Here I am

Pledge of Allegiance: Unconstitutional

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Who's going to BOMB this???

4.3 V6 GM water loss

The Chief Justice of the 9th Circuit is married to Ramona Ripston, who is the head of the California ACLU. These people are scum. They hate America and hate most especially working-class white Americans. They see blue-collar workers, blue-collar values, religion, and patriotism as the ENEMY, to be wiped clean or expunged from all education, all government and finally from the country itself. They would love nothing more than a Mao-style take-over led by a Liberal Elite and protected by a well-armed force of machine-gun toting loyalists. In their perfect state of course, only their forces would be allowed guns.



Most of the Minority Immigrants I encounter don't even KNOW anything about this country, don't care about our history and don't particularly care about our laws. We are being invaded by an army of poor, violent, uneducated, but smiling faces. And because they smile it is hard for kind Americans to recognize the danger. Here in So. Cal. , we have an entire army of over 600 thousand (Acording to the L. A. Times) Hispanic & Asian gang members, who make great TV, with their big grins, but who tell a different tale when met on the street, or when tempted by desire for anything you own. Their hatred of us is real. Their hatred of us is allowed, it is even encouraged by the Media, by the courts and by Liberal Democratic polititians. Minority and Liberal hatred of White Americans and of conservative values is taught in most Universities today as a article of faith.



A great example of the Media & Government's aquesience in Immigrant/minority violence was apparent after the Lakers won the 2000 Championship. What follows is from an L. A. Times column by Dennis Prager:



After the Los Angeles Lakers won the (2000) National Basketball Assn. championship, roving bands of young Hispanic, Asian & Black men challenged civilization as most of us understand that term.

What is worthy of immense attention is the absence of police intervention. While media people, City Hall and police headquarters are all telling us that the police should be commended for a wonderful job, the fact remains that for 6 hours people were terrorized, stores were looted and police cars and other vehicles were destroyed and burned--all within a block or two of hundreds of police personnel. Yet the police did not stop one criminal and arrested a mere 11.

The police are fully capable of stopping such criminality but are told not to do so when the crimes are committed by bands of blacks, Latinos or Asians.



Police officers often anonymously call my radio show to confirm this. Yet even without police confirmation, this policy is obvious to all who have eyes to see. It explains why police in New York City ignored the many women who begged them for help after being sexually attacked at the Puerto Rican Day parade. It is an open secret in New York that the police were essentially under orders to avoid any confrontation with that Latino minority.



Unless an officer is directly threatened, police officers know that it would be best not to be seen confronting blacks or Latinos. Imagine if a police officer outside Staples Center wielded a baton against a black man who was smashing a car, and unintentionally seriously injured the man. The mainstream media would do their damage: Television news would repeatedly show the video of a white officer clubbing an African American male, and mainstream newspapers would all publish the still picture of it. On other liberal fronts, the ACLU would sue the police; the individual officer would be branded violent and racist; and upon his release from the hospital, the injured criminal would be invited to lecture at various universities.



The police and civilian authorities understandably figure: Who needs this? One must almost pity the good police officers. One can only imagine the humiliation felt by police sitting in their cars doing nothing while other police cars were being set on fire.
 
Last edited:
Re: I think it's a good ruling....

Originally posted by joel

As for the Pledge of Allegiance, it wasn't even penned until 1892 and believe it or not, it was penned by a SOCIALIST minister (Baptist) who was basically tossed out of the ministry because of his socialist sermons.



You know who wrote the pledge of allegiance? You'd better release that info, because I understand they don't know who wrote it, and it's not been proven who has.



Darren



Edit:

Well, looks like I got bad info from the local newscast... . geez who would have thought they could be wrong? DOH! I should have checked their info, was easy enough to do... ... .

The newscast last night stated that Bellamy was originally credited with being the author, but that it was being disputed, they only thing I could find on this was what I pasted below... .



