3×5 American Flag

snapper lawn tractor,LT145H38DBV, Briggs and Stratton eng, Ihave replaced the starter earlier this year and a couple of weeks ago I shut it off and tried to restart the next day and nothing,slight click from the solenoid but that’s it.I replaced the solenoid with a new one(Trombetta,which bought out the OEM manufacturer) and still nothing.I had the battery load tested and proved to be junk,so that was replaced,and yet nothing.If I jump start it directly to the starter,it will start,but only runs for a few seconds because the anti-fire device on the carb,it’s not getting power.I was told by the parts place that the new solenoid has to get a second ground to the flag connector on the solenoid due to a re-design,tried it to no avail.I have worked in the auto collision industry for 40+ years,so mechanical apptitude is not an issue when responding.I do not,however,have at my disposal electrical test equipment to bench test components.My next step is the old "Louisville Slugger" method of repair.I’ve hit the wall with this thing,can anyone help?

http://www.steve4u.com/christian/facts.htm

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/h/chriflag.htm

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/jul13.html

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/flying_Christian_flag.htm

Apparently there is a pledge, song, and an actual "Christian" flag with a 100? yr. history?

I recently asked a question regarding this and most seemed surprised that I even asked about it. EVERY church I’ve ever been in has had the flag displayed inside the church.

What do you think?

Thanks…

We are putting up a display to honor our county’s Veterans from World War Two in a small museum. Among the various stories, artifacts, interviews, etc., we have a 48-star US flag and a flag from each of the branches of the military – Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and Merchant Marines.

Our museum is in the converted loft of a 19th Century barn – it is one giant room with oak 6" x 6" beams going across the width of the room, below the roof. It is from these beams that we wish to hang these flags.

I know that there is a protocol for displaying the flags – but all I can find on the Internet is an order – the Army comes first, then the Navy, then the Marines, the Air Force and then the Coast Guard – but it’s difficult to say what’s first and last in this situation. I know that people are sensitive to the protocol, and I want to get it right.

Right now we have the American Flag hanging in the center of a beam, standing alone. The next beams (there are about ten feet between them) will hold two flags each.

Is it ok to hang the Army and Navy flag on the next beam, with the Army on the left, Navy on the right (as though reading from left to right), then the Marines and Air Force on the next, and finally the Coast Guard and Merchant Marines on the last one?

The issue has come up also about leaving the museum, where the flag order would be reversed … we don’t think this is a problem but we don’t want to offend anyone.

Any military display experts out there that can answer this?
Note to Odashiman: We interviewed many men and women who served or were involved in WW2- one was in the Merchant Marines. He sailed the Atlantic 20 or 25 times bringing supplies and munitions to the military; they were often under fire and many of their ships were sunk by U-Boats. In fact, our guy sat out one crossing to sit for a test for a promotion, and the ship he was to have been on was torpedoed and sunk near Minsk. I shot all the video for these interviews, I edited the video myself, and I have a deep, deep respect for every single one of these guys. I cannot imagine. My son is 20 and studying music in a world that these guys provided for us when they were younger than him.

"President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, took to the television airwaves this week to criticize congressional town hall protesters for "yelling." Gibbs’ underling, Bill Burton, chastised voters not to "disrupt" and "scream." Instead, he advised America to engage in a "spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it."

What constitutes "spirited"? How do they define "vigorous"? When does forceful dissent become intolerable disruption? Herewith, the Obama Etiquette Czar’s Official Rules for Patriotic Protest. Keep this guide with you at all times to avoid being flagged by the Democratic politeness monitors."

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2009/mm_08141.shtml

note the shot of someone holding up a sign that says "yelling is counter-productive" while yelling to the chant "what do we want? HEALTH CARE!" "when do we want it? NOW", is so hilarious. That is just absolutely insanely funny to me."

there seems to be rule if you are on one side and different rules if you are on the ‘other’ side.

liberals see nothing wrong with their double standards.

What is wrong with that?
Olavo de Carvalho
Laigle’s Forum, July 9, 2008

Brazil gets it. Brazilian philosopher, Olavo de Carvalho discusses the perplexity of Obama being a candidate for President of The United States:

"Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin. The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.
For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience – and with below-minimal political experience – to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.
With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office. In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?”
Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?
Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols – the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed – Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?
Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths. Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system – which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”
Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it."

Translated by Donald Hank