Press "Enter" to skip to content

Lasseter Displaying Confederate Flag on Legislative Campaign Website

The newest officially filed candidate for Legislature is Travis Lasseter of New Underwood, seeking a District 30 House seat. He gathered some of his signatures at the Rapid City Rifle Club Gun Show and sale from folks “thankful to know they will have a true conservative in Pierre who is actively defending the second amendment.”

Really? The traitor emblem one petition signer was wearing suggests his support comes from people who celebrate overturning the Second Amendment and the rest of the United States Constitution:

Photo from Travis Lasseter, "Rapid City Rifle Club Gun Show and Sale," campaign website, 2016.01.19
Photo from Travis Lasseter, “Rapid City Rifle Club Gun Show and Sale,” campaign website, 2016.01.19

At least there’s a bald eagle superimposed over the Confederate emblem on that hat. We thus know that Lasseter’s supporter is celebrating the Union’s crushing of the Southern traitors and restoration of Constitutional rule in Dixie.


  1. Don Coyote 2016-01-20

    FYI the Confedrates had constitutional rule. Except for a few minor changes their constitution mirrored the U.S. Constitution including a version of the 2nd Amendment.

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-20

    FYI the Confrederates betrayed the United States Constitution.

  3. Roger Cornelius 2016-01-20

    Were one of those “few minor changes”, the right to own slaves?

  4. jerry 2016-01-20

    Great to see the black faces in your post Mr. Clanton, oops, white boys only. I guess that because they have some poor brown skinner in front of the rag, that must make it cool. That flag represents hate and oppression and it does not matter who flies it, they are ignorant. That includes this bunch you show.

  5. jerry 2016-01-20

    I got my magnifying glass out and checked those out very carefully. I am happy to report that there are no traitor flags in either of those division patches. The symbolism of a confederate battle flag is not lost on anyone who recognizes what that stood for in our civil war. You may think that traitorous flag meant nothing more than an aiming stake, to the hundreds of thousands who died looking at that rag in the fight and the millions who lost their dignity because of it, it is what it is, the flag of a traitor to the United States, not the Confederate States, but the real deal we see today. Now if this gent wants to parade that rag, I support that as that was why I put on the uniform for his right. It does not mean I think it is right, but it is his right.

  6. jerry 2016-01-20

    I still do not see the racial divide that rag that feller is trying to invoke. I see the American flag hanging upside down, which means distress, not hate. Mr. Clanton, how do you visualize the government coming for your guns? Do you think they will chopper in with black ops and then flash grenade you to immobilize you so they can get your wretched weapons? Are they gonna do that in one operation county wide or do you visualize it statewide? What will your county sheriff say or will he be in cahoots with them?

  7. mike from iowa 2016-01-20

    bret-I thought the military was integrated.

  8. mike from iowa 2016-01-20

    Looks like the flag is upside down and dragging on the ground. I’m telling.

  9. jerry 2016-01-20

    You are correct. I noted that but also noted the fact that had it been right side up, it still would have been dragging.

  10. Bill Dithmer 2016-01-20

    13:54 Great post Jerry. It doesnt mater to me how anyone feels about that flagg. Some people hate it, and then there are those that love it. What does make a difference to me is this.

    Every time someone finds something they find personally objectional they try to make it disapear, as though it was never there. That would be fine in another country, but not here in the US. Like it or not the right to express yourself is a guaranteed right. Once you head down the path that would be deciding what is offensive and what isnt, it will no longer be the country that you might be pretending to love.

    Some of you would like to have control over what other people say and how they act. Im just saying that is one of the rights that I would fight to protect.

    The Blindman

  11. Porter Lansing 2016-01-20

    In our USA you have great latitude in what you choose to say and how you choose to act. You don’t however have the option not to endure valid criticism. You won’t be denied your choice of speech and action but you won’t be protected from massive ridicule.

  12. Bill Dithmer 2016-01-20

    Thats right Porter, both things are protected.

    The Blindman

  13. bret clanton 2016-01-20

    Jerry at 13:59? You are obviously trying to project an image of me that would conform to your ideals? Don’t put words in someones mouth or paint pictures of someone that you know very little about….Good post Bill Dithmer….

  14. Winston 2016-01-20

    “…. including a version of the 2nd Amendment.”