*******The "Pledge of Allegiance" was first published in a magazine called The Youth’s Companion in 1892. Authorship was originally disputed, and it was not until 1939 that the United States Flag Association ruled that Francis Bellamy was the author. ********
 
Last edited:
Francis Bellamy, the author of these words, was an ordained minister, magazine writer, and Freemason who stated that his aim was to say "what our republic meant and what was the underlying spirit of its life. " Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 as part of the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America by Columbus. It was embraced by the nation and almost immediately became a part of the school-day ritual. Bellamy's original text has been altered twice. In 1923, the words "the flag of the United States of America" were substituted for the words "my flag". Congress officially recognized the Pledge in 1942 and added the words "under God" in 1954. www.bcpl.net/~etowner/flag.html
 
Illflem is well read. I am impressed.



So you know, the 9th Circuit is clearly the most liberal of the Federal Circuit Courts and is reversed by the United States Supreme Court more often than any other Circuit.
 
I agree completely with joel. I am not a athiest. I just belive in fairness. There is no reason to have the words "Under God". It has nothing to do with being patriotic. I say do not mix politics with government. Some people want us to believe all our founding fathers were holy men and thats the only reason we have become a great country. Truth is many of them were womanizers and drunks. These early christians were the same people that burned witches in Salem, or did we forget? A good example of religon making laws and enforcing them.

Michael
 
If my kids wish to say the pledge of allegiance (freedom of speech, remember) in a school in which I am paying for via my taxes, then they can say it. If they rather not, than stand there and be quite.

Just as you cannot force them to say it, you can't FORCE them NOT to say it.

If we ever have to remove "under God" from the pledge, than may God help us.

The whole reason there is a universe, and anybody in it to argue about this is because there is a God.

How stupid can we humans get ??????

I think of the 100's of thousands who have died, fighting for us to be free, What do you suppose they are thinking ?

Exactly..... we should be embarassed.
 
When you consider why under God was added in 1954 maybe it isn't so stupid to remove it. By pledging under God you are saying that you're not a Communist since they didn't allow religion. Now that Communism is basically dead maybe it's time to modernize. I personally don't really care which way it goes.
 
Maybe not

Originally posted by illflem

When you consider why under God was added in 1954 maybe it isn't so stupid to remove it. By pledging under God you are saying that you're not a Communist since they didn't allow religion. Now that Communism is basically dead maybe it's time to modernize. I personally don't really care which way it goes.



Looking at the 9th's ruling, it appears to me that Communism is alive and well: Government TELLING us what is good for us instead of FREEDOM. The Dems are eventually going to PC us right in to soap & toilet paper lines.



Personally I would like to go somewhere the plege is recited in California. When the silent gap appears, I would yell through a megaphone "UNDER GOD"!!! That is MY freedom of speech.



By the same token, someone else has the same right to say "under Allah", or "by a bunch of womanizing drunks". That is freedom, not political correctness.
 
Originally posted by illflem

Francis Bellamy, the author of these words, was an ordained minister, magazine writer, and Freemason who stated that his aim was to say "what our republic meant and what was the underlying spirit of its life. " Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892 as part of the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America by Columbus. It was embraced by the nation and almost immediately became a part of the school-day ritual. Bellamy's original text has been altered twice. In 1923, the words "the flag of the United States of America" were substituted for the words "my flag". Congress officially recognized the Pledge in 1942 and added the words "under God" in 1954. www.bcpl.net/~etowner/flag.html



Well, looks like I got bad info from the local newscast... . geez who would have thought they could be wrong? DOH! I should have checked their info, was easy enough to do... ... .

The newscast last night stated that Bellamy was originally credited with being the author, but that it was being disputed, they only thing I could find on this was what I pasted below... .



*******The "Pledge of Allegiance" was first published in a magazine called The Youth’s Companion in 1892. Authorship was originally disputed, and it was not until 1939 that the United States Flag Association ruled that Francis Bellamy was the author. ********



Psss. someone should tell them... ...



Darren
 
me4osu, I like your idea but One nation under a bunch of womanizing drunks just doesn't have the same ring to it and could be misinterpreted. ;)
 
Might be kind of hard to say that fast. Maybe one of those guys that do the Car Dealership disclaimers could handle it. :D
 
This buffoon is still at it....

I just heard on the radio that the clown who started this:



"The plaintiff who thought otherwise was Dr. Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist and emergency room physician with a law degree who acted as his own lawyer. He lost in U. S. District Court in Sacramento but won in the 9th Circuit. "



is now planning to go after the "in god we trust" that is printed on the most important piece of paper I know of, the dollar bill!



