Medal of Honor recipient Sued for flying Flag

[MACHINEGUN]

Although I agree with most of you on this subject.. he did sign a contract.

A contract is a contract.. doesn't make it right, but he did waive that right.

 

[semperfi211]

What a bunch of BS. The medal of honer is the most respected award anyone could receive, much more than the nobel piece prize. This man should be able to fly his flag.
I bet if he were flying the mexican flag there would be a couple groups jumping up to protect his right.

 

[wtfd661]

What a bunch of BS. The medal of honer is the most respected award anyone could receive, much more than the nobel piece prize. This man should be able to fly his flag.
I bet if he were flying the mexican flag there would be a couple groups jumping up to protect his right.

+1. This man earned his RIGHT to fly his flag and nobody should attempt to stop him.

 

[lumpy39us]

A contract is a contract, so be it! A Hero is a Hero is a Hero so be it.
It seems these HOA's do not support National pride and even more so a showing of Freedom and Dedication to the Nation and its people. Maybe they don't like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
If it was my Community, and flagpoles were not allowed on homeowners property. I would Erect the Nicest Flag pole just inside the entrance, and pick up Mr. Barfoot every morning and evening so he can do his duty!

 

[dburkhead]

our country has never been more free than since the day we ratified the constitution. Ever since that day, government at all levels have worked to take away our rights. So much so that the constitution is no longer recognizable and we are considered terrorists if we talk about it today. There have been few bright spots (most notably Reagan) but for every step we take back to our roots, we take 10 more to communism. Look at the 21 years since Reagan.

I want you to do a few things.

1. Write 2 checks totalling $45k to the state and fed for 1 years taxes ( I did as power of attorney). Better yet, cut out the middle men and hand out that $45k in hundreds to every welfare queen and illegal you can find.

2. It's more than just politicians. Work to fix our broken schools that churn out high school graduates that can't find Louisiana on a map. Those losers are your future voters. Our founders required voters to have "skin in the game". Now, Mickey Mouse votes thousands of times.

3. Volunteer your time and hard earned money for your politician of choice and hope they don't turn into the next power hungry republicrat.

Come see me in 5 years after you have done all these things. I won't have to tell you I told you so because you will already know.

That's nice and all, but you didn't address anything in the post.

None of the problems you see are actually going to be fixed by "going Galt." Your "cure" to a metaphorical case of pneumonia isn't an antibiotic but arsenic trioxide. Sure, it will kill the bacteria, but it will also kill the patient.

 

[dburkhead]

Although I agree with most of you on this subject.. he did sign a contract.

A contract is a contract.. doesn't make it right, but he did waive that right.

Um, no. For one thing, there are certain rights that one cannot sign away and any contract to the contrary is invalid. Second, on the flip side it can be argued that a HOA is acting as a quasi-governmental agency (a friend of mine who is a lawyer of quite a few years experience said that's how he would argue it) in which case there are certain things it cannot do.

One thought is that the flag and flagpole are protected political speech.

My lawyer friend, whose legal experience is as much as many sitting judges, has said that he would rule that way if he were the judge, and would further award fees and punitive damages (assuming he asks for them) to the homeowner and sanction the law firm representing the HOA with a "whopping great fine."

 

[Dogman]

Nothing against his valiant service here, but I don't see where he gets a free pass. He signed a contract and now doesn't want to live within the boundaries of said contract. He had, and still has the choice of not living under his contract. Just sell the property and move. He really shouldn't have moved there in the first place if he didn't want to live under the HOA contract. Sorry, I can't give him a pass on this, regardless of his military service status and bravery in the past. A contract is a contract. The HOA is seemingly holding up their end. Where's the honour in not upholding his end of the bargain?

Have to agree. BS like this is why I would never buy a home with a HOA. They're not saying that he can't still have a flag and fly it as many are doing from their homes.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Whether the HOA has the legal right to remove it is IMMATERIAL to the situation. The point that most people are making here is that IT IS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Let's just go ahead and say that they have the right to have it removed. As someone said above - likely because some crotchety old fart had his/her undies in a wad, and the HOA sent a "lawyerball" letter. That happens all of the time. And yes, they have the RIGHT to do it.

You can't legislate what the right thing is to do in every situation. Where those are in conflict, the Court of Public Opinion steps up and cries "This is not the right outcome!". That is what we are hearing here. I would gladly go to help this man out, NOT because he LEGALLY has a claim to keep the flagpole, necessarily, but because (maybe in spite of the law) the RIGHT thing to do is to let him fly the flag.