    I wouldn’t call it a version, I would call it a clarification or better a declaration, because even our traitor intolerant Confederate cousins knew that the US Constitution Bill of Rights really did not give gun owners what they really wanted, versus what they have been asserting over the years or needed in the 1860s for their self claimed “2nd Amendment Remedy” assertions then and sadly even now…

    Confederate “2nd Amendment:”

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    Actual 2nd Amendment:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Do you notice the key missing comma? The proof is in the pudding. The traitorous Confederates of the past have unintentionally proven what the the left has been saying about gun ownership for years. That one’s gun rights, until recent SCOTUS decisions only going back to 2008, have never supported the narrative of the NRA nor the deficit in the claimed right, which even the traitors understood some 150+ years ago….:

  15. jerry 2016-01-20

    Well Mr. Clanton, you are correct, I know nothing about you other than what you post. I see that you posted a traitor flag and I made note of it. That traitor flag is still sending its message of hate across this land.

    Then you post Native military patches that you suppose means the same kind of hate. Then the Wounded Knee occupation with the distress flag. I have no idea why you are bringing up Native issues, but maybe you would like to tell why this is now the comparisons. Confederate flags and Native American images on military division patches. I still would like to hear your fear of the bad government with those military division patches coming for your pea shooters.

  16. bearcreekbat 2016-01-20

    Really, if our current jack booted thug government were anything like gun owners fear, no one would come to take away guns. They would just incinerate protesters and hostile gun owners with smart bombs and drone rockets. A 1000 AK 47’s or AR 15’s, all modified to be fully automatic, with a huge stockpile of ammo, would not stand a snowballs chance in Hades against the force of the US Military – Planes, drones, rocket launchers, tanks, nukes, etc, etc. Indeed, even modern police forces in most cities would overwhelm 2nd Amendment militiamen.

    In this day and age the people who think they need automatic and semi-automatic guns to defend against imagined government overreach are either delusional or cold blooded murderers who know they will die but want to kill as many people as possible before they are killed.

    Lucky for everyone that our government is nothing like the image of government hating paranoiacs.

  17. bret clanton 2016-01-20

    Sorry Jerry I don’t fear my government. You see a picture of a traitor flag. I see a picture of United States Marines posing with their interpreter and their battle flag. And is there not a current push to eliminate denigrating images of native Americans?
    You see a picture of a US flag being flown upside down lying on the ground. I also see the same thing but it is also being overflown by the AIM flag while desecrating a church. Imagery and symbolism Jerry subject to interpretation….And it is possible to make a post without making personal attacks on fellow posters….P.S. I also see a guy signing a petition wearing a stupid hat.

  18. Spencer 2016-01-20

    Ironically, the Confederate baseball cap and the prominently displayed picture of a man wearing the Confederate baseball cap on this blog each have the same race-baiting intent; whereas, I doubt that was the intent of the picture’s original posting.

  19. Jenny 2016-01-20

    These are SDs finest men, how dare you, Cory.
    Do they have a full set of teeth? ( I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist)

  20. Don Coyote 2016-01-20

    @cah: There is actually quite a bit of historical evidence that supports states having the power to secede. It was even debated in Philadelphia.

    James Madison stated at the Constitutional Convention after a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress secession “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

    The assumption always was that the states retained the power to secede. Even the Federalists in the Northern states advocated for secession at the Hartford Convention in 1814 over grievances emanating primarily from the War of 1812.

  21. larry kurtz 2016-01-20

    Anyone who wears a Confederate anything is a race baiter.

  22. larry kurtz 2016-01-20

    Spencer Cody’s Facebook page is a single stream of white supremacist dreck cast from the sticky fingers of a man/child with nothing better to do.

  23. larry kurtz 2016-01-20

    Statehood for the tribes and Mexico.

  24. bearcreekbat 2016-01-20

    Blindman, I respect your free speech arguments. Where would you draw the line? Is there any speech that you believe should be made unlawful or prohibited?

  25. Bill Dithmer 2016-01-20

    BCB, “is there any speech,”none. Just remember that once you start down that road, sooner or later what you believe in at this time might fall from favor with a majority that feels differently then you do.

    Even if that means someone is being an asshat, you must remember that the right to talk will always be a two edged sword. It protects those that you agree with, and those you dont.

    I guess if you dont like seeing something, dont look. If you dont like what someone has to say, dont listen. I know thats a black and white view on a subject that has more grey areas then dirty blackboard, but thats just my thoughts.

    When you step on someones rights, your standing on your own.

    The Blindman

  26. Winston 2016-01-20

    Madison’s comments were pre 14th Amendment and thus a moot point today. In addition, “assumption” is what anyone wants it to be. When speaking of the War of 1812 or its era, let us not forget it was from that era hence that we no longer just called ourselves just Virginians or whatever, rather we saw and still see ourselves as Americans. Then, after the Civil War with the help of the 14th Amendment we were no longer the united States of America rather the United States of America.

