There is talk that the flag burning amendment will be rearing its ugly head in this election cycle.

This is a ploy to bring the Republican Party supporters to the polls.

I find this whole proposal disgusting and I find it disturbing on such a basic issues that we have been unable to secure party unanimity.

Squelching the ability to protest by burning the flag IMHO is tantamount to the reactions that have been undertaken in Islamic states protesting the Danish cartoons of Mohamad ---

Our nation is stronger because it allows people to protest. Those protests have been allowed to include the burning of the American flag.

Why is our nation stronger because of allowing the burning of our most patrioric symbol --- our flag which so many of died in the service of our country to safeguard?

Because weaker nations --- nations which need to hold onto their control and authority by eliminating free speech and association-- by eliminating free elections -- by eliminating human and civil rights.

If we compromise here --- and ban flag burning --- we have begun the descent down the slippery slope of intolerance. We beging to resemble more the intolerance associated with totalitarian, communist, and authoritarian regimes.

This threatens not only our own civil liberties as citizens of the United States, but also our image in the world. Leaders in those other nations can use our example in this regard to argue that the United States is not as strong and not as free.

How could this affect our national security?

It demonstrates a vulnerability to dissent.

It lets the terrorists know that we are weakening.

In doing so it encourages them to ramp up their efforts...

Just like the Patriot Act which overstepped its bounds --- the more they succeed in tempering our liberties no matter how slight --- the more they prove a democracy like ours can not work.

Are we so weak that the burning of our flag is such an offense to us that we can not permit it?

I would never burn a flag.

However, I would never deny someone the right to burn a flag citizen or not of the United States.

Why?

Because our nation is stronger than that.

Our nation is strenghtened by a diversity of opinions...

We should not run and hide from such actions.

We should welcome them.

Because despite the anarchy that they may aspire to promote --- despite their burning one flag --- our flags fly free in our yards --- over our institutions of government in Washington, DC and State Houses thoughout the country --- and guess what --- no matter how many times you may burn the flag --- the red -- white and blue will still fly high as a symbol of our enduring freedom --- and of the strength of our constitutional government --- because the flag flies high not on a flag pole --- but in the hearts of Americans --- and you can never burn that freedom --- and that liberty that comes with being an American...

Not again!
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
BY EDITORIAL
TRENTON TIMES

http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/editorials...1080.xml&coll=5

Like the proverbial bad penny, the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban flag burning as a form of protest has returned and is ready to be brought to a vote in the Senate. Its advocates once again are striving to tamper with the Bill of Rights out of a mix of misguided patriotism and political pandering.

The amendment is an attempt to undo what the Supreme Court did when it ruled in 1989 that First Amendment protections for political expression barred Texas from punishing a man who burned a U.S. flag to protest, among other things, the actions of the Reagan administration. Such an act constitutes symbolic speech, the court majority said.

Last week, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee approved the amendment, which would allow Congress to prohibit the flag's "physical desecration." The House passed it last June by a 286-130 margin, well over the two-thirds required to change the Constitution. (Its perennial sponsor in the House was former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-California, whose own degree of devotion to American ideals was clarified by his subsequent conviction and prison sentence for accepting $2.4 million in bribes.) Now the amendment needs 67 votes -- two-thirds of the Senate, if all 100 senators vote -- to be sent to the states for ratification.

This is dangerously close to happening. Last year, amendment advocates counted 65 senators in favor. Since then, Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey -- who opposes it -- has appointed Bob Menendez to fill the Senate seat he vacated when he became governor. Sen. Menendez, as a member of the House last year, cast one of those 286 "aye" votes. If he votes the same way in the Senate, and a single anti-amendment senator loses his nerve or is absent, the Menendez vote could be the one that puts it over the top.

We hope Sen. Menendez will carefully consider the consequences of this amendment's passage -- and change his position.

Flag burning is highly offensive to most Americans. But actual speech can be offensive, too. Moreover, the deed itself is a rarity, and most of the handful of cases that proponents have been able to dredge up included at least one violation already punishable under existing state or local law, such as theft, vandalism, arson, destruction of property, trespassing, disorderly conduct and public disturbance. Elevating flag burning to a constitutional offense, however, would turn the act into a form of defiance that would be irresistible to kooks and exhibitionists and vastly multiply the number of incidents.

The First Amendment draws its purpose and power from the fact that it protects all forms of political expression, no matter how unpopular. As former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson said, "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." The flag-burning amendment would, for the first time, diminish one of the great liberties guaranteed to the American people by the founders. It is a foolish and frivolous proposal, backed by people who should know better.

May 4, 2006 — By Andy Sullivan

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1923806

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Senate panel approved a measure on Thursday that would change the Constitution to let Congress ban burning of the American flag, setting up an election-year debate over a perennial hot-button issue.

The measure passed the Senate Judiciary constitution subcommittee by a vote of 6 to 3. It must pass the Senate by a two-thirds majority and win the support of at least 38 states within seven years before it takes effect.

With President Bush's approval ratings at historic lows and recent polls showing the Republicans losing their lead on national security, the party also plans votes on other emotional issues like abortion and gay marriage over the coming months to solidify the party's base as it seeks to retain control of Congress in November's election.

"There are limits on speech, and the balance is tipped in my mind that so many people are so grossly offended by the burning of the flag," said Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who heads the Judiciary Committee.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning is protected under constitutional free-speech guarantees, invalidating laws in 48 states.

Since the measure has attracted 57 co-sponsors in the 100-member Senate, it stands a strong chance of passing.

The House of Representatives has passed flag-burning amendments in each session since 1993. The measure that cleared the House last year was sponsored by California Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now serving an eight-year prison sentence for accepting $2.4 million in bribes.

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold said that the amendment would undermine the freedom of expression that the flag symbolizes.

"None of us thinks it's OK to burn the flag," Feingold said. "But I believe we must also defend the right of all Americans to express their views about their government, however hateful, spiteful or disrespectful."

The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1789, the last a 1992 amendment to delay congressional pay raises from taking effect until after an election.

Congress has passed six amendments over the years that have failed because they have not been approved by the necessary three-quarters of the 50 states.

Flag Desecration Amendment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Flag Burning Amendment)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Burning_Amendment

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Flag desecration in the United States. (Discuss)

The Flag Desecration Amendment, often referred to as the flag burning amendment, is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow the United States Congress to statutorily proscribe the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag burning continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol and protecting free speech.

While the proposed amendment was most frequently referred to colloquially in terms of flag burning, the language would have permitted the prohibition of all forms of flag desecration, which may take forms other than burning. Conversely, the amendment would not have prohibited the burning of the flag in accordance with the United States Flag Code, which indicates that the preferred way to destroy a damaged flag is by burning it respectfully.


The flag of the United StatesContents [hide]
1 The proposed amendment
2 Judicial and legislative history
2.1 Congressional votes
2.2 Arguments for the amendment
2.3 Arguments against the amendment
3 Potential interpretations of the amendment
4 References
5 See also
6 External links



[edit]
The proposed amendment
The full text of the amendment (passed several times by the U.S. House of Representatives):

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
This proposed amendment was intended to give Congress the right to enact statutes criminalizing the burning or other desecration of the United States flag in a public protest. Proponents of legislation to proscribe flag burning argue that burning the flag is a very offensive gesture that deserves to be formally outlawed. Opponents maintain that that giving Congress such power would essentially limit the principle of freedom of speech—enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and symbolized by the flag itself.

Principal theories underlying these First Amendment principles include a robust national discourse about political and social ideas; individual self-realization; the search for "truth"; and speech as a "safety valve." These concepts are expounded in both the majority and dissenting opinions of the cases described below. There Justice Brennan noted that, the "Principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." 491 US 397, 408 (1989)

[edit]
Judicial and legislative history
The first federal Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protest burnings of the flag at demonstrations against the Vietnam War.[1] Over time, 48 of the 50 U.S. states also enacted similar flag protection laws as well. All of these statutes were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5-4 vote in the case Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) as unconstitutional restrictions of public expression.

After the Johnson decision, Congress quickly passed a new Flag Protection Act, which was also struck down by the Supreme Court the following year by the same 5-4 majority in the case U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). The Court decided that flag burning was constitutionally protected expression.

The decisions were very controversial and have prompted Congress to consider the only remaining legal avenue to enact flag protection statutes—a constitutional amendment. Each Congress since the Johnson decision has considered creating a flag desecration amendment. Since 1995, beginning with the 104th Congress, the proposed amendment has been approved biennially by the two-thirds majority necessary in the U.S. House of Representatives, but it has consistently failed to achieve the same, necessary super-majority vote in the U.S. Senate (during some sessions, the proposed amendment did not even come to a vote in the Senate before the expiration of Congress' term).

Starting in 1989, the legislatures of all 50 states have passed non-binding resolutions memorializing Congress to propose the flag-desecration amendment to the states for ratification, with Vermont being the most recent example in 2002.[2] Additionally, countless local governments and civic organizations have sent non-binding petitions to Congress asking that this amendment be proposed for ratification.

In both the Johnson and Eichman decisions, the statutes were struck down by a block composed of Justices William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. The dissenters in both cases were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist , and Justices John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White and Sandra Day O'Connor.

[edit]
Congressional votes
During each term of Congress since 1995, the proposed amendment has passed the House of Representatives, but not the Senate—falling four votes short on two occasions in the upper body. As approved by the House of Representatives each time, the joint resolutions have called for ratification by state legislatures—of which a minimum of 38 state legislative approvals would be required (three-fourths of the 50 states) within a period of seven years following its proposal by both houses of Congress. As can be seen by the votes in the House of Representatives, support for the amendment appears to be slipping with only 286 "yea" votes during the 109th Congress in 2005 in contrast to the 312 "yea" votes a decade earlier during the 104th.

The chronology of the House of Representatives' action upon the flag-desecration amendment runs over a period of more than ten years:

Congress Resolution(s) Vote date Yeas Nays
104th Congress[3] House Joint Resolution 79 June 28, 1995 312 120
Senate Joint Resolution 31 December 12, 1995 63 36
105th Congress[4] House Joint Resolution 54 June 12, 1997 310 114
106th Congress[5] House Joint Resolution 33 June 24, 1999 305 124
Senate Joint Resolution 14 March 29, 2000 63 37
107th Congress[6] House Joint Resolution 36 July 17, 2001 298 125
108th Congress[7] House Joint Resolution 4 June 3, 2003 300 125
109th Congress[8] House Joint Resolution 10 June 22, 2005 286 130
Senate Joint Resolution 12 ? ? ?

In order to be added to the Constitution, it must likewise be approved by a vote of at least two-thirds of the 100-member Senate, as well as be ratified by at least three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures. Senators have until the end of 2006 to take action upon H.J. Res. 10 during the remainder of the 109th Congress.[9][10] On March 7, 2006, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced that he would bring the bill up for consideration in June 2006. [11]

A summer 2005 poll found that 63% of Americans opposed amending the constitution to outlaw flag burning, up from 53% in 2004.[12]

[edit]
Arguments for the amendment
Proponents of the amendment argue that protecting the flag is necessary because of the uniquely important nature of the flag. They argue the flag is the most revered symbol of the United States, and thus burning it is a profoundly offensive gesture towards all its Citizens. In his dissenting opinion in Texas v. Johnson, late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote,

The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag.

Rehnquist also argued that flag burning is "no essential part of any exposition of ideas" but rather "the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others."

Quoting the famous lines, "Shoot if you must, this old grey head, but spare your country's flag," from the Civil War poem, "Barbara Frietchie," he said the flag was "the visible symbol embodying our Nation."

[edit]
Arguments against the amendment
The proposed amendment has met with resistance from civil liberties groups and first amendment defenders. Opponents of the flag desecration proposal say that an amendment making such activity illegal would undermine the very principles for which the flag stands. Jailing protesters of dissenting opinion—such as those who burn national flags—is common under authoritarian regimes. Another argument is that groups such as the American Legion and the Boy Scouts of America regularly burn flags as a way to dispose of them in a respectful manner in keeping with the United States Flag Code. The amendment would single out people who are committing the same acts with different thoughts in their heads. Thus, the government would be trying to regulate free thought, certainly not keeping with the First Amendment. Opponents also point out the rarity of flag desecration in the United States, and assert that the proposed amendment is the epitome of "a solution in search of a problem".

In the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, Justice William J. Brennan wrote: "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

[edit]
Potential interpretations of the amendment
If enacted, the effect of the amendment will likely be challenged on collateral matters in ways that will require the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, to parse the exact meaning of ambiguous terms contained therein.

First, the amendment would empower Congress to act, but not the states. However, Congress might interpret this as giving it the power to ratify state laws to this effect, as it does for interstate compacts. Since no scope is stated in the amendment, it is also unclear whether Congress would be able to prescribe punishments for those who burn the flag of the United States in a foreign country. The Supreme Court has previously held that Congress may prohibit foreign acts that have an effect in the United States, in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993)), and certainly the desecration of the flag on foreign soil would likely have the intended effect of offending United States citizens.

Second, the phrase "physical desecration" might be open to various interpretations concerning the uncertainty of the context of descration. For example, uncertainty exists over whether the term includes the wearing of the flag as clothing, receiving a tattoo of the flag, or flying a flag upside-down. It is uncertain what can be interpreted as "physical desecration", as it may or may not require that the flag actually be physically damaged, or even merely made to appear damaged. It is also unclear whether virtual flag desecration would be subject to the amendment. There is also a question over whether the perpetrator of such an act is required to have a specific intent to "desecrate" in order to be prosecuted. The Report of the 108th Congress, in proposing this amendment, stated:

"...'desecrate' means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action..."

This seems to suggest that the amendment will only apply to acts where the actor intends offense.

Finally, since the amendment would only allow prohibition against "the flag of the United States," it could be construed as only applying to flags that are the property of the United States government, as opposed to private property. This language could also be interpreted as being limited to flags that meet the exact specifications for the United States flag laid out in federal law. It is unclear what effect the amendment would have with respect to former flags of the United States, such as the 48-star flag that preceded the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, or the original 13-star Betsy Ross flag, or how far from the traditional definition of a flag a symbol could deviate (for example, having orange stripes instead of red) before falling out of the ambit of the amendment's protection.

All of these questions would necessarily await the interpretative role of the courts, and such a process would likely require several years for the resolution of each issue.

U.S. Senate should focus beyond flag burning
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/2/06
BY JANET WALSH

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A.../605020328/1030

Once again, the U.S. Senate is debating a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag. I cannot help but feel weary as policy-makers brace for yet another fight over the extent of freedom of expression.

Flag burning draws widespread outrage and attention. But by making dramatic public appeals to ban it, policy-makers are giving those few perpetrators the attention they crave.

And what would the ban accomplish anyhow? Proponents tout the amendment as a show of support for our troops overseas and our veterans here at home. I see it as meaningless rhetoric that distracts attention from far more critical issues affecting the quality of life for service members and veterans.

I have dedicated my life to providing quality health care for all Americans, especially for our soldiers. What I see is a looming crisis, one far more deserving of congressional attention than a constitutional ban on flag desecration.

Let me be perfectly clear: I do not in any way support flag burning. When I served at the 2nd General Army Hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, during the Vietnam War, it broke my heart to see the American flag burning back home. But as a first lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps, I had an important job to do: to make sure that American soldiers received the best medical care available. And now, 40 years later, I fear those same men and women are no longer being properly cared for.

What I see are policy-makers who are more interested in making headlines with a wedge issue than addressing the needs of those who put their lives on the line to defend this country and the principles it stands for.

For decades, federal funding of the Department of Veterans Affairs has fallen short. The results of last year's Base Realignment and Closure process leave the medical care of thousands of veterans across the country in question. Here in New Jersey, the closure of Fort Monmouth and its Patterson Army Clinic will affect thousands of veterans and military families.

As a new generation of American veterans returns home from combat overseas, we should be grateful for their commitment to our country. We should be showing our appreciation, not using their considerable risks and sacrifices as a platform to advance an empty agenda.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., has always been a strong supporter of our nation's — and especially New Jersey's — veterans. I hope as the debate over the flag-burning amendment comes to a head, he will reject this frivolous bickering and instead use the power of his seat to generate bipartisan support for adequate health care for veterans. If there is one thing that can be agreed upon in this age of partisan politics, it is that we owe a great debt to our veterans. The very least our policy-makers can do is band together to repay them with their promised care.

I support neither flag burning nor this constitutional amendment, but what I do support, as an American and a veteran, is the freedom we enjoy. It is that freedom, as well as the respect and care of those who defend it, that defined my military service and the service of thousands of my fellow veterans. Not a flag.

If the Senate truly supports America's veterans, I would rather see them make a real difference and turn their attention to the ongoing struggle for quality health care for veterans instead of this damaging attempt to restrict our rights.


Janet Walsh, Medford, is a member of Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights, Newburgh, Ind.

Here are some posts from www.redstate.com

Many are opposed to a flag burning amendment suggesting that while they may be opposed to the desecration of the flag -- they believe the constitution which limits the rights of the government --- should not now be amended to limit the rights of an individual.

That is a strong argument.

For this reason, I can not see why any Democrat would support such an amendment except as a knee-jerk move designed to garner public support...

Here are some selections...

On the Burning of the American Flag
By: Philosofy101 · Section: Diaries

http://philosofy101.redstate.com/story/2006/5/8/14659/57389

Greetings, all. I'm predominantly a lurker, but I can and have been lured into commenting. This is my first diary.
The debate over a proposed Constitutional amendment permitting states to ban the practice of flag-burning has always been one of those highly charged issues that excites me much more than the capital-gains tax. It touches on questions of free speech, political dissent, nationalism, and symbolism like few other issues, and every so often it pops up on the national radar, as it did last year when vote-counters on both sides of the issue saw the vote in the Senate as tantalizingly close.

A couple of lines of history...

[editor's note, by streiff] Yes, we know this is a Conservatives in the Mist diary.


May 8th, 2006: 01:46:59


After being a matter of contention and bitter dispute for years, not to mention the subject of a variety of state bans, the legality of burning the American Flag finally came to the Supreme Court in 1989 after a Texas man sued the state and argued that his right to free speech was being diminished by criminalizing the practice. The court agreed, ruling that flag-burning may be odious (I happen to agree), but it was still "symbolic speech" and thus entitled to protection under the first amendment. Since then, supporters of a ban have had only one way to get around the Court's decision: a Constitutional Amendment. Three quarters of the state legislatures have already passed resolutions expressing support for such a ban, the House (which requires 2/3s approval) has more than enough votes in favor of the amendment. The wrench in the system is the Senate, which has consistently fallen short of the 66 votes necessary. If the Senate goes, so goes the amendment.