And then we can address the issue of whether the HOA ought to be allowed that kind of power. But first - allow this hero some reasonable accommodation. It is the right thing to do.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Just another consequence of the dying art of land ownership.

In the past it was 'My land. My rules.'

Now a homeowner in a subdivision is subjected to many restrictive rules from their HOA, municipality, county, state, & nation.

Just another version of 'everyone belongs to everyone else'. In this case, it's 'your land belongs to everyone else'.

We're no longer sovereign individuals upon our own land.

Don't get me wrong, a contract is a contract...but I'd like to draw the line well prior to HOAs, just as I draw the line prior to slavery.

 

[Fletch]

Situations like this should spur us to be creative, not try to legislate remedies.

The left likes to harass people who work for "evil" corporations like Monsanto or labs that do testing on animals. Social pressure is a tremendous motivator, if applied properly. It's not necessary to threaten violence, either by government proxy or direct application, to get someone to change their ways.

Imagine becoming known in your local community as a person who hates war heroes, or who harasses 90-year-old men for no good reason. Imagine being told that you're evil and you suck by random strangers in the supermarket. Imagine your mailbox stuffed full of letters telling you off all the time. Imagine your boss getting copies of those letters at the office every day, threatening boycotts of your company. Imagine protesters outside your house every evening, marching around with signs declaring your suckitude, night after night, all because you had to play tin-pot dictator and allow the small amount of power you have to corrupt you.

Somebody knows who these board members are. Somebody can get names, pictures, addresses, contact info, all without breaking any laws or threatening any violence. There are remedies that don't require violence or government, but no one ever seems to really apply themselves to trying them.

 

[Phil502]

Um, no. For one thing, there are certain rights that one cannot sign away and any contract to the contrary is invalid. Second, on the flip side it can be argued that a HOA is acting as a quasi-governmental agency (a friend of mine who is a lawyer of quite a few years experience said that's how he would argue it) in which case there are certain things it cannot do.

One thought is that the flag and flagpole are protected political speech.

My lawyer friend, whose legal experience is as much as many sitting judges, has said that he would rule that way if he were the judge, and would further award fees and punitive damages (assuming he asks for them) to the homeowner and sanction the law firm representing the HOA with a "whopping great fine."

How is the flagpole protected political speech, the flag yes but I don't think the pole. They should let him do it just because he is a MOH recipient, I would.

 

[dburkhead]

How is the flagpole protected political speech, the flag yes but I don't think the pole. They should let him do it just because he is a MOH recipient, I would.

It's part of how he's flying the flag. The flag from a freestanding flagpole is more prominent. And the objection of the HOA really boils down to that prominence factor (BTW, I wonder if anyone in that neighborhood has a pole mounted basketball hoop next to their driveway?)

 

[hornadylnl]

Ok, I'll address this post more thoroughly.

Only if they were invited.

None of them were because, quite frankly, none of them were important enough to Mr. Galt. He can get partial extenuation in that he probably never knew that Cherryl Brooks was a potential producer. Only partial because his plan apparently never considered all the Cherryl Brookses that would get crushed as a result of his actions. And he doesn't get a pass for Willers or Tony. Both were in close association with somebody he was watching. He might get a little bit because of Tony's late turn (but not considering that people can turn is a mark against Galt), but Willers was a non-moocher, non-looter from the very start. No excuse there.

You do realize this is a book about fictional characters, right? Nowhere did anyone say that if we "Go Galt" that the book must be followed to a T. If I remember correctly, Willers wanted to stay behind as he was much like Dagney and Hank. I'm sure Dagney could have invited Willers or any other person she would personally vouch for.

I'm guessing that if there were ever a state that wanted to secede, they'd put restrictions on who they let in and a mass exodus of leftists that will be shown the door. They could have a buy in or any number of methods to get in. Unless there were a total break down of order in the other 49 states, I wouldn't rush right in to the new state.

Where do you think politicians come from? Do you think they spring full-grown from the brow of Zeus? What have you done to find someone "good" to run, to build an organization to back him or her, and to put the politician you want into office?

Every douche bag politician we have now came from the same place you will find "your" candidate. Out of the house and senate, how many of those people went there with the best of intentions and held true to them? How many are now in the pockets of lobbyists? How many have gotten elected to congress on the platform of term limits and develop amnesia once in?

