Flag Display Bill Signed
Douglas Brown (KC4RSL)
on
July 26, 2006
Website:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-42
View comments about this article!
H.R. 42 has been signed into federal law. I hadn't heard of it either before this morning. What it does is block homeowner's associations or condo owners from preventing the display of the U.S. flag.
I know that a lot of people use flag poles as covert verticals to get around CC&R's; I thought that maybe hams who were blocked from putting up a flag pole would find this interesting.
You can find the bill at:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-42
73
KC4RSL
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N8UZE on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well it gives you the right to display the flag but not necessarily to put up a flag pole.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K0BG on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The interpretation of the fine print would be left up to a Federal judge to decide; typical of most fed law. To wit: They (the associations) can mediate the display under certain conditions. One would assume this provision has to do with safety, health, and welfare, but it is so vague in nature as to make the law nearly useless.
I believe it was an old Chinese philosopher who said words to the effect; the more rules and regulations you enact, the more scofflaws you will have. This is yet another example of waisted (pun intended) congressional thinking.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC5TTL on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before people start jumping on that band wagon --
The bill has been going through committees for almost a year --
it says that an HOA cannot prevent you from displaying the American Flag...
It does NOT NOT NOT guarantee you the right to put up a 40 foot flagpole.
All this bill will do is make it illegal for an HOA to prevent you from displaying the flag.
But once again -- you're not going to be able to erect a 40 foot mast and fly a flag off the top along with your antennas and fall back on this bill for protection...
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by WY3X on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC5TTL: But once again -- you're not going to be able to erect a 40 foot mast and fly a flag off the top along with your antennas and fall back on this bill for protection.
Not for a condo dweller, but for a homeowner in an HOA, perhaps. The intent is not to hang your antennas on the outside of the flagpole, but to conceal your antenna inside the flagpole. Two-inch diameter PVC is large enough to stuff most any trap inside. On the other hand, PVC pipe won't stand 40 feet without flopping over, you're probably going to be limited to 20 feet. Give me a 50 foot tower with a big quad on top any day, but this is better than nothing. -KR4WM
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
scofflaws:
One who habitually violates the law or fails to answer court summonses.
Guess you mean our Congress with the use of our Constitution being dis-regarded, (To pay no attention or heed to; ignore).
Put a pole up and display our flag and see what action can and will be brought against you.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
W6TH.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N4LI on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If your Neighborhood Assn. currently restricts big flagpoles, I strongly suspect that prohibition will continue. And Section 4(2) gives them wide latitude:
SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS. H. R. 42--2
Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with--
(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association.
So, my reading is that they can dictate size of the flag (assuming it is not unreasonable), and placement (e.g., on a small pole attached to the house).
A "flagpole" that, "coincidentally" just happens to be 1/4 wave on 40m will likely not fly.
Oh, and I am still picturing this exchange:
"Hey, Ed. Nice flagpole. But, why does it need a grounding system all across the yard?"
GL with it.
Peter, N4LI
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill offers possibilities
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am glad that many have offered very practical cautions on this flag bill. Still, it is an opportunity. I have made several successsful antennas inside of PVC pipe. I notice that all comments so far speak of HF antennas, and of course HF is the biggest need for hams with restriction. I had an old buddy (recently SK) who had nothing after moving into a senior citizens apartment. He was lost without a rig. With a little PVC window flag pole he was on 70 cm and 2 m, not much, but he was very happy to be able to rag chew once again. If you can do it, clever trap verticals for 40 m on down to 10 can be constructed inside PVC. Give it some time and good old ham ingenuity will come up with ideas. What a beautiful combination - our nation's flag and a ham antenna! Heed the cautions. Go slowly. Plan well, and for those with no other options, this flag bill offers you an opportunity.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N9XCR on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8EMr: "A law is required to fly the american flag. How sad!"
Isn't it wonderful that our government is dedicating time to do this for the country? lol I can think of much better things they should be doing for the country right now, and they don't involve creating distrations like same-sex marriage and immigration.
Chris
N9XCR
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by G8UBJ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some interesting responses. I would favour the shoot first ask questions later policy. i.e. put up the pole and see if they ask for it to be removed as opposed to asking anyone for permission.
As they say over here, "If you didn't like the answer you shouldn't have asked the question"
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by AA4PB on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Hey, Ed. Nice flagpole. But, why does it need a grounding system all across the yard?"
------------------------------------------------
The grounding wires protect the neighborhood in case my flag pole gets hit by lightning.
|
| |
|
Flag Pole can be made rigid easily.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
For those concerned about limp PVC "flag poles," using aluminum electrical conduit or aluminum tube inside the PVC adds stiffness to the flag pole. It is inexpensive and is easier to work with than wire inside the pole. I have made a short vertical 40 meter antenna this way with a coil hidden in the base, and it works just fine. It has a low radiation angle and the omnidirectional feature is a help. As far as picking up noise goes, I don't notice any difference compared to the old inverted V.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Some interesting responses. I would favour the shoot first ask questions later policy. i.e. put up the pole and see if they ask for it to be removed as opposed to asking anyone for permission.
---------------------------------------
I have tried that, sold my home and was waiting to move to another permanent home. In the mean time I went to a home where there were restrictions. I rented this home for six months, the first month I installed a 30 foot flag pole. I was told to take it down and I said by what authority, there were no comments. I flew my American flag with a POW flag beneath for six months and it still remained until the day I left.
Nothing was done to force my movement or to remove the flag pole. Also no complaints from the neighbors.
Like I mentioned: nothing ventured, nothing gained.
73, A son of Liberty.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If your going to try and install a flagpole vertical in your HOA controlled neighborhood you might consider looking at this article.
http://www.eham.net/articles/11473
As others have commented you may or may not be allowed to display your flag on a real flagpole but for those who may be able to get away with it this article should give you some ideas of how you would go about it. I would think some innovative commercial antennas suppliers would have a fiberglass flagpole as an accessory for their HF vertical antennas as well.
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC9AGG on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
wasn't it tom paine who said: "give me liberty or give me death !" at any rate, to quote firesign theater: "give me immortality or give me death!"
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death. Patrick Henry
.:
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC4RSL on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow. I even tried to write this to leave out politics. I sometimes think you could post an article that said nothing but "I like pie. Pie is good" and it would be a political flame war before the second reply.
I never figured this would allow anyone to put up a massive antenna with impunity. There's too much room for debate in the bill for that to fly. Putting a flag on top of a 40 foot antenna or hanging one from the feedpoint of a G5RV in the front yard may be out of the question, but it would take a real bunch of jerks to argue about a 15-20 foot flagpole. You might not be able to be a world class contester on 160 meters with that, but you could at least be active on some hf bands. Nicer than the slinky dipole I used to sneak out onto my balcony. There are plenty of decent balcony antennas if the only thing you could pull off is a window mounted flag. And I hadn't even thought of the people who would like an outdoor VHF or UHF antenna. My brother, his wife and their 13 year old are studying for their technician licenses. This is a way they can get a 2 meter antenna up without an issue; nice!
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K1OU on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If only the flagpole could exhibit 8 dbd and 25 db front to back. I bet Vito knows such an antenna!
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
If only the flagpole could exhibit 8 dbd and 25 db front to back. I bet Vito knows such an antenna!
............................................
A six element Yagi with the reflector spaced one tenth of a wavelength. On the Flag Pole.
Live Free Or Die.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KX8N on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Isn't it wonderful that our government is dedicating time to do this for the country? "
Actually yes, it IS good that the government is protecting homeowners from the Nazi-like rules imposed by HOA's.
Next thing you know, the government might mess around and require that we be allowed to erect antennas, regardless of HOA's or apartment regulations. I'm glad not everybody feels this is a waste of time.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Actually what this post means is:
A HOA or a restricted housing sets a formular to restrictions. This law is passed to indicate that by certain rules there will be restrictions that do not apply. A flag may be displayed with/under certain circumstances that will allow flags to be displayed; in accordance with state and/or local laws and regulations.
This meaning to check safety hazards, etc. No big deal.
Hams that know logic and are creative will have no problems to get a HF antenna going and work the bands, providing the signal is kept out of telephones, televison sets, etc. Easy does it.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N5YPJ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If only the flagpole could exhibit 8 dbd and 25 db front to back."
How about a phased vertical array of flag poles - US flag & state flag?
Living in the boonies & loving it = antenna freedom.
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed Reply
by W6TH on July 26, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
.
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death. Patrick Henry<
::"Tell the FCC you moved and what your new mailing address is, or find yourself without a license." - Riley H.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by RADIOGUYR2 on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No one says you cant fly muti national flags each on their own pole that just happens to be spaced out in a phased aray. (if you fly the Mexican flag no one would dare tell you to take it down in this country)
Hello Vito any thoughts on that?
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death. Patrick Henry"
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they shoot him??
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC5TTL on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Once again --
This says that you can fly the flag --
it does NOT say that you can erect a flag pole to fly it...