My whole point in writing this is to find out what you guys think on the matter. Obviously, I'm expecting a strong majority in favor of banning the practice. Still, I'd like to hear the reasoning, on both sides of the issue.

As for myself, there have always been issues where I may take the leftist (or, occasionally, rightist) position but could certainly understand the opposing position. Abortion, for example (although more and more, I'm undecided on the issue), is one of those things where I can see where both sides are coming from.

This is not one of those issues. Quite frankly, I am completely at a loss to see how anyone could not view the banning of flag-burning as a clear and unequivocal squelching of political dissent. Sure, there are other, legal ways of registering your dissent with your government- but just because some avenues are open doesn't mean you can shut down others.

I'd like to note that I myself cannot imagine burning a US Flag, I think it's foolish, immature, and those who do so are almost universally misguided in their political outlook. But I feel the same way about most of the platform of the Prohibition Party (yes, they still exist), and I certainly don't believe in banning them. "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that.

I'm also interested in hearing the rebuttals, if any, to the "practical," non-ideological problems with flag burning: can I burn a flag that is similar to the US flag? Is burning an otherwise identical flag with 49 stars acceptable? If not, 38? 22? Can I smash an American-flag cake? Rip up a cardboard flag cutout? Also, for a political constituency so enamored with the absolute property rights of the individual (Kelo, etc), why can't I do what I please with my own property, assuming the flag is bought and paid for with my own money? Who is the state to tell me what I do with my private property, so long as I'm not hurting anyone?

I don't mean to come off as confrontational- those are just some arguments against the amendment that I'm throwing out there (which I happen to agree with). Really, I'm just interested in seeing a discussion on the issue. I'm not trying to play Conservatives in the Mist, either, though it may seem that way. I'm genuinely interested in this topic. Usually, polling and the horserace is more up my alley, but this is one of those issues that gets my blood going.

Also, I request that you reccommend this diary if you want to see the discussion carried on further, even if you disagree whole-heartedly with my points. Thanks.

Respectfully,
Philosofy101


(User Info) (#2)


Ive struggled with this issue By: lordmarcus

As a 24 year veteran of the military and a former Marine, my thoughts tended towards a ban on burning the flag. But laws will not do here. Changing the constitution is required and I balk at that. Turning the constitution from a document that limits Govt's ability to act into one that makes it illegal for a citizen to act is not what the constitution is for.

Flag burning is a protected right in this country. Just as it is a protected right to don some grungy bed sheets and spew your hate. Both are reprehensible acts. But both MUST be protected.

And just for the record, I am still enough of a Marine to make someone regret burning a flag in front of me though.

(User Info) (#4)


If speech means literally words By: jmaier

then that undercuts arguments against campaign funding limits using the free speech rationale. Dollars certainly aren't words. I think political expression is more likely what the framers had in mind versus literal speech. But I'm no constitutional scholar.


[ Parent ] (User Info) (#7)


That's correct. It does undercut that rationale. By: gideon1789


I don't like caps on political spending, but I don't think those caps are unconstitutional.

Abiding by the Constitution means not getting what you want in terms of policy a lot of the time.

Which is not to say I'm absolutely right in my interpretation of the Constitution...

"It was a woman who drove me to drink, and I never had a chance to thank her." -W.C. Fields

[ Parent ] (User Info) (#8)

Exactly By: PatHMV

Paintings are not words either. Neither is music. Maybe we can censor cartoons and stuff, as long as they don't have words in them? We can prohibit the playing of particular tunes, too, right? I guess the British would have been within their rights to pass a law making it a felony to whistle "Yankee Doodle" in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War.

You can make a law that prohibits burning anything in a public place. We already have laws prohibiting burning things that don't belong to you. But when a law is aimed ONLY at burning a piece of cloth (or paper, I guess) on which is a particular design, regardless of whether the burner owns that piece of cloth and is on his own property, then that law is aimed directly at censoring a form of expression, a form of speech. You're not criminalizing the burning, you're criminalizing expressing the idea. We don't need to do that.

[ Parent ] (User Info) (#11)

Just clarifying... By: PatHMV

I'm not going to bother with the argument, as the Supreme Court has made it clear over a very long period that freedom of speech prohibits the government from criminalizing expression of ideas generally. As another poster pointed out, Justice Scalia was on the right side of the flag-burning case.

I wrote only to clarify that you believe that the government can, constitutionally, pass a law prohibiting you from whistling "Yankee Doodle" in a public place, or from displaying a photograph, painting, or drawing which has no words in it. You have clarified that you do in fact believe that, which is all I wanted to know. Thank you. I'll let the government know it can proceed with making it illegal to publish drawings of the Prophet.

[ Parent ] (User Info) (#14)


Again with the 9th Amendment. By: birdmojo

I think that we'd be better off if we had a presumption that a thing oughtn't be banned than if we had a presumption that since it's technically not speech and that since oh-so-many people find it offensive that, yeah, the fact that the right to burn a flag is not enumerated in the constitution can be used to deny or disparage the so-called "right" to "freedom of expression".

The Fathers seem to have thought so too.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. --Thomas Jefferson

[ Parent ] (User Info) (#18)

In the 9th Amendment. By: birdmojo

Where they said "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

If you want to argue that States can ban pretty much whatever they want, from alcohol to flag burning to polyester shirts, that's great. It just constantly burns me when people say "Where is your right to polyester in the Constitution?"

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

All that to say, I'm going to have to ask you to explain to me why I don't have a right to polyester before I assume that I don't have one just because there's no "right to polyester" mentioned in the Constitution.

Yes, it's a deliberately silly example... but the Ninth Amendment pretty much comes out and says "you need more than 'where is it in the Constitution?' to argue that it's not there."

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. --Thomas Jefferson

[ Parent ] (User Info) (#20)


You didn't answer the question By: gideon1789


And we agree to some extent. I should clarify my argument.
I'm not saying the state can ban anything it pleases just because the Constitution doesn't spell out every right we should have. I agree that the 9th Amendment covers certain unenumerated rights.

Another important part of the Constitution is the due process clause in the 14th Amendment, which requires states not to act in an arbitrary or irrational manner in making laws (this was the common law understanding of due process). So the due process clause may afford lots of protection against certain abuses and follies, just as the 9th Amendment does.

But the First Amendment itself does not forbid the States from banning, say, a symbol (unless it's religious), or an obscene picture, etc. etc.


"It was a woman who drove me to drink, and I never had a chance to thank her." -W.C. Fields

[[ Parent ] (User Info) (#25)


The strongest argument... By: birdmojo

To me is the one that says "we should assume that there has to be a reason to ban this particular thing" rather than the one that presumes "we don't have any reason that we can't ban this thing".

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. --Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ] (User Info) (#27)

What research have you done? By: PatHMV

Have you done any research on the various uses and meanings of the word "speech" in the late 1700s? How similar guarantees of rights were being interpreted in the various state constitutions at the time? How about the thoughts and words of the Founders themselves?

I'm sorry, but I trust Justice Scalia on interpreting the original meaning of the text of the Constitution far more than I trust you, and he agreed with the opinion in Texas v. Johnson.

And where did I suggest that we would have the Taliban running things if we didn't interpret the First Amendment as I (and Justice Scalia) support? I didn't. I was just clarifying that you believe the government can constitutionally outlaw the whistling of "Yankee Doodle" or the publishing of offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed.

[April 27, 2006]
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/27/1616519.htm

EDITORIAL: For which it stands: Our View: Flag-burning ban violates basic American tenet

(Spokesman-Review, The (Spokane, WA) (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Apr. 27--For Americans, the vision of a protester interrupting a U.S. president's public remarks is unspectacular. Not so for leaders of many other countries where open and vigorous dissent isn't protected as it is here.



Remember Cindy Sheehan's anti-war camp-out at Crawford, Texas? Could any image send a stronger signal to the rest of the world about the United States' commitment to liberty? Not likely.

Imagine what would have become of Wenyi Wang if she had tried that in Beijing? Or if she had harangued Chinese President Hu Jintau in China the way she did during a press conference last week at the White House, where Hu was visiting. All that did happen is that President Bush, who's had plenty of experience with hecklers, quietly reassured Hu, "You're OK," and urged him to continue with his comments. Which Hu did.

In the end, Wang, a Chinese American whose Falun Gong religion is banned in China, got her say. So did Hu. A previous introduction to freedom of political expression occurred in Seattle where Hu's arrival in the United States was marked by uneventful protests on behalf of Falun Gong and advocates of a free Tibet. Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, who like Bush and other American politicians is familiar with boisterous protest demonstrations, saw it as no big deal.

That's the way this country deals with conflict of opinion. We don't just tolerate it, we ritualize it.

And the world – having seen one example after another spotlighted on the front pages, the evening news and the Internet – realizes we mean it. Critics shout condemnations at their leaders. Life goes on.

Not every American has full confidence in freedom of expression, however.

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch is proposing, again, a constitutional amendment making it unlawful to desecrate the American flag. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., intends to bring the measure to a vote in the Senate this summer.

"An attack on the flag is an attack on our country and her people," says Frist.

Flag-burning, odious as it is, is not an attack, Senator, it's a criticism. Life goes on.

But when the United States can no longer endure criticism, the rest of the world will have less reason to trust that we're materially different from places like China.

Don’t Cell Out the American People

by Sam Berger
May 1, 2006


The Senate has a rare opportunity this election year to transcend partisan posturing and pass stem cell legislation that has widespread, bipartisan support. Rather than divert valuable time to constitutional amendments that are championed by narrow special interests, Congress should support the scientific progress and potential cures for debilitating diseases that millions of Americans desire. The federal government needs to work quickly to regain the people’s faith; already, state legislators across the country are trying to fill the research void left by federal inaction. While the efforts of state governments to respond to the concerns of their citizens should be applauded, true progress cannot be made until the federal government makes an equal commitment to the American public. Federal funding and regulation are crucial to effectively and ethically conducting embryonic stem cell (ESC) research.

The Senate should pass the Stem Cell Enhancement Act, which expands federal funding for stem cell research beyond the few stem cell lines currently approved to include lines derived from excess embryos at fertility clinics. Almost a year ago, similar legislation in the House passed with broad support from both sides of the aisle. After the passage of the House bill, the American people were hopeful that the Senate would quickly vote on the legislation as well, particularly since it received support from a bipartisan group of senators including Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter. Nine months after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist promised the Senate would consider the bill, however, there has been no vote and no floor time has been reserved to discuss the legislation. This inaction in the months before an election would be expected of a controversial bill, but the Stem Cell Enhancement Act is no such thing. ESC research is widely supported; recent polls suggest support for ESC research among the public is anywhere from 57-67%, and support comes from states as geographically and ideologically diverse as Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Michigan, New York and Texas. The public’s desire for ESC research even extends beyond the provisions of this compromise bill; a majority of Americans support creating stem cells through the therapeutic cloning technique somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which this bill does not address.

Special interest opponents of stem cell research argue that the Senate does not have the time to address this critical bill. Despite important pending business on immigration and tax reconciliation to consider, Senator Frist has said he will find time to discuss two controversial constitutional amendments, prohibiting flag-burning and gay marriage, before the November elections. Apparently, some Senators care less about the opinions of ordinary Americans and more about catering to conservative special interest groups. Recent polls show that 63% of Americans oppose the flag-burning amendment and that the public is sharply divided on the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; both of these amendments have repeatedly failed to pass the Senate, and are expected to do so again this year. Time on the Senate floor is too precious to waste on these ill-conceived amendments while widely supported stem cell legislation languishes.

Recognizing the lack of congressional action, state legislatures have worked to support the vital research, but they need federal funding and regulation. Besides the well-known stem cell initiatives in New Jersey, Connecticut and California, funding for ESC research has recently been approved in Maryland, which devoted $15 million, and Illinois, which devoted $10 million. In New York, gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer announced that if elected he would ask for a $1 billion bond to support stem cell research, saying, “If Washington is going to fail us, states must step into the breach.” While these efforts to support stem cell research are admirable, they do not offset the lack of federal involvement. Federal funding is important not only to provide stem cell researchers with the resources they need, but also to provide the ethical and procedural regulations they demand. While current stem cell initiatives have adopted the comprehensive guidelines outlined by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), there is potential for ESC research to proceed in the private sector without these necessary regulations and safeguards. The federal government must fund ESC research, not only to ensure that the science proceeds rapidly, but also to ensure that it proceeds ethically.

Congress has been given a great gift this election year. Buffeted by pervasive public disapproval of its job performance and gridlocked by its inability to move beyond partisan bickering, the Senate has a chance to pass a bill with widespread public support. Instead of political posturing to appease interest groups with ill-fated constitutional amendments that lack mainstream support, the Senate should focus on bipartisan stem cell legislation that the majority of people desperately want. Senator Frist is right that “when America’s values are under attack, we need to act,” particularly when the value in question is whether our government is of, for and by the people, or special interest groups.

Sam Berger is a Fellows Assistant at the Center for American Progress.

The Wrong Minefield
Gary May | May 03, 2006

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,96132,00.html

I was shocked that a decorated combat veteran such as Gen. Patrick Brady (Protect the Flag) would so lightly liken the rhetorical debate over the flag “desecration” constitutional amendment to the horrors of a Vietnam minefield. Putting the “feel-good” face of flag protection on the unspeakable abominations of combat seems to trivialize what my fellow veterans and I experienced. Such a comparison is hardly fair and, frankly, nothing short of inflammatory.

I have my own landmine story.

On April 12, 1968, I encountered a landmine while serving with K Company, 3 rd Battalion, 27 th Marines. After surviving an explosion, I suffered bilateral above-the-knee amputations.

I can tell you plainly, I did not lose my legs, and very nearly my life, to protect a symbol.

I sacrificed part of myself promoting freedom abroad -- and I am certainly going to protect it here. Free expression, especially the right to dissent from the policies of the government, is inextricable from the stability, prosperity and strength of our democracy. America was born out of our Founding Fathers' dissent, and that is still what sets this nation apart.

Despite his fervent support for the flag amendment, I doubt even Gen. Brady would assert that he values the flag over freedom.

A flag in and of itself is nothing extraordinary -- in fact, flags have flown for virtually all enemies of democracy. It is what the flag stands for that gives it meaning. And in America, our flag stands for freedom -- the Bill of Rights. What the flag amendment proposes is an unraveling of those First Amendment freedoms guaranteed us for more than 200 years.

It is the First Amendment, of course, that guarantees the freedom of expression that allows both Gen. Brady and me to express our differing opinions in this public forum. Yet he would have the Senate erode that right.

America is a complex place, filled with an astonishing diversity of opinion. Gen. Brady would have us think that since flag burning disgusts the majority of Americans -- including myself -- we must punish dissidents. My heart swells with pride for my country and fellow veterans every time I see the flag fly, but my patriotism is not one dimensional -- I can both love this country and respect the rights of those who disagree with me. It is not always easy, but to me, that is what freedom is all about.

Allowing poorly defined requirements of patriotism to suspend critical analysis of our laws and history would negate everything our Founding Fathers worked so hard to create, and that our military fights so hard to protect. Without public debate and discourse, America would cease to be democratic. And I cannot see how protecting the flag is worth losing our freedom.

Newspaper editors, citing free speech, oppose flag amendment
Published: March 23, 1999
Last Updated: March 23, 1999

http://www.asne.org/kiosk/news/99flagburning.htm

RESTON, Va. — In testimony before a U.S. House subcommittee, a representative of the American Society of Newspaper Editors opposed the "flag-protection" amendment to the Constitution now before Congress as an unneeded infringement on free speech.

Douglas C. Clifton, executive editor of The Miami Herald, testified before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, said: "Flag burning, loathsome as I believe it is, is nothing more than political speech expressed in different form, and as such, enjoys the same First Amendment protections.

"Would we amend the Constitution to prohibit verbal denunciations of America? I can't believe we would even consider it. Then how can we amend it to prohibit symbolic ones?"

Clifton related his experience as a Vietnam War veteran and as a resident of Miami, with its strong connections with communist Cuba, to the flag measure.

He said he and most of his fellow soldiers in Vietnam gave little thought to the rights of the anti-war protesters. "Free speech to most of us was little more than the right to gripe about the C-rations, the mail service, the CO, the war itself," he said.

"But I know this: If I were called back into service today it would be precisely for that reason," he said. "That's because over the past 30 years I've developed an understanding of the First Amendment that is exceeded only by my reverence for it."

Because of its proximity to countries where speech isn't free, the people of Miami have a magnified view of the extremes people will go to live in a land where it is free, he noted.

"Almost every day The Miami Herald reports the arrival of another boatload of Cuban or Haitian refugees ... to flee oppression and find comfort in a country that allows you to criticize your government and boast about it."

That doesn't happen in places like Cuba, Clifton said. An official there was recently asked what happens to you if you burn the Cuban flag as a form of protest.

"You go to jail for it," Clifton said. "Why would we want to model our First Amendment behavior on theirs?"

Three times in the last five years, Congress has considered Constitutional amendments that would allow the states to punish flag burners with jail terms or other penalties. The measures have failed each time to receive two-thirds of the votes in the Senate to amend the Constitution. The current legislation is H.J. Resolution 33 in the house and, S.J. Resolution 14 in the Senate.

With nearly 900 members, ASNE is the principal organization of American newspaper editors. It is active in a number of areas, including open government, freedom of the press, journalism credibility and ethics, newsroom management, diversity and readership.

Amendment to Increase Flag Burning

http://www.photodude.com/article/2694/amen...se-flag-burning

Today, I thought maybe I’d lost an entire year or something. Because the perennial election year issue, a flag burning amendment, has suddenly popped up as a vital legislative requirement in this non-election year. Ahead of other important issues, our elected representatives have apparently decided they can no longer abide the large numbers of people they see by the side of the street burning American flags every day.

Perhaps your neighborhood is the only one where this isn’t happening. And mine. But nationwide, it is clearly a pressing issue that must be dealt with … now. Perversely, it’s my belief that Congress’ attempted amendment will actually greatly increase the amount of flag burning we see in this country.

Some might call that “karma.”

Voting once again today on an issue blending emotion, patriotism and politics, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to outlaw debasing the American flag.

The House has repeatedly passed the measure in earlier sessions, so today’s 286-to-130 vote, well over the required two-thirds margin, was not surprising. The focus now will be on the Senate, where the measure has never passed. But lawmakers and lobbyists on both sides say the conservative tilt of that chamber gives the measure its best chance of Congressional approval since the Supreme Court ruled 16 years ago that flag burning was a form of protected speech.

NY Times: House Again Backs Ban on Flag Desecration
Or as Matt Welch writes under the subject line, Coulda Sworn There Was a War on, or Something, “In one of those periodic moments that make me feel sane for not belonging to any political party, the scarequote-worthy “House of Representatives” just passed the Flag-Burning Amendment, by a whopping 286-130. The Party of Limited Government (Except When We Run it) voted 209-12, and the Loyal Opposition pushed the amendment over the goal line with a disgraceful 77-117 showing. Here’s the complete roll-call list of congress-dopes who should probably never be taken seriously about anything ever again.”