Granted, this won't happen to every politician elected but I'd say we are at a good 90% now. You've got a 40% battle and I don't believe that will ever be achievable. Our constitution started out as a cadillac. It isn't as though we've got a ding in the fender and can be popped out. We now have a Yugo that hasn't run in a century and there isn't a straight piece on it any more. Do you think it is possible to turn that Yugo back into a caddy?

There is nothing wrong with the constitution as it was written over 200 years ago. Today it is nothing more than a conversation piece for us terrorists who long for its return. Pelosi mocks those who ask her where she gets the constitutional authority to do what she does.

1/3 to 1/2? That's about the same percentage who were in favor of remaining loyal to Britain in the revolution. What about the other 1/2 to 2/3?

What percentage of those loyal to the crown were died in the wool, give me more socialism types vs. those who didn't want change or weren't willing to risk their own life for our freedom? It would be interesting to know how many became loyal to the crown only after being asked to serve in the continental army.

What percentage of the leftist today are dying for the opportunity to lick Bamo's boots? I'd say the half on the side of Bamo are much more loyal and dedicated to their cause than the half that supported the crown.

I don't know where you are located, but consider Indianapolis. 19136 votes in the primary could have put anyone on the Republican ballot for US representative, 7th district. In the 3 months before the election a volunteer organization of about 100-200 people, working at making phone calls, writing letters, and above all pushing doorbells could generate those 19136 votes. Given six months before that a few dedicated friends could put together that organization of volunteers. Doing so would require that at least one person in that few dedicated friends be well familiar with the local "political landscape." For someone starting from scratch, getting familiar might take a dedicated person 6 months to a year.

Once one has a person on the ticket for the general election as a Republican, one pretty much has 1/3 of the vote locked up. Campo was a "last minute" entry with essentially nothing to back her up and got 34% against Carson's 65%. Put that volunteer organization to work between primary and general election and start with a better candidate and Carson had better watch out.

In short, if you really want it and can find a few friends who have sufficiently similar desires you have a pretty good chance of putting anyone you want into the House.

Elections are won by votes and votes are in the precincts. It's not the people espousing "communist ideology" that are the problem (except that they are better at "getting out the vote" apparently), it's the people who can't be bothered to actually get involved and would rather just sit and complain about things or talk about "going Galt."

Is the roof going to be open for the game Sunday? That's all most Americans got out of what you just said above. When you are standing around the water cooler at work and your co workers are talking about this Sunday's game, interrupt them. Ask them what their opinion of Obamacare is and see them wince. The overwhelming majority of Americans can't and won't be bothered by politics because they have more important issues such as the NFL, NBA, MLB, Johnny or Suzie's 6 different sports, their new car, house, gadgets, you get the idea.

"The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

There's nothing new in anything I've said above. All of it is described in detail in the late Robert A. Heinlein's "Take Back Your Government" (which I have touted on these forums more than once).

I, unfortunately, am only at step one, getting familiar with the local political landscape (latecomer to getting serious about politics).

Where are you?

I was where you are today in 2000 and 2004. You see where our support of GW got us didn't you? Further left.

You just want to write them off like Galt did?

I'll address this one last. I bear no responsibility for the successes and fate of others. I can't wish you happiness and prosperity. All I can do is gtfo of your way and advocate a government that does the same. In case you haven't noticed, I and thousands of other Americans stood at these tea parties and demanded the same. Many of us have called and written letters. The poles show we don't want obamacare but are they listening?

As a society, we expect an abused wife to leave her husband. We can't expect her to honor her obligation to a marriage when her husband is killing her. Our government has been that abusive husband for many decades now and at what point are the states allowed to say enough is enough? When are we as citizens allowed to say enough is enough? I wish I could still be as optimistic as you but I just can't anymore.

To try to bring this a little back on topic, Col. Barfoot is John Galt. He didn't wait for his nanny to lead him around by the hand and do everything for him. Our current government thinks people like him are more of a threat to our country than vermin like Hasan who kills our soldiers.

I've been blessed with many things do to God first and foremost and mine and many generations of my families hard work. I bought my house at age 21 and by age 30, I had over $50k in assets over debt. I've lived my life the right way. I never got in credit card debt and I've never received a bailout and yet I'm expected to pay for every gutter trash's needs.

