Skip to main content

The People's Banner: Why the “Thin Blue Line” Flag Betrays the Spirit of the Stars and Stripes

The American flag — proudly known as the Stars and Stripes — is more than a banner of colors stitched together. It is a living symbol of rebellion, unity, and the sovereignty of the people. It was never originally the flag of a government, but of a movement; not a mark of officialdom, but of revolution. 

Having evolved from the Continental Union Flag, its stripes — with their roots in the "rebellious stripes" of the Sons of Liberty — represent resistance to abusive power, a stand against imperial overreach, and a declaration that legitimate authority flows from the consent of the governed. In this light, the proliferation of the “Thin Blue Line” version of the American flag is not merely a modification of a unique American symbol; it is a mutilation of the flag’s fabric and its meaning. It transforms a people’s flag into a government’s flag, in direct contradiction to its foundational ethos.

The Stars and Stripes emerged during the crucible of the American Revolution. Designed amid a bloody struggle for independence, it represented the collective identity of thirteen colonies rising up against one of the most powerful empires in history. The original flag was not created by a centralized government — such a government did not yet exist, as America (as we know it) was then a collection of colonies (and after the Revolutionary War a collection of sovereign, independent states). Instead, it was adopted by the people, by militias and rebels, by a population seeking liberty and self-determination. The flag signaled not only unity, but defiance. It did not mark a loyalist institution; it flew over encampments of dissenters, over ships that defied royal decrees, and on the battlefields where ordinary citizens staked their lives against authoritarian control.

Its thirteen stripes were not decorative — they were declarations. Each one symbolized a rebellious colony, a place where people had thrown off the chains of monarchy in favor of sovereignty and self-governance. These were rebellious stripes in the most literal sense.


Symbols like the flag derive power from their universality and the principles they are understood to represent. The American flag, when flown in its proper form, represents a nation of laws, a land of liberties and rights defended by man but inherited from God, and the primacy of the people over the state. It is not merely a symbol of bureaucratic jurisdiction or a political claim to territory — it is a promise of principles.


That is why the “Thin Blue Line” version of the flag strikes such a discordant note. Rendered in black and white with a single blue stripe replacing one of the original red ones, this variation is often presented as a tribute to law enforcement. But in doing so, it makes several grave symbolic missteps. First, it appropriates and alters a shared American symbol for a narrow institutional allegiance. Second, it exalts an arm of the state — the police — over the population it is meant to serve. Third, it introduces a political undercurrent that conflicts with the flag’s historical roots in civil resistance and anti-authoritarianism.


The adoption of the “Thin Blue Line” flag has not occurred in a vacuum. It has often been wielded in opposition to movements criticizing police violence or advocating for systemic reform — movements that, ironically, resemble the spirit of protest and accountability that gave rise to the American flag in the first place. To fly the “Thin Blue Line” flag is not just to honor police — it is, in many contexts, a political statement that elevates state force above civilian scrutiny and betrays the very meaning of the Stars and Stripes.


Where the original flag stood for a people rising up against oppressive authority, the “Thin Blue Line” flag often functions as a defense of authority against popular protest — a defense of the kind of authority that systematically encroaches upon the principles articulated in America’s founding documents and represented by the Stars and Stripes. This inversion should trouble anyone who values the spirit of revolution and liberty on which the United States were founded. It changes the flag from a people's standard into a state emblem. It thereby ceases to be a symbol of all Americans and righteous disobedience, to instead become a banner of thoughtless obedience and allegiance to a specific government institution — and an abusive one at that.


True patriotism involves not a charitable submission to authority but a critical love of country — the kind that seeks to protect liberty by holding power to account. Blind reverence for institutions, especially those with the authority to use force, can easily slip into idolatry. The Founders understood this. They feared standing armies, unchecked executive power, and unaccountable police forces. That’s why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist — to restrain government, not to sanctify it. 


When the American flag is altered to exalt state power, it loses its soul. It no longer reminds us of our right to dissent, our duty to speak out, and our heritage as rebels against tyranny. Instead, it becomes a badge of conformity, submission, and misplaced loyalty.


The Stars and Stripes must not be surrendered to any one ideology, party, or profession — least of all to an arm of state enforcement. It belongs to the people. It was never meant to be a symbol of the government, but a reminder of the source of true power in a land of freedom and bravery: the citizen.


To fly the flag in its true form is to honor the rebellious spirit that birthed a country of liberty and God-given rights. To alter it in ways that exalt state power over the people is not just a misuse of symbolism; it is a betrayal of the very principles the flag was meant to represent.


Let us remember that the American flag, in its original and unaltered form, flies not just because the wind moves it. It flies for the movements of every person who dares to stand, speak, and demand justice. It is not the flag of authority. It is the flag of resistance, the flag of our fathers, and it is ours; and it is the flag of our future if we keep it the way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

“End Times”

The Bible describes the End Times as a period of difficulty marked by the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, and the Second Coming of Christ. In anticipation of this, the Bible commands us to stay clear of the decadence, the depravity and the people who partake in it: per 2 Timothy 3:1-5 , we are to “understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.” While this warning is evergreen, bearing relevance in virtually all contexts, serving as the most cautionary of tales and worthy of the patient consideration of all who inhabit this planet, there is a problem becoming clearer all the time as ...