My HOA has NO restrictions on the size or nature of a flag flown -- but the covenants clearly state that you will NOT erect a flag pole to fly said flag.
And this piece of legislature will NOT overturn that covenant.
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about 2 flags sewn together with a tape measure Yagi inside for 2m / 440?
If you can't have a pole then string up a piece of wire (that just coincedentally is resonant on your favorite HF band) to hang it from.
Just make sure your contraption doesn't have the Yagi firing into the lawn. :)
Seriously though, who would tell someone they have to take down a properly cared for American flag...and admit to it later in mixed company?
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k8mhz WRITES:
"Seriously though, who would tell someone they have to take down a properly cared for American flag...and admit to it later in mixed company?"
Here is a partial list:
a) The same ACLU types that oppose crosses and Christmas displays on public property;
b) The anti-american left that hate this country and are "offended" by what they call "jingoistic displays";
c) Leftists that hate the millitary and that think "its not fair" that we are the world's lone super-power"; and
d) The french, Al Queda, and their sympathizers!
UNFORTUNATELY, the left has convinced people that its acceptable to hate your own country.
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jon,
I skew to the left and I thing nothing of the sort.
Actually I am the type to be ticked about the way people fly tattered flags, fly them in the rain and at night with no light. I think that people should be able to display religious icons but should not be forced to and if someone want to pray anywhere in my presence they are welcome. I just hope it's not because of my driving!
Maybe I'm not radical enough to force my wills on others. I most definitely am not 'right-wing' by any means but I support our military. Just not the ones at the very top of the food chain.
You will find that the vast majority of 'left-wing' folks are very patriotic. It is just a few of the hard cores that get recognition create what I consider to be a very unfair and inaccurate stigma.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill offers possibilities
|
|
|
by AD5TD on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This was to help the poor soul that had an American Flag up in their window. The Nazi HOA said you couldn't do it EVEN if it was INSIDE your house!
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill offers possibilities
|
|
|
by K1OU on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE says:
"UNFORTUNATELY, the left has convinced people that its acceptable to hate your own country."
Asinine! Saying that people who lean to the left hate America is like saying people eat hot dogs because they ride bicycles.
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC4RSL on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC5TTL said:
"This says that you can fly the flag --
it does NOT say that you can erect a flag pole to fly it...My HOA has NO restrictions on the size or nature of a flag flown -- but the covenants clearly state that you will NOT erect a flag pole to fly said flag.
And this piece of legislature will NOT overturn that covenant. "
You're right. It does not. It just changes a few things for your benefit. The fact that the law exists may make them rethink their restrictions. Now you have a legal footing for a discussion as to whether their restriction should be reviewed. Before this your HOA was the highest authority in the land and their word was unchallengeable. If you took them to court you would have had no case. The law now sets a requirement of some legal tests that their restriction must pass.
First, is their restriction a "reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place,or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association." If you can only display the flag from inside your house in the window their restrictions may not pass the test.
Second, do their restrictions force you to display the flag in a manner that violates the US Code. Hanging it from walls could lead to an issue with the requirement that "The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way."
It certainly still might not be possible to convince your HOA, but you've got a little bit more to work with than you did 2 days ago.
I'll turn the forum back to the political ranters now.
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hams in the Florida Keys may now feel free to fly the flag of the Conch Republic (http://www.conchrepublic.com/) from their antennas, er I mean their flagpoles.
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"To ensure that the right of an individual to display the flag of the United States on residential property not be abridged."
Translation: We can fly the American flag in any manner we desire.
"Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with-- (1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or (2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association."
Translation: We can't really fly the American flag in any manner we want to. We have to have permission first.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You might not be able to be a world class contester on 160 meters with that, but you could at least be active on some hf bands. Nicer than the slinky dipole I used to sneak out onto my balcony.
--------------------
Modern day HOA restrictions seems to conjure up the same exact vision of people who were living in Nazi Germany in the 1940's who used clotheslines and other stealth antennas in secrecy who later found the Gestapo knocking at their doors to investigate their activities.
So is living today in America any different than living in 1940 Nazi Germany as far as installing transmitting antennas on your property is concerned?
Your liberties and freedom are supposed to guarantee unwarranted intrusion into your personal and private affairs and yet we permit HOA's to become a governing dictatorship entity over private citizens by signing on the dotted line. Basically we are handing over our civil liberties by permitting HOA's to enact laws against private citizens which violate our personal freedoms.
We like to call it a contract. It sounds like an all formal and business like transaction and everything however the bottom line is you are signing away what many have died to protect you from.
Also applies to the friendly shopping atmosphere a person experiences you allow someone to violate your civil liberties at wallyworld.
They might as well drop the smiley faces and just put on Nazi uniforms on those people at checkpoint Charley as you leave the store. Apparently the friendly name "greeters" is supposed to make me feel any better about this activity? ...I think not!
"Papers...! Papers...? Can I see your Papers?" they exclaim to everyone as they leave the store.
So what happens if I refuse to stop and show them my papers for my personal belonging? Are they going to stop me from leaving the store? Perhaps detain me in the Gulag?
Ha!
Apparently the message here is that everyone is automatically guilty and suspected of committing a crime without any just cause?
It's a small thing but the reality my friends is that this is called a loss of your personal liberties.
Trouble is everyone shopping at consumer world today is not yet smart enough to figure out that they are being violated and thier liberties are becoming eroded by these "subtle" actions taking place.
Just food for thought.
God Bless America!
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC0TUD on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To equate HOA restrictions and covenants (that no one forced you to enter into- you could have lived elsewhere) to what Nazi Germany did in the 30's and 40's is ignorant (and offensive).
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by AB2MH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So much money collected in taxes and THIS is all we get?
Does the Government really think we were born yesterday? How about a real antenna bill instead of this joke?
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
..Gee what part was offensive and ignorant?
The similarities of operating a radio station in secrecy in the year 2006 compared to operating one in Nazi Germany in 1940, or was it refering to HOA's as Nazi entities?
Surely you don't deny these things ever happened in past history correct?
Perhaps you will take equal offense to similar opinions expressed by thousands of other Americans who have equal feelings about Nazi HOA's here:
http://www.citizensagainsthate.com/site/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=303
...You know the beauty of all this is in the fact that I am allowed to express my opinion freely and you are equally allowed to disagree with my opinion.
Thank you, your opinion has been noted.
|
| |
|
RE: It's about theFlag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by WW0H on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death. Patrick Henry"
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they shoot him??
Nope - he died after the Revolutionary War and having served as Washington's Secretary of State. He died of "ill health".
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
by RADIOGUYR2
No one says you cant fly muti national flags each on their own pole that just happens to be spaced out in a phased aray. (if you fly the Mexican flag no one would dare tell you to take it down in this country).
..............................................
Today as I walked the streets I noticed an American flag placed on the left, on the right was a Puerto Rican flag. Another was a American flag on the left and a Mexican flag on the right. Both properly displayed. Nothing wrong with these two displays and all done in good faith.
This tells me that these folks are enjoying their freedom to display their flags of their country and are adhering to the American way of life.
To WB2WIK:::::::All is taken care of with the FCC and they have been notified. Read the FCC rules and regulations and You Steve will know more as to hams and their movements.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but nice of you to turn to a squeeler and trouble maker.
W6TH
.:
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is what its come to? A special law needed to fly your countries flag on your own property! How sad and pathetic! Id rather see a bill passed outlawing HOA`s instead.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Vito,
I think that you may not realize that Steve is actually doing you a favor. The FCC just recently started suspending licenses of operators with incorrect mailing addresses. If anyone made a complaint against you, legitimate or not, and the FCC sent a request for your side of the story to an incorrect mailing address, you would automatically be suspended. Since you would not know this you likely would continue transmitting after the suspension and now be guilty of unlicensed operation.
WW0H,
Thanks! Perhaps in some way the sparing of a turn of the 18th century Henry may have contributed to radio and electronics. :)
All else. I will display the American Flag in a respectful manner anywhere, anytime and any way I feel fit. No one can force me to take it down. If it comes down it will be by the hands of another and that would make for some very newsworthy video. With or without my being there to personally defend it's right to be displayed.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N4LI on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> A special law needed to fly your countries flag on your own property!
Actually, no.
It's a "special law" that trumps a valid agreement you entered into when you bought the property. That's all.
Now... FLAME AWAY! (what will follow are falacious arguments about how no property is available without CCRs, or how potential purchasers are under "duress" to buy and sign)
Peter
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
K8MHZ
Thanks for the information.
The FCC has my forwaring mailing address and their mail will be delivered to me.
At the present time I am travelling around and through NH and looking for a good antenna sight. The FCC has my forwarding mailing address so I will be covered. I am going to renew my ticket in and around October of this year, as it now stands, I cannot make changes to my QRZ.COM as I am cut off to edit any and all information. However, upon renewal, I will by then have my complete change of address as to transmitter and mailing location.