Receiving an inheritance in the eyes of society is evil. My family worked hard to get what they had and I get to watch it be gobbled up by the communists. I've buried both parents and both grandmothers since Jan. of 08 and you couldn't imagine all the problems that I've had to deal with over the last 3 years associated with their deaths.

Again, I bear no responsibility for anyone elses lot in life. I make no apologies for what I have and what I've received. If anyone thinks I owe them one, they better pack a lunch and pull up a chair because they will be here for awhile.

 

[Fletch]

Again, I bear no responsibility for anyone elses lot in life. I make no apologies for what I have and what I've received. If anyone thinks I owe them one, they better pack a lunch and pull up a chair because they will be here for awhile.

Right on. I'll add that anyone at all is free to ask for my help, with money, food, housing, whatever, and I'm usually willing to provide it. Those who demand it, however, are treated with contempt like the strong-arm thieves that they are.

 

[dburkhead]

Ok, I'll address this post more thoroughly.



You do realize this is a book about fictional characters, right? Nowhere did anyone say that if we "Go Galt" that the book must be followed to a T. If I remember correctly, Willers wanted to stay behind as he was much like Dagney and Hank. I'm sure Dagney could have invited Willers or any other person she would personally vouch for.

Yes, it's a book about fictional characters. And the author gets to set what happens.

It's easy to "win" an argument if you get to write both sides, which is exactly what Rand did.

I'm guessing that if there were ever a state that wanted to secede, they'd put restrictions on who they let in and a mass exodus of leftists that will be shown the door. They could have a buy in or any number of methods to get in. Unless there were a total break down of order in the other 49 states, I wouldn't rush right in to the new state.

And it won't matter squat if the primary problem is not fixed.

The primary problem isn't the system, or the "corrupt politicians" or even the 1/3 to 1/2 that you say support "communist ideology." It's the people who do at least nominally, support the idea of a free society who abandon the system and leave it to those others.

Every douche bag politician we have now came from the same place you will find "your" candidate. Out of the house and senate, how many of those people went there with the best of intentions and held true to them? How many are now in the pockets of lobbyists? How many have gotten elected to congress on the platform of term limits and develop amnesia once in?

Term limits, like most other panaceas, is a chimera that won't do what folk think it will. But that's beside the point. What makes you think you're done once you get someone elected to Congress.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That means that once you get that guy elected you ride herd on him. You have his replacement ready if he "goes astray" and you make sure he knows that just like you put him in office, you can replace him with someone else.

The problem of reform movements getting their candidate in office is covered in "Take back your government." It's not a new phenomenon. And anything you "replace" the current system with will have the exact same problem. The only fix is not a panacea but constant, ongoing citizen involvement.

Granted, this won't happen to every politician elected but I'd say we are at a good 90% now. You've got a 40% battle and I don't believe that will ever be achievable. Our constitution started out as a cadillac. It isn't as though we've got a ding in the fender and can be popped out. We now have a Yugo that hasn't run in a century and there isn't a straight piece on it any more. Do you think it is possible to turn that Yugo back into a caddy?

I don't buy that analogy. The Constitution is still there. Let's say you write a new one. What makes you think that people will pay any more attention to that one than they do to the current one. You'll still need constant vigilance and effort to make sure the new one is followed. And if you're going to need that constant effort any way, then why not apply that constant effort to the current Constitution and save yourself the extra effort of trying to reinvent the wheel?

There is nothing wrong with the constitution as it was written over 200 years ago. Today it is nothing more than a conversation piece for us terrorists who long for its return. Pelosi mocks those who ask her where she gets the constitutional authority to do what she does.

You may accept the label "terrorist." I don't. And what makes you think that Pelosi (or whoever) would pay any more attention to any new Constitution you might come up with?

What percentage of those loyal to the crown were died in the wool, give me more socialism types vs. those who didn't want change or weren't willing to risk their own life for our freedom? It would be interesting to know how many became loyal to the crown only after being asked to serve in the continental army.

Well the 1/3 to 1/2 numbers were pretty constant from before the revolution up through the final victory. There's a reason that Samuel Adams said, "It does not take a majority to prevail, just a tireless, irate minority eager to set brushfires of Freedom in the minds of man." It was because he never had a majority.

But when you cede the field to the looters and moochers, you have only yourself to blame that that's all you find.