    These original intent historical facts and/or suggestions which Don speaks are of a time, which has since been legislated and litigated in a manner, which makes their original intent impact limited instead of timeless.

    Back to Madison’s comment once more, at Fort Sumter the Union forces were attacked not the South Carolina citizens or militia and any relevance to Madison’s comments to justify succession and the advent of the Civil War is not founded, which further indicts the efficacy of the Confederate flag or any of its symbolism and its continual use…. Not to mention that Madison’s comment itself indicts the efficacy of the 1814 Northern Federalists thoughts of succession for where is the “use of force” during that war against states?

  27. bearcreekbat 2016-01-20

    Thanks Blindman. Under your view then I take it that our defamation laws contradict free speech? And the same holds true for our laws against making serious threats to kill or harm another person, such as making threats that there are bombs in schools or public buildings? And how about the old canard of Ollie Holmes – “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” that starts a panic? All these should be protected free speech under the 1st Amendment?

  28. grudznick 2016-01-20

    This is the fellow who will replace Mr. Russell, correct? It really gurts my yurt to think of how District 30 keeps failing to be effective in the legislatures.

  29. BIll DIthmer 2016-01-20

    Yes there are laws that cover those things, dont confuse that with what im saying. What we are talking about in this post doesnt even come close to those things.

    What we are talking about here are hurt feelings not threats, or actions of violence. It what some dont like and others find sacred. It has so many degrees of reason that are all subjective and complicated by where you live, who your folks are, and lifes experiences.

    Think of it like this BCB, when someone told the natives they had to speak english, how did they feel about that?

    Now just substitute that Confederate flag and you can answer your own question as to whats right.

    The Blindman

  30. jerry 2016-01-20

    Thanks Mr. Newland. A goat on his back indeed. Wants to lower taxes too, where have I heard that before in Pennington County. Wasn’t there a wheel tax that just got voted against and didn’t the county kick a bunch of infrastructure projects to the vanishing curb? His 40 acres are not enough to make a go of it. He can clearly see that his future is where the money is, republican politics in South Dakota. That confederate flag really shows his commitment to the country that is for sure.

  31. grudznick 2016-01-20

    Way to go, Bob. You just helped that young fellow lock up the goat owner vote, and as you know that’s a bigger group than you ever expect before you go to the meetings.

  32. jerry 2016-01-20

    So then, can anyone tell me how the government is gonna swoop in and take your guns? How will that be done? Will they use out of towners to do the deed? Can’t be national guard as they are local boys and girls. Will they use the 82nd Airborne Brigade to parachute in and join the 173rd that will be transported from Italy? The 1st Cav. has already a reputation in this part of the world, will they be used? How will they do it?

  33. Les 2016-01-20

    Does denying the right to fly the confederate flag set the stage to deny the right to fly the Stars and Stripes when the appropriate folks or number of them decide that’s what is proper?

    This subject is no different than the native history. It all depends on who wrote the history, usually the winner of the dispute. Savages and racist pigs, eh? How about those racist slave owners in the North?

    Since you bring it up, I’d like to hear more of why you put a uniform on, Jerry.

  34. Douglas Wiken 2016-01-20

    Read Bearcreekbat 2016-01-20 at 16:21 again. He makes an obvious point that seems to escape the gunnuts comprehension.

  35. Porter Lansing 2016-01-20

    Ya’ know, Jerry … If I wanted to take the guns, I’d regulate and require a substance bonded within the gunpowder that could neutralize the explosion remotely, say from a drone.

  36. Les 2016-01-20

    “”””Lucky for everyone that our government is nothing like the image of government hating paranoiacs.””””. You must mean this, Wiken.

    This government, bear, does it include the suits and skirts who’ve sent so many of our young men and women to suffer death and disability while they are ordered to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents in the name of protecting our rights, mostly assuring those foreign natural resources stay in the hands of the right international corps.

    Yes, indeed it does.

    Trump is fascist, God is great, beer is good and yes, people are crazy.

  37. Roger Cornelius 2016-01-20

    President Obama best get busy, he has less than a year to swoop in and gather up ammosexuals boy toys.

    There is no question that the 1st Amendment is the strongest of our Amendments and people can say whatever they damn well please, whether it is stupid, ignorant or both.

    Here’s the clincher about free speech, there are often consequences to what you say. Whether it be berated on a blog or Facebook, forced to resign from a public office, or have violence thrust upon you for your idiocy.

    Say what you please, but don’t be shocked if someone reacts strongly to it.

