co: On objecting to the Pledge of Allegiance in America

Kollapsnik at Club Orlov reminded us about November 7,the anniversary of the Stalin revolt in Russia that ended the sovereignty of the Czars, and rang in Communist rule.

One of the comments brought out a recent event, where a school student refused the class pledge of allegiance to the US and the flag - and the coach physically and verbally abused the student, attempting to twist the young person's arm into the expected hand-over-heart position.

I can see how someone might disagree with the boy's point of view and manner of protest but if this is supposed to be a free country, what is the point of trying to force him?

Another comment went on to object to the pledge itself.

. . Furthermore it's unconstitutional, as it includes a reference to "God," whereas the Constitution explicitly states that Congress shall pass no law respecting religion. The Pledge of Allegiance was rammed through during the 1950s and has no legitimate association with the Fourth of July, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. Moreover that kind of compulsory group behavior is a violation of the spirit of all those things, in my opinion. So I'm against it.

For 15 years or so after WWII, the US faced an active threat from Russia, from infiltrating and local communist agents and activists, many with known membership in a Communist Party. The threat intended to escalate into an American version of the 1917 revolution where the Russian government was overthrown by Communist rebels against their government. Senator Joe McCarthy won a deservedly (in my opinion) tyrannical and corrupt reputation by riding that very real threat into a cartoonish reign of terror on Americans.

Part of the response to that threat from within and without, with anti-American activities being funded by Russia and other fronts, was the pledge of allegiance.

Most American Communists at that time were passionate and determined enough to openly despise the US Constitution and it's Constitutional form of government - they refused the pledge. So the pledge was seen as a test for citizenship, a public demonstration that community and leaders were indeed engaged in legitimate discourse and governance under local, state, and federal laws.

I think the flag was chosen as the symbol of adherence to the Constitution, because the battle flag has always been an important icon for the uniformed services. The flag plays the military role of identifying leadership, authority, and a visible reassurance that our side is still engaged, still battling or carrying on. The US grew from the Revolution and leaders recently experienced in that military conflict. In post-WWII America, millions of citizens had just recently been released from military service. The US flag was, and is, a powerful emblem and symbol of the nation, national leadership, and here in America, the Constitution that many public leaders and all military enlistees are required to swear an oath to defend, from enemies foreign and domestic. The flag as a symbol is a remembrance, and a reminder, that America was won on the battlefield, partly, and owes it’s continued existence, in part, to readiness to defend against armed aggression.

Anyone should be permitted to choose to refuse the pledge of allegiance; it should have to be a deliberate and sincerely considered refusal. Refusing the pledge should carry the consequences understood when the pledge was first imposed. No one that can conscientiously object to the pledge of allegiance should be allowed any position of civil, legal, military, or other civic responsibility or authority.

One of the basic strengths of America is adherence to the Constitution. From the President of the United States, to the gentlepeople collecting garbage for the city, every single person should be engaged in their assigned duties in a manner that defends and protects the Constitution of the United States.

Quarrels with individual laws aside from the Constitution, or with words, positions, or actions of any public office holder, are all legitimate defenses of the Constitution, and are part of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of each citizen of the United States. The onus to consider and choose what to support and what to oppose does not extend, in my opinion, to the US Constitution, the flag, or even to the pledge of allegiance.

Today the issue of Sharia law is a direct challenge to the Constitution in federal and state courts. Sharia law is to the Muslim, what the Ten Commandments are to Christian and Jewish faithful. They contradict the rights and responsibilities of citizens under the Constitution. Muslim beliefs of religious teachings superseding secular laws violate the Constitutional guarantees of separation of church and state. Harsh mutilation and stoning requirements under Sharia law violate freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Death to Islam non-believers violates guarantees against discrimination based on faith.

There are those that refuse the pledge of allegiance on the grounds that the pledge represents a secular kind of 'belief', almost a religious faith.

Those that do not believe that the Constitution is or should be the basis for laws common to all Americans must and should be tolerated. But the Constitution requires that leadership and laws and governing bodies adhere strictly to the Constitution, to not compromise the guarantees of citizenship, nor to exceed the limits imposed by the Constitution on governance in America.

Thus, I see the pledge as a check and a privilege of Constitutional citizenship, and a bare requirement for leadership and authority.

As to "God" in the pledge, the Constitution mandates separation of church and state, and adheres quite closely to actual faith in a divine Creator. Faith and church are two very different entities. Faith is a description of beliefs and truths that an individual incorporates in relating to that individual's concepts of divinity and that individual's relationship to that divinity.

Church, and other forms of organized religion, is an organization of people, often bound to each other by common faiths and beliefs. The US Constitution establishes that no church of any faith may over-rule the US Government, nor may they interfere with the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from the Constitution or Federal, state, or local laws. The Constitution also, importantly, protects citizens from churches and faiths, and actions by churches and faithful, that contradict the rights, protections, and responsibilities of secular (non-faith based) laws and regulations.

