal to a radical left fringe, when so many Americans have died defending it
Now Clinton wants to posture again that she is for legislation protecting the flag.
It is probably important to note that this is not a proposed constitutional amendment, and it is written in a cutesy way that does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings -- just those intended to "intimidate any person or group of persons."
As if burning flags are not always offensive to Americans?
However, Cohen's liberal take on flag burning is something I feel perverts the initial intent of the First Amendment.
"The First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred. It protects our most cherished rights -- religion, speech, press and assembly -- and while I sometimes turn viscerally angry when I see the flag despoiled, my emotions are akin to what I feel when neo-Nazis march. Repugnant or not, popular or not, it is all political speech."
And the flag is not sacred?
You're going to tell veterans of foreign wars that the flag is not sacred?
You can't take the flag for granted.
Senator Clinton pretended to rebrand herself as a red state friendly DLC Democrat with her decision to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Flag Protection Act.
No one is fooled.  Her postures are intellectually dishonest and fail to address the inherent reasons why we must protect our precious flag.
John Spencer understands what's at stake here.
"I fought for our country in Vietnam.  The presence of any American flag is a deeply personal experience for me.  I'm dedicated to preserving the country established by our Founding Fathers.  Yes... I'm patriotic and I love our nation's Constitution.  I revere it.  I don't want it used as a plaything that can be revised and deconstructed by socialists.  The Constitution should be treated as a hallowed document.  It's being undermined -- actively -- by an overly liberal judiciary, a liberal army of judges.  Hillary Clinton would further empower that revisionist judiciary to undermine the basic beliefs we hold true -- and self-evident."
Please comment on The Spencer Blog on how you feel about our flag.  We can make an impact nationally and throughout the mainstream media by sending that kind of message out across the Internet.
"Whether you want to make a statement about Hillary Clinton or any important issue, now is the time I need you by my side," stressed Spencer. "Your comments matter to us and others."
It's not that America is overrun with people burning flags but they're at the gate.  Also, there are important principles here that we can't sway on.  It becomes a slippery slope.  We're up against revisionists and judicial socialists who have little regard for the value of our flag. They would rather protect the flag burners.
That's discrimination against all of us who love our flag.
The ACLU types would sacrifice our flag for their right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, causing
disrespect and disorder throughout our society.
This is Senator Hillary Clinton's crowd.
The American Legion isn't fooled.
"The only effective use of [such a] statute has been by those who -- like Senator Clinton -- want to evade [a constitutional flag burning] amendment, but give the impression to constituents that they are doing something to protect the flag," the American Legion said in a press release yesterday.
The group said Clinton's proposal was "dead on arrival."
Senator Clinton can't stop flip-flopping on the flag:
"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag-desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."
She is an ACLU loving liberal who would like to pick apart America's patriotic roots, tradition by tradition.  That's the way counter culture types work, dragging down Western Civilization by removing our valuable traditions and beliefs.  She's fooling no one, pandering to be everyone for everybody, and hiding her true beliefs.

Over at the New York Times, however, Clinton's latest bid for bipartisanship is being dismissed out of hand.

"It's hard to see this as anything but pandering," the Old Gray Lady fumes on today's editorial page, saying there's no "urgent need" to protect the flag.

The New York Times is wrong when they say there is no "urgent need" to protect the flag.  There is a need for a Constitutional Amendment.  There is a need for laws that mean something.  We don't need a bill put up for a vote as a way of generating a press release.  That is dishonest Clinton triangulation.  She has never shown any true consideration for the American flag -- and she never will.  All Hillary Clinton wants to do is tear down the principles our flag stands for.
She would get her statute supposedly protecting the flag and then one of her judicial appointments would reverse that law.
That's why we need a Constitutional Amendment -- and Spencer's own viewpoint is supported my the mainstream media's own legal eagles.
Congress' attempt to overturn a Supreme Court decision by amending the Constitution is "extremely rare," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, but it's in line with how the American system of government was designed to work.
"The only way to overrule a Supreme Court precedent is by changing the Constitution," Toobin said. He added that legislators backing the flag-burning amendment are operating "exactly the way the framers of the Constitution intended when they want to change something for all time."
Though you mean well, Ms. Noonan, please be assured that John Spencer is not posturing.
Protecting the Constitution of the United States from revisionists like Senator Clinton is common sense.