  38. Porter Lansing 2016-01-20

    Furthermore, Jerry I’ll assert that it would be much more likely that Ted Cruz would take your guns than Barack Obama ever would. These Republicans remind me of the pigs in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. They’ll do darn near anything to stay in power. Look at the corruption and crime they’ve already done. They willingly sacrifice our climate for campaign donations from pollution producers. They willingly sacrifice the genetic integrity of our food for campaign donations from BigAg. Should times get really tense, they’d think nothing of taking your guns to insure their own lordship.

  39. jerry 2016-01-20

    I personally like my guns, always have. I still have my NRA card from when I was a kid that got it to take my hunter safety course so I could go hunting. I still have my originals and then some, so I like them and know how to use them safely. I have always been around guns and that is why it amuses me these days to hear about the government going to come and take the guns. I ask myself how that could be and no one has an answer, so much like Santa Claus, I believe it a myth. Like Santa Claus, Mr. Lasseter only uses that rhetoric to sell something. In this case, fear. Why should mine or his second amendment right interfere with someone elses 1st amendment right. That is when it gets dicey because folks like Mr. Lasseter do not want to hear about the 1st amendment, because it clouds their issues. Life is funny like that.

  40. jerry 2016-01-20

    Les, I put a uniform on because my family did that sort of thing going clear back to the 1500’s in this new world. My French ancestors came to Quebec as military to do the job for king and country. I was like so many my age, my father was military before World War II and had to stay in for the duration, one of my relatives never came home from that war and remains unknown in Europe. I had cousins who were in Korea and then there was me. I had nothing against the Vietnamese or anyone else for that matter. I went there and got an education in how the world really is. I met some people that put their lives on the line for you and I did the same for them. I saw the best of men and the worst of them as well. I knew stories about where they came from and how they lived, what dreams are and how they can be shattered in a split second. I had the honor of knowing people of different color and different ideas that I learned from. I promised myself that I would see this great land where all these minds came from.

    In short, I knew that the men around me were worth fighting for and worth dying for at the same time. I really did not care so much about myself as I did for us as a whole. I was scared to death at the same time and trying to keep my place. I learned many things while being in bad positions, that strengthened me for all things that life can throw at you, or so you think. But I also found, we are never that clever.

    The Constitution that I swore to protect was not as significant to me as the people who depended on me and on my being able to hold my own. Truth is, I never really took those words to heart until some years later when I got pissed off at someone spouting their opinions that were different than my own. I wondered what gave them the right to do so, and then I remembered, I did, along with millions of others. So now, I speak my position but respect the rights of words from others. I also understand that there is no place in this great country for those that would try to steal public lands or try to keep those who choose to come here as refugees. We cannot be a closed society and that is why flying that rag of a traitor flag cannot be accepted as anything but what it is, divisive and full of hate. There is no glory in hate or war les, there is only fear and death. There is an answer to Mr. Lasseter, don’t vote for hate.

  41. Winston 2016-01-20

    But if Trump and his supporters think it is practical to round up 11 million illegal aliens and bus them back to Mexico, then wouldn’t they also believe the Government could successfully confiscate all the guns?

    And for all of the other right of center candidates running for President who claim Trumps illegal alien plan is not practical have they not indicted the gun confiscation fear which they are often politically dependent upon in order to maintain their political relevance and success?

    It is hard to be logical with the illogical…..

  42. jerry 2016-01-20

    Winston, what you are suggesting is that Mr. Lasseter is really a Manchurian candidate that instead of protecting 2nd amendment would be to be in on the ground floor of a confiscation program designed by that sneaky Trump. Brilliant plan they have devised and the gun nuts will never be the wiser.

  43. Winston 2016-01-20

    Jerry, but does Sarah know? That is the question. Is she in on it, too? Most likely not. Does she even know that Trump recently belittled the heroic acts of her once political partner, Senator John McCain, probably not? She is just waiting for FOX to call her back as Megyn Kelly’s new co-anchor…..

  44. jerry 2016-01-20

    My God, the fix is in. That I’m with stupid was a ploy…she really really wants the tee vee gig. It could work as Rupert is all tangled up with Jerry Hall…I see it happening…

  45. Winston 2016-01-21

    Wow! “Rupert is all tangled up with Jerry Hall” has thrown off my entire train of thought. Where were we? Oh yah, Sarah and FOX. Given Trump’s relationship with FOX, could Sarah’s endorsement be merely out of spite for Trump, while Sarah would believe such an endorsement would be a good career move? How else could you explain Trump’s willingness to bring Sarah into his campaign? Even though she already has a track record of hearing “Your Fired,” which is not a good quality for one associated with another who claims to be “very very smart” and who went to “very very good schools,” and knows how to make “very good deals and walls.”