Thanks, Vito.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by RADIOGUYR2 on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death. Patrick Henry"
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they shoot him??
Nope - he died after the Revolutionary War and having served as Washington's Secretary of State. He died of "ill health".
Yep true - it was siffless - too many latenight partys'.
As to a few americans running for office to re-inforce the rights--- first you have to find one. Most of the majority of people now in the US are imports that want to bring their countrys' culture and make us all enjoy it.
You notice that americans still have one thing going for them. Frontier law. We just do things till someone makes us stop. In our HOA we questiond why not - antennas- they had some lame reasion about visual astetics. So a bunch of us filed a class actions suite against the HOA. Ya its like sueing yourself. But, about the time it was getting to court they decided to allow hams to have antennas so long as they met the current safety standards and building codes. This worked great till some bozo new ham got a HF amp and was blowing tv's, radios and home entertainment centers out. Not unlike some of the hams here, he too was a knuckleheaded person that no one could reason with or talk to. A HOA meeting was held, the majority of the residents were miffed at this jerk who was whining about his rights and how the other hams would not help him take a stand. The HOA in less than 5 min. re-inacted the restriction causing all of our antennas to be removed within 30 days.
U can't believe the broken windows the bozo had every night as other hams drove by. Idiot was too nice a word for him. He later moved away citing the HOA as dictitorial and communistic suppressing his rights to use his radio. (he was a new ham of less than one year)
Later we went back and asked if antennas could be put back up if a 100 watt restriction was inforced. This then should not cause interfearance. The HOA said they got a letter from the bozo that moved, saying that if they did approve it for all of us, that he would sue them for discrimination and his attorney cited, it was the major reason he had to move away. Gee you think we really liked the guy? The HOA quietly said that they would not enforce a removal of a antenna so long as they didn't get any complaints from other residents. We all live happy now. Almost everyone has a flag pole over 30 ft in their yards and fly the AMERICAN FLAG ON TOP, others under it, None upside down, backwards or at night unless they are well lit. (we do have one rebble thought, that flys the UN flag upside down but, most of us tollerate him)
Cause and effect--
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. Who are these "HOA" people implementing these rules and under what authority?
2. What are their underlying intentions in restricting common citizens from engaging in this flag installation activity?
3. How long will it be before the United States Government become fed up with these Anti American "mini governments" in communities across the country exactly?
Your Answer...
"A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use."
Now ask yourself "Why" is it that the federal government has had to step in and take over these Anti American HOA agreements by enacting these laws?
...Why?
Answer:
HOA's are trying to devour our freedoms and liberties through these private HOA agreements but guess what? It's not working and the federal government has and will continue to intervene.
Who are the people behind implementing these HOA's exactly?
Who is making it a mandatory requirment in 99% of the communities that sell homes today?
What are thier intentions?
Why are these "little sideshow governments" even tolerated in our society?
"Why?"
Because they want to control you. They want power over your life and they want you to willingly surrender your freedoms and liberties on a silver platter to them so you can live your American Dream.
...American Dream?
Let there be no mistake...
There is only one supreme governing authority of "We the people" of these glorious United States of America.
It sure the heck isn't your local community HOA, now, yesterday, today or anytime in the near future.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by THERAGE on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
##Nope - he died after the Revolutionary War and having served as Washington's Secretary of State. He died of "ill health".
Yep true - it was siffless - too many latenight partys'.##
Uh, huh. And it's spelled SYPHILIS. ;-)
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by AH6FC on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps a little help, better than nothing. The main problems continues to be HOA's/CC&R's and all of the reasons that we agree to live under such rules.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KB1ATA on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM,
You asked "Why are these "little sideshow governments" even tolerated in our society?"
In the United States, the vast majority of homeowners associations are incorporated and are therefore governed by a board, which is in essence a private government. They have authority superseding that even of the local zoning board and local government.
In some U.S. states, California or Texas for instance, a homeowners association can foreclose a member's house without any judicial procedure in order to collect a fine. Yes, the HOA can take your house, and neither the state nor the federal government can intervene.
In 2006 there are approximately 286,000 communities with HOAs, 23.1 million homes containing 57.0 million people.
You noted that "There is only one supreme governing authority of "We the people" of these glorious United States of America." If you are referring to the Federal Government, I believe you are mistaken. Federal regulations do not override a State's rights. These rights are guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, under the United States Bill of Rights. Amendment X (the Tenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Perhaps that is why "these 'little sideshow governments'" are tolerated in our society.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N4LI on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Federal regulations do not override a State's rights...
Oh really? That would be big news to a Constitutional Scholar or Administrative lawyer. You may want to check Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution, commonly called The Supremecy Clause. I suppose one could make some esoteric arguments about what "rights" are truly left to states (police powers, mostly), but under the Commerce Clause, even those can easily be trumped by good legislative drafting.
Citing the 10th Amendment is interesting, though not terribly illuminating. Most Constitutional scholars agree that the 10th is little (if any) more than a truism, and was meant by the framers to state clearly that the Federal Govt. does not have powers NOT granted to it.
But, all this Constitutional talk is simply off the mark, and, perhaps, even buttresses the argument that HOAs are valid. The People, one might argue, should be free of government intrusion when it comes to entering into valid contracts. Those waving the flag of freedom logically should want the government OUT of legislating what contracts are and are not valid.
Contracts are simply private agreements -- what civilian lawyers call "private law." I would think you would want the freedom to contract as you wish and have those contract enforced in law or equity.
Don't get me wrong... I don't like HOAs. But, I understand that contracts should be enforced. That's why I ran a search BEFORE I bought the property upon which I live.
Oh, well... enough of this...
Peter
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And, Vito, W6TH said:
"Live Free Or Die"
That's New Hampshire's motto. But, folks, I live in Alabama. Where they still have things like the Poll Tax.
Case in point: I was cited for not having a "proof of insurance card" in my glove compartment. I took my insurance policy to the court clerk, and she said "sorry, you'll have to see the judge."
Four months later, I go to trial, and am found NOT GUILTY of operating a motor vehicle without insurance and guess what? I'm FINED $122. for COURT COSTS.
That's Alabama justice. Just like in the old days, I guess.......
73,
Lee
W6EM
Shelby County Alabama
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the United States, the vast majority of homeowners associations are incorporated and are therefore governed by a board, which is in essence a private government. They have authority superseding that even of the local zoning board and local government.
--------------
Exactly my point.
Your absolutely right. HOA's ARE governing bodies that are trying to implement a certain level of control over you and your civil liberties.
This is not just about antennas or flagpoles. It's a whole lot more than that in the big picture of things.
Most people are just sheep living in a black and white HOA community who follow the common herd brainwashed to believe they should do whatever they are instructed to do by an invalid government authority.
I do not validate or recognise this authority as my government...
...Do you?
When we validate HOA's as a government entity, we accept it, we tolerate it and submit ourselves to thier activities and become "thier" citizens.
That seems to be the root of the problem in our society today. You indicated that some HOA's have more power over people living in thier communities than the entire State does.
People are duped into thinking they are still citizens of the State when living in these HOA communities. Most don't even give any of these things a second thought.
However some Americans like myself and many others don't tolerate certain HOA activities as these flag laws demonstrate. It is a fact that the "real government" steps in and facilitates enforcement efforts over HOA's from time to time.
The reality is that HOA agreements are made of thin sheets of paper. American people who built the very foundation of this country on the other hand are made from blood and sweat.
I for one do not intend on giving up my freedoms and liberties to thin sheets of paper handed to me by some invalid government entity nor should anyone else be so darn compliant about such things for that matter. But it really amazes me that some people do this without giving it a second thought!
Quite frankly, I don't need any HOA kangaroo court justice in my community anytime soon but it seems to happen to people all the time. It's because they let it happen and people validate them as an authority in thier lives.
The fact is, I pay the "real government" taxes to enforce the real laws in my community and to protect my liberties and freedoms from such kagaroo court justice these HOA's seem to demonstrate against so many freedom loving Americans.
I have and will continue to fly my American flag proudly in my neighorhood and I dare any HOA to instruct me to do otherwise. In fact, I just might fly our founding fathers Gadsden flag with the coiled rattlesnake that says "Don't Tread on Me." :)
Good discussion and very good statistics. Thanks.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KI4PEQ on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"A "flagpole" that, "coincidentally" just happens to be 1/4 wave on 40m will likely not fly.
Oh, and I am still picturing this exchange:
"Hey, Ed. Nice flagpole. But, why does it need a grounding system all across the yard?"
GL with it.
Peter, N4LI"
If anyone gets their panties in a bunch about a grounding system, one can always say "It's for lightning protection! It's a SAFETY issue!" Nine out of ten people who don't know a hill of beans re: electricity would probably buy that argument and say "OK".
Just my humble opinion. That and $3.50 will buy you a cup at Starbucks.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Most of the majority of people now in the US are imports that want to bring their country's culture and make us all enjoy it.>
Bet there are a lot of people on reservations that agree with that.