The Constitution prohibits the government from allowing or acting from a basis of faith or church. Individuals, including office holders, are expected to act within their own faith and beliefs, as long as those actions adhere to the protections and limits of the Constitution and subsequent laws.

That is, the Constitution both establishes the creation of our nation within the belief in God (an amorphous expression of Judeo-Christian faith), and protects the individual's right and responsibility to believe and worship as their conscience dictates. The limits on church and faith protect the rights of each and every American to believe as they understand their relationship to God and divinity.

At least, that is how I feel about it.

nyt: Refusing to ask the pertinent question

Thomas L. Friedman wrote a New York Times opinion-editorial piece, Where Did ‘We’ Go?

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

Mr. Friedman's point that death threats and discussions about B. Hussein Obama are wrong - cannot be disputed. The America promised in the US Constitution is a nation of rule by law - extra-legal acts are against those laws. That should be simple enough for everyone to understand.

But Mr. Friedman takes a surface view only. He looks at who badmouths and belittles - and threatens - who.

I personally find that B. Hussein Obama has exceeded his authority under the Constitution. Constitutionally provided checks and balances - the Congress and the Supreme Court have not addressed those abuses of office. Congress persistantly aids and abets, in some cases, as in the hounding and badgering - for public consumption and political gain - AIG bonuses, an issue that should have been beneath the notice of Congress, in the larger issues facing America.

The Supreme Court, with it's newly appointed racially bigoted political hack justice, Sotomayor (and what did Obama do to get Souter to resign?), has yet to address Obama interfering in the restructure - and firing a CEO - of GM and Chrysler.

Pelosi/Reid/Obama have chosen to wield their power for political gain, for corrupt enrichment of hangers-on, and to punish those with wealth they covet. This is a dangerous, dangerous action, taken in such a way that they create a scenario where the safeguards of the Constitution are thwarted. In effect, by acting as tyrants, by enacting whatever they want in the face of popular opposition, they create a sense of desperation in their opponents. Desperate opponents need to see formal safeguards in action - or desperate responses may be tried.

Since taking office, President B. Hussein Obama has taken frequent steps to curtain and interfere with gun ownership, and frequently denied plans and actions taken. This pattern of bald-faced deceit has raised the hackles, paranoia, desperation, and anger of his opponents. No one doubts that Obama still intends further attacks on gun ownership - in flat defiance and disregard of the Bill of Rights - but is biding his time, planning his next moves.

This is not the way I believe a President governs in a constitutional government. In fact, I believe President Obama has violated his oath of office - to support and defend the Constitution, and thus should be impeached. I am firmly convinced that for now, the US House of Representatives is flatly incapable of honoring it's duty to consider and serve a bill of impeachment if warranted. I am convinced that the Pelosi-led House would block consideration of a bill of impeachment of the President, and would, on party lines, neglect to consider the merits of holding the President to the contents of the US Constitution, and to his oath of office. That is, the Pelosi-led House is acting in a tyrannical manner.

Reid has less of a political plurality to work with, but seems even less likely to follow the path of honor than political expedience. His Senate confirmed Sotomayor, after all. And continues to confirm fringe, radical, bigoted, and anti-American Obama appointees.

Are we to the point where the Declaration of Independence states, "When in the course of human events . . ."? I am offended at the Obama administration, and the Democrat-led Congress that this question occurs to me.

Mr. Friedman, you lament the "dangerous" atmosphere endangering our President. I do as well. But from my chair in Oklahoma, it seems that organized labor and radical elements of the Democratic party are largely to blame for making villains of opposing candidates.

As for the birth certificate - three supposed facts keep the issue alive for me. Kenya, as a nation, believes Obama to be their native son. The certificate of live birth from Hawaii is incomplete as a birth certificate of a natural born citizen of the United States, not requiring that the birth took place at the facility cited. B. Hussein Obama has spent time, energy, and effort to conceal the original of his birth certificate. In addition, there are so many questions about Obama's background, including who financed his Ivy League college education, what his participation was in the Chicago politics that sold his Senate seat - did those same factors buy it for him in the first place? Obama claims to be Christian, with a 20 year membership in Rev. Wright's racially polarized congretion. Yet, within days of publication about that congregation, Obama no longer belongs - was it faith that kept him going to church, political expediency, or a cover for the Muslim beliefs of his early schooling and childhood?

It seems incredible to me that a closet-raised, inept, unschooled person could make as many foreign affairs blunders by accident. If President Obama isn't deliberately trying to dismantle America's place in world stability - by giving away our honor, our promises, our friendships - he sure makes himself look stupid. And this from a background of world travel, Ivy League education, and a sitting US Senator.