  46. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-21

    Bob, that goat picture is awesome!

    Spencer, I ascribe to the Mary Woster Haug theory of authorial intent. When interpreting a text, we assume that the author chose every word and every image for a reason. We do not initially dismiss difficult or distasteful elements as mere errors or oversights. An author is responsible for the meanings conveyed by his or her text.

    Lasseter is a veteran, suggesting a certain level of experience and intelligence. He is running for Legislature, indicating he has some awareness of current political issues. It is more logical to assume that Lasseter understood the implications of posting this photograph on his campaign materials.

    Interestingly, though, we appear to have changed Lasseter’s mind. As of yesterday evening, the picture of the traitor symbol has disappeared from Lasseter’s blog post. If we ascribe to the theory of authorial intent, what does that removal mean?

  47. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-21

    Bret, interesting combination of pictures.

    Those Marines are displaying a symbol of traitors who 150 years ago would have been shooting at them for wearing the Stars and Stripes.

    Those Indians at Wounded Knee are indeed displaying their insurrectionist intent. They are disrespecting the U.S. flag by displaying their flag above it and by letting the U.S. flag drag on the ground. However, displaying the United States flag upside down is not a crime nor a symbol of treason; it is a recognized symbol of dire distress or extreme danger, which the AIM members would have said accurately described both their immediate situation in Wounded Knee and the general situation of Indians on Dick Wilson’s Pine Ridge and throughout the U.S. at that time.

    A candidate displaying the AIM flag would rightly face as much backlash as a candidate displaying the Confederate flag should.

  48. Porter Lansing 2016-01-21

    Mr. Heidelberger … That blatant TeaParty reverence is no longer appropriate along with Jones and Powers coming out of the closet (as compassionate conservatives) clearly shows that South Dakota is turning purple.

  49. mike from iowa 2016-01-21

    Lasseter won’t need worry about Obama taking his guns. Them stinking goats prolly ate them already and had the bullets for dessert.

  50. mike from iowa 2016-01-21

    Barry,Roger doesn’t have a cyberbullying bone in his body. I suggest you get your virgin ears and eyes reborn or grow thicker skin. Roger has been overly restrained imho.

  51. jerry 2016-01-21

    Barry, that behemoth would be up to its axles in gumbo on the prairie, so deep that the prairie dogs would be chucking wild onions at them. Are you saying that six dudes would be able to go from ranch to ranch, farm to farm and take the guns without a whimper no less? There are 6 dudes riding the thing and probably 2 more inside, 8 dudes with guns. Sounds like ISIS and there takeover of lands in the Mid-East. I thought guys like Mr. Lasseter and some other posters would go full Charlton Heston and the cold dead hands thingy, no juevos or what? So why do they have all the guns then to protect themselves from Barry and the Jets?

    By the way Barry, Rapid City has some of those armored vehicles as well. I was coming into Rapid City one day and there was at least one of those by the place they are tearing up the road on by the high school. We read in the paper the next day that there was some kind of hostage deal going on there. They work pretty good in urban settings as you can lay down some serious suppressing fire, they use a lot of petrol and therefore would need one helluva supply train to keep up with going farm to farm.

  52. leslie 2016-01-21

    Rounds ran on abolishing dept of ed and got elected. why not defend the 2d amend. In sd. Simple strategy for dummies. Thx Jerry for your service and backbone connected too your brain. He may as well Open His Jacket To the T Shirt Thats Says Nigger. I Have Read That Pow Wows Are Celebrations Of The Defeat Of Custer. Are U Afraid Of Heathen Savages Travis And Spencer? Or Do U Just Hate? Or Just Get All Tangled Up With P.C. Intelligensia. FRI (similar to RWNJ)

  53. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-21

    Barry, I do not support arresting record store owners for selling records. I do not support arresting either Lasseter or his petition signer for displaying the traitor flag.

  54. Porter Lansing 2016-01-21

    … on our U.S.Constitution ~ Mr. Lasseter. The second amendment wasn’t written to empower you. It was written to protect “We the People” from self centered, gun hugging radicals like yourself. Curb your enthusiasm “good buddy” because we’re watching you. If restricting your ability to re-arm is in the best interest of public safety that’s exactly what the second amendment empowers us to do, sir.

  55. Roger Cornelius 2016-01-21

    Since I have, in your opinion, violated the Cyberbulling Law of South Dakota will someone come and arrest and prosecute me?
    As I have previously pointed out, there are consequences to free speech, as in you got on my case for expressing my opinions for using the word ammosexuals. Like Mr. Dithmer pointed out, the word did nothing more than hurt your feelings.
    Mr. Lasseter apparently learned about repercussions to his free speech by removing the offensive confederate flag.
    mikefromiowa, thanks for your support.