But that list is only slightly altered from last time it passed the House. We’ve been here several times before. In fact, it’s becoming such a regularity that many bloggers just dig back into the archives and say “here’s what I wrote about it a long time ago,” recycling arguments that have had no reason to change. I called it “Constitutional Obscenity,” on Nov. 26, 2003:


It’s another election year, which invariably means much puffery about amending the Constitution to right the various perceived wrongs of this country. However, such an amendment takes more than one puffed up politico on a campaign stump. It requires the approval of two thirds of the Senate, two thirds of the House, and three quarters of the 50 state legislatures, and thus, is simply political grandstanding 99% of the time.

And should you proceed, we all know you can’t succeed (remember the Equal Rights Amendment? If you don’t, that’s exactly my point), as it thankfully takes a whole lot more than one legislative body to change the Constitution. It takes 40 of them (House, Senate, and at least 38 state legislatures)...

Never mind my old quotes, you can get much better ones from a law professor at UCLA, Eugene Volokh, who quoted his old article from the L.A. Times, July 18, 2001, recycled in his blog on June 9, 2004, and has requoted them again this week:

“Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, and the flying of the Confederate flag.”

OK, so that’s not exactly how the proposed flag protection amendment reads — I’ve added the Confederate flag phrase. But this little thought experiment helps show that the flag protection amendment is a bad idea.

Of course, burning the U.S. flag deeply offends many people. But so does waving the Confederate flag, even when it’s done by individuals and not by state governments. Many American boys died defending the U.S. flag — and many of them died fighting against the Confederacy. Burning the U.S. flag is often an anti-American symbol. Likewise, the Confederate flag was a symbol of treason and rebellion against the lawful American government.

So one danger of the anti-flagburning amendment is the slippery slope. If the amendment is enacted, even without a clause for the Confederate flag, many people will be energized to try to ban other symbols that offend them.

But what would we say when flagburning is banned but other offensive symbols are allowed? “We in the majority get to suppress symbols we hate, but you in the minority don’t”? “Our hatred of flagburning is reasonable but your hatred of the Confederate flag is unreasonable”?

America is different from most other countries, and even from most other democracies. In America, all ideologies are protected, even those that the majority thinks are evil.

Why is this right? Because the First Amendment was drafted and interpreted by people who intimately understood cultural, religious, and political conflict, and who knew how calls for censorship could launch the most bitter of culture wars.

Ah, yes, “the most bitter of culture wars.” You’re soaking in it!

But this goes beyond culture wars to foundational principles of our country. Citizen Smash says I Hate Flag-Burning…

...Almost as much as I hate the Flag-Burning Amendment.

Burning the American flag is offensive, but it does no harm to the nation or the forces that protect it. It’s a symbol of our national spirit, not a physical manifestation of it. Besides, we can always make more flags faster than they can burn ‘em.

For over two hundred years, through periods of war, uncertainty, and economic hardship, the Republic has survived without an amendment banning flag-burning. So why do we suddenly need one now?

Please, leave our Constitution alone.

And that’s the key for me. A perusal of over two centuries of Constitutional Amendments shows that, with two exceptions (one since repealed, Prohibition) they were all intended to limit the power of government, restrict its control over citizens, and thus, insure them certain rights. In fact, the first amendments are known by another name … The Bill of Rights.

This Congress wants to amend the Constitution to restrict your rights … and that’s wrong. That goes against the foundational principles of the document.

But in these most troubled times, this is a priority of our current Congress. They want to undertake the most drastic action they can, a Constitutional Amendment, to stop something that isn’t happening, and is not a threat to our country in any measurable way. It’s just potentially offensive.

We will now waste time and political initiative in the Senate and possibly 50 state legislatures to deal with what is currently a non-imminent and essentially non-existent problem.

Except we will begin to see it, now. Because that is the one thing this Amendment will make certain if it passes the Senate: more flag burning. In front of every one of the 50 state capitols, as each legislature takes up this issue towards a vote. It will be done as an act of free speech against a proposed law … and it will also be done in the manner of a teenager who’s been told not to drink whiskey. Once forbidden, it will become a more common act, as people use it to get attention. It’s a new way to get on TV, a new way to get arrested for your cause, and bring it press coverage.

And, throughout it all, we will have to listen to much hyperbolic diarrhea from “representatives” like Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif.: “Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”

As I said about a year ago when discussing Congressional Priorities, “the last time I saw a flag burning, it was flying in front of World Trade Center Building 5 on the morning of 9/11, and that’s the kind of flag burning I want Congress to prioritize and stop.”

If you could ask “the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center” what they want in the aftermath of their tragic murder, I’m guessing the first thing out of their mouths wouldn’t be “a flag burning amendment, please.”

It might be something more along the lines “justice,” as in “catch that SOB Osama instead of having the CIA Director coyly tell us ‘I have an excellent idea of where he is. What’s the next question?’”

Or maybe it would be something along the lines of “security,” as in “do your sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution as is, do what is best for this country, prevent 9/11 from ever happening again, and stop blaspheming our memory as a part of some petty battle in your culture war.”

Sigh...

this flag burning amendment stuff is not only idiotic and an affront to our civil liberities, but it is also a huge money waster and a distraction.

How many people wake up in the morning and think: "gee, I am worried that someone somewhere might burn a flag"?

How about things like global peace, anti-terrorism, health care and education?

Morons.

Actually, not: the politicians go along with such idiotic stuff because the public buys into it.

In the end, we get the government that we deserve.

I don't have a problem with such an amendment. I have doubts on whether it would pass or not but I don't have a problem with. You can always chastize the President, a party, a policy, etc. But burning the flag(IMHO) is attacking all Americans and those who died to give you your freedom.

So you are saying that you not only fervently disagree with people who hate America (as I do), but that you think that we should restrict the right of free speech for such people?

No is saying that can't protest, hang the President if effigy, give him the finger etc... Just not the flag. Like I said, I don't think such an amendment would necessarily pass, but if it did I wouldn't oppose it.

Umm, if I remember my years as a Girl Scout correctly, the only proper way to dispose of an old, tattered flag is to burn it.

What if someone writes an article that says that America's role in the world overall has been and is evil, and that people need to do what they can to damage America's power and economy, that this is the only way that justice can be achieved in the world? Should that be forbidden?

This is nothing more than the 2008 version of the Gay Marriage Ban. It's a PLOY to get the Right-Wingers out to the polls, and NOTHING more. It's a Rove scheme, and he's dusting it off again because it worked so well before. Want proof? How's that Gay Marriage Amendment progressing through the halls of government right now? That's right, you've heard absolutely nothing more about it since it was proposed right before the 2004 election. Because it was nothing more than a ploy to get the Right-Wing Homophobes out to the polls. The Cons know that such a law would NEVER pass Constitutional scrutiny, and they had no intention of EVER acting on it when they proposed it. The same with this flag-burning issue.

What makes this even worse is that this WELL-SETTLED Constitutional precedent. The Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that flag-burning is Constitutionally-protected free speech.

If the Righties in this country ever stopped to think about how badly they're being PLAYED by their Con leaders, they probably wouldn't appreciate it too much (considering the fact that it's an indication that the Party higher-ups believe their followers are stupid enough to believe anything they're spoon-fed). Luckily for them, most of their lap-dog followers don't disappoint, and rather than engage in any type of independent thought, do nothing more than spew back the Party Line.

Over the past couple years I've read a fair amount of debate about this, but my position remains the same, banning burning the flag disrespects what the flag stands for. In other words I see banning it the same as the idiots who use burning it to enrage the average citizen, neither has any respect for our nation.

GOP Guy:

How do you know that many of the people who died to protect our freedoms did not included flag burning as one of the freedoms at issue?

How do you respond to Gary May's piece above?

How do you respond the the American soldiers in Iraq who the GOP has repeatedly suggested that it is defending by squelching any dissent expressed during the war as anti-patrioric and a risk to our men and women in the field --- when many of them have stated that they personally have had no problem with the protests against the war and asked rhetorically --- isn't that why we are here fighting? For those freedoms?

In reality, we know the GOP is not trying to defend the soldiers --- they are trying to defend the president...and his misguided policies.

If the Bush Administration was really interested in the welfare of the soldiers they would have had a plan for accomplishing the mission, they would have revised that plan to accomplish the mission when they met obstacles, and provided adequate armaments and supplies including ammunition and bulletproof vests...

They would also have engaged in tactical missions that permanently took cities --- and not missions which took a city and then withdrew so that the insurgents could return and retake the city...

How do you respond to the fact that the Congress is wasting our time on this rather than other more important issues?

How do you respond to the conservatives above which state that the U.S. Constitution is not a document which limits the rights of government to impinge on those of the individual and that by enacting such an amendment, we will for the first time since prohibition be proscribing rights rather than guaranteeing them?

Rox ---

tomhye:

Here Here.

I believe that is what the posters from redstate.com argue.

I have no problem with someone doing that.

The same people would probably burn the flag.

Personally I wouldn't like it, but I can't see forbidding them from doing that, unless it's someone else's flag, like mine, for instance.

I think the issue is an amendment to the Constitution, not a law. I think, as you have stated, that a law probably would not stand on its own.

Arrogant right-wing manipulative pieces of fecal matter. It should soon become apparent that this is a recurring election year ploy to stir the RW base.

Gimme a break. Too many Americans have died to protect the freedoms that allow those of us who choose to burn the flag to do so. Of course most of them would prefer that we live in a Stepford type nation in which everything follows their warped value system.

Well... maybe we should amend the Constitution to prevent flag burning... then we could shut these pompous self-righteous hypocrits up.

No, sorry... no can do. Far too many better men have died protecting our freedoms than these wimpy whining schemers. Let them cry.

Yes -- and Hillary and NJ's Bob Menendez will support it...destroying their credibility...

GOP Guy:

No response to the points raised on the preceding page?

Who Are You, Hillary?

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, May 11, 2006; 12:00 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5032401528.html

I know a businessman who says that if the answer to a question is not about money, the question has to be restated. If that applied to politics, the answer to the question of who the Democratic presidential nominee will be in 2008 would be simple: Hillary Clinton. She has far and away the most money.

But politics is not just about money -- not quite yet, anyway -- if only because ideology and principles are not yet "products." That being the case (I hope), then Hillary Clinton's vast lead in fundraising -- she now has more than $20 million in the bank -- will be offset by growing questions about her principles and ideology. In other words, who is this woman who wants to be the next president of the United States? Is she the wife of Bill Clinton, who we were once led to believe was more liberal than he was, or is she actually far more conservative? The answer, at the moment, is something I cannot provide.

The latest reason for my perplexity is Clinton's agreement to have Rupert Murdoch host a fundraiser for her this summer. Murdoch is the very personification of the contemporary conservative movement. He is the proprietor of both the New York Post and Fox News, both of which are ideologically biased, sometimes blatantly so. No doubt Murdoch can raise lots of money. That's not the question. The question is: What will it buy?

Murdoch has always used his media properties to advance his business interests. In that regard, he is without ideology. Conservatives may loathe the communist Chinese regime, but when Murdoch wanted to do business in China, he kowtowed to the government and ejected BBC television from his Star satellite service. Earlier, when he ran into some business problems here, he went from being an Australian to an American citizen -- not exactly the reason school kids donated pennies to build a base for the Statue of Liberty.

When Clinton gets into the room with Murdoch and his band of merry millionaires, will she emphasize her liberal credentials? Will she say she's pro-choice and favors a government role in health insurance? Will she revive talk of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that she correctly said had managed to impeach her husband? Beats me. There's no telling what she'll say anymore.

Clinton may feel that her standing with certain Democratic Party constituencies is so secure that she can afford to take them for granted. Maybe so. But women, blacks, liberals and Clinton admirers in general are not fools. I, for one, cannot quite get over her recent co-sponsorship of a bill that would outlaw certain types of flag burning. This is like outlawing certain kinds of speech. At the time, certain observers simply shrugged and attributed her affront to the First Amendment as a harmless pander to the right wing -- as if there could be any such thing as harmless when it comes to civil liberties.

It could be that Clinton is being as amorally pragmatic as Murdoch himself. Before she can run for president, she has to win re-election to the U.S. Senate from New York. She has virtually no opposition, but in politics nothing can be taken for granted. In New York, it helps to have Murdoch's support. When he endorses a candidate, he is not subtle about it. He wages a crusade on their behalf, although sometimes -- as when Mario Cuomo beat Ed Koch in the 1982 Democratic gubernatorial primary -- his reach exceeds his grasp. Still, Cuomo had to pay attention.

Somewhere in the vast Clinton organization are people telling her she is doing the right thing by moving a bit to the right. The trap for Democratic presidential candidates is that by appealing to the party's activist and disproportionately important left wing, it makes them unacceptable to more conservative voters. That might explain why Clinton has not called for a withdrawal from Iraq or repudiated her vote authorizing George Bush to go to war. It's a strategy that assumes she can win the nomination without the support of fiercely anti-war Democratic activists. More and more, this is beginning to look like a dubious proposition.

For some people, the embrace of Murdoch is only going to raise old questions about Hillary Clinton. What does it mean? Does Clinton agree with him? Does he agree with her? If so, what does he know that I don't? Is she now pro-life? Does she support reactionary judges? Does she endorse the use of the press to advance business interests? Does she know what she believes? Do we know what she believes? Hillary, help us. Who the hell are you?

Well since you asked for my opinion on your post......

100% agree Taz.......what have we come to if we choose to protect a piece of cloth over that of the actual freedom and liberty of the people it represents.......?

Exactly. No ammendment to the constitution on this. Make a law if you want, it won't fly. For the inth of a percent of those that do burn it - I suggest you don't touch mine. Doesn't mean you'll earn any respect for your cause by burning it with me, in fact quite the opposite. Ridiculous that this bill is flying around Congress yet again.

Pretty much falls under the ban the bra, burn the bra of the 60's to me... it's self curing.

The rethuglians are very adept at linking hot-button divisive issues like gay rights, abortion, and illegal immigration... easily tying non related liberal issues together as a package deal with flag burning, anti war protests and unions... It's all based on generalization and stereo typing issues to polarize and mobilize the knee jerking reactionary response. It's very effective... but wearing out.

If we all agree --- then what is up with Hillary supporting such an amendment?

And what is up with the Democratic party not taking a more forceful position in opposition to such an amendment?

I know its pandering...but come on...

It weakens our nation to engage in such efforts...

Hillary has to know this.

What is a liberal nation anyway except one which protects liberty...and not just this liberty and that liberty --- but those established in the Constitution...

What I find most heartening as I have mentioned before is the conservative opposition to such things...

I hate to agree with Scalia on something over Hillary --- but that is what she is arguing for with this amendment...Scalia suggested that the Constitution protects the right to burn flags...

The (Semiotic) Stench of a Burning Flag (Amendment)

http://www.spectacle.org/296/flag.html

A bill was just defeated in Congress to outlaw flag burning again. Since the Supreme Court held a few years ago that burning a flag is speech completely protected by the First Amendment, Congress has recognized that the only way to over-rule the Court is by amending the Constitution. The bill attempted to start the ball rolling--the necessary number of states would still have to endorse the amendment. At any given time, a lot of half-baked proposals to change the Constitution are floating around, and most never go anywhere, but the flag burning amendment had the nightmarish simplicity necessary for success: a vote against it, rather than being perceived as a vote in favor of free speech, would be seen as a vote in favor of flag desecration. And so certain things come to pass, not because they are right, but because no-one has the moral force to stand up to them. However, the Founders in their wisdom provided that Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 majority of both houses. The bill fell several votes short of passing the Senate--only 63 Senators voted for it--and is dead for now.

In effect, what we would be doing is amending the First Amendment to except a form of speech we do not like, and once we start doing that, there is no end to it. Each of us hates some form of speech--pro-life, pro-choice, pro religion in the schools, pro secularism in the schools, and so on-- and many of us secretly wouldn't mind if the government banned it. The First Amendment has actually never been fully understood, nor free speech favored, by the average person. Adopting it represented the kind of far-sighted leadership that we rarely see in our politicians today.

The First Amendment serves as a stop sign. It says, "You can't!" whenever we talk about banning a form of speech. It was not created to protect only the speech we favor. It guards all speech, on the theory that none of us is Godlike enough to decide which speech should be heard. It represents consummate optimism: our nation is founded on the proposition that the good speech triumphs in the marketplace of ideas.

The proponents of a flag-burning amendment claim that burning a flag is not speech but conduct, therefore not First Amendment protected and subject to regulation. There are many obvious arguments, used in every debate on the subject, which prove them wrong. Burning a flag is the customary way to "retire" a worn out flag--it would not be respectful to throw it in the garbage. So we already have a crime involving a mental state--did you burn the flag with respect or with anger in your heart? What this really means is: what were you trying to communicate by burning the flag? Clearly it is a speech crime that is contemplated.

If further proof is necessary, a little semiotic analysis sheds a lot of light on the issue. The "science" of semiotics, as described by Roland Barthes, posits that the merger of a "signifier" (a thing or image) and "what is signified" (an idea) creates a "sign". For example, a rose + passion=the rose as sign. However, over time, a merger occurs between the signifier and the idea it expresses, so that the concept of the rose and of passion become almost indistinguishable. At this point, the sign is ready to be used as a signifier again, associated with another idea to create a new sign.

Think about the the U.S. flag as sign. It represents the merger of a signifier--a particular collection of stars and stripes in red, white and blue--with certain ideas. The flag has already been through several rounds of the transformation of signifier to sign and back again. The reconstruction of the signified at each stage of its history is an archaeological process. But, as Barthes observes, old significances are rarely lost; more often, they are warped out of shape and sublimated to new ones, but can still be recaptured.

The signifier is just a thing without meaning until it is joined with an idea to form a sign. A black pebble is a natural object until it is given to a citizen, who, by dropping it into a box, will cast a vote for the death penalty for Socrates. Then, joined with the idea of the vote for death, it becomes a sign. Similarly, the flag as signifier is a simple manufactured object. The original idea of the flag as sign was the purest one: it stood for the new nation which was most completely expressed in a Constitution which included the Bill of Rights. When first created, the flag as sign represented not only love of country but liberty, which included the freedom of speech.

