So, yesterday was apparently Flag Day. Whatever. _USA Today_ ran an Editorial about how a Flag Amendment (you know, the oft defeated attempt to criminalize the burning of the US flag) was misguided, etc. But they also ran an "opposing" editorial, by Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), the sponsor of the latest Flag Amendment legislation.

You can read it here.

But let me point out the funniest/scariest part of his argument:

>"[Our Founding Fathers] recognized, as most Americans do, that the free-speech rights of individuals must be considered in relation to the rights of all people, most of whom support protecting our national symbol."

So, wait. So, individual free-speech rights must, in some cases, be abrogated in favor of the "rights of all people?" So, if the majority of "all people" disagree with me about, say, who should be President (need I remind us all that 51% is, in fact, a majority, just not much of one), I should not necessarily be allowed to point out that I think their choice is an evil monkey? You know, because my pointing that out impinges on their right to... feel good about winning?

Let me just point out, for those that think Mr. Cunningham makes a good case, that there is no room for argument on this: the free-speech rights of individuals must be considered more important than the free-speech rights of a majority, by simple definition. If I cannot speak my mind (or burn the flag) because more people disagree with me than agree with me, then I do not have the right to free-speech. Instead, I have a totalitarian censorship thrust upon me. Mr. Cunningham's argument is, by far, the most idiotic and specious peice of illogical granstanding I have heard in a long time. And this year has been impressively full of that.

How did the nutjobs get so bold?