Ignorance in America
Under God or Justice for All
and
the winner of the coin toss is . . .
June
27, 2002 900pm
Atheist Michael Newdow zeroed in on the words “under
God” in the Pledge of Allegiance as ripe to attack in order to
garner his few seconds of fame from the socialists who sit on
the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
It surprises me that with all the free passes movie stars,
athletes, and Bill Clinton received for crimes ranging from murder,
perjury, obstruction of justice, down to shoplifting, that Mr.
Newdow did not attempt to challenge the words “justice for all”
as unconstitutional.
Maybe he did think about it and flipped a coin between
the two and the winner of the coin toss was “under God.”
For others out there looking for your few seconds
of fame, you should choose more fertile ground to cover in the
Pledge of Allegiance, namely those words “justice for all” or
the phrase “to the Republic for which it stands.”
Resident kook Judge Alfred T. Goodwin at the 9th
Circuit said that the United States as “one nation under God”
is as objectionable as saying “we are a nation ‘under Zeus.’”
You might have something there, Alfred. But then again, are words alone to be
taken that seriously? The
truth is the 9th Circuit wants the Pledge to be just
is simple as this: “I pledge allegiance” and be done with
it. The rest is moot,
or at least should not be taken seriously as court cases and political
agenda have shown.
Witness the following:
“to the flag”
“To the
flag” is suspect since the Court has ruled that flag burning is
fine and dandy. No sense for us to “pledge allegiance
to the flag” and then turn around and constitutionally light a
match to it. Don't you think, 9th Circuit, that you should just
take the next step and rule pledging allegiance to the flag is
unconstitutional since burning it is constitutional?
“of the United States of America”
If citizens
are to pledge allegiance to “the United States of America” then
why is it that President Bush pledges allegiance to Africa? When the leader of our nation wants to
throw $500 million down some African black hole (education?),
while we face the grave risk of a smuggled in backpack nuke by
terrorists, then that act should be found unconstitutional—or,
at least, borderline treason. Why is Bush pledging allegiance
to Africa and not the United States?
“To
the flag” is suspect since the Court has ruled that flag burning
is fine and dandy. No sense for us to “pledge allegiance
to the flag” and then turn around and constitutionally light a
match to it. Don't you think, 9th Circuit, that you should just
take the next step and rule pledging allegiance to the flag is
unconstitutional since burning it is constitutional?
Or what about the $325 million to Afghan farmers
because "those people are hungry” when the Afghan farmers
would rather grow opium poppies for the drug trade instead of
harvesting broccoli or Brussels sprouts? Should it be unconstitutional for
President Bush to pledge allegiance to the opium poppy? Is your
docket clear, 9th Circuit?
With Bush on this global spending spree with international
social welfare programs, should it be unconstitutional to spend
these billions on some big global Kumbaya party instead of spending
this money on preventing that nuclear attack and making our
nation safe for our citizens—in our America?
Should it be unconstitutional for Bush to increase foreign waste
spending by 50% when inflation is running less than 3%? What about
that, 9th Circuit?
“to the Republic
for which it stands”
Republic?
Hardly. Our "leaders" do not lead, they follow the uninformed
and often ignorant masses. Leadership has been replaced by holding
a wet finger to the air and seeing which way the ignorant opinion
of the country is blowing.
We have more of a democracy,
or "structured mob rule" if you will, as our form of
government. The "Representative Republic" went out when
leadership in America vanished, circa 1964 LBJ.
What do you think, 9th
Circuit, should "Republic" be ruled unconstitutional
in the Pledge since we no longer have a "Constitutional Republic"?
“one nation”
Not really.
Many nations. Like United Nations. Like March 22, 2002
when President Bush said "developed nations have a duty to share
our wealth" and "we should give more of our aid in the form of
grants, rather than loans" (translation: kiss the money bye
bye forever. It will not be repaid). What do you think, 9th Circuit,
should "one nation" be declared unconstitutional since Bush wants
to be mommy to the whole world and throw our money all over the
"many nations"?
"indivisible"
“Indivisible”
should be unconstitutional as states should have a right to secede,
regardless of what Lincoln thought or Texas v White ruled
in 1869. As socialism
in California and New York becomes so repulsive to the good decent
folks in Montana and Wyoming, maybe we will see if “indivisible”
gets challenged soon by some cool, creative, conservative, cowboy
citizen from Cheyenne.
"justice for all"
 “Justice
for all” is the one Mr. Newdow should have pursued. I think the Court should ponder taking
up “justice for all” as they look over the jail sentences of so
many American citizens and ask why Bill Clinton was not impeached—make
that why he is not in jail for the 15 felonies he committed.
The irony of all ironies
is that the Senate as a group said the Pledge of Allegiance that
ends in “justice for all” the day they decided Scumbag is above
the law and gave him a free pass on impeachment.
Is “justice for all” unconstitutional?
Is “justice for some select sorry suckers” a better phrase
to have in the pledge so that it will not be constitutionally
challenged? Rule on that, 9th Circuit.
The fact that so many
Americans are in jail serving sentences that the Bill Clintons
and the OJs and countless other celebrities avoid makes “justice
for all” unconstitutional—or, at least, not very fair and balanced
as Shepard Smith at FOX News would say.
I say the loony socialists
at the 9th Circuit made a big mistake by not refusing
to hear this case. Like
the idiotic rulings they have laid down before, the 9th
Circuit should have told Mr. Newdow to “come back when you are
ready to really grind up the Pledge of Allegiance instead of just
this little slicing and dicing by only going after the ‘under
God’. The 9th
Circuit believes there is far more demolition work that could
be done on the Pledge of Allegiance than simply eradicating ‘under
God’. Besides, we won't look so damn foolish staying our decision
one day after we make it."
San Francisco citizens
would have felt damn proud of their Court if they had ruled that
way.
***
Comments?
Letter to the Editor
***
Back to
Page 1
Page 2
Dear Marc Racicot:
Inaugural
Issue Farcical Fools at Free Republic
Go To Navigation
Links
ARCHIVES
|