Its sort of ironic that reservation funds have to be spent capturing, caring for and transporting illegals.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
Glad I live in the woods..
|
|
|
by WB4M on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I live in a rural setting and my house cannot be seen from the road, at least during summer months when the foliage hides me.
I'd hate to live in a housing project, filled with $300,000 cookie cutter homes, where dried up old ladies tell me what I can and cannot do to my own home and lawn.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N4VOX on July 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
the law is very clear, you may display the flag on any portion of the property that you own and have exclusive use of. If you do not own any of lawn then you could only display it on a wall of your unit. If you have a dedicated patio then you could display the flag on the patio. It is very rare when an owner has exclusive use of a grassy area to install a flag pole.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"" And, Vito, W6TH said:
"Live Free Or Die"
That's New Hampshire's motto ""
Does New Hampshire have jails or prisions?
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N8QBY on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9PMZ: Carl, yes, they have prisons and jails in New Hamnpshire. This is Vito's opinion on prisons and such. From W6TH Vito: " N8QBY
"How does it feel to be on a high class welfare living off of the tax payers money".
"Guess you carry the big stick, to stick it to every one".
"Go out and get a real job and lessen the burden of the tax payers"
From N8QBY:
Not that it matters but I am a Corrections Officer at a prison. I have been for almost 18yrs. My job is to protect the "Vito's" of the world from murderer's, thieves, rapests etc. I can't quite see where Vito thinks that this job is living off the tax payers money. I am glad that us CO's are letting you sleep safely at night Vito. N8QBY Pat
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N8QBY on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And we proudly fly the US flag daily at our prison, properly raised and lowered accordingly.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K4IA on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We've come a long way down. Consider how our ancestors felt about the flag.
http://cgi.ebay.com/CIVIL-WAR-GENERAL-JOHN-ADAMS-DIX-COLOR-DISPLAY_W0QQitemZ270011719729QQihZ017QQcategoryZ14428QQcmdZViewItem
or
http://judycook.net/ceijc02/CD2-6.PDF
Shame on the HOA who thinks they should control how the flag is displayed. Shame on the Ham who think he needs an antenna as an excuse to fly it.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"W9PMZ: Carl, yes, they have prisons and jails in New Hamnpshire. This is Vito's opinion on prisons and such. From W6TH Vito: " N8QBY "
Live free or die?
I thought that they had a cost cutting measure in place......
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
W9PMZ
The senators and reps in NH get paid $100.00 per year. There are no sale taxes or state income taxes.
As I see, no welfare, if so just a short period of time, like no more than 3 months. As I see; work or move on.
Much more. Put your computer to work and check it out.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6TH on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
................Wake Up America....................
It is My purpose to educate the American people about
their Constitution, their history, and the current situations in America that are threatening the Liberties and Rights of America and Her people.
.:
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by WA7VTD on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are some companies that make great flagpoles ideally suited for concealment of vertical antennas. Check out links from the SGC site, and as I recall also from the Array Solutions site.
If one uses a remote automatic matching device such as an SCG-235, a radiator 25 feet tall will get a signal out down to at least 80 meters, at up to 500 watts. Bury-Flex coax and a plain, painted wooden box attached to the flagpole ("for storing properly folded Old Glory at night") housing the ATU make for a nice, patriotic display.
EASY, CHEAP, EFFECTIVE GROUND
As for antenna ground for such a Marconi antenna, I've found that an excellent solution is that commonly practiced by the Brits: laying out rolls of galvanized wire mesh ("chicken wire") onto the lawn. I recently did this under an old 18AVT I picked up, as an experiment -- and it made an unbelievable difference in low-angle performance. It took all of fifteen minutes. Flatten out the screen (a 3 foot x 25 foot roll will cost about three bucks at the right store) onto the grass and within a week it will be buried like magic. (There are also "lawn staples you can use to fasten the screen down; these can be made with stiff wire, as well). You can do it by the light of the moon, and on the back lawn, and never be noticed. They can be laid out either in a normal radial pattern, or several of them can be placed willy-nilly on all grassy portions of the lot, each section electrically connected by buried no. 10 wire. If one has a chain link fence, the edges of the mesh can be discretely connected to the bottom of the chain link mesh, as well.
Of course, the radiating element will require no ground screen at all on some frequencies.
THE MYTH OF "FREEDOM OF CONTRACT"
The debate regarding freedom of contract has been interesting and all sides have made cogent points. But the lessons of the civil rights movement are illustrative in this regard, culminating in the United States Supreme Court decision in Shelly v. Kramer. There, the Court was presented with the argument that the courts could not intervene to invalidate restrictive covenants enforced by homeowners’' associations which prohibited non-whites from living in certain subdivisions. The states involved contended that the covenants were a matter of freedom of contract and that no state action was involved, and that accordingly, no Constitutional issue was presented. In a rationale rarely (if ever) applied since, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument, and held that American courts must not enforce those covenants, because by enforcing them, the courts themselves would be placing their governmental imprimatur upon 14th Amendment Equal Protection violations.
While that specific rationale is inapposite here, it is noteworthy that the Court observed that the "freedom of contract" notion is largely a myth: validly perfected restrictive covenants run with the land and cannot be bargained away in the same manner as a consumer would negotiate with an auto dealer whether a newly purchased car will or will not have a built-in ejector seat option for the price advertised. Housing is an essential human need and the contemporary paradigm on this country is, for the most part, no longer that of the homesteader; rather, multi-million/billion dollar investment consortia purchase huge tracts of farm land, file plans containing boiler-plate restrictive covenants, erect as many overpriced split-level boxes on them as can be squeezed onto the plats by use of Einsteinian mathematics, circumscribe the developments with concrete walls covered with fake stone veneer, and market the residences as "exclusive planned communities" with the purchase prices four or six times what the dwellings are realistically worth.
Unless the home buyer has purchased previously unfettered land and built his/her own home, he/she has about as much "freedom of contract" regarding acceptance pre-existing covenants filed by developers at the conception of the project, as one has "freedom" to not pay federal income taxes.
The "freedom of contract" argument was once the mantra of sweatshop owners who went to court to invalidate laws establishing the 8-hour-day, the elimination of child labor, and requirements of breaks for wage-earners. The acme of this judicial abuse was the infamous Lochner v. New York decision, which happily is now anathema and has been relegated to trash bin of history.
THE ORIGINS OF THE ANACHRONISM OF ‘DEAD HAND RULE’
Restrictive covenants are an anachronism dating back centuries. For certain, they may have socially and environmentally commendable purposes, but they also represent one of the last remaining vestiges of "dead hand rule," whereby individuals (including corporations)long dead or gone, rise from their graves (or Caribbean banks) and strike down the use of one's private property in the manner one chooses. In England, from whence our private property law originates (except in Louisiana), restrictive covenants were commonly used in order for one generation to control the personal lives of the next; for example, in a gift, sale or bequest of land from a grandparent to a grandchild, a common sort of covenant would state that the grandchild would hold full title and seisin in the land for life "unless she marries an Irishman, in which case the estate shall devolve to the Church of England."
Modernly in America, 99.99999999% of real estate transactions transfer title in fee simple. This means that the conveyance itself does not (and cannot) impose such goofy restrictions. Such restrictions (other than governmental regulatory ones, such as zoning) that are attendant to the purchaser's use and quiet enjoyment of the property, flow from ones that "run with the land." In the contemporary world of real estate, this will usually not involve ancient covenants which one would be hard pressed to find anyway, but rather ones which were filed by the fat-cat investors/developers when the subdivisions were first proposed.
BEATING THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
With respect to new developments, state statutes may permissibly regulate what may, or may not, be recited in such restrictive covenants, and in most states there are also statutes which regulate the manner in which homeowner's associations must be organized and conduct business. In most jurisdictions, no such covenants are enforceable unless the homeowner's association was "created" under bylaws filed at the time of the development's inception -- before anyone lived there. In most cases, there has, in fact, never been an actual homeowner's association and what usually happens is that NIMBYs research the development's original filings, find a restriction against "antennas," and organize themselves into the 'homeowner's association' described in the bylaws filed perhaps decades previously by the developers. Then, the newly birthed H.A. holds "association meetings" and votes 362-1 to demand that Joe Ham take down his antenna, threatening suit to 'enforce the covenants' if Joe Ham does not comply forthwith.
The most concerned of these do-gooders, Betty Bazoomas, will complain that the antenna is going to give her children cancer, and you can hear those rantings from 50 feet away as she smokes a cigarette, while making calls to procure the attendance of more neighbors (in between bites of high-fat processed fast food), with the antenna of her cell phone in her ear, during a break in the H.A. meeting. She is likely to be persuasive, owing to her silicon breast implants. But hey, preventing cancer from Joe Ham's antenna is REALLY IMPORTANT!