Read more here http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/3362516p-4390620c.html



He probably drives a Ford with a Clinton/Gore sticker still on the bumper.



Sam
 
Since when did this site start allowing posters to advocate shooting people. My local paper says that the ACLU refused to take this case so that bit of misinformation is bogus. This whole thing is a plot by Martha Stewart to get her name off the front page, and yes I am kidding. Get a grip folks, this is a minor item compaired to what else is going on in this country and I don't care if it is in the pledge or not.
 
Re: I think it's a good ruling....

Originally posted by joel



It's pretty common knowledge that it's the Judeo-Christian God referred to by "under God. " That means that if you're Christian, Jewish or Muslim, it's no big deal. What about if you're Hindu? What about if you're Buddist? Or what about if you're an athiest? What then? Many schools "encourage" you to recite the pledge of allegience. You know as well as I that if you're "different" as a kid, you become an outcast. How's that fair, equal justice and all that.






This is spurious nonsense.



God means just that. If you're a follower of Islam, it means Allah. To me, it means The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. Others may answer "Jesus" or "Christ". To others, it means Gaia. To the Navajo's who follow traditional religion, it means pretty much nothing, as they don't have "God" or a word that translates to it. Thier concept of supernatural beings is a bit fuzzy, though they very much do believe in them. The things they hold sacred are physical... Mountains, etc.



To the Pope, hard to say, since his motto is "In place of God" (Vicarius Filii Dei).



Or in other words, saying "under God" means nothing more than the fact that the government is recognized as a lesser authority than the power that guides your conscience. In no way would I wish to undo this concept, whether the person speaking is acknowledging the God I worship, or the God they worship, even if it were a statue of stone, is greater in authority than the State.



This argument that using the word "God" is offensive because it MUST mean a particular concept, since that one is popular is just plain dishonest. It is neither logical, nor does it pass the "common sense" test. Just ask a million people who God is, and you'll get countless different answers. Ask every one of those million if they want the goverment subordinate to that definition, meaning their conscience should define thier faith and morality, and every one will say "yes".



This WAS a poke in the eye of the Communists, who believed in eradication of "the opiate of the masses". Communists do not believe in a higher power than the state, or greater virtue than the dogma of the party that ran the state. In this instance, we, as a nation, gave individual beliefs in what atheists call "delusional fantasy" the highest authority in the land.



And then we proceeded to demonstrate Communism was an utter failure.



Maybe it's not such a bad idea to continue upholding the ideal, after all.
 
I tend to agree with illflem.



It's always bothered me a bit that part of our freedom was based on seperation between church and state (and dont get me going on the church lately) but yet we have God plastered all over our money and in our Pledge.



One of our freedoms that seperated us from the Communists was the freedom to practice or not practice a religion. Either way we could be a good patriot.



So yet we push God on every dollar bill and in our pledge.

I dont think it should be in the pledge. I don't think it should be on our money. To Pledge your love for this country doenst mean you have to believe in God. That's whats supposed to set this great nation apart from all others.



I think the change to the Pledge from 1954 should be reversed. So the Pledge follows the original intentions of seperating church from state. So then if you dont say the Pledge we all know who to line up in our sights as a Commy or a terrorist. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Let's introduce Mr. Newdow to God... ... ..... shoot him.

Just having some fun. Anyway, I just heard that the some judge in the 9th discrict court is now pulling back the reins. Anyone know the details?
 
Thanks milehi...

I'm glad the country got ticked-off at this.

It shows we're still humans. I am quite madened by those who try to take the love/good/humanism/humility and decency out of this country. I am seeing it first-hand, everyday at the company I work for. I cannot say to my female co-worker "you look good in that dress". I have to say, "that's a nice looking dress". It's as if we have to completely change who we are, and what we say, just in case someone else has no common sense, and might get upset by your words.

Who said it's the laywers fault???
 
Read the Constitution

It clearly states, in several paragraphs, that the nation is being founded with God as the basis for it's freedoms. The Constitution MANDATES THAT THE STATES SHALL NOT IMPOSE ANY RELIGION UPON THE PEOPLE.
 
Back
Top