In later decades, the flag became a signifier again and again as it was combined with ideas such as manifest destiny to form new signs. It was carried as our standard into shameful places like Sand Creek, where the U.S. Army indiscriminately murdered Indian women and children, commanded by officers whose policy was extermination. While it never has ceased to be associated with patriotism, the love of our country, its association with liberty has, as Barthes would say, become deformed, like a crushed relic five levels down in the ruins of Troy. By 1970, when a lot of young people were burning flags, it represented imperialist and self-deluded military adventures, as well as a hatred of dissent and of the young, and a call to mindless obedience as represented in the slogan "My Country Right or Wrong" that was often associated with the flag. The flag's original significance, representing the triumph of good speech in a forum where all voices were heard, was unknown to most people. In May 1970, in the week after the Kent State killings, patriotic construction workers descended from building sites around Wall Street like furies from hell, beating young demonstrators some of whom were crippled for life. A persistent rumor at the time said that men in suits, with American flag pins in their lapels, directed the carnage. President Nixon was captured on tape asking aides to arrange for the Secret Service to beat demonstrators. Anyone who burned a flag in 1970 was not burning the idea of liberty but was burning authoritarianism and hatred.

I love this country and would not want to live anywhere else (unless the Christian Coalition forces me) but am also, as any reasonable citizen should be, aware of its faults. The flag as sign has been pre-empted over and over by jingoistic scoundrels. While most reasonable and good people are patriots, some have not been treated well enough by this country to be. On the other hand, the most verbal patriots often seem to be scoundrels--and I agree with the proposition that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. The young man who burned the flag leading to the latest Supreme Court case was protesting the murderous U.S. policy in Latin America. He too, was burning an idea--the idea of murder as an instrument of foreign policy.

Burning a flag is the use of a flag as a signifier to create a new sign. The flag is now combined with the idea that what the U.S. is doing or saying in a given situation is wrong. The burning flag itself is a semiotic sign in which the earlier levels of significance can still be detected, but are distorted just as the flame itself distorts the flag.

What else is needed to prove that burning a flag represents the communication of an idea? If we all agreed that the flag being burned was nothing but an object without meaning--a signifier-- there would be no need to make laws about it as long as it was the legal property of the person burning it. We only get incensed because of our perception that a sign, not a signifier, is being burned. The conduct is not reprehensible in itself, as when a loving caretaker burns a worn out flag. It is the speech that is considered reprehensible and that Congress desires to punish, by pretending that it is conduct and not speech.

Let me anticipate an argument that burning a human being is also speech and is a semiotic sign as well. Someone has probably done a semiotic analysis of photographs of Southern lynchings. But a flag is property, and a human being is not. No-one has the right to express beliefs through harming another. But the American concept of property says that I may destroy my handkerchief without having to explain myself to anyone. If a flag is treated differently than a handkerchief, it is only because of speech--what it signifies, not what it is.

The ultimate futility of a flag burning amendment is expressed through the following thought experiment. Suppose I start a company to manufacture objects which resemble the U.S. flag but which bear, on the bottom stripe, the words "This is not a flag" (if its all reet with Magritte). Just to avoid any possible accusation that I am defacing the U.S. flag to create my product, I will print the words "This is not a flag" first, then overlay the stars and stripes. By definition, what I have created cannot be an American flag, because our flag does not contain the words "This is not a flag" on the bottom stripe. Therefore, I would assume that protestors will be able to express themselves freely by burning my product, without violating any law. In fact, they should be able to burn my product with impunity, even partly rolled up with the words "This is not a flag" invisible, as even with those words hidden, the product is not an American flag. All right now: will the sight of someone burning my product make you any less angry? Would it make you any less angry even if the words "This is not a flag" are visible? If not, then you are not objecting to the destruction of a flag, but to the ideas being expressed about this country. In which case, we may as well have an amendment which carves out anger at and criticism of the U.S. from the Bill of Rights. Then we will have, as Nat Hentoff said, "free speech for me, but not for thee."

Flag Amendment - Letters to the Editor

Flag Amendment Letters to the Editor

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/?Pag...n&CampaignID=19

Whether serving in a time of war or peace, military veterans of all political persuasions have always taken most seriously the solemn oath of enlistment: to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Today that Constitution is under attack. More and more, Congress and the Executive Branch are moving forward with violations of the right to privacy, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and other basic protections.

Now, politicians are moving forward with plans not only to attack the Constitution, but to use it as a political battering ram. In a matter of days, the Senate and House will vote to restrict political speech in this country, by passing a Constitutional Amendment to criminalize "desecration" of the Flag, even as they are voting to allow fundamental violations of the liberty that flag represents.

The only group with the standing to condemn this move is veterans. Two weeks ago VCS delivered a sign-on letter to Congress with over 1,200 signatures opposing this Constitutional amendment. Once more, VCS is asking its members and supporters to add their voices to this campaign.

May 24, 2005

Veterans for Common Sense 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20003 phone 202-558-4553 fax 866-714-6762http://www.VeteransForCommonSense.org

RE: Oppose the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment Dear Representative:

We, the undersigned members of Veterans for Common Sense, write to urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 10, the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit “desecration” of the flag. This proposed amendment is an attack on liberty, and a disturbing distraction from the real concerns of our nation’s veterans. Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) was founded on the principle that in an age when the majority of public servants have never served in uniform, the perspective of war veterans must play a key role in the public debate over national security issues in order to preserve the liberty veterans have fought and died to protect. VCS was formed in 2002 by war veterans who believe that we, the people of the United States of America, are most secure when our country is strong and responsibly engaged with the world. Three years later, our organization has over 12,000 members throughout the United States.

Central to our mission is supporting United States servicemen and women, veterans and their families, and preserving American civil liberties as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. The United States is faced with a number of pressing concerns related to national security and the quality of life of veterans. We believe that the United States government and military has a responsibility to maintain and continue its work in Iraq so that the country comes out of this war as a stable, secure and sovereign nation where its people have the best opportunity for a decent and free life. The government also has a responsibility to ensure that United States servicemen and women come home safe. Out of the 360,000 discharged veterans from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, nearly one in four have already visited the Veterans Administration for physical injuries or mental health counseling. Our government has a duty and a responsibility to address both the traditional and non-traditional effects of war, including battlefield injuries, post-traumatic stress, and diseases resulting fromvaccines and toxic exposures. These concerns should be on the top of the congressional agenda this session. But instead of devoting its time and resources to resolving these urgent challenges, Congress apparently chooses to consider amending the Constitution to prohibit a form of nonviolent expression. We are dismayed by this choice. We urge Congress to preserve American civil liberties as guaranteed in the United States Constitution and its amendments. When it comes to the measure under consideration, we believe that the supposed threat of a few incidents of flag burning does not justify the first ever amendment to the First Amendment. The ability to express nonviolent dissent to government policy is central to the American way of life, and we are loathe to amend away this fundamental liberty. As veterans, we are indeed offended by those who burn or defile the flag. The flag is a cherished symbol of the freedoms we fought to defend, and we honor it as such. But we must not attempt to protect this symbol at a cost to the freedoms it represents. The Constitution of the United States has never been successfully amended to restrict liberty. To do so now would betray the promise and ideal of America.

The proposed constitutional amendment to ban “desecration” of the flag threatens the civil liberties of Americans. Further, it distracts from the real world concerns of our active duty military personnel and veterans. Congress should not be in the business of undermining freedom of speech. During this time of war, we urge you to put this unnecessary and dangerous constitutional amendment aside, and instead focus on protecting our national security, insuring our servicemembers in harm’s way have what they need to accomplish the mission, and that when they return home they get the best possible care. Again, please oppose H.J. Res. 10. If passed, it will undermine the Constitution that we swore to support and defend.