I think the right place to start is an intense review of the most polarizing efforts by Congress and the President. Let supporters and opponents hear the arguments, and ask their questions. Let bills and actions be submitted for public comment and review. Act as representatives of the nation, rather than autocrats ruling with an iron fist and no concern about nay-sayers.

I actually think that the atmosphere of antagonism can be returned to a hashing of issues quite readily. It just takes all parties allowing their pet agendas to be legal, shaped by all interested parties, and a dedication to rule of law and the Constitution. There are laws and procedures and best practices in place for all of this. Let the leaders show that the Constitutional protections against tyranny are in place and that they work. That would be a really worthwhile change.

fwj: Where does the Constitution permit ObamaCare??!?

Frank W. James writes on Corn, Beans, Spent Brass, an empty page and a deadline about disturbing questions regarding ObamaCare: I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS????...

I am afraid there is a fallacy in leaning on the interpretation that the founding fathers had for the Constitution.

That is, the Constitution has always been a living document. It wasn't ratified, or wouldn't have been, without the Bill of Rights - the first 10 substantive changes or Amendments.

I fear and hate the agenda pursued by the deceitful, dishonorable President B. Hussein Obama. There may come a day that the world will naturally and rightfully fall under a single world government. We aren't there by a long ways, not when Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Venezuela entertain so many military interests and factions from so very many nations. We aren't ready when Muslim's can be found that hate anyone not of their belief, or Christians or anyone else. It is suicide of family, community, and nation to proceed as if we can accommodate or appease hostile forces in the world.

The unfortunate truth is that many Americans share the vision and what they have been told is the agenda of B. Hussein Obama; I fear there is still much deception hiding the truth from most of them. In the past, it has been the compromises between left and right, between those wanting change and those wanting stability, that has been the major source of the strength of the United States.

What I see happening is a lack of compromise, that the liberal and socialist agenda is proceeding unchecked. And proceeding unchecked is a clear and real invitation to tyranny - which does violate the Constitution.

I am appalled at the White House interfering in GM and Chrysler far beyond the authority of the White House. I am horrified that Congress participated in the "overpay and bonus" witch hunt at AIG. But what really gets my goat is that there has been no motion to censure the President for exceeding his authority, no move to impeach him for interference and intimidation in private business. If a court were to find that B. Hussein Obama had violated the Constitutional bounds of his office, does that violate his oath of office - and thereby unseat the President? The question hasn't been asked. And that bothers me, a lot.

Regardless of how one views the intent of the Constitution at the founding of the country, I contend that the current wording and interpretation in the courts holds true. As a nation of laws, I am disappointed that the President is permitted to ignore the Constitution, rather than wait out the process to amend it or whatever would be required to support his extralegal shenanigans.

I still want to know what Obama did to get Souter to quit the Supreme Court; it is obvious he needed a bought judge, Sotomayor, to cover his butt when ObamaCare lands before the Supreme Court - it cannot help but start out there.

There have been no publicized moves to recall any of the privileged players treating the President's proposals as if they were simply another proposed law - one that they don't need to worry about what it contains.

What I fear is a breakdown of civil authority, unless the Constitutionally mandated checks and balances start exerting a dampening influence on the outrages coming from the Obama White House.

I have heard anecdotes that President Obama appears to suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That there is a psychological explanation for why he considers anyone thwarting him to be evil and deranged, why his every whim seems to him to be the Truth Before God. I dunno. I figure his tenacious pursuit of ObamaCare is either deranged obsession that he knows better than most Americans, or that he keeps ObamaCare on the media fire to prevent us looking at H.R. 2749 Food Safety Enhancement Act or gun control efforts or other underhanded misuses he is making of the US Government. I suppose it could be both.

I consider Obama's conduct outside the authority of the Presidency and against the limits of the Constitution to be illegal. But the same House majority that helps assure passage of Demcrat-sponsored legislation means that a move to impeach cannot be voted out of the House of Representatives, either. Obama's butt is covered against being prosecuted, at least for now. Which amounts to another invitation to tyranny - freedom from prosecution for illegal acts.

Frank, your worded your piece in a fallacious manner, implying you were unsure if the Constitution either required or even permits what ObamaCare is attempting to do. I think most of the argument was lost when LBJ launched his War on Poverty. Right or wrong, I think ObamaCare could well end up being implemented if passed. My Representative and Senators have been told how I feel about the program - that it is unconstitutional, devised to destroy incomes of physicians and hospitals in favor of government operated services, that it is another step in implementing government management of wages at all levels from part time custodial on up. ObamaCare rewards certain of Obama's secret backers, and destroys additional American infrastructure, as a means to dismantle America.

Because the America Obama is headed for has nothing to do with the US Constitution. Just wait until he irritates enough people he has reason to invoke martial law, and see what gets set aside and what doesn't.

But that is just my thought tonight.