  56. Roger Cornelius 2016-01-21

    Your comment about Wound Knee is interesting in that when the U.S. flag was flown as a distress signal, there were in the encampment that did feel they were even American citizens and demanded the freedom to live under treaty rights.
    There have been for generations many Indians that still hold that belief.

  57. mike from iowa 2016-01-21

    Glad to be of service,Roger,although you obviously don’t need it.

  58. Les 2016-01-21

    Sounds like you were not drafted, Jerry.

    If you are a Veteran of The Nam, you are the first Vietnam Vet I’ve heard describe that experience as defending US citizens rights. I’ve heard it from the generations serving in Iraq 2 and Afghanistan, but what other reason could be given for fighting in those Godforsaken wars, that young men and women could believe and fight for. Until the carpet bombing on Christmas, many did think it was possible we were fighting the evil North in tandem with “Red” China.

    Im guessing we agree, Sanders would not have us in war unless it truly was defending the God given rights of mankind.

    How about those Northern slave owners flying Old Glory?

  59. jerry 2016-01-21

    No les, I did not go to defend any rights. I went to the military as a volunteer, mainly to see if I had the balls too. Some guys that I knew had already went and told me not to go, why the hell would you listen to logic? Yep, an RA. I had always thought about making a career out of the service but after a visit to the aid station with some minor wounds from some hard fighting in August of 1969, and then in late fall 1969 with serious wounds, those days were over. I had to spend weeks learning how to balance myself and how to build my muscles from the wounds in orthopedic wards. So my dreams of a career were shattered and I knew it. I have been in the care of the public option healthcare since 1969 with no complaints and no other coverage.

    I can tell you that I did not much give a care about citizens rights. The only thing I cared about was what would happen if things suddenly became hot. Who was on the flanks and who was at point and their approximate locations. That was it. We watched out for one another and hoped that in the event you got shot, someone would risk it all to come and get your sorry ass. You knew what was expected of you in that regard as well, that in the event of an ambush or a booby trap, you would have to come to the aid and come to help set up a perimeter to evacuate. You constantly were aware of each little detail in the terrain. That was each of our expectations. No rights, just bitching while you did your damn job.

  60. Les 2016-01-21

    Thanks for your thoughts, Jer. There is nothing right about our wars of aggression protecting financial interests in the regions and killing millions in the process.

  61. mike from iowa 2016-01-21

    Les-how many times in the past 15 years have you heard wingnuts say we are in Iraq fighting for American values? Wasn’t that pretty much a staple of their diatribes against unpatriotic LIbs?

    Jerry-thank you and all those others who endeavored to serve their Nation and fight regardless of circumstances. You go where you are ordered and do what you are ordered to do. Vietnam was the wrong war for all the wrong reasons and Iraq is stacking up similarly.

  62. jerry 2016-01-21

    mike from iowa, we fought in Vietnam for the same American values of why we are in Iraq, oil. All of these wars have one thing in common, oil. The same players have been involved with all of this, all of the time. Bombs sometimes got dropped off the coast to create seismic surveys during those times. It is always about oil.

  63. jerry 2016-01-21

    Roger, did Mr. Lasseter take down his traitor flag as I think you indicated?

  64. Les 2016-01-21

    I heard everyone but Sanders telling lies on Iraq.

  65. Porter Lansing 2016-01-21

    Viet Nam War was also very much about food. Viet Nam is the rice basket of SE Asia and China’s people were starving. USA didn’t want China to get the food.
    Colorado has the highest concentration of Vietnamese heritage Americans between the oceans and I’m lucky enough to have many friends who’s parents came as boat people (mostly women as the fathers were executed almost immediately when USA lost). I’ve been privileged to have holiday meals with one of these families and the personal anecdotes are fascinating. Those of Vietnamese heritage are a true jewel of my state and their culture is part of the diversity that makes us attractive to newcomers.

  66. Roger Cornelius 2016-01-21

    Cory mentioned in a comment above that Lesseter removed the photo in question from his site.

  67. Roger Cornelius 2016-01-21

    More precisely, see Cory’s comment as 06:20 about the change to Lesseter’s change of heart.

  68. jerry 2016-01-21

    Sorry, I missed that. Thanks

  69. grudznick 2016-01-21

    So in summary, Mr. Lesseter simply posted a picture of a fellow at a gun show and you all went bonkers. Because Mr. Lesseter really wasn’t all about the hat he removed the picture to pacify you all but the bonkering went on and on. If Mr. Lesseter gets into the legislatures you will want to watch his bills closely, I suspect.

