Tennessee’s Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn just made it clear to everyone she knows that Trump is RIGHT about how Americans are supposed to act when the U.S. National Anthem is played.
Monday, Rep. Blackburn filed a resolution, to remind Americans that Federal law addresses how we are to act during the playing of The Star-Spangled Banner.
Pursuant to Section 301(b) of title 36 of the U.S. code :
- Armed Services members in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the song and maintain that position until the last note;
- Armed Forces members and veterans who are present but not in uniform may do the same; and,
- “All other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.” (emphasis added)
- When the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
Unfortunately, this is one of those laws with no teeth. So no one will go to jail for disobeying it. But the fact that it’s set out in Federal law says everything any American needs to know, don’t you think? And it proves Trump is in the right!
Watch how Rep. Blackburn honors our flag and anthem:
(courtesy of The Isaacs via Youtube.com)
If you will follow this law, and want your friends and family to know and follow it, too, get this Shared till it’s VIRAL, Patriots! Comment “it’s the LAW.”
[H/T The Tennessean]
You Might also like
By Chelsea Betonie — 10 months ago
ROTHSCHILD PUBLICATION PREDICTS SINGLE WORLD CURRENCY WILL BE PUT IN PLACE AS EARLY AS 2018; HELLO NEW WORLD ORDER
The Rothschild-controlled Economist magazine published an article 30 years ago that highlighted the proabability of a world currency by the year 2018.
Thefreethoughtproject.com reports: One must also keep in mind that the controlling interest of The Economist is held by the powerful Rothschild family, who regard themselves as the “custodians of The Economist magazine’s legacy.” In essence, the magazine operates as a quasi-propaganda arm for the Rothschild banking empire and related businesses and, is in many ways, meant to prime the pump of public opinion for the globalist agenda to be implemented.
The excerpt below appeared in the print magazine on January 9, 1988, in Vol. 306, pp 9-10.
Ready for the Phoenix
THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.
At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.The New World Economy
The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.
In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments. In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.
Only ten years later, in 1998, The Economist was once again engaging the public in an effort to forward the globalist agenda, with an article entitled “One world, one money.”
Very much in line with the 1988 piece, the publication attempts to explain why a much more centralized and controlled system would be beneficial to the global economy, while wholly ignoring the fact that such a centralized global currency would be a massive coup for the international banking cartel, and the Rothschild banking empire’s financial bottom line.
Additionally, it must be noted that the creation of a global currency would give an inordinate amount of geopolitical capital to unelected international bankers, and subsequently take power away from the citizens of each nation and their respective governmental representatives.
Does anyone really want international bankers to have such a vast amount of political power on top of the massive financial influence and sway they already hold in the halls of power?People want more say in their own lives, not having policy dictated to them by international banksters and bureaucrats.
Control over a nation’s money supply is, for all intents and purposes, the lifeblood of a state’s sovereignty – without this independence, the state only exists in name but is subservient to supranational powers whose interests lie outside of domestic and national political/economic concerns.
“GIVE ME CONTROL OF A NATION’S MONEY SUPPLY, AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES ITS LAWS,” said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
Although the Rothschild family now generally keep a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors. While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having a strong voice across the geopolitical spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of secrecy and silence.
Are you starting to get the picture?
By Manly Man — 4 months ago
According to a top American diplomat, former President Barack Obama’s administration displayed “casual cruelty” toward the Cuban people during his last year in office.
Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations just issued an apology for Barack Obama and his administration at the UN during a debate for international resolution, convicting the U.S. restriction of Cuba.
She claimed that Obama’s team refused to vote against the resolution last year, even with mass amounts of opposition from the UN General Assembly.
I guess Barack Obama and his evil team are finally starting to reap what they sewed.
Reported by libertywriters:
Nikki Haley just embarrassed Barack Obama for the cruel thing he did to the Cuban people.
Look, annoying the Cuban population in South Florida spelled doom for the Dems and Hillary so he probably thought he was doing the right thing.