Next, the 2 or 3 residents of the subdivision who actually care, and have gotten themselves 'elected' as H.A. officers, will insist on hiring a lawyer, in fact a land use specialist, Mr. Suit. This is actually the beginning of the end of their drive, in a significant number of cases. There is an inherent limit in the willingness of the stirred up masses to open up their wallets to pay a land use lawyer $250 per hour to fight a friendly ham who simply says "I appreciate your point of view and your concerns are duly noted. Please levitate during coitus with a accelerating pastry."
Joe Ham will know a lawyer -- his buddy "Mad Dog Bill" -- from the radio club who is happy to deal with Mr. Suit in exchange for Joe's Viking Valiant transmitter and a date with Joe's sister. True, attorney buddy Bill usually represents habitual drunk drivers and other assorted miscreant scourges on the community, but fortunately the means of financially bleeding the H.A. into submission are usually not terribly complex (not even for Bill).
For example, an H.A. that has never before existed and is brought into existence solely for the purpose of enforcing one covenant against one resident, raises issues of sham, waiver and laches. Put simply, Mad Dog (actually, Joe Ham will do this legwork...there is an inherent limit on the willingness of a shyster to work for nothing) will document each and every single "violation" of specific covenants in the subdivision (with special attention, of course, to the RV not properly housed on the lot of cigarette-smoking, silicon-enhanced anti-cancer mother Betty Bazoomas). Of keen interest also, will be the presence of satellite dishes, TV antennas, etc. throughout the development. The latter are of more legal significance. Mad Dog then continuously recites this mantra to Mr. Suit:
"The H.A. is a sham. Even if not a sham, the H.A. has waived the right to enforce the covenants by not existing for the first 20 years of this subdivision's existence. Even if the H.A. has not waived the right to enforce covenants, it has waived enforcement of this specific covenant, by tolerating all manner of other external antennae on 38 other houses in the subdivision, including the one owned by emphysematic H.A. Treasurer Betty Bazoomas. Even if that were not the case, the H.A. is guilty of laches for sitting on its hands (and brains) all these years. And even if none of that were true, you still wear a toupee."
There may be a few skirmishes, but usually either the bulk of the H.A. members tire quickly, leaving 1 or 2 people to keep writing big fat hourly fee checks to Mr. Suit, or the long delays secondary to inefficiencies of litigation in our contemporary court system cause them to lose interest. Of course, Joe Ham has since had a few beers with some of these fine folks, taken them fishing, and played them tapes of "accidentally received" baby monitor transmissions which captured Betty Bazoomas' interludes with the lawn boy. (“WOW!” new neighbor fishing buddy Fred exclaims after puking his Milwaukie’s Best over the side of Joe’s boat, “this Ham Radio stuff is COOL!”).
I realize that in 6-land, it often does not go this way, and that some people will expend their entire fortunes, and those of their great-great-grandchildren, on these disputes. I also realize that in many cases, there are viable H.A.'s that are run by anally-retentive Mussolini wannabes who will stop at nothing to harass Joe Ham. Nonetheless, in the vast majority (though certainly not all) of these situations I have encountered, Joe Ham has prevailed without unbearable time and expense.
IF ALL ELSE FAILS, WAVE THE FLAG
Returning to that from whence we began...a properly timed press release to the local TV station on a slow news day, can work wonders. The lead "Neighbors sue to force man to take down American Flag and 'I support our troops' window sign,” could have nice effect.
- Kevin Hunt WA7VTD
ARRL Volunteer Counsel
Oregon City, Oregon
Attorney at Large
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KG6WLS on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You and all government employees are in the same position as those that get welfare off of the tax payers money. You, congress, judges, lawyers and so forth are all dependant upon tax payers for welfare, lets face the facts."
This thread, and several of its post, has taken a bitter toll on some. Nor, does it have anything to do with ham radio. But, hey...this IS the internet, and most folks in here will never meet face-to-face. So, hey...let's speak our minds. Right?
Vito, I'm not here to throw rocks, insults, or flame you...so just relax.
Let me be as so much as polite to define the word *welfare* (in terms of a welfare check): Those goverment agencies concerned with granting aid to those suffering from poverty, unemployment, etc. i.e.: on welfare = receiving goverment aid because of poverty, unemployment, etc.
Well, I too work for the goverment and it seems for the past 15 years I've been setting my alarm clock to wake me up each and every morning, so that I TOO can receive a *welfare check*. Might I remind you that the goverment DOES take monies from my *welfare check* every pay period to supplement those who are not so fortunate to work beacause of medical reasons, or simply because they are just too damn lazy. Also, monies are taken out of my *welfare check* for social security that may not be around for me when I retire. Might I add that those monies that come out of my *welfare check* for SS go to those that are currently retired.
I, my friend, do not live in poverty, nor am I unemployed, nor am I a "crack addict". My job working with the goverment is an electrician. Maintaining and repairing whatever has voltage present. Full automation in some cases for HVAC/plant applications. Not the old mechanical NO or NC (ON/OFF) mechanical clunker time clocks that you remember. I also make sure that the electric/electronic controls for jail doors, sally ports, security gates are functional so that the crack addicts stay where they belong.
Vito, I'm sorry that todays society (and ham radio) is not what it once was, or how YOU want it to be. I respect your service to our country in WWII, as I do to my father who served in the same WW in the Pacific theater, and to those kids that are not even 21 years of age yet that have already done two tours of duty, and have seen more that I will for my age.
Getting back to the American flag. I, as many others see this flag on a daily basis. I don't care if it's attached to 40 feet of PVC hiding an antenna, or on a 40 foot spun aluminum taperd flag pole. We know what it stands for. We know how much blood was shed for it during your time, before, and present. Just remember, that flag will wave LONG after your gone, and those that have fallen will never be forgotten. And, I'm sure that you'll receive FULL military honor that you so deserve when you pass.
I salute you OM, but you need to re-think some of your *poke you with a stick* statements.
My very best of 73 to you!
Mike
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by WB2NVY on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I live with covenants against outdoor antennae but have a unique solution to the problem that others may not have. We have a third floor "bonus room" that is 8x14x36 (HWL) with no floor nor walls, just studding & joists w/insulation. There is a 8' extension of a smaller roof area beyond that. The only access is through a 2'x3' hole in the ceiling of a closet. In that space I have an MA5B 3 el 5 band beam covering 10,12,15,17,20m, an 11 el 2m beam and a dipole on 30m. I can only rotate the beam +/-45 degrees from north but I work a lot of stuff off the back of it. I could put something outside too, because we don't have a HOA to enforce the freakin covenants, but then there's my wife and her sensibilities to deal with.
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by AF5P on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very weak bill with a loop hole for the homeowner's associations or condo owners !
Just like our LAW MAKERS in Congress, to make sure they take care of the Associations and Condo Owners.
The last two statements in the Bill does just that!
You might be able to place a small US Flag on a 18" stick in your yard. Forget the 5'X 8' flying from a 40' pole anywhere and anytime you want!
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA7VTD,
That was great!
Thanks for taking the time to inform and entertain us.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, so if I can't get Vito's Consititutionality opinion on my traffic court fiasco, here's my spin on the new law:
"Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with--(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association."
A substantial interest of the association, eh? That might just mean Mrs. Astor's view of the trees beyond your house (that is now blocked by Old Glory flopping around in the breezes at 40 feet. Or, your 8 by 15 foot flag shades her petunias. Or, deflects the gentle breezes on her back patio.
All Mrs. Astor has to do is complain to the Board about your flag's placement. And, they will probably say that only an 8X10 inch flag can be posted to your front door or on a stick not more than 24 inches from the outside front wall of your home. Same shall not be more than 6 feet above ground level.
Sounds to me like nothing at all has changed here. Substantial interest might be something as repugnant as taking up too much of their time at the next board of directors meeting or some such.
Nice thought, folks. Nothing gained at all. In fact, I view it as a setback. Legitimizing HOA kangaroo-court, arbitrary specifications.
73,
Lee
W6EM
No offense to any VKs monitoring..... :-)
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KT3A on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The goal of this bill was not to assist the amateur in putting up antennas. If you are interested in the effort to permit antennas, see: http://www.eham.net/articles/14442
73 - Keep up the fight... don't be silent with the FCC, Congress, and the ARRL
kt3a
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N0AH on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My 132 foot flag pole is going up next week. Planning on ordering my 3x5 flag this week. I think a couple of radials under the house should do it-
160M, I'm Back!!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was reading Lee's (and others) "Hams For Action" comments on the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System website.
This response involves the idea that HOA's are intentionally restricting ham radio operators from providing much needed emergency assistance to the general community during times of disaster like Katrina recently demonstrated.
Great comments with good amount of emphasis placed on how HOA's and their so called "antenna restrictions" are not serving in the best public interest.
This response comprehensively outlines how HOA antenna restrictions places the public at risk and may even lead to loss of life during an emergency event in a community.
I would be willing to offer my support for the "Hams for Action" group.