  70. bearcreekbat 2016-01-23

    Blindman, I am not quite sure I understand your post at 1-20, 18:37, but it sounds like you agree that we should have laws prohibiting some types of speech, such as our defamation laws, and laws against speech that threatens violence against others.

    I would assume that you also agree that we should make it a crime to use any type of speech that advocates violence against other people or against the government. In other words, do you agree that speech aimed at inciting riots or encouraging others to kill people should be outlawed rather than considered protected under the 1st amendment?

    There are some problems here, however, as the line to be drawn is pretty ambiguous. Whether particular speech threatens or advocates violence is not an easy question. Do we look at the speaker’s motive? Or the way other people react to the speech?

    Revolting Randy wants the violent overthrow of our government and believes that all government officials should be murdered, along with all minorities. He flies the Confederate flag with a motive or intent to get his armed friends to start killing folks to help accomplish his revolutionary goals.

    Pacifist Patty is a southern gal who feels that her ancestors deserved to be honored and flies the Confederate flag with the motive of celebrating them, but does not intend to incite violence toward anyone.

    Should we outlaw flying the Confederate flag by Randy but not by Patty?

    Let’s say we ignore the motive of the speaker, and focus instead on how people hearing the speech would interpret it. Like minded friends of Randy see the Confederate flag as a call to arms and violence, so they interpret Patty’s flag as a call to killing others. Does this change things so Patty’s conduct is now just as illegal as Randy’s conduct?

    Or, since like minded friends of Patty, on the other hand, see Randy’s flag as honoring ancestors, rather than a call to violence, should he be permitted to fly that flag even though his motive is to incite violence?

    I guess the answer to what speech should be protected and what speech should be outlawed is not quite as easy as it would seem to be. The slippery slope argument misses that point.

  71. BIll DIthmer 2016-01-23

    BCB, why are you even bringinh the flag up in these instences? It is the people not the flag.

    The Blindman

  72. BIll DIthmer 2016-01-23

    Dont have much time here so I’ll make it quick. That flag that some people love and some hate in an object. It should be considered in the same light as a book. Im totally against banning of any book no matter how much I might dislike whats inside. I feel the same about works of art found offensive.

    It has never been the flag that was offensive to me, but how different people used it. Its a inanimate object, like the book filled with pornography, and a museum filled with dead people, everyone will see it in a different way.

    Once you go down the road of banning things you dont like, there’s no turning back. Something you may love could be next.

    The Blindman

  73. bearcreekbat 2016-01-23

    Bill, I brought up the flag since that was the main topic of Cory’s post, and because displaying a flag is considered a form of speech. I could have used a Nazi swastika, a Klu Klux Klan burning cross, or a number of other items, but to stay closer to topic I used the Confederate flag.

    As for books, are you sure that you would never ban anything? By banning, I include punishing people for publishing or distributing particular books.

    if a book is defamatory then the author or publisher can be punished for publishing it. Do you disagree with this law?

    And what about threats of violence that are in writing on paper or pamphlets, do you still agree with our laws that make issuing such threats a crime?

    Or pamphlets and books advocating for the violent overthrow of the American government – are the criminal laws against these okay with you?

    Check out: 18 U.S. Code § 2385, which provides, in part, “. . . Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

    Again, it seems a hard line to draw when the object is a form of speech advocating violence.

  74. BIll DIthmer 2016-01-23

    Bear, not when that object doesnt have a singular meaning to everybody.

    The Blindman

  75. BIll DIthmer 2016-01-23

    Your mixing apples and oranges here. Defamation can be proven, as can threats written in any form. There are already laws for these things.

    That flag can only hurt your feelings, nothing else unless you make it an issue with someone that doesnt feel the same way.

    Would you ban the cross because the Klan uses it? Could a church use it without that same stigma? Or would you make an exception for the cross?

    Believe me, I do understand what your saying, but I think your trying to make it more complicated then it is.

    The Blindman

  76. Roger Cornelius 2016-01-23

    After re-reading Cory’s blog and scanning the comment section, I did not see anyone suggesting a ban of the confederate flag. Please correct me if I am wrong. The only instances of a ban was brought up by The Blindman.

    When the confederate flag is displayed it is actually speaking of one’s political allegiance to a one time country that went to war against us and lost.

    The question that needs to be asked and answered is not whether you have the freedom to fly the confederate flag, but why would you choose to do so since represents the ugliest part of our history? Since the confederate flag represents slavery to most Americans, are those the sentiments of those that still fly that flag?