Sincerely, BRIGADIER GENERAL (RET.) EVELYN FOOTE, ARMY, ACCOKEEK, MD * COLONEL DIANE KISTNER, AIRFORCE, CARLTON, GA * COLONEL COL. & MRS. JAMES P. GRAVES, USAR, RETIRED, ARMY, MARYVILLE, TN* COLONEL RUSSELL JORDAN JR., ARMY, SARASOTA, FL * COLONEL JOHN SINER, ARMY, BLOOMINGTON,IN * COLONEL NICHOLAS SZASZ, ARMY, DEWITT, MI * LIEUTENANT COLONEL PRESTON COLLINS, AIR FORCE, SATELLITE BEACH, FL * LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALLAN HASTINGS, AIR FORCE, WARNER ROBINS, GA * LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROGER HELBIG, AIR FORCE RESERVE, RICHMOND, CA * LIEUTENANTCOLONEL DAVID GINSBERG, ARMY, ANN ARBOR, MI * LIEUTENANT COLONEL DONNA LIGHTFOOT, ARMY,AUSTIN, AR * LIEUTENANT COLONEL CHARLES MARTIN, ARMY, HENSLEY, AR * LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRETCHEN VANEK, ARMY, POCATELLO, ID * LIEUTENANT COLONEL BARCLAY HASTINGS, MARINE CORPS,COLUMBUS, OH * LIEUTENANT COLONEL ELIZABETH MCGILLICUDDY, USMC, LOCUST GROVE, VA * LIEUTENANT COMMANDER PHIL SCHOGGEN, NAVAL RESERVE, NASHVILLE, TN * LIEUTENANTCOMMANDER JOHN BRENNAN, NAVY, WEED, CA * LIEUTENANT COMMANDER MARK BRYANT, NAVY, OZAWKIE, KS * LIEUTENANT COMMANDER JAMES F. DARGON, NAVY, WAREHAM, MA * LIEUTENANTCOMMANDER HENRY KIELAROWSKI,, PHD, NAVY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * LIEUTENANT COMMANDER MILTON LEAKE, NAVY, YORK, PA * LIEUTENANT COMMANDER ROBERT MEINTZER, NAVY, TUSCALOOSA, AL * LIEUTENANT COMMANDER JOHN SIMANTON, NAVY, SPOKANE, WA * MAJOR MARK S HEBERLEIN, DO, AIR FORCE, VIROQUA, WI * MAJOR ARTHUR JUDGE, AIR FORCE, NEWTON HIGHLANDS, MA * MAJOR SAMUEL SCHARFF, AIR FORCE, SEATTLE, WA * MAJOR JAMES STRADER, AIR FORCE, TUCSON, AZ * MAJOR DR. EUGENE D. BETIT, ARMY, ARLINGTON, VA * MAJOR ARTHUR DRONZKOWSKI, ARMY, STERLINGHEIGHTS, MI * MAJOR GERALD FISHER, ARMY, BLUFFTON, IN * MAJOR SAM GOULD, ARMY, LOS ANGELES, CA * MAJOR DOUGLAS KINNEY, ARMY, OTEGO, NY * MAJOR RICHARD KROENING, ARMY, RENO , NV *MAJOR PAUL NAYLOR, ARMY, DURHAM, NC * MAJOR BURNET OLIVEROS, ARMY, HOUSTON, TX * MAJOR TOM TREADWAY, ARMY, ABITA SPRINGS, LA * MAJOR JAMES VAN OOT, ARMY, WEST GROVE, PA * MAJOR NANCY BELL, MARINE CORPS, LADY LAKE, FL * MAJOR JEFFREY HALLIN, USMC, SANTA ANA, CA * COMMANDER DAVID BAILEY, COAST GUARD, SEQUIM, WA * COMMANDER TOM ATCHISON, NAVY, RICHFIELD, MN * COMMANDER TED BAHN, NAVY, ANNA MARIA, FL * COMMANDER THEODORE A. CURTIN, NAVY, PLYMOUTH, MA * COMMANDER BRUCE GENEREUX, NAVY, VERO BEACH, FL * COMMANDERRICHARD GROSSCUP, NAVY, EUGENE, OR * COMMANDER JOHN KASO, NAVY, ALAMEDA, CA *COMMANDER A. GEORGE MERTZ, NAVY, PORTLAND, ME * COMMANDER ROBERT WOOD, NAVY, SHAKER HEIGHTS, OH * CAPTAIN PETER FOLTZ, NAVY, HERSHEY, PA * CAPTAIN CHUCK ROSCIAM, NAVY, JACKSONVILLE, FL * CAPTAIN ANDREW SCHOERKE, NAVY, SHAFTSBURY, VT * CAPTAIN ERIC MORTON, USMC, CARLSBAD, CA * CAPTAIN HUGH ANDERSON, AIR FORCE, KALAMAZOO, MI * CAPTAIN NEAL BOWYER, AIR FORCE, HURST, TX * CAPTAIN HERBERT COURSEN, AIR FORCE, BRUNSWICK , ME * CAPTAIN KARL FREDERICK, AIR FORCE, SEBASTOPOL, CA * CAPTAIN TIMOTHY HEBERLING, AIR FORCE, LEESBURG, VA * CAPTAIN CLAYTON HUBBS, AIR FORCE, AMHERST, MA * CAPTAIN JACK KELLY, AIR FORCE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM * CAPTAIN LANDON KIMBROUGH, AIR FORCE, PORT TOWNSEND, WA * CAPTAIN DAVID LENERS, AIR FORCE, DEWITT, IA * CAPTAIN ESTHER MASSIMINI, AIR FORCE, PHOENIX, AZ * CAPTAIN GREGG MATOUS, AIR FORCE, JUPITER, FL * CAPTAIN JAMES O`HALLORAN, AIR FORCE, SPOKANE,WA * CAPTAIN STUART B SKADDEN, AIR FORCE, HURLEY, NM * CAPTAIN BILL SOREM, AIR FORCE, MINNETONKA, MN * CAPTAIN VINCENT WARD, AIR FORCE, COLUMBIA, SC * CAPTAIN JOHN ARDNER, ARMY, GRESHAM, OR * CAPTAIN SALLY & JACK DANIELS, ARMY, WILMETTE, IL * CAPTAIN JACKDRESSER, ARMY, SPRINGFIELD, OR * CAPTAIN J RICHARD DURNAN, ARMY, NEWPORT, RI * CAPTAIN EDWIN FOX, ARMY, NOKOMIS, FL * CAPTAIN VAN & LOIS HAMILTON, ARMY, SANTA BARBARA, CA * CAPTAIN S. K. HENINGER, ARMY, CHAPEL HILL, NC * CAPTAIN DAVID JEFFERY, ARMY, ATLANTIC BEACH,FL * CAPTAIN LISA MARTIN, ARMY, MILWAUKEE, WI * CAPTAIN WILLIAM MILLER, ARMY, FORT COLLINS, CO * CAPTAIN PETER MILLINGTON, ARMY, OAKLAND, CA * CAPTAIN ROBERT S. PARLATO, ARMY, BELOIT, WI * CAPTAIN SIDNEY REIFF, ARMY, LOS ANGELES, CA * CAPTAIN W JEAN ROHRER, ARMY, SOUTHWESTHARBOR, ME * CAPTAIN MELVYN B. SCHUPACK, MD, ARMY, WALPOLE, NH * CAPTAIN KEVIN SMITH, ARMY, MINNETONKA, MN * CAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER WEAGE, ARMY, PORTLAND, OR * CAPTAIN JAMES PRATT, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, HOWELL, MI * CAPTAIN GARY DICKSON, MARINE CORPS, MANASSAS, VA * CAPTAIN CHARLES LAMBERT, MARINE CORPS, GRAND BAY, AL * CAPTAIN JACOBO MARTINEZ,MARINE CORPS, SANTA FE, NM * CAPTAIN BILL RUSSELL, MARINE CORPS, KANEOHE, HI * CAPTAIN CHARLES J. CHURCHMAN, MARINES, BRIDGEWATER, VA * LIEUTENANT THEODORE ODELL, AIR FORCE,MOREHEAD CITY, NC * LIEUTENANT HAROLD WALBA, AIR FORCE, LA MESA, CA * LIEUTENANT JIMWILLINGHAM, AIR FORCE, * LIEUTENANT BARRY WOLFER, AIR FORCE, HOUSTON, TX * LIEUTENANTRICHARD BOWEN, ARMY, MELBOURNE BEACH, FL * LIEUTENANT ROBERT BUTTEL, ARMY, PHILADELPHIA, PA * LIEUTENANT SARA AND DAVID W. COOK JR., ARMY, NASSAU BAY, TX * LIEUTENANT JOHN DUBOIS,ARMY, RENTON, WA * LIEUTENANT ROBERT HORNBECK, ARMY, LIVERMORE, CA * LIEUTENANT RICHARD P HYLAND, ARMY, HOUSTON, TX * LIEUTENANT ANDREW PETERSON, ARMY, ASHLAND, WI * LIEUTENANTRICHARD RANSON, ARMY, SUN CITY, AZ * LIEUTENANT MICHAEL SEBETICH, ARMY, HAWTHORNE, NJ * LIEUTENANT CHARLES EASON, COAST GUARD, DEEP GAP, NC * LIEUTENANT ANDREW CADOT, NAVY, FREEPORT, ME * LIEUTENANT ERIC FORESMAN, NAVY, NORTH LIBERTY, IA * LIEUTENANT GLEN FOSS, NAVY, ESCONDIDO, CA * LIEUTENANT DIAN HARDISON, NAVY, COCOA, FL * LIEUTENANT LINDA HASCHART, NAVY, WESLEY CHAPEL, FL * LIEUTENANT MICHAEL HERBERT, NAVY, FLORENCE, OR * LIEUTENANT JOHN HOUX, NAVY, VERO BEACH, FL * LIEUTENANT JOHN KAMERICK, NAVY, SRQ, FL * LIEUTENANT LARK KEPHART, NAVY, HUNTSVILLE, AL * LIEUTENANT JULES P. KIRSCH, NAVY, NEWYORK, NY * LIEUTENANT ROGER LAKE, NAVY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * LIEUTENANT LOUIE NORDBYE, NAVY, SAVANNAH, GA * LIEUTENANT VICKI TERRELL, NAVY, DUNWOODY, GA * 1ST LIEUTENANT R. BAGLEY, AIR FORCE, LYNCHBURG, VA * 1ST LIEUTENANT WALTER CROCKETT, AIR FORCE, LAWRENCE, KS * 1ST LIEUTENANT WILLIAM HALL, AIR FORCE, SANTA CLARA, CA * 1ST LIEUTENANT ART HANSON, AIRFORCE, LANSING, MI * 1ST LIEUTENANT PHIL HEARNE, AIR FORCE, HARRISONBURG, VA * 1ST LIEUTENANT SALLY KELLER, AIR FORCE, CINCINNATI, OH * 1ST LIEUTENANT DIRK NELSON, AIR FORCE, ESTER , AK * 1ST LIEUTENANT FRED SCHOLL, AIR FORCE, LEMON GROVE, CA * 1ST LIEUTENANT MARK TORREY, AIRFORCE, WHEELOCK, VT * 1ST LIEUTENANT JOAN VERRET, AIR FORCE, LAKELAND, FL * 1ST LIEUTENANTROBERTA WHITNEY, AIR FORCE, ANDOVER, MA * 1ST LIEUTENANT LILY ADAMS, ARMY, SANTA ROSA, CA* 1ST LIEUTENANT KEITH ADAMS, ARMY, CHICAGO, IL * 1ST LIEUTENANT PAUL APPELL, ARMY, ALTONA, IL * 1ST LIEUTENANT THOMAS BALDRIDGE, ARMY, IOWA CITY, IA * 1ST LIEUTENANT JOE BOOKMAN, ARMY, SCARSDALE, NY * 1ST LIEUTENANT THOMAS BYRNE, ARMY, SHARON, MA * 1ST LIEUTENANT MARY CHEERS, ARMY, BEAVERCREEK, OH * 1ST LIEUTENANT JASON COPPOLA, ARMY, NEW YORK, NY *1ST LIEUTENANT NORMA CROSS, ARMY, SANTA FE, NM * 1ST LIEUTENANT KATHLEEN CROWE, ARMY, IN,IN * 1ST LIEUTENANT LINDA DANN, ARMY, PHILADELPHIA, PA * 1ST LIEUTENANT GARY ESCHMAN, ARMY, SANTA FE, NM * 1ST LIEUTENANT ELAINE FISCHER, ARMY, HOUSTON, TX * 1ST LIEUTENANTJEANNE FOBES, ARMY, NEWPORT BEACH, CA * 1ST LIEUTENANT DAVID HARTEN, ARMY, AVENEL, NJ * 1STLIEUTENANT ART- HEITZER, ARMY, MILWAUKEE, WI * 1ST LIEUTENANT JOHN HESS, ARMY, ROSLINDALE, MA * 1ST LIEUTENANT JOHN HUTTO, ARMY, TULSA, OK * 1ST LIEUTENANT CAROLYN JEFFERSON, ARMY, SHEPHERDSTOWN, WV * 1ST LIEUTENANT DAWN JONES, ARMY, WELLMAN, IA * 1ST LIEUTENANT SYLVIA KING, ARMY, BELMONT, CA * 1ST LIEUTENANT ANDY LYNN, ARMY, DOUGLASVILLE, GA * 1ST LIEUTENANT JENIFER MARKOE, ARMY, WELLINGTON, FL * 1ST LIEUTENANT GREGORY MILBOURNE, ARMY, SWARTHMORE, PA * 1ST LIEUTENANT KRISTEN MUENCH, ARMY, TUCSON, AZ * 1ST LIEUTENANTVALERIE NEMETH, ARMY, ENCINITAS, CA * 1ST LIEUTENANT JESUS NIETO, ARMY, SAN DIEGO, CA * 1ST LIEUTENANT DANA NIGRO, ARMY, KANSAS CITY, MO * 1ST LIEUTENANT ROBERT PATTERSON, ARMY,HOUGHTON LAKE, MI * 1ST LIEUTENANT ANNETTE PRITCHARD, ARMY, OREGON CITY, OR * 1ST LIEUTENANT MAX PYZIUR, ARMY, NEW YORK, NY * 1ST LIEUTENANT R. REAGAN, ARMY, FORT WAYNE, IN * 1ST LIEUTENANT PHYLLIS L. REED, ARMY, NORTHPORT, NY * 1ST LIEUTENANT VICTOR ROBERGE, ARMY,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHITE SALMON, WA * 1ST LIEUTENANT FRANCIS SCALZI, ARMY, SCOTTSDALE, AZ * 1ST LIEUTENANTMILDRED SEEWALD, ARMY, SILVER CITY, NM * 1ST LIEUTENANT ROGER SIMON, ARMY, PORTLAND, OR * 1ST LIEUTENANT R K SINK, ARMY, ST PETERSBURG, FL * 1ST LIEUTENANT JEFF SPAKOWSKI, ARMY, FERNDALE, MI * 1ST LIEUTENANT LAWRENCE STEINMETZ, ARMY, MIAMI, FL * 1ST LIEUTENANT VEDA STRAM, ARMY, PUYALLUP, WA * 1ST LIEUTENANT GRACE TAKELAL, ARMY, PITTSBURGH, PA * 1STLIEUTENANT GREGORY J. VINKLER, ARMY, CHICAGO, IL * 1ST LIEUTENANT LYNN WESLEY, ARMY, ASPINWA;LL, PA * 1ST LIEUTENANT WILLIAM WHITBY, ARMY, COTTONWOOD, AZ * 1ST LIEUTENANTJOHN F. WOOTTON, ARMY, ITHACA, NY * 1ST LIEUTENANT TOM BROWN, MARINE CORPS, OAKLAND, CA *1ST LIEUTENANT B WAGNER, NAVY, NA * 1ST LIEUTENANT MIKE MCDONELL, USMC, HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC * 2ND LIEUTENANT DONALD MCLELLAN, ARMY, SUN, LA * 2ND LIEUTENANT DENNISMORRISSEAU , ARMY, W PAWLET, VT * 2ND LIEUTENANT ELLIOT MARKSON, USMC, BROOKLYN, NY * LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE DEWITT BAKER, NAVY, NEW YORK, NY * LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADEQUENTIN DEMING, MD, NAVY, HANOVER, NH * LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE TERRY EBERSOLE, NAVY, ANACORTES, WA * LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE RICHARD HICKEY, NAVY, AURORA, CO * LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE STUART HYDE, PH.D., NAVY, CORTE MADERA, CA * LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE RICHARD KIRCHHOFF, NAVY, SEATTLE, WA * LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE RICHARD MUNGER, NAVY, NEW CANAAN, CT * LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE ERNIE ROSENBERG, NAVY, OAKLAND, CA * COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR RICK DUIKER, ARMY, AUSTIN, TX * AIRMAN HAROLD DAWSON, AIR FORCE, DETROIT, MI * AIRMAN SANDRA WINTER, AIR FORCE, MARBLEHEAD, MA * AIRMAN RICHARD WOJTOWICZ, AIR FORCE, BOZEMAN,MT * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS BOB BEARDEN, AIR FORCE, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS GARY CHILDERS, AIR FORCE, ASHEVILLE, NC * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS JOHN PAUL COAKLEY, AIR FORCE, VALLEY VILLAGE, CA * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS KURT CONOVER, AIR FORCE, DORAVILLE, GA * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS DAVID IBBOTSON, AIR FORCE, PORTLAND, OR * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS MORRIS JEFFRIES, AIR FORCE, COCOA, FL * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS RICHARD KIDD, AIR FORCE, PASADENA, CA * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS KENNETH LAKE, AIR FORCE, SANTA ROSA, CA * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS STEWART LONE, AIR FORCE, HAVERTOWN, PA * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS ROSA MILLER, AIR FORCE, GOOSE CREEK, SC * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS ARMAND R. PORTER, AIR FORCE, TEMPLE CITY, CA * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS SANDRA SANDERS, AIR FORCE, BREMERTON, WA * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS TIM SMITH, AIR FORCE, YPSILANTI, MI * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS MELVIN STRAND, AIR FORCE, WASECA, MN * AIRMAN FIRST CLASS ROSS WALTERS, AIR FORCE, AVON, IN * AOM 2ND CLASS MATT DAVISON, AIR FORCE, SAN PEDRO, CA * AOM 2ND CLASS JON AND KATHLEEN MARSH, AIR FORCE, TOWNSEND, WI * CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT MIKE LYNCH, AIR FORCE, PENSACOLA, FL * CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT CHARLES JONES, AIR NATIONAL GUARD, EDGEWOOD, NM * CHIEF PETTY OFFICER DURWARD JONES, NAVY, RESERVE, NM * CHIEF PETTY OFFICER WILLIAMLANSVILLE, NAVY, BARSTOW, CA * CHIEF PETTY OFFICER GERRY MANNING, NAVY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM *CHIEF PETTY OFFICER TIMOTHY MURPHY, NAVY, SEBRING, FL * CHIEF PETTY OFFICER BOB SCHULER,NAVY, HIGH FALLS, NY * CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JOHN WERNSDORFER, NAVY, WEST NEWFIELD, ME * CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER DAVID WILSON, AIR FORCE, LOUISVILLE, KY * CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER HOLLIS STANFORD, ARMY, SPRINGFIELD, MO * CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER SCOTT WENDT, ARMY, LINCOLN , NE * CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER CHUCK FISHER, NAVY, SALEM, OR * CORPORAL MICHAEL CZARNECKI, ARMY, MÖLNDAL, VG * CORPORAL JIM FALLON, ARMY, HOBOKEN, NJ * CORPORAL ERNEST GOITEIN, ARMY, ATHERTON, CA * CORPORAL FRED HERRADA, ARMY, HENDERSONVILLE, NC * CORPORAL FREDERIC HICKS, ARMY, LOUISVILLE, KY * CORPORAL ROBERT KINSEY, ARMY, CASTLE ROCK, CO * CORPORAL ZISKIND LIEB, ARMY, PIPERSVILLE, PA * CORPORAL KEVIN LYNCH, ARMY, DENTON, TX * CORPORAL R. BRUCE MCCORMICK, ARMY, LOS ANGELES, CA * CORPORAL DAN MEURIN, ARMY, EAST BRIDGEWATER,MA * CORPORAL JACKIE ONEIL, ARMY, EUGENE, OR * CORPORAL GARY PIERSON, ARMY, FAYETTEVILLE, AR * CORPORAL MANFORD SAMUELSEN, ARMY, MODESTO, CA * CORPORAL JOHN S. SPIER, ARMY,BERKELEY,, CA * CORPORAL ROBERT WESSEL, ARMY, EVANSVILLE, IN * CORPORAL WILL HOLDER, MARINE CORPS, BALDWIN, FL * CORPORAL SHERIDAN (PETE) PETERSON, MARINE CORPS, WINDSOR, CA * CORPORAL DONALD SIMPSON, MARINE CORPS, BRONX, NY * CORPORAL NORMAN WILLIAMS, MARINE CORPS, BELLA VISTA, AR * CORPORAL BILL WOUDENBERG, MARINE CORPS, WEEHAWKEN, NJ * CORPORAL ANTHONY BARNHART, USMC, LANSING, MI * CORPORAL KIM HILLSTROM, USMC, WICKLIFFE, OH *CORPORAL JAMES HUNT, USMC, CHULA VISTA, CA * CORPORAL CHARLES JEWELL, USMC, AUBURN, WA * CORPORAL JOHN NETTLETON, USMC, PORTLAND, OR * CORPORAL JOHN SULLIVAN, USMC, WOODACRE, CA * CORPORAL VINNIE VAN WYEN, USMC, TUCSON, AZ * E3 TOM DE MARTI, AIR FORCE, PLACENTIA, CA *E4 LESLIE MCKENNON, NAVY, COLUMBIA, MO * E-5 JAMES BLACKFORD, ARMY, ROYAL OAK, MI * ENGINEMAN E-5 LAWRENCE SOBCZYK, NAVY, WESTMINSTER, SC * ENSIGN JAY ALBRECHT, NAVY,TARRYTOWN, NY * ENSIGN TERESA CANODE, NAVY, CAMBRIA, CA * ENSIGN ALBERT VALENCIA, NAVY,HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA * FIRST SERGEANT DAVID BERKSHIRE, AIR FORCE, HOUSTON, TX * FIRST SERGEANT SUSIE KINZIE, GAYS MILLS, WI * GUNNERY SERGEANT DAVID GEYER, USMC, APO AE, NY *LANCE CORPORAL LOUIS GORETTI, MARINE CORPS, ALLENTOWN, PA * LANCE CORPORAL RICHARD SANDERS, NAVY, PORTLAND, OR * LANCE CORPORAL ROBERT FLYNN, USMC, SAN ANTONIO, TX * MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER LARRY BUCHER, NAVY, SPEARFISH, SD * MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER VALERIE JOHNSTON, NAVY, SAN DIEGO, CA * MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER E. VICTOR MERESKI, USN RET E9, NAVY, SAVANNAH,, GA * MASTER SERGEANT JUDI ARONOWITZ, AIR FORCE, NYC, NY * MASTER SERGEANT WYATT GORDON, AIR FORCE, CANTON, GA * MASTER SERGEANT WALTER GRAUE, AIR FORCE, LYNN HAVEN, FL * MASTER SERGEANT CHARLES LEATHERMAN, AIR FORCE, THOMSON, GA * MASTER SERGEANT WILLIAM NICHOLS, AIR FORCE, AMARILLO, TX * MASTER SERGEANT DR. CARL SELNES, AIR FORCE, WALLA WALLA, WA * MASTER SERGEANT ROBERT LLOYD, ARMY, HOUSTON, TX * MASTER SERGEANT WALLACE STEPHENS, ARMY, STEGER, IL * MASTER SERGEANT JAMES NORTH, MARINE CORPS, HARRISON TOWNSHIP, MI * MASTER SERGEANT JOHN NISSEN, USMC, PENSACOLA, FL * MIDSHIPMANDRYW LLOYD, NAVY, NEWPORT, RI * PETTY OFFICER JERZY BROZYNA, NAVY, SAN JOSE, CA * PETTYOFFICER JOHN DAINOTTO, NAVY, CHARLOTTE, NC * PETTY OFFICER RON GERUGHTY, NAVY, COTTONDALE, FL * PETTY OFFICER ROGER PHILLIPS, NAVY, NA * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS STEPHEN BENNIS, COAST GUARD, MARIETTA , GA * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS KEN ANDERL, NAVY, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS JOHN BAILEY, NAVY, CAPE MAY, NJ * PETTY OFFICER FIRSTCLASS SUSIE BOLDEN, NAVY, AUSTELL, GA * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS WALTER BRUUN, NAVY, GLENELLYN, IL * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS TOM COLLINS, NAVY, SARASOTA, FL * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS DANIEL DUFFY, NAVY, DELAVAN, WI * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS RICHARD GACH, NAVY,BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS JOSEPH GOLDEN, NAVY, CHEYENNE, WY * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS DOMINIC HIX, NAVY, ALAMEDA, CA * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS FRANK HOBIN,NAVY, WINNSBORO, TX * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS GINA NYE, NAVY, NORWICH, CT * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS MARSHA PAULEY, NAVY, MEMPHIS, TN * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS W. ARTHUR RAAB, NAVY, LODI, CA * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS CARLOS SCHOMAKER, NAVY, FORT MYERS, FL * PETTY OFFICER FIRST CLASS CYNTHIA SCOTT, NAVY, MAYFIELD HTS, OH * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS RON BINDER, COAST GUARD, BEVERLY HILLS, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS CHARLES SHELTON, COAST GUARD, GROTTOES, VA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS FRANCIS AKAMINE, NAVY, HILO, HI * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS ERIC K ALBRECHT, NAVY, SAN ANTONIO, NM * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASSJAMES BALDRIDGE, NAVY, BALTIMORE, MD * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS L J BENOIT, NAVY, LOS ANGELES, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS ALAN BERGESON, NAVY, SACRAMENTO, CA * PETTYOFFICER SECOND CLASS RAYMOND T. BISSONNETTE, NAVY, MAHTOMEDI, MN * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS DONALD BLICKENS, NAVY, SAGAMORE BEACH, MA * SPECIALIST CHARLES SHEEHAN-MILES, ,ARMY, RESTON, VA * STAFF SERGEANT NORMAN BALABANIAN, ARMY, GAINESVILLE, FL * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS CARL BRICKMAN, NAVY, MUNCIE, IN * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS DENNIS CIMINO, NAVY, CALEDONIA, MI * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS WILLARD COTTRELL, NAVY, BURNSVILLE, NC * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS KENNETH DALTON, NAVY, CLIFTON, NJ * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASSRICHARD DAWSON, NAVY, TORRANCE, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS DOT DEDMAN, NAVY, ST SIMONS ISLAND, GA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS TODD DENNIS, NAVY, ELEVA, WI * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS WILLIAM DICKINSON, NAVY, MARSHFIELD, WI * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS MICHAEL DRISCOLL, NAVY, ASHTABULA, OH * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS DAVID EPPELSHEIMER, SR., NAVY, WAUWATOSA, WI * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS DOUGLAS ESTES, NAVY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * PETTYOFFICER SECOND CLASS JAMES EVANS, NAVY, CLEARLAKE OAKS, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS ALLEN EXELBY, NAVY, NEWARK, DE * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS WILLARD GOODMAN , NAVY,BETHESDA, MD * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS GARY GRICE, NAVY, DES PLAINES, IL * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS JAMES HARSHMAN, NAVY, ALBAUQUERQUE, NM * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS ROBERT HILL, NAVY, WAUPACA, WI * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS BRUCE JENKINS, NAVY,SUNNYVALE, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS DAVID JONES, NAVY, KANSAS CITY, MO * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS CHARLES R. KIMPSTON, NAVY, WOODWARD , IA * PETTY OFFICER SECONDCLASS DEAN KOUTAVAS, NAVY, FARIBAULT, MN * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS TOM KUMPF, NAVY,BOULDER, CO * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS WILL LEGGETT, NAVY, SUDBURY, MA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS KEVIN LENAGHAN, NAVY, DURHAM, NC * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS MICHAEL LEVIN, NAVY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS DARRELL MILLER, NAVY, PITTSBURGH, PA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS EDWIN MILLER, NAVY, TORRANCE, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS BARBARA MOERLER, NAVY, BREMERTON, WA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS JIM MORIN, NAVY, SALEM, OR * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS MICHAEL MURPHY, NAVY, MIDWESTCITY, OK * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS RICHARD PITTO, NAVY, ALAMEDA, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS ERIC ROACH, NAVY, LEAD, SD * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS STEWART ROSENKRANTZ, NAVY, POMPANO BEACH, FL * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS SCOTT SATTERWHITE, NAVY, PENSACOLA,FL * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS PHILIP SCOTT, NAVY, RAINIER, OR * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASSJOHN SIMENC, NAVY, CAVE CREEK, AZ * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS CHARLES SOMMER, NAVY,WARRENSBURG, NY * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS TRACEY SPERKO, NAVY, WAUWATOSA, WI * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS CORT TOLAND, NAVY, KENT, WA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS ROBERT TOPMILLER, NAVY, LEXINGTON, KY * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS MELVIN TURCANIK, NAVY, DODGE CENTER, MN * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS JOSEPH WALSH, NAVY, PORTLAND, OR * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS VICKIE WILSON,LCSW, NAVY, COLTON, CA * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS RICHARD YOUNG, NAVY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM * PETTY OFFICER SECOND CLASS ROBERT ZANNELLI, NAVY, OCALA , FL * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS BOB HEBERLE, COAST GUARD, ST. ANTHONY, MN * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS GARY SISCO, COAST GUARD, JEFFERSONVILLE, VT * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS RONBRADRICK, NAVY, OMAHA, NE * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS JULIE BRYANT, NAVY, IOWA CITY, IA * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS WILLIAM BURKE, NAVY, FLAGSTAFF, AZ * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASSSHAWN CASSIDY, NAVY, ASHLEY FALLS, MA * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS JOHN DAVISO, NAVY,MORTON, WA * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS ARTHUR H DORLAND, NAVY, EAST CLEVELAND, OH * PETTYOFFICER THIRD CLASS JASON GALBRAITH, NAVY, TULSA, OK * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS HM3 JERRY GASPARD, NAVY, SWEET HOME, OR * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS G. GIBSON, NAVY, HOUSTON, TX *PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS RICHARD GORUD, NAVY, MINONG, WI * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASSALLAN HASELTINE, NAVY, PUTNAM, CT * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS DAVID KEELER, NAVY, GILBERT, AZ * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS JACK KELLER, NAVY, LOGAN, UT * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS RON KUHLER, NAVY, LUTZ, FL * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS LORI LARSON, NAVY, CENTRAL POINT, OR * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS GUY NASUTI, NAVY, MARTINSBURG, WV * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASSWILLIAM NEWMAN, NAVY, PAHOA, HI * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS STEPHEN M. & ADRIENNE OSBORN, NAVY, CAMANO ISLAND, WA * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS BILL ROBINSON, NAVY, LARGO, FL * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS WOLFGANG ROSENBERG, NAVY, SANTA CRUZ, CA * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASSSYLVIA ROSS, NAVY, HAYDEN, AL * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS LEO SANDY, NAVY, NEW HAMPTON, NH* PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS LLOYD SCOTT, NAVY, RENO, NV * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS JOSEPH STAPLES, NAVY, STOW, MA * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS GARY WALTON, NAVY, SAN PEDRO, CA *PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS CHARLES WILLIAMS, NAVY, SAN DIEGO, CA * PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASSPAUL WILSON, NAVY, MACOMB, IL * PH3 BARBARA GREENE, NAVY, BOSTON, MA * PRIVATE RICH BLACK,ARMY, COBDEN, IL * PRIVATE HAROLD CALVIN, ARMY, LONG BRANCH, NJ * PRIVATE THOMAS V,CONNOR, ARMY, WALLKILL, NY * PRIVATE CATHERINE LELLI, ARMY, TUCSON, AZ * PRIVATE FERRIER MARTIN, ARMY, WARWICK, NY * PRIVATE DEANNA STILLINGS, ARMY, CARLISLE, MA * PRIVATE JOHNJOHNSTON, ARMY RESERVE, NEW YORK, NY * PRIVATE FRED COLLIER, MARINE CORPS, EUGENE, OR * PRIVATE GARY VAN ESS, NAVY, GREEN BAY, WI * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ANTHONY SHARAYKO, AIR FORCE, HARLEYSVILLE, PA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS VERNON BATTY, ARMY, LA LUZ, NM * PRIVATE FIRSTCLASS EDWARD BEECHERT, ARMY, VANCOUVER, WA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS MONTY BERMAN, ARMY,ITHACA, NY * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS VIC BURTON, ARMY, KANSAS CITY, MO * PRIVATE FIRST CLASSEDWARD CHAMBERLAIN, ARMY, COLUMBUS, OH * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS CHAD COLLINGWOOD, ARMY,REDONDO BEACH, CA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS PATRICK D'ANNUNZIO, ARMY, JUPITER, FL * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS FRANK ELKINS, ARMY, SALT LAKE CITY, UT * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ROBERT GODWIN, ARMY,OLYMPIA, WA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS PATRICIA ANN HARING, ARMY, NEW YORK, NY * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ROGER & SYLVIA HAYES, ARMY, GRAND JUNCTION, MI * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS LLOYD J. HEBERT,JR., ARMY, ALBANY, NY * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS DONALD KELLER, ARMY, TOLEDO, OH * PRIVATE FIRSTCLASS JOHN LONG, ARMY, CHICAGO, IL * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ROBERT S. LYNCH, ARMY, MAHOPAC,NY * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS WILLIAM MARTIN, ARMY, TUCSON, AZ * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS MONTE MCKENZIE, ARMY, TALCOTT, WV * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS SHERRY MOON, ARMY, AFTON, VA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ALAN MOORE, ARMY, BERKLEY, MI * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS TERENCE MURPHY, ARMY, LOSANGELES, CA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS EUGENE POWELL, ARMY, VALLEY COTTAGE, NY * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS WALTER REECE, ARMY, MONTEREY, CA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS GORDON STURROCK, ARMY, EUGENE, OR * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ALAN THAYER, ARMY, COMMERCE TWP., MI * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BOB UNDERWOOD, ARMY, GREEN LANE, PA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS NICK VELVET, ARMY, LA MESA, CA * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS EUGENE WILHELMI, ARMY, FLORENCE, OR * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS THOMASWOUDENBERG, ARMY, NIANTIC, CT * PRIVATE FIRST CLASS L. BAGLEY, MARINE CORPS, LYNCHBURG, VA* PRIVATE FIRST CLASS DONALD MCINTOSH, USMC, DOWNIEVILLE, CA * S1C ROBERT HOLLOWAY, NAVY, EAST ALSTEAD, NH * SEAMAN GEORGE VERONIS, NAVAL RESERVE, NEW HAVEN, CT * SEAMAN MICHAEL E. BADGETT, NAVY, MOUNT AIRY, NC * SEAMAN JOHN BALSON, NAVY, BRYN MAWR, PA * SEAMAN LARRY CARTER CENTER, NAVY, MT VERNON, IA * SEAMAN ED CASSIDY, NAVY, ARROYO GRANDE, CA * SEAMANDAVID CROWNE, NAVY, SAN DIEGO, CA * SEAMAN ROY DE HART, NAVY, PASCO, WA * SEAMAN EDELLIOTT, NAVY, BEN LOMOND, CA * SEAMAN JAMES FRYE, NAVY, SALEM, OR * SEAMAN ROBERT GEDDES, NAVY, SUGAR GROVE, IL * SEAMAN ROGER GETTLER, NAVY, DENVER, CO * SEAMAN KATHRYN GREENE,NAVY, GREENBRAE, CA * SEAMAN GORDON HAIRE, NAVY, DESOTO, TX * SEAMAN RICHARD HEACOCK , NAVY, FAIRBANKS, AK * SEAMAN ADENE KATZENMEYER, NAVY, WEED,, CA * SEAMAN EUGENE LABOVITZ, NAVY, SAN DIEGO, CA * SEAMAN DENNIS LEDDEN, NAVY, RANCHO MURIETA, CA * SEAMANJONATHAN MORSE, NAVY, OAKHARBOR, WA * SEAMAN HENRY MULLER, NAVY, METAIRIE, LA * SEAMANARTHUR PIERSON, PH.D, NAVY, POUGHKEEPSIE, NY * SEAMAN WILLIAM SAENZ, NAVY, BROWNSTOWN, MI* SEAMAN ROBERT SMITH, NAVY, CARY, IL * SEAMAN NOWELL SMITH, NAVY, YORK, * SEAMAN RICHARDAND CHRISTINE TRENHOLM, NAVY, GREENFIELD, MA * SEAMAN BART TRICKEL, NAVY, OAKLAND, CA * SEAMAN BILL & MARILYN VOORHIES, NAVY, WEST TREMONT, ME * SEAMAN HAROLD HORN,FULLERTON, CA * SEAMAN RECRUIT WILLIAM HOLCOMB, NAVY, TRYON, NC * SENIOR AIRMAN LISA BAIL,AIR FORCE, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA * SENIOR