What percentage of the leftist today are dying for the opportunity to lick Bamo's boots? I'd say the half on the side of Bamo are much more loyal and dedicated to their cause than the half that supported the crown.

"I'd say." And the basis for that other than that it fits your conception of the world?

Is the roof going to be open for the game Sunday? That's all most Americans got out of what you just said above. When you are standing around the water cooler at work and your co workers are talking about this Sunday's game, interrupt them. Ask them what their opinion of Obamacare is and see them wince.

Then it's fortunate that you don't need "most Americans" you just need a half dozen or so to start an organization. Then you need a couple hundred to do the actual work.

Greater Indianapolis has a population of about 800,000, 400,000 adults. You only need 1 in 20 of those adults to cinch the primary election and get a candidate on the Republican party. 1 in 20. You don't need a "great majority. Just 1 in 20. And, once you've done that, if you can't put on a better show than Campo did you'll only have your self to blame.

The overwhelming majority of Americans can't and won't be bothered by politics because they have more important issues such as the NFL, NBA, MLB, Johnny or Suzie's 6 different sports, their new car, house, gadgets, you get the idea.

Again, you don't need an "overwhelming majority." In fact, that most people can't and won't be bothered by politics is what makes it possible for folk like you and me to have such a strong effect. The left is saddled with the same problem. Just getting your own vote energized is often (usually) enough to win elections. If the numbers of people who didn't vote leaned one way or the other in approximately the same numbers as those who voted, there were enough people out there who if they had voted would have voted for Campo over Carson to have reversed that election.

People talk about the vote fraud wrt ACORN, but of far more import was the "legitimate" tactic of getting people that support them registered and get them to the polls. One of the things Heinlein suggested is offering to drive people to the polls to vote, anything to get more of your supporters into the polls.

Elections are won by votes and votes are in the precincts. The Democrats lately have paid more attention to that simple fact than have the Republicans with the results we have seen.

I was where you are today in 2000 and 2004. You see where our support of GW got us didn't you? Further left.

And here's the biggest problem with too many people who work on politics today: they concentrate entirely too much on the "big" elections and not enough on the small ones.

I'll address this one last. I bear no responsibility for the successes and fate of others. I can't wish you happiness and prosperity. All I can do is gtfo of your way and advocate a government that does the same. In case you haven't noticed, I and thousands of other Americans stood at these tea parties and demanded the same. Many of us have called and written letters. The poles show we don't want obamacare but are they listening?

As a society, we expect an abused wife to leave her husband. We can't expect her to honor her obligation to a marriage when her husband is killing her. Our government has been that abusive husband for many decades now and at what point are the states allowed to say enough is enough? When are we as citizens allowed to say enough is enough? I wish I could still be as optimistic as you but I just can't anymore.

To try to bring this a little back on topic, Col. Barfoot is John Galt. He didn't wait for his nanny to lead him around by the hand and do everything for him. Our current government thinks people like him are more of a threat to our country than vermin like Hasan who kills our soldiers.

I've been blessed with many things do to God first and foremost and mine and many generations of my families hard work. I bought my house at age 21 and by age 30, I had over $50k in assets over debt. I've lived my life the right way. I never got in credit card debt and I've never received a bailout and yet I'm expected to pay for every gutter trash's needs.

Receiving an inheritance in the eyes of society is evil. My family worked hard to get what they had and I get to watch it be gobbled up by the communists. I've buried both parents and both grandmothers since Jan. of 08 and you couldn't imagine all the problems that I've had to deal with over the last 3 years associated with their deaths.

Again, I bear no responsibility for anyone elses lot in life. I make no apologies for what I have and what I've received. If anyone thinks I owe them one, they better pack a lunch and pull up a chair because they will be here for awhile.

Basically, then, yes, you just leave the field to the moochers and looters and then blame the victims for them being the only influence around.

Cheryll Brooks didn't die because she was a looter or moocher or had the "A is not-A" attitude of the looters and moochers. She died because all hope had been systematically extinguished--and John Galt was a major snuffer of that hope.

"It's not my responsibility" is one characteristic that Galt shares with the Looters and Moochers. Rand conveniently elides over that in the book.

You can wash your hands of everything around you if you wish, and that's your choice. And I can sit here and point out that people doing that are a direct cause of the current situation.