This is a well thought out document and I suggest you read it for yourself.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
Cut and paste 06-119 in the "proceedings" box.
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W0IPL on July 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You know, some of you could argue about the amount of light when the sun shines or if rain may be wet.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by G6HVY on July 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When I first saw this thread, I had visions of hiding a vertical Yagi inside the old Stars and Stripes and then rotating it around the pole -- or, failing that, having to wait for the right wind direction to get those elusive last few prefixes.
But, um, what happens if the flag gets damp and the radiating element gets mistuned and there's a node and the darn thing catches fire, falls off and lands on the wedding party of a pair of gay Mexican illegal immigrant stem cell researchers?
What would Congress say then?
R
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by WA7VTD on July 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Always be careful what you wish for...you might just get it."
The aftermath of Katrina certainly would appear to have improved chances of FCC issuing a preemptive ruling regarding restrictive convenants, but there is also great peril in that approach, as much as we all support it in principle.
Before addressing that, though, I will chime in with Lee that the flag HR is filled with vague platitudes and accommodations for HOAs one could drive a truck through.
But, have you pulled out PRB-1 and read it lately? It contains the same kind of language. It does not entitle you erect any antenna you want. It does not guarantee you a minimum height above ground. It does not guarantee you even an outside antenna. In fact, under some very rare circumstances, you could be kept from erecting just about anything and not find the language of PRB-1 capable of saving your installation. It is the same with the language of most of the state statutes mimicking PRB-1. FCC has repeatedly denied ARRL's requests and petitions for a stronger preemptive statement.
It has been the federal courts which have breathed life into PRB-1. The "reasonable accommodation" language has been interpreted to require that an amateur be permitted -- within "legitimate concerns of safety and aesthetics" -- to erect antennas which will provide "effective communications." Owing largely to excellent litigation support from ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay N3KD, the burden has been placed upon the locality to prove that a restriction is reasonable -- that allocatioon of burdens being the single most important victory in the cases arising from PRB-1. Thanks to a few hams willing to spend the time and money to pursue their cases as far as necessary, most judges came to understand the relationships among the various criteria and so, for example, we have had rulings declaring that if a ham needs a 55 foot mimimum height in order to regularly QSO with Europe, then a city cannot limit his tower to 45 feet, even though the latter is offered as an "accommodating" exception to the standard 35-height accessory use limitation.
PRB-1, however, does not entitle you avoid conditional use permit procedures with their pain in the ass and expensive hoops. Usually, local apparatchiks may be persuaded that their policies are de facto bans because they erect unaffordable obstacles, in the same manner that poll taxes effectively prevented whole classes of people from voting (to borrow another of Lee's analogies). Still, unreasonable demands abound. The worst one I encountered in recent years was Beaverton, Oregon, which demanded from my client that he pay for a P.E. hired by the City, to fly to the Rohn manufacturing plant and personally observe the welding of the actual tower sections to be shipped to my client for his tower. That was merely one among many ludicrous demands. It took a few months, but eventually the City Attorney was persuaded that the City would very likely lose a court case and be liable for my client's costs and attorney fees [i.e., the fees I would have itemized in that event; my actual "fee" consisted of having my client donate to the local radio club's Toweer Defense Fund], and so Beaverton backed off of its inane demands, issued its first ham radio tower permit in 15 years, and my client now has a 90-footer on such a small lot that the guy ends are elevated several feet, fastened to I-beams set into concrete, as otherwise they would extend into the street!
With the rapid spread of D-Star, I-link, Echo-link, IRLP, VoIP protocols, etc., it won't be long before some creative municipal apparatchiks argue in court that all a ham needs for effective global amateur radio communications is a 2m/70m HT. I'm just waiting for that one.
But back to the drive for FCC to issue a PRB-1-like ruling concerning restrictive covenants, you should expect that IF that comes to pass, the vague language of PRB-1 (like the flag bill) will pale in comparison to what FCC will issue.
The Supreme Court has been VERY deferential to municipalities of late (witness the ruling upholding the actions of local governments exercising eminent domain over private residential property in order to hand it over to mall developers).
Put simply, I expect that both in comments opposing an FCC declaratory ruling premepting certain covenents, and in subsequent state and federal court declaratory judgment actions challenging such preeemption, members of HOAs will argue that they have beneficial interests in the enforcement of covenants, such that they are entitled to be compensated for loss of that enforcement which, they will argue, negatively affects their properties and therefore constitutes a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment (after all, the figurehead plaitiff neighbors would argue, they paid GOOD MONEY for their property and selected their location IN RELIANCE on the existence of property covenants).
Ironically, however, in the case of restrictive covenants, the deference to local conditions and majoritarian policymaking will likely manifest in favor of the argument that a "taking" must be compensated, although this is far from certain in the wake of the 'eminent domain for mall development' case; perhaps the Court would uphold an FCC declaratory ruling as a sort of extension of that case. That, however, would be merely to say that the HOA members WOULD BE ENITLED TO COMPENSATION in that event, the issue having then been defined not as whether FCC could validly effect a taking by such a ruling, but whether it constituted a taking in the first place. That is a serious question, an affirmative answer to which would cause immediate rescission of such an FCC ruling.
The courts are reluctant to second-guess assumptions of adverse impact concocted by majoritarian bodies, even where the evidence is clearly contrary to those assumptions. Instead, the courts generally apply a "rational basis" test, meaning that if there is ANY evidence supporting even a chance that a stupid conclusion justifies a policy, the policy stands, even though the judge(s) personally believe(s) the policy to be especially bone-headed and contrary to the overwhelming weight of facts.
The "takings" argument is iffy, and not the most potent or dangerous arrow in the quiver of the HOAs. The most powerful argument to be made by the HOAs (read here, "developers") and their titular name plaintiff homeowners, is that for FCC (an unelected body of political appointess, no less) to purport to have the authority to nullify a matter of private agreements between buyers and sellers already concluded, would violate the clause of the United States Constitution declaring that "no law shall impair the obligation of contracts." It is highly likely that the federal courts (including the US Supreme Court, if it accepted review) would find that, at least with regard to covenents already in existence, an FCC declaratory ruling invalidating anti-antenna covenants would violate that Constitutional clause and therefore would be void ab initio.
[On the other hand, it's difficult to predict what the Court will do, these days. I was before the US Supreme Court last December, and it seemed that some Justices had their own agendas only tangentally related to the facts and issues before them, which a few of them did not even seem to have become familiar with prior to oral argument. Fortunately for the client, it turned out all right, although the ruling made by the court was a far cry from the issue briefed by the parties, on which my opponent, the State of Oregon, spent what I estimate to have been on the order of $300,000 in taxpayer money.]
The backlash resulting from court rulings under the "impairment of contracts clause" would be tsunami-like, and we soon would be wishing we had never procured an FCC declaratory ruling in the first place. It would invalidate not only such an FCC declaration, but ipso facto would cut off at the knees all state legislation to the same effect, with regard to already-existing covenants. The latter are far less likely to generate litigation having potnetial for setting nationwide negative precedent.
I've had discussions with the League's General Counsel and other ARRL policymakers about this; they concede that I posit a persuasive concern about the "impairment of obligation of contract" problem, but the League continues to press ahead on that track. I suspect that one of the reasons for this is that it provides a basis for continuous propaganda to ARRL members to the effect that the League is really going to town in looking after our rights as hams (a proposition with which I don't disagree, incidentally -- I merely diasgree with this particular route taken by ARRL to REACH town). I have never read, however, in anything published by the ARRL addressing the covenants problem, even the slightest acknowledgment of this likely eventual outcome.
In short, my friends, there is great peril in the FCC preemptive ruling appraoch to the covenants problem. We have not seen a backlash regarding similar action by FCC concerning satellite dishes, because most homeowners want the right to have a dish, and become as justifiably self-righteous about interference with that "right" as we hams do about our antennas.
Unfortunately, we hams are outnumbered by the common city dweller with 4,000,000 channels of pure crap to watch on TV, by a ratio of approximately 900:1. (Just last week, the latest in the continuous parade of civilians to walk up to me as I fed the parking meter and anxiously ask "WHY do you have those, uh...um...ANTENNAS on your car?" responded to my ham radio explanation by looking puzzled and asking "HUH? You mean some people SILL do that? What the heck FOR? I can talk to anybody I want with this cell phone and Blackberry..get WITH IT, man. And you know, dude, those antennas on your car SUCK! You look like some kind of government control freak! Ham radio in a car...that's REALLY WEIRD, man!")
IMHO, it is probably better and ultimately more effective to simply make enforcement of restrictive covenents against our antennas (which, it must be remembered, were not actually intended to apply to our antennas in the first place, but rather were intended to prevent zillions of TV aerials from sprouting on every roof top in the development) as inconvenient, hassle-ridden and expensive as possible. I really fear that if we "get what we want," it will be invalidated and we will find ourselves facing ever-emboldened HOAs, backed by the League of Cities, Chambers of Commerce, Jerry Fallwell and Paris Hilton. And we will have lost the ability to rely upon certain arguments in persuading local HOAs and state courts that the covenants at issue interfere with national policy and are of questionable legality.
