Rioting Antifa Thug BURNS American Flag In Protest – Gets PRICELESS Dose Of Karma When He Turns Around!

There were protests all over the country on May 1st or “Mayday” as the Communists call it. But this year it appears the Los Angeles Police Department had enough of the disrespect and Anti-Americanism.

A typical anarchist basement dueler Antifa thug took it upon himself to burn a small American Flag. Right in front of Los Angeles police officers. Not a very bright thing to do, but then again, these anarchists do tend to believe they are above the law and that they are “owed” something by society.

As you can clearly see in the video below a fat slob of a protester lights fire to a small American flag while his Antifa comrade waves both the flags of the now defunct Soviet Union and the failed nation of Cuba. Right before being hauled off by the police.

Why is this scumbag still in this country? I’m sure Cuba or Venezuela would be more than happy to take him in. Of course just like it was the case with most militant protestors during the late 60’s, his parent’s basement is probably located in Orange County California. Where he drives a BMW, while his rich elitist parents give him a generous allowance. He wouldn’t want to lose that, now would he?

Can anyone recall any of us Tea Party members ever covering our faces during one of our multiple protests? The biggest difference between Antifa and the Tea Party, other than ideology was the fact no one was paying us to protest like George Soros is doing with these minimum wage aspiring ignorant thugs. In fact, our Tea Party protests were so peaceful in nature that most of the time local Police would come to us to thank us and say they stand with us. If you look closely at the picture below you can see no one is wearing a mask, nor covering themselves in any way. No one was afraid to show their faces.  What are Antifa Thugs so afraid of?

All throughout our history our flag has never been disrespected Until the late 1960’s. When scumbag Communist college professors infiltrated our educational system after World War 2 and starting getting their way after many decades of indoctrinating our children.

This is what Nikita Khrushchev meant when he said to the United Nations: “We will take America without firing a shot … we will bury you! We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”

Below is some history on the American Flag Desecration Law. Interesting how it was never an issue until 1968.

“1968: Adoption of Federal Flag Desecration Law (18 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) — Congress approved the first federal flag desecration law in the wake of a highly publicized Central Park flag burning incident in protest of the Vietnam War. The federal law made it illegal to “knowingly” cast “contempt” upon “any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it.” The law defined flag in an expansive manner similar to most States.

1969: Street v. New York (394 U.S. 576) — The Supreme Court held that New York could not convict a person based on his verbal remarks disparaging the flag. Street was arrested after he learned of the shooting of civil rights leader James Meredith and reacted by burning his own flag and exclaiming to a small crowd that if the government could allow Meredith to be killed, “we don’t need no damn flag.” The Court avoided deciding whether flag burning was protected by the First Amendment, and instead overturned the conviction based on Street’s oral remarks. In Street, the Court found there was not a sufficient governmental interest to warrant regulating verbal criticism of the flag.

1972: Smith v. Goguen (415 U.S. 94) — The Supreme Court held that Massachusetts could not prosecute a person for wearing a small cloth replica of the flag on the seat of his pants based on a State law making it a crime to publicly treat the flag of the United States with “contempt.” The Massachusetts statute was held to be unconstitutionally “void for vagueness.”

1974: Spence v. Washington (418 U.S. 405) — The Supreme Court held that the State of Washington could not convict a person for attaching removable tape in the form of a peace sign to a flag. The defendant had attached the tape to his flag and draped it outside of his window in protest of the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State killings. The Court again found under the First Amendment there was not a sufficient governmental interest to justify regulating this form of symbolic speech. Although not a flag burning case, this represented the first time the Court had clearly stated that protest involving the physical use of the flag should be seen as a form of protected expression under the First Amendment.

1970-1980: Revision of State Flag Desecration Statutes — During this period legislatures in some 20 States narrowed the scope of their flag desecration laws in an effort to conform to perceived Constitutional restrictions under the Street, Smith, and Spence cases and to more generally parallel the federal law (i.e., focusing more specifically on mutilation and other forms of physical desecration, rather than verbal abuse or commercial or political misuse).

1989: Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397) — The Supreme Court upheld the Texas Court of Criminal appeals finding that Texas law — making it a crime to “desecrate” or otherwise “mistreat” the flag in a way the “actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons” — was unconstitutional as applied. This was the first time the Supreme Court had directly considered the applicability of the First Amendment to flag burning.

Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, was arrested during a demonstration outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas after he set fire to a flag while protestors chanted “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.” In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Brennan, the Court first found that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech subject to protection under the First Amendment. The Court also determined that under United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), since the State law was related to the suppression of freedom of expression, the conviction could only be upheld if Texas could demonstrate a “compelling” interest in its law. The Court next found that Texas’ asserted interest in “protecting the peace” was not implicated under the facts of the case. Finally, while the Court acknowledged that Texas had a legitimate interest in preserving the flag as a “symbol of national unity,” this interest was not sufficiently compelling to justify a “content-based” legal restriction (i.e., the law was not based on protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but was designed to protect it from symbolic protest likely to cause offense to others).

1989: Revision of Federal Flag Desecration Statute — Pursuant to the Flag Protection Act of 1989, Congress amended the 1968 federal flag desecration statute in an effort to make it “content neutral” and conform to the Constitutional requirements of Johnson. As a result, the 1989 Act sought to prohibit flag desecration under all circumstances by deleting the statutory requirement that the conduct cast contempt upon the flag and narrowing the definition of the term “flag” so that its meaning was not based on the observation of third parties.

1990: United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310) — Passage of the Flag Protection Act resulted in a number of flag burning incidents protesting the new law. The Supreme Court overturned several flag burning convictions brought under the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court held that notwithstanding Congress’ effort to adopt a more content neutral law, the federal law continued to be principally aimed at limiting symbolic speech.

1990: Rejection of Constitutional Amendment — Following the Eichman decision, Congress considered and rejected a Constitutional Amendment specifying that “the Congress and the States have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” The amendment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds Congressional majorities, as it was supported by only a 254–177 margin in the House (290 votes were necessary) and a 58–42 margin in the Senate (67 votes were necessary).”

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Amanda Shea is a political aficionado and curator of current events, who covers all issues of importance for conservatives. She brings attention and insight from what happens in the White House to the streets of American towns, because it all has an impact on our future, and the country left for our children. She writes with unfiltered truth, mixed with wit where it’s appropriate, and feels that journalism shouldn’t be censored.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.