It is just that, as with most things Obama, it backfired. What is it that they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions?
That will be the liberal’s epitaph – just another cliché proven correct.
Nikki Haley took the extraordinary step of apologizing to a whole nation for Obama’s shoddy treatment.
According to the Washington Examiner Haley, speaking of the cowardly abstention on a critical UN vote that would have helped the Cuban people said:
“When the United States abstained on this resolution last year, its decision was explained by saying, ‘We recognize that the future of the island lies in the hands of the Cuban people. There is a casual cruelty to that remark for which I am profoundly sorry. Regrettably, as of today, the future of Cuba is not in your hands. It remains in the hands of your dictators.”
Correct. It was another missed opportunity for Obama. Another cruel blow to a desperate people.
One that will have lasting consequences for a people who just want to be free.
Marco Rubio echoed Nikki’s comments saying,
“Despite the Obama administration’s unilateral concessions to the Castro regime, I remain hopeful that the Trump administration’s new policy toward Cuba will empower the Cuban people, and bring them closer to freedom and democracy. Ambassador Haley’s vote today is one more step in that direction.”
By Manly Man — 10 months ago
Steve Straub reports yet another college in the United States is suffering a massive budget deficit caused by an “unexpected” decline in enrollment after allowing radical professors and students to engage in a series of disturbances.
This time the school in question is Oberlin College, a small private school in Ohio with 2,900 students and the average cost of tuition plus room and board is $69,372 per year.
The student newspaper, the Oberlin Review, reports the school is facing a $5 million shortfall for the 2017-2018 school year because of lower student enrollment and other losses of revenue (donations).
The chairman of Oberlin’s board of trustees, Chris Canavan, announced the financial woes in an email sent to professors and administrators this summer. The student newspaper obtained and published the full email late last week.
“As many of you already know, Oberlin’s primary source of revenue, student charges, will fall well short of our target because the incoming class is smaller than we expected and fewer students will return next year,” Canavan wrote. “There is no avoiding the financial impact of these shortfalls. Although we had already reduced budgets across the institution for next year, this shortfall in student charges will generate a deficit of about $5 million.”
Oberlin obtains more than 80 percent of its annual operating budget from tuition and other student charges.
Administrators at the private school had hoped to enroll 805 new students this fall. However, only 742 new students actually showed up on campus.
School officials had a cautious total enrollment target of 2,895 students for the fall 2017 semester but actual total enrollment is just 2,815 students currently.
The member of the board of trustees “hope(s) that this enrollment shock is a transitory one,” but they don’t know what the future holds.
Who could have ever predicted that letting radical professors, students and other left wing “protesters” run wild would have an impact on enrollment and revenue?
While this time Oberlin is feeling the impact of giving in to leftist demands, it’s just another symptom of the rot that is at the center of colleges and universities all across the United States of America.
Over the past 40 years the left has completely taken over the vast majority of colleges and universities and they are no longer training centers for young minds but, first and foremost, indoctrination centers for impressionable young people.
The mission of indoctrination in fact seems to be of a higher priority for many schools than imparting students with knowledge and skills they can use to be productive in private industry and government.
Until, and unless this changes, it behooves parents and students to be extraordinarily careful as to what college or university they choose to invest time, effort and money in.
Send your child or grandchild to a school that teaches the valuable skills so they can succeed in the marketplace.
It also behooves employers to be extra careful when hiring to be sure a prospective applicant is not from a school that prioritizes social justice over actual knowledge and useful skills.
After all no one wants to hire a special snowflake who melts at the slightest imaginary “offense,” can’t handle the pressures of the real world and needs a “safe space” to retreat to.
So until, and unless this all changes, expect to see more colleges and universities suffer “unexpected” declines in enrollment and revenue.
What do you think about this? Are you surprised Oberlin’s enrollment is falling or is this just the expected consequence of giving into and appeasing leftists?
Sound off in the comments below!