How do you think we got where we are except by people not taking responsibility for making things better? "It's not my fault." "There's nothing I could do." "It was beyond my control." "I can't help it." Even in Atlas Shrugged, which side was the one making that claim the most?

Dagny took a different view from Galt. In the end, Dagny failed. But a large part of the reason for that (aside from authorial fiat) is that Galt was systematically knocking the props out from under her.

If someone is standing at the edge of a cliff and you knock the ground out from under them, you cannot then turn around and say that falling was their own fault.

 

[femurphy77]

Nothing against his valiant service here, but I don't see where he gets a free pass. He signed a contract and now doesn't want to live within the boundaries of said contract. He had, and still has the choice of not living under his contract. Just sell the property and move. He really shouldn't have moved there in the first place if he didn't want to live under the HOA contract. Sorry, I can't give him a pass on this, regardless of his military service status and bravery in the past. A contract is a contract. The HOA is seemingly holding up their end. Where's the honour in not upholding his end of the bargain?

There was an article in the paper within the last day or two in which a decorated military veteran had received the death penalty after commiting murder. I "think" it went before the supreme court and the death sentence was thrown out because the jury HAD NOT been told of the defendants exemplery service. The court threw out the death sentence and made it a life sentence instead.

If exemplery military service can keep you out of the gas chamber then it sure as he77 entitles you to a flagpole in your yard!!!!!!!

 

[Michiana]

Have to agree. BS like this is why I would never buy a home with a HOA. They're not saying that he can't still have a flag and fly it as many are doing from their homes.

I am in my 4th HOA and they have their good and bad points; it is the uneven enforcement that bothers me. In this case the HOA is not saying this resident cannot fly the American flag; it sounds like they are only saying he can't have a big flag pole in front of his house. I would guess he can fly it from the porch and probably could have a flagpole in the back yard. Its like them saying you can have vehicles in your driveway, just not junkers up on blocks. The flag is not the issue, the large unsightly pole in the front of a residental house is. Look up Don's guns and see what he put in his front yard.

I believe many of these rules are chicken poop but when you move into these developments you sign a agreement to follow the rules. Selective enforcement is what gets these HOA's in trouble; they look the other way with the flagpole guy and then his neighbor starts keeping a junk car in his driveway and the guy across the street has fifty lawn ornaments on his front yard. If you don't want to be restricted like this buy land or a house out in the country. My guess is there is probably more to this story than we are told.

 

[chraland51]

It is really a sad commentary on what this country is turning into when any American citizen is not allowed to proudly fly the symbol of our great country in order to satisfy a HOA or to be politically correct so as not to offend those that care nothing for this country or are even here illegally. He is not flying anything controversial like a flag of the confederacy or the los Estados Unidos de Mexico or even Dale Earnhart's old number. If our congress had any spine, there would be a law allowing such displays. I would bet that the HOA would not be broken if someone wanted to sit out on their front yard and destroy or burn a flag every day of the week.

 

[Dogman]

It is really a sad commentary on what this country is turning into when any American citizen is not allowed to proudly fly the symbol of our great country in order to satisfy a HOA or to be politically correct so as not to offend those that care nothing for this country or are even here illegally. He is not flying anything controversial like a flag of the confederacy or the los Estados Unidos de Mexico or even Dale Earnhart's old number. If our congress had any spine, there would be a law allowing such displays. I would bet that the HOA would not be broken if someone wanted to sit out on their front yard and destroy or burn a flag every day of the week.

The HOA doesn't seem to have a problem with people flying the American flag since according to his Mr Barfoot's own daughter many others are doing so from their homes, it's the flagpole that they have a problem with.

 

[dross]

When you make an agreement with someone, you are morally bound to honor what you agreed to. When you make a legal agreement with someone, you are legally bound to do what you agreed to. When you refuse to comply with the legal agreement you made voluntarily, the other party's only recourse is to take civil action.

I hate HOAs, and I think that a certain kind of person (busybody) tends to sit on HOA boards. That said, this man made a legal agreement to abide by certain rules. Now he wants to break the rules he agreed to. He is in the wrong, and the other party has no choice but to use legal means to enforce the agreement. Presumably the HOA has lived up to its side of the bargain, this man hasn't lived up to his side.

Also, if the HOA doesn't enforce this provision, they potentially lose the power to enforce other provisions.

The flag is a sacred symbol of our country. So is the law, and the legal and moral contracts between men. The flag doesn't trump that.