Again And Again

This one is happening in Dallas, Texas. Meet Frank Larison, a 58 years old Marine disable veteran with 14 years in the USMC including a tour in Vietnam. For the last eight years he has lived in a condominium and has been showing not only his pride in his past service to the country, but also his love of country by affixing stickers on his car. The Home Owners Association running the complex he lives in is threatening to have his car towed at Frank’s expenses and fine him $50 per each additional ‘offense’ because the display of the stickers is in violation of HOA rules. The ‘offensive’ stickers are various Marine Corps symbols and other patriotic slogans.
According to the ‘rules and regulations’ Larison is accused of violating, the tenants of the complex are not allowed to display any kind of advertisement items on their property or their vehicles, but it is clear that the stickers on Mr. Larison’s car are not advertising anything. They are just his way to express his service pride and his love of country.
Even if one wants to be a stickler for rules and regulations, it is clear that “Semper Fi” and “You Can’t Buy Freedom” stickers are not advertising items, but simply a personal expression, which should be protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution. To aggravate the situation, television reporter James Rose from FOX4, who covered the story, also was able to show that there were many other vehicles on the HOA property with stickers and magnets in support of different causes, like fight against breast cancer and even a Obama ’08 sticker, and yet it appears that Frank Larison was the only one to receive the threatening letter from the Association.
So, what is the deal? It would really be interesting to find out from the president of the Association, who was conveniently on a trip when the story first appeared, as one of the board members, when interviewed, declared that he was not aware of the situation at all.
There are two possibilities, in my mind, about the motivation behind this ‘offensive’ from the HOA.
One could be that the president is trying to enforce the ‘rules and regulations’ starting with the safer target instead of risking to be labeled uncaring by forcing someone to remove the “fight breast cancer” sticker or racist by forcing someone to remove the Obama sticker.
Second possibility is that the president is one of those who finds anything related to the US Military offensive and is determined to single out a Veteran and enjoy his abuse of power.
Either way I hope I will be able to follow the story, as I am very curious to hear the excuse given.

On similar subject, and again in Texas, specifically Mansfield, Debbie McLucas is a worker at the Kindred Hospital. She is married to a Veteran, her son is a Veteran of the Iraqi conflict and her daughter is currently serving in Iraq. In preparation for the Memorial Day observation, she hung a 3’ x 5’ American flag in her cubicle only to arrive at work on Friday before the long weekend and find that her supervisor had taken the flag down and place it on the office floor.
After inquiring, Debbie was told by her supervisor that she had received complaints from co-workers and customers who supposedly found the display offensive. Yes, the display of Old Glory OFFENSIVE. The supervisor, who is an immigrant from Africa, took it upon herself to remove the flag and place it on the ground, a clear violation of flag protocol.
Subsequently, the hospital Human Resources department, whose headquarters are located in Kentucky, attempted an excuse by citing the size of the flag, but the initial cause given by Mrs. McLucas’ supervisor had been that ONE person had lodged a complaint of ‘being offended’ by the display. If I was a betting man, I would trust the initial story.
My thoughts on this story are very simple. In the first place is the fact that Debbie McLucas and her family have given enough of themselves to the country that even if a violation of the hospital policy occurred because of the size of the flag, an exception should have been made for the specific situation. Moreover, as I am inclined to believe that it was the supervisor who felt “offended” by the flag, she should not be allowed to work in her capacities any longer.
In America, the flag is purchased by the individual and therefore is personal property of the individual. Debbie’s supervisor had no right to touch the flag.

After the story gained national exposure, Kindred Hospital published a statement saying that the incident was about the size of the flag and not what the flag symbolizes and invited Mrs. McLucas to hang the flag in her cubicle again. This is a bitter sweet victory for Debbie, because it is obvious that the PR department of the hospital is trying to mask the main issue which is the supervisor’s action. If the size of the flag was the problem, why is it not a problem any longer?
Kind of strange, don’t you think?

I wonder how many of these incidents do occur all over the country and only few make their way into the News.


And these are my thoughts!
Frank “Semperpapa”