Sometimes, one is better off still having a dog in the fight, than to rest upon the canine's victory in a preliminary contest.
Notwithstanding these very real concerns and reservations, I respect (and in principle, support) efforts to cajole FCC into action on this front. I'd rather see, however, such action limited to strong declarations of national policy in this regard (which cannot be challenged in court), than to obtain a pyrrhic federal administrative victory which is in short order followed by agonizing judicial defeat and the subsequent feasting upon us as spoils of war.
Once the first contest is engaged, however, you may count me among those who will fight to uphold the toe-hold thus procured, in the event it comes to pass. And on this occasion, I hope that my legal analysis is wrong.
73,
Kevin Hunt WA7VTD
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA7VTD
Kevin,
Would you be so kind as to send me your e-mail address?
Thanks much.
Mark K8MHZ
k8mhz@k8mhz.com
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Kevin WA7VTD,
Excellent comments. I enjoyed your insight.
My Best.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
force 12 has a great "flag pole" if you can get ahold of them.
hoa's suck, but ya might just have to please the wife too. She "likes the Hoa's" because they protect "her " investment. so what are you goiing to do...?
I really don't like to sign away any of my hard earned rights, for the pleasures of others.
one fellow I talked to last week set up with his ham radio club a "radio home" for each of the local Tuscon area subdivisions. in case of a disaster, aka katrina, they will have one place in each area toi go for help. if the HOA does not aprove of a modest antenna etc. for the "radio home" then when the BIG ONE hits, too bad.
its a good ieda and can be presented to the HOA as an offer in good consience..
oh well
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC4CP on July 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Man oh man, some of you need to try and look on the positive side! At least some hams now have the "potential" to erect an antenna.
Try this: Put up the flag pole / antenna ... and make sure that the HOA knows that HR-42 is now a federal law. I guarantee you that few HOA will want to fight. I note this because it has been MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with my HOA.
I erected a 40 foot tower, mini beam, and dipole in a "Covenant" community with complete antenna restrictions! When I merely mentioned that there were federal laws which addressed ham radio antennas ... the fight was over. No, I was not specifically covered by PRB-1. But generally, if you sound like you know what you are taking about ... many HOA will back down.
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W1DFT on July 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am very confused about this whole question and the many replies. Why would anyone (intelligent hams) buy a home (condo) in a community with covenants, and then complain later that they can't do as they want to?
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KC0ROM on July 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W1DFT, MANY OF THE HAMS ARE SEEING THIS LAW AS A POSSIBLE LOOPHOLE IN THEIR HOA RULE AND REGS. TO ATTEMPT TO GET BY WITH SOMETHING,WILL IT WORK ? WHO KNOWS TIL YOU TRY IT. AND AS TO THE ONES WHO LIVE IN COVENANT RESTRICTED COMMUNITIES,MANY BECAME AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS AFTER LIVING IN THESE COMMUNITIES FOR SOME TIME,AND MAY NOT HAVE REALISED THESE RESTRICTIONS,AS FOR BUCKING THE SYSTEM AND TRYING TO CHANGE THINGS, THIS IS THE REBEL IN ALL OF US WHO FEEL THAT THESE SO CALLED LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS GOVERNING SOME PEOPLES LITTLE CORNER OF THE WORLD ARE ASSENINE.THE INDIANS LIVED FREE ON THE PLAINS OF NORTH AMERICA AND DID AS THEY WANTED TO, THEN THE WHITE MAN CAME ALONG AND CIVILISED THE SAVAGES AND REALLY SCREWED IT UP WITH THEIR WHITE MAN LAWS,NOW WE HAVE TO BE SLAVES TO THOSE LAWS AND THEIR ASSENINE IMPLICATIONS. JUST MY TWO CENTS WORTH. KC0ROM
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"THE INDIANS LIVED FREE ON THE PLAINS OF NORTH AMERICA AND DID AS THEY WANTED TO, THEN THE WHITE MAN CAME ALONG AND CIVILISED THE SAVAGES AND REALLY SCREWED IT UP WITH THEIR WHITE MAN LAWS,NOW WE HAVE TO BE SLAVES TO THOSE LAWS AND THEIR ASSENINE IMPLICATIONS. JUST MY TWO CENTS WORTH."
The above point is moot as the Native Americans if left to their means would have never invented radio as they already had a means of telecommunication that had been used and refined over a span of several centuries.
So what if it didn't work in the dark or the driving rain?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.:)
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
".....I erected a 40 foot tower, mini beam, and dipole in a "Covenant" community with complete antenna restrictions! When I merely mentioned that there were federal laws which addressed ham radio antennas ... the fight was over. No, I was not specifically covered by PRB-1. But generally, if you sound like you know what you are taking about ... many HOA will back down."
Man, you got lucky. Many HOAs today have at least one attourney that live in their 'fashionable' neighborhood. Or are you that attourney? :-)
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Most of the majority of people now in the US are imports that want to bring their country's culture and make us all enjoy it."
How true--my city is full of them--and the city is doing everything in its power to make sure their culture is 'enjoyed' by everybody in the city.
There's a local joke that comes to mind--What is the longest bridge in the world? Ours. It connects our neighboring town to the 'old country'.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THE INDIANS LIVED FREE ON THE PLAINS OF NORTH AMERICA AND DID AS THEY WANTED TO,
(And occasionally killed one and other for it.)
THEN THE WHITE MAN CAME ALONG AND CIVILISED
(The white man was FAR from civilised in his actions against the Native Americans)
THE SAVAGES
(and killed peaceful villagers, young women and children)
AND REALLY SCREWED IT UP WITH THEIR WHITE MAN LAWS,
(Including allowing casinos that white men can't own...oops, one cool law snuck through)
NOW WE HAVE TO BE SLAVES
(Or welfare recipients if you have a disability and can't work....who is the slave here?)
TO THOSE LAWS AND THEIR ASSENINE IMPLICATIONS
(Like police and fire protection)
. JUST MY TWO CENTS WORTH."
(I will let that one slide)
Dude, why are you so bitter? As bad as things may be for you life in the USA is still about as good as it gets. If you disagree please tell me where people have it as good as we do here?
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W0RY on July 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Picture of a nice looking functional Flag Pole Antenna
http://force12inc.com/F12-flagpole-ants-003.htm
I don't have one yet. Not so sure it would work with houses around it being all aluminum siding?
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K6TLA on July 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
(K8MHZ) "As bad as things may be for you life in the USA is still about as good as it gets." Of course this has nothing to do with flagpoles but don't be so sure about what you just said MHZ. I would venture to say that there are many countries who are not engaged in a war of aggression against an innocent nation, who don't engage in government sanctioned torture, who don't support an unholy middle eastern nation, who don't embrace third world invaders, and who don't spy on their citizens, because we have a government that is guilty of all of that and more. Our country ain't so great anymore because we've blindly trusted a government that has morphed from righteous to evil right before our eyes.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Of course this has nothing to do with flagpoles but don't be so sure about what you just said MHZ."
The above, in reference to the USA still being the best place there is to live, begs the question 'What country is better?' Since I can't think of one I am indeed sure of what I just said. When I find a better country than the US I will move there.
How about you?
Every place has it's flaws and I will, as I have the right to, point them out. I also don't judge the entire country by a few boneheads that somehow get elected into office, or the un-American actions of a handful of cretins that has become newsworthy.
In a nutshell, if you don't like the US, don't let the door hit you on the way out.....or become active, vote and get others to vote, become a part of the solution. It's everyone's job, not everyone else's.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Our country ain't so great anymore because we've blindly trusted a government that has morphed from righteous to evil right before our eyes."
That much I agree on but that is why we vote every so often. It is one thing to say that our current leadership is garbage and I am with you on that, but our country is still the greatest.
Also, I NEVER trusted the executive branch since the presidency became an appointed position and totally ignored the concept of popular election.
Things can and will change. Just wait until a few weeks after this November's election...
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8MHZ said:
"Things can and will change. Just wait until a few weeks after this November's election..."
Amen. November will be yet another chance for us to make a choice. Thank God and our forefathers for that right. We have the opportunity to vote for those who we think will provide the proper oversight and accountability over the actions of elected officials in the Executive Branch.
As you correctly said, it IS our responsibility to choose, as citizens. Just like it is the responsibility of those chosen to obey their oaths of office. That includes, very specifically, "To Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America...." and not call it "just a piece of paper."
That utterance, if correct, was probably one of the most significant admissions of malevolent behavior, or at least its intent, from an elected official in my entire lifetime. And, I'm not young and I did vote for him one time. My mistake. A big mistake.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on July 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If an excellent flag pole antenna exist's and produces no RFI.....Does it exist! :)
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lee,
Actually, the alleged utterance was "It's just a God-damned piece of paper".