AIRMAN CHARLES DANIELS, AIR FORCE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM * SENIOR AIRMAN STEVE HAMM, AIR FORCE, NORDLAND, WA * SENIOR AIRMAN JOHN HANSEN, AIR FORCE, BATON ROUGE, LA * SENIOR AIRMAN ROD KINNY, AIR FORCE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN * SENIOR AIRMANDEBORAH LAWSON, AIR FORCE, BLOOMINGTON, IN * SENIOR AIRMAN MARK LAYTHORPE, AIR FORCE, VISTA, CA * SENIOR AIRMAN MARK LUSHER, AIR FORCE, ATLANTA, GA * SENIOR AIRMAN JOHN PRYOR,AIR FORCE, GRAND BLANC, MI * SENIOR AIRMAN JENNIFER KNIGHT, SHERMAN, TX * SENIOR MASTER SERGEANT FRED MACARTHUR, AIR FORCE, FL * SERGEANT CARL ABRAHAMSON, AIR FORCE, ROCKRAPIDS, IA * SERGEANT HARVEY ALLEN, AIR FORCE, TAMPA, FL * SERGEANT JOSEPH FRANCO, AIR FORCE,UNIONDALE, NY * SERGEANT ORVILLE GILMORE, AIR FORCE, COTTONWOOD, AZ * SERGEANT DALEHOWEY, AIR FORCE, ROSEVILLE, MN * SERGEANT THOMAS KEATING, AIR FORCE, BLYTHEVILLE, AR * SERGEANT THOMAS KELLER, AIR FORCE, CINCINNATI, OH * SERGEANT TIMOTHY LORD, AIR FORCE, LOS ALAMOS, NM * SERGEANT DOUGLAS SMITH, AIR FORCE, HOOSICK FALLS, NY * SERGEANT RICK VENTURI,AIR FORCE, EUGENE, OR * SERGEANT TOM VOIGTS, AIR FORCE, ALLEGAN, MI * SERGEANT PAUL WOLF,AIR FORCE, NEW YORK, NY * SERGEANT MICHAEL BOWEN, AIR FORCE RESERVE, PENSACOLA, FL *SERGEANT RICHARD ASK, ARMY, TRAVERSE CITY, MI * SERGEANT KENNETH BARR, ARMY, NEW YORK,NY * SERGEANT JACK BARRETT, ARMY, BUSHKILL, PA * SERGEANT RAY BROWN, ARMY, AUSTIN, TX * SERGEANT THOMAS CECIL, ARMY, NEW YORK, NV * SERGEANT HENRY CLARENCE, ARMY, BERKELEY, CA * SERGEANT DEBRA CLARK, ARMY, MARIETTA, GA * SERGEANT RALPH CONROY, ARMY, WEST CHAZY, NY* SERGEANT DAVID L COOKE, ARMY, ALTON, IL * SERGEANT JERRY DIBELLO, ARMY, OKLAHOMA CITY,OK * SERGEANT RICHARD EGENRIETHER, ARMY, ST. LOUIS, MO * SERGEANT E WALLACE ESLER, ARMY, REDWOOD CITY, CA * SERGEANT CRAIG ETCHISON, ARMY, FORT ASHBY, WV * SERGEANT LARRY FALL, ARMY, LAFAYETTE, LA * SERGEANT RICHARD AND VIRGINIA FENWICK, ARMY, HYDE PARK, NY * SERGEANT JAMES FULLER, ARMY, MINNEAPOLIS, MN * SERGEANT RICHARD HAMLEN, ARMY, JAFFREY, NH * SERGEANT E. KEITH HEGE, ARMY, TUCSON, AZ * SERGEANT RICHARD HILLIER, ARMY, ROCKVILLE, MD * SERGEANT MARK IVEY, ARMY, LAS VEGAS, NV * SERGEANT RUSSELL JACOBSON, ARMY, GRANITE FALLS, WA * SERGEANT GERALD KENNEDY, ARMY, HOLLYWOOD, FL * SERGEANT SKIP LA POLICE, ARMY, TAMAQUA, PA * SERGEANT PETER LAWSON, ARMY, WHITE BEAR TWP., MN * SERGEANT JOHNLINDERMUTH, ARMY, COAL TOWNSHIP, PA * SERGEANT JOSEPH LITE, ARMY, YELLOW SPRINGS, OH * SERGEANT THEODORE LUNDGREN, ARMY, CAPE CORAL, FL * SERGEANT REBECCA MCALARY, ARMY, CLOVIS, CA * SERGEANT KATHERINE MENGES, ARMY, KANSAS CITY, MO * SERGEANT DUANE RICHTSMEIER, ARMY, ACKLEY, IA * SERGEANT JAMES RIVERS, ARMY, ONEONTA, AL * SERGEANT SEANROSAS, ARMY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * SERGEANT QUENTIN SEARLES, ARMY, NACHES, WA * SERGEANTJOHN SEEBETH, ARMY, ISSAQAUH, WA * SERGEANT ALICE SNIPES, ARMY, POMPANO BEACH, FL * SERGEANT JAMES SPAULDING, ARMY, GREENFIELD, MA * SERGEANT JACK STANSFIELD, ARMY, STANWOOD, WA * SERGEANT DEBRA STECKEL, ARMY, VASHON, WA * SERGEANT PETER THIBEAU, ARMY,BANGOR, ME * SERGEANT RAY TROZZO, ARMY, FT. MYERS BEACH, FL * SERGEANT EDWARD TUBBS, ARMY, PALMETTO, FL * SERGEANT JULIUS YOUNGNER, ARMY, PITTSBURGH, PA * SERGEANT CARL YOUNGP@HARTWICK.EDU, ARMY, ONEONTA, NY * SERGEANT JOSEPH MULTHAUF, MARINE CORPS,GREENFIELD, WI * SERGEANT JAMES WILHELM, MARINE CORPS, SPARKS, NV * SERGEANT GERALD AND LOUISE ROSE BLUME, USMC, CLERMONT, GA * SERGEANT PAUL COX, USMC, BERKELEY, CA * SERGEANT JAMES LANDRITH, USMC, ALEXANDRIA, VA * SERGEANT ROBERT TAYLOR, USMC, BIRMINGHAM, AL * SERGEANT FRANK CHISHOLM, EAST LYME, CT * SERGEANT FIRST CLASS JEANNE FITZGERALD, ARMY, HOUSTON, TX * SERGEANT FIRST CLASS AJ LENOX, ARMY, SAINT LOUIS, MO * SERGEANT FIRST CLASSROBERT LOOMIS, ARMY, WESTPORT, CT * SERGEANT FIRST CLASS KEVIN LYNCH, ARMY, HONOLULU, HI *SERGEANT FIRST CLASS WILLIAM NORSWORTHY, ARMY, STOCKTON, GA * SERGEANT FIRST CLASSWENDELL PERKS JR., ARMY, WICHITA, KS * SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ERIC REINHARDT, ARMY, BROOKLYN, NY * SERGEANT FIRST CLASS DEBORAH SCHARF, ARMY, TEMPLE, TX * SERGEANT FIRST CLASS KELVIN SMITH, ARMY, SANTA FE, NM * SERGEANT FIRST CLASS JAMES STROUD, JR., ARMY, GREENFIELD, IN * SPECIALIST ROBERT HARDY, AIR FORCE, HUNTINGTON WOODS, MI * SPECIALIST ANTHONY AIELLO, ARMY, BROOKLYN, NY * SPECIALIST KEN ASHE, ARMY, MARSHALL, NC * SPECIALIST DONNA BARR, ARMY, CLALLAM BAY, WA * SPECIALIST THOMAS BAXTER, ARMY, TALLAHASSEE, FL * SPECIALIST ERIC BENNETT, ARMY, TACOMA, WA * SPECIALIST RANDALL BLOODWORTH, ARMY, JACKSONVILLE, FL * SPECIALIST CONSTANCE BROWN, ARMY, VESTAL, NY * SPECIALIST ANTHONY BUDAK, ARMY, HUBBARD, OH * SPECIALIST KENNETH BURTON, ARMY, GUYMON, OK * SPECIALIST RONALD BUSH, ARMY, COMSTOCK PARK, MI * SPECIALIST JAMES BUSH, ARMY, PORTLAND, OR * SPECIALIST LILLIAN CASTNER,ARMY, WINCHESTER, MA * SPECIALIST TOM CUMMINS, ARMY, SAN ANTONIO, TX * SPECIALIST RALPH DANIELS, ARMY, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * SPECIALIST KENNETH DAWE, ARMY, MONROE, OR * SPECIALISTBRENT DEASON, ARMY, HUNTSVILLE, AL * SPECIALIST BRUCE DOVNER, ARMY, LONG BEACH, CA * SPECIALIST VALLIN ESTES, ARMY, OAK ISLAND, NC * SPECIALIST TOM FARLEY, ARMY, MANSFIELD, OH * SPECIALIST PHILLIP FAUCHER, ARMY, PELKIE, MI * SPECIALIST JAMES H. FITCH, ARMY, PITTSBURGH, PA * SPECIALIST KATHY FOWLER, ARMY, MANASSAS, VA * SPECIALIST GERALD GANANN, ARMY,MINNEAPOLIS, MN * SPECIALIST TOM GASQUE, ARMY, ENGLEWOOD, NJ * SPECIALIST RANDALL GREEN, ARMY, GRAND HAVEN, MI * SPECIALIST EDDIE GRIFFITHS, ARMY, SEATTLE, WA * SPECIALIST R HARROW, ARMY, BELLINGHAM, WA * SPECIALIST JENNIFER HERNE, ARMY, TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, NM * SPECIALIST PATRICK JORDAN, ARMY, JERSEY CITY, NJ * SPECIALIST NICK KIGER, ARMY, FORT WORTH, TX* SPECIALIST DWAYNE KNOX, ARMY, DEER, AR * SPECIALIST GORDON KOBAYASHI, ARMY, VALLEYSPRINGS, CA * SPECIALIST ARTHUR LISCIANDRO, ARMY, BASKING RIDGE, NJ * SPECIALIST THOMASMAGERS, ARMY, TIFFIN, OH * SPECIALIST RALPH MANON, ARMY, HAGERSTOWN, MD * SPECIALIST BYRON METCALF, PH.D., ARMY, PRESCOTT, AZ * SPECIALIST STEVE MOOSE, ARMY, RUTHERFORD COLLEGE, NC * SPECIALIST JOHN MUNRO, ARMY, AUSTIN, TX * SPECIALIST JAMES MURPHY, ARMY, MILLERTON, NY * SPECIALIST GARY NOVOSIELSKI, ARMY, RUTHERFORD, NJ * SPECIALIST THOMAS T. PANTO, ARMY,GAFFNEY, SC * SPECIALIST JAMES PARKS,, ARMY, THE WOODLANDS, TX * SPECIALIST LINDA PULLEN, ARMY, FAYETTEVILLE, AR * SPECIALIST STUART RILEY, ARMY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM * SPECIALIST MELISSA SALAS, ARMY, YUBA CITY, CA * SPECIALIST JAMES SCHMIDT, ARMY, EUGENE, OR * SPECIALISTCHARLES SHEEHAN-MILES, ARMY, RESTON, VA * SPECIALIST KEN SHOCKEY, ARMY, DALY CITY, CA * SPECIALIST DOUGLAS SMYTH, ARMY, STAATSBUG, NY * SPECIALIST HUBERT STEED, ARMY, NEW YORK, NY * SPECIALIST RUSTY STORBECK, ARMY, SANTA FE, NM * SPECIALIST ROBERT STREBECK, ARMY, EULESS, TX * SPECIALIST FLOYD STRIEGEL, ARMY, OJAI, CA * SPECIALIST RICHARD STUART, ARMY, BOE, WA * SPECIALIST GREG SUTHERLAND, ARMY, DEARING, GA * SPECIALIST TOBY TAHJA-SYRETT, ARMY,SHELTON, WA * SPECIALIST EDWARD TILLITSON, ARMY, TRAVERSE CITY, MI * SPECIALIST BERNARD TILSON, ARMY, NEWTON, NJ * SPECIALIST PATRICK TOLLE, ARMY, EDGAR, NE * SPECIALIST WILLIAMTUCKER, ARMY, TUCSON, AZ * SPECIALIST WILLIAM VENABLE, ARMY, RURAL HALL, NC * SPECIALIST ROBERT WALLACE, ARMY, MINNEAPOLIS, MN * SPECIALIST BRUCE WEBBER, ARMY, FORT MYERS, FL * SPECIALIST JAMES WELMS, ARMY, PARKVILLE, MD * SPECIALIST WALLACE WHITE, ARMY, NEW YORK, NY * SPECIALIST RICHARD WILKINSON, ARMY, PONDER, TX * SPECIALIST MIKE WOODS, ARMY, SHELBYVILLE,KY * SPECIALIST GREG WOZ, ARMY, OLEAN, NY * SPECIALIST JAMES JOHNSON, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, MANSFIELD, MA * SPECIALIST ROBERT MANKE, ARMY RESERVE, LOU., KY * SPECIALIST WARREN FIELDHOUSE, MARINE CORPS, SAN JACINTO, CA * SPECIALIST EDWARD DALTON, ST. LOUIS, MO * STAFF SERGEANT ALFRED BONGARD, AIR FORCE, LONG BEACH, CA * STAFF SERGEANT DAVID BROWN, AIR FORCE, ASHEVILLE, NC * STAFF SERGEANT DANIEL BURNHAM, AIR FORCE, GRAHAM, TX * STAFF SERGEANT TERRY DOUGHERTY, AIR FORCE, SEATTLE, WA * STAFF SERGEANT MICHAEL FERRIS, AIRFORCE, LONG BEACH, CA * STAFF SERGEANT JASON GEREPKA, AIR FORCE, TEMPE, AZ * STAFF SERGEANT DAVID GRAY, AIR FORCE, CLAREMONT, NH * STAFF SERGEANT GREGG HARCUS, AIR FORCE, EDEN PRAIRE, MN * STAFF SERGEANT DALLAS HARVEY, AIR FORCE, DEXTER, OR * STAFF SERGEANT MIKE MEAGHER,AIR FORCE, SEATTLE, WA * STAFF SERGEANT MICHAEL MENARD, AIR FORCE, GURNEE, IL * STAFFSERGEANT MICHAEL NEWLAND, AIR FORCE, COLUMBUS, OH * STAFF SERGEANT CARL OSGOOD, AIR FORCE, LEESBURG, VA * STAFF SERGEANT WALTER PURVIS , AIR FORCE, LAKE WORTH, FL. 33467, FL * STAFF SERGEANT ROBERT REYNOLDS, AIR FORCE, ORANGE PARK , FL * STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM VINCENT, AIR FORCE, SAN ANGELO, TX * STAFF SERGEANT ROBERT WHITE, AIR FORCE, OWEGO, NY * STAFF SERGEANT LOREN WIELAND, AIR FORCE, FT. MYERS, FL * STAFF SERGEANT WESLEY WILL, AIRFORCE, MURPHYSBORO, IL * STAFF SERGEANT DON ALBARES , ARMY, SAN DIEGO, CA * STAFF SERGEANTPATRICK H. BAIR, ESQ., ARMY, HARRISBURG, PA * STAFF SERGEANT DAVE CARR, ARMY, PITTSBURGH, PA * STAFF SERGEANT RICARDO CASTILLO, ARMY, WHARTON, TX * STAFF SERGEANT CRISTI CAVE, ARMY,SANTA FE, NM * STAFF SERGEANT NEB CONNER, ARMY, TRYON, NC * STAFF SERGEANT JACK DUGGAN,ARMY, JACKSONVILLE, OR * STAFF SERGEANT GARY MCDONALD, ARMY, VIRGINIA, MN * STAFF SERGEANT SSG SUZANNA E. RAKER, ARMY, CALUMET, MI * STAFF SERGEANT GERALD SLAGLE, ARMY,ALTON, NH * STAFF SERGEANT KIM TARNER, ARMY, SOUTH PASADENA, CA * STAFF SERGEANT DEKRANBALTAIAN, ARMY RESERVE, SMYRNA, GA * STAFF SERGEANT EDWIN HART, MARINE CORPS, HUNTSVILLE, AL * STAFF SERGEANT GREER SAUNDERS, MARINE CORPS, RICHMOND, VA * STAFF SERGEANT TOM NIELSON, TUCSON, AZ * STAFF SERGEANT LARRY STEUR, LEXINGTON, KY * TECHNICAL SERGEANTROBERT ELLIS, AIR FORCE, PANTEGO, TX * TECHNICAL SERGEANT JUAN GUERRERO, AIR FORCE, TUCSON, AZ * TECHNICAL SERGEANT HERBERT HAAGER, AIR FORCE, TAMPA, FL * TECHNICAL SERGEANT RICHARD NORDLAND, AIR FORCE, RUIDOSO DOWNS, NM * TECHNICAL SERGEANT JOHN SMOOT, AIR FORCE, FT. WAYNE, IN * TECHNICAL SERGEANT BETTY WHITMER, AIR FORCE, VANCOUVER, WA * TECHNICAL SERGEANT ROGER D. GROW, ARMY, IOWA CITY, IA * TECHNICAL SERGEANT STEVEN HAUGEN, ARMY, ST PETERSBURG, FL * TECHNICAL SERGEANT DAN SCARLETT, ARMY, SANTA ROSA, CA * WARRANT OFFICER JAMES H JORGENSEN, ARMY, AMES, IA * WARRANT OFFICER BRYCE WILSON, ARMY,LOUISVILLE, KY * DENNIS BLANCHARD, AIR FORCE, SARASOTA, FL * BRUCE COHEN, AIR FORCE, WORCESTER, MA * CAROL STOFFEL, AIR FORCE, SARASOTA, FL * STEVE BREYMAN, ARMY,POESTENKILL, NY * DIANE EMERICK, ARMY, PUYALLUP, WA * DESIREE FAIROOZ, ARMY, NA * RUSSELL HENRY, ARMY, HAUGHTON, LA * GAYLORD OPPEGARD, ARMY, WI * BILL PERRY, ARMY, LEVITTOWN, PA * RALPH VERNI, ARMY, TAMPA, FL * ALFRED WILSON, ARMY, SRQ, FL * STEVE BROWNE, COAST GUARD, VENICE, FL * LAURA WOODRY, MARINE CORPS, AZUSA, CA * MICHAEL ASHTON, NAVY, EUGUENE, OR * MITCH BERKOWITZ, NAVY, BRONX, NY, NY * SARAH CHASE, NAVY, HAYWARD, CA * JOHN KENDRICK, NAVY, HOOVER, AL * MARK KILLAM, NAVY, ENGLEWOOD, FL * MRS. JEANETTE DALY,GRANITE CANON, WY * ANATOLE BESMAN, MD, ALBANY, CA * KAREN BONATTI, BRAINTREE, MA * MICHELE CHAVEZ-PARDINI, KAMUELA, HI * MARY BETH CLARK, OMAHA, NE * MERRILL COLE,PHILADELPHIA, PA * PATRICIA COMSTOCK, BROOKLYN, NY * DEBORAH CROWCHILD , ARLINGTON, VT * BARBARA EHRENTREU, NORTH WHITE PLAINS, NY * LIZ ESLAMIYEH, REDONDO BEACH, CA * LORNA FALKENSTEIN, PRESCOTT, AZ * MARK FANGMEIER, SAINT PAUL, MN * JOANNE FORMAN, RANCHOS DE TAOS, NM * MATT FROELICH, FONTANA, CA * EDWARD FUQUAY, WELLINGTON, OH * MARGE GIANELLI, EL PASO, TX * BARBARA HENDERSON, LANTANA, FL * NORMA HOWARD, CARMEL, CA * KAREN ISAACSON, WOODINVILLE, WA * CECILIA JOYCE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * REV. EARL KAMMERUD,MILWAUKEE, WI * NANCY KENT, GLENDALE, CA * RICHARD MCFARLAND, SARASOTA, FL * MARYANNEMCGONEGAL, WILMINGTON, DE * CAMERON MCLAUGHLIN, PENSACOLA, FL * SHARON OBEIDALLAH, FOREST PARK, IL * LINDA PITZER-DONATO, IMPERIAL BEACH, CA * HELEN POST, CLAREMONT, CA * EMILY W. SCHAFF, YOUNGSTOWN, OH * EUGENE SEYBOLD, HONOLULU, HI * JANE SHULL, LANCASTER, PA * CHERYL HINES-DRONZKOWSKI, STERLING HEIGHTS, MI * THE VERY REV. FR. TONY BEGONJA,SACHSE, TX * JOHN BOARD, HELENA, MT * SHERRY BORNW, BLYTHEVILLE, AR * THOMAS BOUGHAN, COWAN, TN * CAROLYN CACI, NORTH CHELMSFORD, MA * LAUREN CAMPBELL, HAYMARKET, VA * BETTY CARR, DENVER, CO * MARY CHAMBERS, DOVER, NH * KIRK CHRISTOPHER, BUNA, TX * CHRISTI CLEMONS HOFFMAN, KANSAS CITY, MO * REBECCA CONNER, HELENA, AL * KYLE CONNORS, CHEHALIS,WA * KATHRYN CONNORS, NEW PALTZ, NY * MARY COWLEY, KINGSVILLE, TX * RYAN DANZINGER, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL * SUSAN EDELSTEIN, CARY, NC * MARGERY ERIKSSON, BERKELEY, CA * HANNAH FREED, MONTEREY PARK, CA * JOHN GANNON, LA, CA * DAVID GERKE, CHATSWORTH, CA * RANDY GREIN, BELLEVUE, WA * CYNTHIA GUGGEMOS, BLANCHARDVILLE, WI * ANNE HALL, AUSTIN,TX * CEIL HALL, SNOW CAMP, NC * TIM HAUCK, GRAND PRAIRIE, TX * TERRI HEACOCK, ALEXANDER, NC * KRISTINE HENDERSON, PALERMO, NA * ANN HOLLYFIELD, SEAL ROCK, OR * ALLAN HOSMER, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * DONALD HUTTON, LANEXA, VA * ROSE JOHNSON, SUNSET HILLS, MO * REV. JOSEPHKEENAN, S.T., PHILADELPHIA, PA * CHARLOTTE LAYTON, FRONT ROYAL, VA * LINDA LEONARD,GAITHERSBURG, MD * JEAN LEWANDOWSKI, LAPORTE, MN * GLENDA MABERY, CORNVILLE, AZ *CAROLYN MACDERMOTT, MIDDLETOWN, CT * MELINDA MCBRIDE, TOPANGA, CA * CLAIRE MILLER, HILLSBORO, OR * SUSAN EMGE MILLINER, CEDAR PARK, TX * MATT OZGA, AMBLER, PA * MR. ANDMRS. GENE AND DORIS PETERS, LIVINGSTON, TX * BARBARA PINZKA, CINCINNATI, OH * DAVE POSMONTIER, MELROSE PARK, PA * ROBERT RIDDER, SANTA CRUZ, CA * EDGAR RODRIGUEZ, NEW PALTZ, NY * TERRI SAMMARCO, PLANTATION, FL * DON SCHNEIDER, WOODINVILLE, WA * BARRY SCHORFHAAR, REDMOND, WA * JUDITH SMITH, OAKLAND, CA * ARIANNE STOCKING, SAN RAFAEL, CA *DEBORAH TAGGERT, WINSTON SALEM, NC * JANA TITUS, NEW YORK, NY * ELEANOR TRUSZ, BETHESDA,MD * JOHN VENTRE, WILEY, GA * NENO VILLAMOR, SOQUEL, CA * RAMONA VON MORITZ, SANTA FE,NM * ROY WETTERHOLT, KENNETT SQUARE, PA * SHARON WILSON, NEW YORK, NY * KATHRYN STOCKHAUSEN, EASTON, MD * JIM HANSON, AIR FORCE, WINTER PARK, FL * JOHN HASLINGER, AIR FORCE, SILVER SPRING, MD * ROSEMARIE JACKOWSKI, AIR FORCE, BENNNGTON, VT * PAUL MORENO, AIR FORCE, YUMA , AZ * RICHARD SALMON, AIR FORCE, GREEN BAY, WI * GEORGE WALDMAN, AIR FORCE, FRANKLIN, MI * ALBERT WILSON, AIR FORCE, TENANTS HARBOR, ME * MARCIA BAILEY, ARMY, BLACKSBURG, VA * YVONNE BOYD, ARMY, CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MI * JOHN FREESTONE, ARMY, W. LAFAYETTE, IN * BRADLEY GELDER, ARMY, PITTBURGH, PA * RICHARD HEINLEIN, ARMY, JACKSON HEIGHTS, NY * GRAHAM HENRY JR, ARMY, BALTIMORE, MD * JIM AND VIRGINIA WAGNER, ARMY,WESTERVILLE, OH * JOHN WARNER, ARMY, SHEYENNE, ND * BILL WILLIAMS, ARMY, ST. CHARLES, MO *JACQUELINE A. FAAS, DOD CIVILIAN, LONG BEACH, WA * DANIEL FEARN, MARINE CORPS, SCANDIA, MN * DAVID REYNOLDS, MARINE CORPS, CARR, CO * BILL CHAPMAN, NAVY, LA QUINTA, CA * AL MCKINLEY, JR., NAVY, PENSACOLA, FL * RICHARD MOORE, NAVY, CLAREMONT, CA * BYRON AND MARY GRAVES, USMC, MESA, AZ * CHARLES MILONE, USMC, CHAPEL HILL, NC * DOROTHY ANDERSON, WILLIAMSBURG,VA * JOHN H. ANDERSON, SAN DIEGO, CA * DALE ANDREE, MIAMI, FL * JEANNE ANGLE, CHICO, CA *PEGGY ARMOUR, YUBA CITY, CA * JOHN ATA, SFO, HERNDON, VA * STEFAN ATHANASIADIS, BATESVILLE,IN * YVONNE AUSTIN, NO. HOLLYWOOD, CA * ALYCE AVAKIAN DOUGLAS, PROVIDENCE, RI * LINDA BACH, VILAS, NC * JAN BACHMAN, BOULDER, CO * JANNE BAGLEY-MURRAY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM * WALTER BAINS, ANNISTON, AL * LAURA BAKER, BIRMINGHAM, AL * SUSAN BALMER, CHICAGO, IL * CINA BARKER, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA * JEAN JACQUES BARRERA, AUSTIN, TX * KAE BARRON, BENTON, AR* BEIBERS BATERDOUK, WAYNE, NJ * JOANNE BATJER, ZEBULON, NC * BRIGID BEACHLER, ITHACA, NY * ROGER BEEMER, CENTENNIAL, CO * MIKE BEILSTEIN, CORVALLIS, OR * PEGGY BELL, TILTON, NH * RAY BELL, BAKERSFIELD, CA * JAN BELLEME, SALUDA, NC * CAROL BERNACCHI, LA, CA * JANET BEWLEY, LOUISVILLE, KY * SALLY BLAKEMORE, SANTA FE, NM * SASCHA BOLLAG, CONCORD, NC * MARY LOU BONVIE, QUINCY, MA * RAE BORDUA, FAIRFAX, CA * MARGARET BORGENS, FERNDALE, WA * MARLA BOTTESCH, NORRIDGEWOCK, ME * IANA BOYCE, CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MI * CHUCK BOYINGTON, NASHVILLE, TN * THOMAS BRAUN, TAMPA, FL * DANILE BROOKINS, LYTLE CREEK, CA * CHUCK BROSLAWSKY, VAN NUYS, CA * JANE BROWN, GREENVILLE, SC * KRISTEN BROWN, GREENVILLE, SC * SISTER ANNE BRTON, AUGUSTA, GA * LESLIE BURG, NEWTON, MA * MADELAINE BURGESS, DOYLESTOWN, PA * KATHE BURICK, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * ROBIN BUTLER, HARRISBURG, PA * DON BUTMAN, MENOMINEE, MI * BRUCE CAMPBELL, LOS ANGELES, CA * RICHARD CARLSON, SURPRISE, AZ * JACQUELINE CARTER, CARROLLTON, TX * STEVE CARY, BLANCHARDVILLE, WI * LINDA CAVE, CLINTON,CT * PAT CHALAWSKY, WOODHAVEN, NY * AMANDA CHAPMAN, JOHNSTON, RI * ROLAND CHASTEEN,WEATHERFORD, OK * KRIS CHEATUM, KANSAS CITY, MO * ROBERT CHEEKS, OAKLAND, CA * DAVID CHOWELLER, RIVERSIDE, CA * CAROL CHRISTEN, YAMHILL, OR * EDWARD CIACCIO, DOUGLASTON, NY * KATHLEEN CLARK, DES MOINES, IA * ZACHARIAS COKKINOS, NEW YORK, NY * LINDA COLLINS, MILFORD, MA * FLYNN CONLIN, VALLECITOS, NM * STACEE COONEY, BOCA RATON, FL * JOHN CORMODE, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA * HOPE CORSAIR, BALTIMORE, MD * SHARON COX, LAKE STEVENS, WA *MELINDA COYLE, PAXTON, MA * EVE CURTIS, WABAN, MA * MARC DANIEL, MT. VERNON, WA * JOANDAVID, HEMET, CA * ED DAVIDS, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA * DANIEL DAVIS, JACKSONVILLE, OR * MIKE DAVIS, UPLAND, CA * DENNIS DAVIS, LOS ANGELES, CA * MALCOLM DAVIS, DALLAS, TX * PETER DAVIS, LEVERETT, MA * GLORIA DAVISTON, CHULA VISTA, CA * DENIS DAY, PHOENIX, AZ * TERESA G DESANTE, PHILADELPHIA, PA * SARAH DE SOUSA, SPRING BRANCH, TX * R DEUTSCH, AUSTIN, TX * SHERIDIVERS, STONE MOUNTAIN, GA * PAUL DOUGLAS, LOS ANGELES, CA * GEORGE F. DRAKE, BELLINGHAM, WA * ANA-LIA DUCHOWNEY, TALLAHASSEE, FL * TIM DUDA, SAN ANTONIO, TX * ANNE DUGAW, COSTA MESA, CA * ALONSO DURALDE, WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA * PHIL DYNAN, CORNING, CA * RITA EASON,GRAND PRAIRIE, TX * BRIGID ECKHART, CARMICHAEL, CA * SCOTT EDMONSON, SAN JOSE, CA * MARKEHRLICH, VENICE, CA * GEORGE ELY, SHOREHAM, VT * DR JEAN ENNIS, MT TREMPER , NY * ARTHUR RANDOLPH ERB, NEW CANEY, TX * KAREN ERICKSON, SAN JOSE, CA * JOCELYN ERTEL, SHEBOYGAN, WI * R ESPOZ, CHICAGO, IL * ELIZABETH ESTES, RICHFIELD, NC * MARLA ESTES, ASHLAND, OR * GREGORY ESTEVE, LAKE WALES, FL * ERIC EVANS, ROCHESTER, NY * LISA FARNAN, QUEENSBURY, NY * ELSIE FELIX, BLAIRSVILLE, GA * CLAIRE FELONG, REDWOOD CITY, CA * LINDA FERGUSON, HARVARD, MA * LINDA FERLAND, VENTURA, CA * RICHARD FINAMORE, ARMONK, NY * MARY FINLEY, MADISON, WI * MICHAEL FINNIGAN, ENCINO, CA * GORDON FITZGERALD, CLINTON, MA * MARY ROSE FITZSIMMONS, NORTH ARLINGTON, NJ * EDWARD FLOUNOY JR., FAR ROCKAWAY, NY * ANNE FOGLEMAN, FAYETTEVILLE, NC * JON FORDHAM, NEW YORK, NY * ANDREA FOSTER, HOUSTON, TX * NORMA FOX, BENICIA, CA * ROBERT FOX, MILLERSBURG, MI * CLAY FRANCIS, LACEY, WA * PATRICK FRAWLEY, CARLSBAD, CA * ROBERT FREIDIN, PRINCETON, NJ * DEBBIE FRENCH, TALLAHASSEE, FL * NEIL FRESON, HENRIETTA, NY * AMY FRIEDEN, MORGANTOWN, WV * TERRIE FRYE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * DEBORAH GALLAGHER, PORTLAND, ME * ELIZABETH GARLAND, CLARKSVILLE, TN * CAROL GARMAN, OAK PARK, IL * JUDE GARNER, CRYSTAL LAKE, IL * LINDA GARRETT, ALBION, CA * KEN GATES, OVERLAND PARK, KS * SUSANNE GEIGER, HONEY GROVE, TX * BARBARA GETZ, NEVADA CITY, CA * JAMES GILLAND, TUCSON, AZ * LIZBETH GLICKMAN, DURHAM, NC * BARBARA GOETZ, PLATTSBURGH, NY * CONNIEGOLDEN, BELLEVUE, NE * PAMELA GOODWIN, ASHLAND, OR * NANCY GRAHAM, GAYLORD, MI * ALAN GREGORY, CONYNGHAM, PA * KATHY GRIFFIN, POWHATAN, VA * DONNA GROW, DALTON, GA * KARENGRUBER, FALLBROOK, CA * LAWRENCE GRUNBERGER, PAWLING, NY * LEE ANNE GRUNDISH, TOLEDO, OH * AL GUMMERSON, BALLSTON SPA, NY * LISA HADLER, OTTAWA, IL * JIM HAGAN, YOUNGSTOWN, OH* SUSAN HALLIGAN, BROOKLINE, MA * DOUGLAS HAMAR, PORTLAND, OR * ELIZABETH HAMMOND-PETTIS, WOODLAND PARK, CO * LAMAR HANKINS, SAN MARCOS, TX * ANE HANLEY, FERGUS FALLS, MN * NATALIE HANSON, LANSING, MI * DOUGLAS HARKINS, BLOOMINGTON, MN * AMY HARLIB, NEW YORK, NY * LAURA HARPER, DENVER, CO * ROBIN HARPER, WALLINGFORD, PA * DAVID HARRIS, RED WING, MN* JERI HARRIS, LYNDEN, WA * ROBERT HARRISON, FREMONT, CA * MICHAEL HATELEY, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA * RACHEL HAYWARD, EVANSTON, IL * ROLAND HEIDENFELDER, WAKE FOREST, NC *JENNY HEINZ, NEW YORK, NY * KATHRYN HENDRIX, ALTUS, OK * RACHEL HERBENER, CHICAGO, IL *KATHRYN L. HILDEBRANT, NORTHVILLE, MI * CHARLIE HINTON, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * ROBERTA HIRT, CARROLLTON, TX * MARY HITCHCOCK, TOLEDO, OH * IVAN HUBER, LOS ANGELES, CA * LINDA HUBNER,ST. PETERSBURG, FL * MARIA HUGHES, PHOENIX, AZ * LINDA HUNT, SHELBYVILLE, KY * JANET HURWITZ, WILLIAMSPORT, PA * DONALD HYATT, COLUMBUS, OH * JOHN HYDE, SAN LEANDRO, CA * ERIN JAMES, OAK PARK, IL * DON JARBEAUX, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX * DOROTHY JENKINS, NORMAN, OK *LEN JOHNSEN, SHIRLEY, IN * ESAIAS JOHNSON, ASHEVILLE, NC * JUDY JONES, EUGENE, OR * ERICA JONG,ATLANTA, GA * JIM JORDAN, VIENNA, OH * BARBARA JUKNIALIS, CLEVELAND, OH * CAROL KAMBANIS, EVANSVILLE, IN * GLORIA G. KARP, HARTSDALE, NY * LOIS KEEL, MADISON, WI * CLAIRE KEGERISE, WILMINGTON, DE * DAVID KENT, RICHMOND, VA * JACK KESSLER, PHILADELPHIA, PA * KARRIE KEYES,VENTURA, CA * ANN KHADDAR, JAMESTOWN, RI * JOAN KIOK, NEW YORK, NY * DAVID KIRKPATRICK,DALLAS, TX * NORT & SARAN KIRSCBAUM, LOS ANGELES, CA * RONN KISTLER, EAST BRUNSWICK, NJ * FRANK X. KLESHINSKI, JEANNETTE, PA * JACQUELINE KNABLE, HENDERSONVILLE, NC * RICHARD KNITTEL, VERSAILLES, KY * ELLEN KOLODNEY, HARTSDALE, NY * GENNY KORTES, VANCOUVER, WA * KAREN KORTSCH, LAKE BLUFF, IL * JOSEPH KOSUDA, LAS VEGAS, NV * CONSTANCE KOSUDA, LAS VEGAS, NV * JOHANNA KOVITZ, ALLSTON, MA * CARRIE KUBE, WATERTOWN, WI * ERIN KUMPF, MISSOULA, MT * ADELA KUNASZ, LONG BEACH, CA * BETTY LAMEY RUIZ, MILWAUKEE, WI * LYN LANDIS, WOODBURN,OR * DAVE LANGHOLFF, FOND DU LAC, WI * DINA LAUMAN, SEATTLE, WA * ELIZABETH LAVELLE, CLEVELAND, OH * MARTHA LEAHY, WINCHESTER, MA * MARY LEBERT, BRIGHTON, MI * DEBORAH LEDGERWOOD, KNOXVILLE, TN * CLAUDIA LEFF, MAMARONECK, NY * LARRY LESSER, BOYNTON BEACH, FL * MICHAEL LETENDRE, PORTSMOUTH, NH * KAY LEVIN, HOCKLEY, TX * MARK LEVY, FELTON, CA * ELLEN LEWIS, SPOKANE, WA * ROY LIVENGOOD, SALINA, KS * MANDY LIVINGSTON, BEND, OR * MARY LONG , CHICAGO, IL * DR. ROBIN LORENTZEN, CALDWELL, ID * MARY BETH LUNDGREN, CAPE CORAL, FL* KEELEY MACKENZIE, DENVER, CO * RAMONA MACKESSY, BRIDGEVIEW, IL * VIRGINIA MACY, FONTANA, CA * SHARI MALLOY, LONGMONT, CO * WILLIAM MANTIS, BOKEELIA, FL * JONATHANMANTO, ALBUQUERQUE, NM * LORI MARCH, GURNEE, IL * MARGO MARGOLIS, BELLINGHAM, WA *HAZEN MARKOE, ST. PAUL, MN * TANYA MARQUETTE, NEW PALTZ, NY * LAURENCE MARSHALL, FRESNO, CA * JOHN MASSMAN, ANTIOCH, IL * CAROLYN MATHER, PHILADELPHIA, PA * BONNIE M. MATHESON, WHEATON, MD * THOMAS MAUFER, MENLO PARK, CA * KAREN MCCALL, AVON, OH * MOLLIE MCCLELLAND, PITTSBURGH, PA * BONNIE MCFADDEN, MAKAWAO, HI * VICTORIA MCFADYEN, BROOKLYN, NY * JOSHUA MCKAIN, SCITUATE, MA * LINDA MCKEEGAN, PARKTON, MD * KENDRAMCKENNA, SEBASTOPOL, CA * SCOTT MCKINSEY, LOS ANGELES, CA * MAUREEN MCMAHON, NEW YORK,NY * NEVADA MCPHERSON, NEW ORLEANS, LA * MIKE MCTAGUE, LONG BEACH , CA * MANDY MERRITT,COCOA, FL * GENE MERRITT, BRIMFIELD , MA * ELIZABETH MERZ, UNDERWOOD, MN * JIM MILLER, PHILA, PA * KATHRYN MILLER, BALDWYN, MS * COETA MILLS, DALLAS, TX * JOAN MITCHELL, JOHNSON CITY, TN * MATTHEW MOON, BEAVERCREEK, OH * DAVID MOORE, BRIDGEPORT, CT * IRENE MOORE,HANFORD, CA * ROBBYN MORRIS, LOUISIANA, MO * ANGELA MUELLER, PUYALLUP, WA * MARYMULLANE, MAPLEWOOD, MN * FLORENCE MURPHY, GRAND RAPIDS, MI * TRUDY MURRAY, NEW YORK,NY * ROBERT MURRAY, FERNDALE, MI * RAYMOND NAKLEY, JR., YOUNGSTOWN, OH * GREGORY NERODE, ITHACA, NY * MIKE NESTOR, PERRYSBURG, OH * KIM NETHERCUTT, OCALA, FL * BETTY NICHOLS, AMARILLO, TX * MARGARET NIELSEN, EAST LANSING, MI * IDA NISSEN, PENSACOLA, FL * SUSAN NOEL, ESPANOLA, NM * AIRE NORELL, LOS ANGELES, CA * REV. BARBARA NOVAK, SPOKANE, WA* WALTER OCZKOWSKI, DEERFIELD, NY * ERIN O'DOHERTY, LARAMIE, WY * LAURA OGLE, TOPEKA, KS * WANDA OGLETREE, MURFREESBRO, TN * MURIEL O'REILLY, LOS ANGELES, CA * KARIN OVERBECK, DEERPARK, WA * JOYE PALMER, CHARLOTTE, NC * JOHN PAPANDREA, NEW YORK, NY * MARY PAQUETTE, EAST CHINA TOWNSHIP, MI * WILLIAM PARKER, WEST POINT, MS * JULIA PARKER, ITHACA, NY * ALETA PARKER, SANDY, UT * SUSAN PARKER, SEVERNA PARK, MD * MARY ELLEN PATTERSON, CHANDLER, AZ * MANOJ PAUL, HICKORY HILLS, IL * LESLIE PETTIS, ANN ARBOR, MI * CHARLES PETTY, LEXINGTON, MA *MARIA PFLUG, DEERFIELD BEACH, FL * CAROL PIPPIN, PEORIA, AZ * ROBERT J. PIZZORNO, TORRANCE, CA* MIKE POCHMARA, WATERFORD, MI * JAMES POPIEL , UPPER DARBY, PA * HELEN POST, CLAIRMONT, CA* JANICE POWELL, EUREKA SPRINGS, AR * ROBERT POWELL, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO * LYNNE POWELL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * KATHLEEN POWERS, GALVESTON, TX * DAVID RACKOW, PA, PA * DEANA RADTKE,TUCSON, AZ * JOAN RAINVILLE, WILLITS, CA * CYNTHIA RALLS, MONTGOMERY, IL * CHARLES RANDALL,BOISE, ID * CHRIS RANDOLPH, HAVERSTRAW, NY * ANDREW RAVICK, ARDSLEY, NY * GARTH REESE JR.,POMONA, CA * DEBRA REHN, PORTLAND, OR * COLLEEN REILLY, VILLAS, NJ * MARY RILEY, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA * ELLEN RIVERS, WINCHESTER, VA * MARIANNE ROBINSON, BERKELEY, CA * MARCIA ROCCA, NEWBURGH, IN * HUCK RORICK, PINOLE, CA * EVE ROSCIAM, JACKSONVILLE, FL * STEVE ROTH, SEATTLE, WA * BO ROTTENBORN, MISHAWAKA, IN * THOMAS ROTTMAYER, COLUMBUS, OH * RUTHE RUGH, BOTHELL, WA * ROBERT RUNKLE, RATHDRUM, ID * JOAN RUSSELL, NAUGATUCK, CT * MARY RUSSO, BENSALEM, PA * ANN RUTH, CHICAGO, IL * NADA RUWET, HUDSON, FL * JOAN SADOWSKI,WILMINGTON, MA * GINNI SALAS, DENTON, TX * JOANNE D. SANGER, PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA *JENNA SCANLAN, SANTA FE, NM * CHRISTOPHER SCARPINO, CAMBRIDGE, MA * EDWARD SCHAECHTEL,BALTIMORE, MD * DONNA SCHALL, STOW, OH * ROBERT SCHLAGAL, BOONE, NC * KURSTEN SCHUETZ,ATLANTA, GA * LULU SCHWARZ, LOS ANGELES, CA * KAREN SCOTT, BALTIMORE, MD * LAWRENCE SCRIMA, AURORA, CO * ROBERT SECREST, CUYAHOGA FALLS, OH * PATRICIA SEITZ, LOMITA, CA * LEANNE SENTER-BARBOUR, SLIDELL, LA * SUSAN L D SHAMBLIN, MORGANTON, NC * DIANNE SHATIN,LEVITTOWN, PA * ANNE SHATTUCK, SEAL BEACH, CA * MB SHEANE, SCOTTSDALE, AZ * LESLIESHERIDAN, SONOMA, CA * FAITH SHORTHOUSE, ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL * NATASHA SHPILLER, CHICAGO, IL * LARRY SIEGEL, PLAINSBORO, NJ * KARISSA SILVER, WASHINGTON, DC * GORDON SMITH,FREEHOLD, NJ * NANCY SMITH, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK * KATHLEEN SMOOKLER, AURORA, CO *SHERRYANNE SNIPES, STERLING, MA * JOANN SOHL, PALISADES PARK, NJ * JOHN SOTO, PUTNAMVALLEY, NY * JENNY SOWELL, BOZEMAN, MT * MARYANN ST. JOHN, BENNINGTON, VT * BETSY STARKEY, STOUGHTON, WI * MICHAEL STEFANIK, AKRON, OH * ERIC STEINNAGEL, WHITE PLAINS, NY *EDWARD STERNBACH, MILFORD, CT * PAULA STOBER, GREENSBORO, NC * CURTIS STOFFERAHN, GRANDFORKS, ND * DALIA STOKES, HOUSTON, TX * HARRIET STUCKE, PHILADELPHIA, PA * SHERRI SUPPA,PITTSBURGH, PA * DARLENE SWANSON, HILLSBOROUGH, NJ * ELIZABETH TATUM, AUBURN, AL *SHANNON TAYLOR, HOLUALOA, HI * MERRITT TILLEY III, WILMINGTON, DE * MARY TODARO, DULUTH, GA * TOM TODARO, DULUTH, GA * DALE TREMBLEY, CHARLOTTE, NC * DIRK TRENHOLM, SANTA, ID * MARCIA TUCKER, TUCSON, AZ * LARAINE TURK, JOSHUA TREE, CA * DAVID TWAIT, LONGMONT, CO *KAREN UNGER, BLUE BELL, PA * KRIS VAITKUS, ROCKVLLE, MD * JANE VANDEBOGART, WOODSTOCK,NY * VIRGINIA VELEZ, SAN FRANCISCO, CA * THERESA VENTURA, TUKWILA, WA * MARIANNE VESEY,NEWBURYPORT, MA * ESTELLE VOELLER, ASHLAND, OR * JANET VOORHIES, ASHLAND, OR * PAULINEWAGNER, MECHANICSBURG, PA * CHARLOTTE WALES, MONTICELLO, AR * SANDRA WALKER, SYRACUSE,NY * NATHAN WALLACE-SENFT, N BENNINGTON, VT * SUZANNE WARD, CAMAS, WA * DARRYL WARNER,ROCKAWAY BEACH, NY * DOYLE WARREN, BROOKLYN, NY * ROBERT WARYE, SOUTH BEND, IN * LYNWATKINS, MADEIRA BEACH, FL * JANIS WATKINS, MADEIRA BEACH, FL * JULIA WATKINS, URBANA, IL *TOM WATSON, PHILADELPHIA, PA * DAVID WAY, PARLIN, NJ * ROBIN WEAGE, PORTLAND, OR * PATRICIAWEBB, LONDONDERRY, NH * JANE WEBER, ENCINITAS, CA * JOE WERFELMAN, SCIOTA, PA * SHELLIEWEST, SANTA BARBARA, CA * ELIZABETH WETHERHOLT, COLUMBUS, OH * KATHLEEN WHISNER, GUTHRIE, KY * ELIZABETH WHITE, BURTCHVILLE, MI * SHARLENE WHITE, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO * DEBORAH WHITECAR, DAYTON, OH * ELSPETH WHITNEY, BLUE DIAMOND, NV * LILY WILDE, PORTLAND,OR * DESIREE WLODAREK, BUFFALO, NY * ESTHER B. WOLF, SEATTLE, WA * JOAN WOODHOUSE, WEED, CA * BRIAN WOOLEY, ORLANDO, FL * WARREN WRIGHT, OAKLAND, CA * MARIA WYATT, LONG BEACH,CA * IVONA XIEZOPOLSKI, KANEOHE, HI * LYNN YELLOTT, SHEPHERDSTOWN, WV * DAVID YIN,BROOKLYN, NY * JEFFREY ZABIK, TOPSHAM, ME * SUSAN ZACHOW, TRAVERSE CITY, MI * HARRIET ZIERER, SANTA ANA, CA * TIM ZORACH, CORRALITOS, CA * JAMES ZUKOWSKI, YELM, WA * JACKZYLMAN, BIRMINGHAM, AL *