  77. jerry 2016-01-23

    The military already bans that traitor rag completely as as sign of racial hate. It took the military a lot of years to figure that segregation was not such a good deal and that discrimination was for the birds as well. Mr. Lasseter must have gotten schooled on what a horse’s arse he was being in showing the hate and to his credit, removed it. The Marines in Mr. Clanton’s picture were in clear violation of Marine Corp ideals and rules. Self policing is a good thing as hate should never be tolerated in society.

  78. BIll DIthmer 2016-01-23

    Then what do you want Roger?

    The Blindman

  79. Winston 2016-01-23

    When a politician displays the Confederate flag on themselves, their political literature, and/or their website or allow others, who speak for them, to do so, then they are speaking in code. It is that simple.

  80. Roger Cornelius 2016-01-23

    I don’t necessarily want anything. What I am suggesting is that when anyone, especially politicians, wave that flag they are showing their allegiance to way of thinking that produces hate and discrimination.
    In fact when I think about it, I like the idea of fools flying that rag as it makes them clearly identifiable as hate mongers and racists. Better to know your enemies, eh?

  81. mike from iowa 2016-01-23

    Lasseter had to know that symbol would get a negative reaction and serve to stir up the wingnut base. I’m guessing praising him for removing the objectionable picture is like praising a stopped clock for being right twice a day. These are savvy pols,they don’t operate in a vacuum. They know what they do is wrong.

  82. bearcreekbat 2016-01-23

    Blindman, please don’t misunderstand me, I am not suggesting we ban the Confederate flag. Rather I was attempting to explore the idea of whether all speech, including symbols and books should be protected by the 1st Amendment, and if there are exceptions, how do we draw the line in identifying the exceptions.

    Actually, neither defamation nor threats are easily proved as evidenced by Watts v. United States, in which the Supreme Court overturned Watts’ conviction for threatening the President after saying that if he was drafted and had to carry a rifle, “the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.”

    In any event my own views are most likely similar to yours as I fall in the William O. Douglas school of thought regarding the 1st Amendment, and I suspect that is pretty much where you are at based on your comments.

  83. Bill Dithmer 2016-01-23

    Like Ive said before Bear, it is about the shades of grey. Ya, youve read me long enough to know what I’m saying. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not, except to me.

    The Blindman

  84. bearcreekbat 2016-01-23

    mfi – no I had not seen that – thanks for the link. Woody is a man I believe to be a real hero for what is right. I am not surprised that Woody would call Trump’s dad out about his racist policies.

    But I suppose you already know that Donald said in 2015 “And, you know, I have a great relationship with African Americans, as you possibly have heard. I just have great respect for them and you know they like me,” while a few years earlier saying “Laziness is a trait in blacks.” What a piece of work.

  85. mike from iowa 2016-01-24

    Outreach to minorities takes on a whole new meaning in the wingnut bastion of wingnuttery. One can only hope Trump is the torch bearer for Rethugs in 2016. He will light his own effigy while he is standing on it telling everyone how much everyone loves the Donald.

  86. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-24

    I’m still trying to figure Lasseter out, Mike. If he was angling for cred with his District 30 wingnut base (9,928 Republicans, 4,015 Independents, 3,419 Democrats), he wouldn’t have removed the picture after getting guff from some liberal blog. He’d have kept that picture up as a badge of anti-PC gutsiness.

  87. mike from iowa 2016-01-24

    He gets his cred for posting it and then tries to look reasonable by taking it down. His base understands the need for taking it down to tamp down the critiques and let it blow over quickly. But,he threw red meat to his base and they are always appreciative of that. Can’t believe I’m trying to give that party credit for thinking.

  88. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-01-24

    My impulse is to say, “Down that road lies madness, Mike!” But if I’m serious about the Haug Theory of Authorial Intent, then I should apply it to Lasseter and his voters and always assume that they are thinking and doing things for a reason as well.

  89. leslie 2016-01-25

    Les-didja get that brown sheit off your nose from clanton’s arse? An apology to jerry for your youthful impertinence would show insight more than bret was capable. BTW the Harney history is really not that difficult. There are eye-witnesses on both sides and several officers and civilians wrote it up. The Omaha World Herald went after him for the atrocity, the massacre, whatever you think is P.C. Spencer still thinks it was “The Custer Massacre”. He still calls the Indians “butchers”. Still think Harney Peak Sd; Harney Lake, Harney Basin and Harney County OR are good ideas? Maybe Bundy OR or Bundy NV:)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.