Here is a link to a cautious report on that incident. Very worthy of reading.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
As stated in the report....let the reader decide.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA7VTD writes:
".....for FCC ...to purport to have the authority to nullify a matter of private agreements between buyers and sellers already concluded, would violate the clause of the United States Constitution declaring that "no law shall impair the obligation of contracts." It is highly likely that the federal courts ....would find that, at least with regard to covenents already in existence, an FCC declaratory ruling invalidating anti-antenna covenants would violate that Constitutional clause and therefore would be void ab initio"
Perhaps not. Recall that FCC did just that with respect to sattelite dishes and OTA TV antennas. granted, dishes and OTA antennas are much smaller then HF antennas, but we don't see the OTR rule falling victim to HOA challenges.
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by AB8WH on July 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is the best country in the world. Live it, love it.
Just don't go planting the wrong kind of flowers in your HOAA yard or the Petunia Police will haul your ass away...
:)
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by WA7VTD on July 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-II WROTE:
"WA7VTD writes:
".....for FCC ...to purport to have the authority to nullify a matter of private agreements between buyers and sellers already concluded, would violate the clause of the United States Constitution declaring that "no law shall impair the obligation of contracts." It is highly likely that the federal courts ....would find that, at least with regard to covenents already in existence, an FCC declaratory ruling invalidating anti-antenna covenants would violate that Constitutional clause and therefore would be void ab initio"
Perhaps not. Recall that FCC did just that with respect to sattelite dishes and OTA TV antennas. granted, dishes and OTA antennas are much smaller then HF antennas, but we don't see the OTR rule falling victim to HOA challenges."
----------------------------
You might want to finish reading what I posted, as I went on to explain why we haven't seen a constituional challenge to the sat dish preemption ruling.
-WA7VTD
|
| |
|
RE: Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by RADIOGUYR2 on August 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THE INDIANS LIVED FREE ON THE PLAINS OF NORTH AMERICA AND DID AS THEY WANTED TO,
well not exactly true. Seems that they have a social structure that required they do as directed by the tribal leaders at the time. The comanchees are just such a tribe that broke away from the shoshones' they wanted to do as they felt. Worked for a while but, then pier pressure caused them to become outcasts.
Now if your out on the plains of North america it gets cold and pretty sparse. So I would think they had to do what they did to survive against the hardships of life.
One thing you noticed in all their accounts. NO GAYs. on either side of the sexes. You either belonged to the tribe for security and welfare or you became part of history.
If you ventured off into anothers hunting grounds or were not invited to partake (they were the orginal environmentalist too) you became a liability instead of a asset. That is why they got killed. Of course they also had the darwin award for the pool of people to leave behind. No free ride. Lots of hunting accidents for the dummys. If you had a beef with another it was settled hand to hand.
However, don't think they were nothing but a bunch of dummys roaming around. No, indeed they actually bred a great horse (pinto) that could outdo most others in speed and endurance and like a honda went many a mile on a few blades of grass.
Funny that if you look at their structure you will suddenly see our countrys that we use today. (did our founding fathers adapt theirs?) They may have been old and crusty but they had it togeather.
And just think, they had the first wireless commucations. Smoke signals and--- flashing light off reflective obsidian rocks. (Morse code? )
Unlike the movies, where they see two or three smoke signals and the guide has 42 lines of script to describe what it means, they really did signal by using smoke and sunlight. One'th by land, Two'th by river, Three'th they die due to water shortage.
If you read the diary of Santa Anna he writes about how he see flashing sunlight signals from the comanchee's ahead of him. Did they have a code?
Of course we all know about the code talkers and how they again helped run radios in WW2, korea, Vn and Desert Strom.
|
| |
|
Flag Display Bill Signed
|
|
|
by KU2US on August 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Everytime we have a great post, the commie liberals have to get in and change the format. Hey liberals, PLEASE tell me who was appointed in our last election?? What does this have to do with flagpoles?If we had a liberal president now, we would of had at least 5+/- 911's already. By answering you on this thread, it makes me no better than you changing it, but I just cant sit here and continue to get sick. Its YOUR group that is holding up passing of legislation banning the desicration of the American FLAG,want gay marriges recognized, want GOD out of our society, that wants women to continue to have the right to "CHOOSE" murder, That wants to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afganistan so the Islamo-Facists can control the world. So go ahead and TRY to win at least ONE election, If you think things are bad now, just wait.
|
| |
|
KC5TTL renew your ticket ???
|
|
|
by N8NSN on August 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seems to me that KC5TTL always has a comment to make on
any subject on any forum. This is an EXPIRED call.
One fellow HAM suggested that KC5TTL is a SILENT KEY
call sign. This is beyond sick if this is the case.
In my opinion using a silent key call sign is a
pretty LAME way to FIT IN where you have no business
even taking part in a commentary. If the call is
EXPIRED... renew the callsign... simple as that.
Until then, the comments are considered to be NULL
and VOID. Besides, every posting I have read from
this KC5TTL call thus far have been utter nonsense.
40 foot of PVC vertical... let's be reasonable.
Make up a CB handle or somthing.
I would have more respect for you maam/sir with
somthing like that rather than using an expired call
or what has been said by others to be the call of a
silent key.
|
| |
|
Taking "Yes" For An Answer
|
|
|
by DONKI4PMG on August 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Friends,
I swear!! Some of you don't know how to take "Yes" for an answer!!
****
Does this new law provide for the kind of unimpeded freedom to fly the flag that most of us would prefer?
NO
****
BUT:
Does the law allow a lot of flags to be flown that might otherwise be banned? Does it, indeed, allow EVERYONE in an HOA neighborhood to fly SOME kind of flag -- even if the flag (or flagpole) may have to be smaller than desired, or otherwise less than optimal?
YES. At least, that's how I read the bill.
****
It's called COMPROMISE.
You can't get very far in Washington without it. (Unless, of course, you're a big oil company, bank, media corporation or pharmaceutical company.)
People who want to fly the flag in an HOA neighborhood got 'way more than half a loaf out of this one.
***************************************************
There are also some great implications for hams in this victory.
I doubt the authors of this bill intended to permit 40-foot "stealth antenna" flagpoles. However, it's obvious the authors DID intend to restrict the power of HOAs: something many hams have declared to be "politically impossible".
Well, Congress just went ahead and did it -- having to offer HOAs only a "fig leaf" to get them to stand aside.
The next time someone tells you that legislation to override HOA antenna bans is "unwinnable", remind them about THIS new law.
****
IF the dots between ham radio and Emergency Communications capabilities are connected clearly enough, in terms the general public can understand, THEN keeping Amateur Radio EmComm operators out of HOA neighborhoods will become almost as hard to defend as keeping American flags out of HOA neighborhoods.
73s,
Don Schellhardt
(Speaking only for himself)
|
| |
|
RE: Flag-Banning Liberals? Not Quite ...
|
|
|
by DONKI4PMG on August 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello again!!
I just want to respond to the folks who blamed HOA flag bans on "liberals".
Well, the one case I know where an American flag WAS actually banned occurred in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia. Not the most "liberal" territory in the world ... The HOA, which called the flag in question "a visual insult", justified the flag ban as a way to protect property values.
The flag owner, who is an attorney, as well as a decorated veteran of the Korean War, took the HOA to court -- and lost. He then persuaded a (Republican) State Legislator to sponsor corrective legislation. However, the legislation was blocked, by a Republican-controlled Committee, after real estate lobbyists testified that American flags might depress property values. The Governor at the time, who was also a Republican, did nothing to rescue the bill from its fate. Nor did the Republican leaders of either House of the Virginia State Legislature.
Apparently, it's terrible to burn an American flag in the name of peace -- but perfectly acceptable to ban an American flag in the name of money.
****
Me, I don't think either flag burning or flag banning should be legal. I'm culturally conservative, on just about every issue that doesn't involve sex, but you can't pin the HOA flag bans on the liberals.
Sooner or later, America's Republican leaders are going to have to decide whether they are capitalists first or nationalists first. In this case, as in others (such as "free trade"), they've given cultural conservatives RHETORICAL support -- but their loyalties, IN PRACTICE, have generally favored Wall Street over Main Street.
Most of America's Democratic leaders, of course, don't seem to have ANY loyalties to ANY political philosophies ...
In my book: It's Time For A Third Party!!
73s,
Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
|
| |
|
RE: Flag-Banning Liberals? Not Quite ...
|
|
|
by W6EM on August 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello, Don.
Yes, it is time for a third party.
What you've described above so well in your flag example sounds dangerously like the Wikipedia definition of Facism.
FACISM: Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
Loyalties to politician hip pockets far and away exceed loyalties to principles of our founding fathers. Need more proof? "Its just a *** ####ned piece of paper!!!" Meaning the Constitution, of course......
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Antennas Articles
Wire Antenna in Trees with Crossbow
The 'Lazy 7'
Where Do I Go from Here?
|
