" I Pledge Allegiance....."

| | Comments (79) | TrackBacks (0)

Another day, another rant. I'm getting frustrated with the concept that "we are trying to define ourselves". I can understand that whole-heartedly! We are a nation that pledges allegiance to a flag that law says can be desecrated as is our first amendment right. I see. If the flag means nothing to some of our citizens then an oath to it and the republic for which it stands also falls by the wayside. The logic follows that an oath of office holds no consequence as upholding the Constitution of the United States is just that....an oath that is hollow. So where do we focus on acceptability and accountability? Let's look.

We are a nation focused on our heritage......our hyphenated heritage. We managed to become citizens or be born with that right and forget that this is the focus. My kin had two brothers; a Duke and a Cardinal. Between them they ruled most of Austria and northern Italy. Neat read. Wish I had got some of that pie. I was born to a military man and a housewife. Americans. That IS my heritage. That is where my allegiance lies. Not in the near past or distant past. That is what pride in this country is all about.

Marion Barry in African garb in politics. He wasn't born in Africa and if he wasn't a citizen of this country he wouldn't be holding a position of government authority (is home rule gov't?).

Barrack Osama-bama talking oath on the Koran? I thought the reason we used the Holy Bible was because we based our laws on Christian doctrine. You non-believers probably would agree to use something else since taking an oath on the Bible and then lying without being struck dead by God's wrath proves a point. Paybacks come later but I digress.

Trent Lott, a southerner (yes, there are ignorant and corrupt people in the South also) throwing aside what his constituancy requests with the belief that his position has its own right and power and to heck with the law (that's the Constitution, the one he took an oath to uphold).

This is the mindset of too many in power of all levels of government as well as industry in the private sector. It deals with power and greed (or greed for power) and it circumvents what their oath and allegiance has bound them to......us citizens. We, the people!

We cut down a state or national tree and get fined and/or incarcerated. Tree huggers love that law. We kill a bald eagle with the same consequence. PETA loves that law. We burn the U.S. flag....nothing happens. That is unless you try to do it to the one I fly. State, national or my Stars and Bars (it is a heritage pride thing). Then I am going to beat you silly and accept the consequences for my action because I belive so strongly in my country. An oath not taken lightly in this household. Could you imagine if old Ben had gotten his way? We'd be eating eagle (I'd rather have goose or ham myself) for Thanksgiving and a turkey would be sitting on our flagpoles. Then again, he wanted to make German the national language but that got shot down (I haven't heard an outcry from the Pa. dutch on that one). How come we never got an official national language? Why do we STILL not have one?

Bottomline is when you are born a U.S. citizen, you are trying to become one or have taken a citizens oath (that word again) there should be a magical sensation that overcomes you as to who you now are. It makes a difference to me and it should do the same for you. Allegiance is the operative word and it is not to be taken lightly. Be nothing but american and help to make America great. Fight for that respect and help to rid the powers and industries that show disdain to the oath of allegiance and the right of our citizens. End rant.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: " I Pledge Allegiance.....".

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1281


zimzo said:

"Barrack Osama-bama talking oath on the Koran?"

Are you confusing Sem. Barack Obama who is a Christian and Rep. Keith Ellison who is a Muslim who took his oath of office on the Quran? Or is this whole thing just a parody of what a really dumb right-winger might believe. Because it's hard to believe that anyone is really that stupid.


You feel my pain.


If you have to resort to name calling, you lose.

Tom said:

So you love your country so much that you fly the flag of a failed REBELLION against your country? I've never understood how those who claim to be the most patriotic in our society are the ones flying the Confederate flag which represents an act of treason against the nation you love. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these rebs attack the United States? How are they any more venerable than the Japanese in 1941? The result of their initial attack on Ft. Sumter would come to be 600,000 AMERICANS dead on both sides. How you can fly the flag of such traitors to the republic is beyond me? And please don't start with states rights because you probably seek using the Constitution to overturn certain legislation passed by states such as Massachusetts in recent years.
Secondly, pledging allegiance for most of the people who are doing it (school children) is an entirely meaningless, rote daily experience. Allegiance to one's country should not be defined by muttering what you've memorized. One's patriotism should not be defined by how they protect the flag, but more importantly by how they protect both the values and the land it supposedly stands for. Flag defense is a false cause used by so called conservatives to get your blood boiling. It is of absolutely no consequence to our survival as a nation. A flag is an anachronism left over from the battlefields of the past when such a logo was needed to determine whom one was shooting or charging at. Our flag (any flag) is a peace of cloth, symbolic yes, but of no practical import. Fighting a war for symbolism is not worth your mental energy. Those same politicians who attempt to stir up your patriotism are the ones supporting domestic spying, torture, and selling off your nation to multi-national corporations.
As for Marion Barry in African garb, I'm sure you, me and most reading this are in Mexican, Chinese and Taiwanese garb right now. Just look at the tag!
The Pledge by the way was first printed in 1892 for a publication called the Youth Companion. How one's fidelity to an oath concocted for the 1892 Columbus Day celebration should be a bellwhether for who loves and honors this country is beyond me. Oh yeah, and as a teacher I say the pledge everyday.
And yeah, Zimzo is right-it is Keith Ellison who used the Koran. George Washington took his oath using an occult version of the Bible written by Masons (W used the same book in 2001). Who cares?

Anonymous said:


If you have to resort to name calling, you lose"

And, Osama-Bama is not name calling?

zimzo said:

So Brian, you think it is OK to call Barack Obama names and to insinuate that he is interchangeable with Osama Bin Laden? You think it is OK to mix him up with another black politician (I guess they all look alike) who unlike Obama happens to be a Muslim and to imply that people who are not Christians are somehow not American? You think it is OK to criticize another black politician for the clothes he wears? I'm really curious to know why you think questioning the intelligence of someone who writes such slanderous garbage is somehow worse than the perpetrator of these lies.

He probably got the two confused because of the PR campaign the Hillary Clinton camp had going in January, highlighting the fact Obama had been "raised as a Muslim" and educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia for several years as a child.

It was Ellison who took the oath on the Koran, not Obama. Obama's the one who reportedly attended a Madrassa.

(Later the Obama people claimed it was a Muslim school, but not a Madrassa. I quit following the story around this time).

zimzo said:

Excellent use of Republican smear tactics, Joe.

The story you are referring to first appeared in Insight Magazine owned by the Moonie-owned right-wing Washington Times, dubiously sourced to a mysterious, anonymous Clinton campaign member, which had the effect of smearing both Obama and Clinton in one article. The article was completely false but it was picked up by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and all the other right-wing smear merchants.

The truth was that from 1969 to 1971 when Obama was 8-11 years old he attended a public non-religious school in Indonesia, which is a Muslim country, and where he had been taken to live when his mother married his stepfather. he did not attend a madrassa.


That's the whole story. There was nothing to "follow."

But, then, you already knew that, Joe. I know that you are not stupid. You are something else, indeed.

Jack said:


Apparently, you did not learn your history very well. Our soldiers, at that time, swore allegiance to their States, not to the United States. Thus, Gen. Robert E. Lee, who opposed seccession, lead the Army of Virginia as his oath commanded, and for that reason Lincoln did not prosecuate anyone for treason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

Zimzo, thanks for confirming your concern over this report.

As I said, he reportedly attended a Madrassah.

And yes, I realize that when CNN delivers its finding, that's the whole story.

zimzo said:

It's clear that facts aren't much of a concern of yours, Joe, but I thought they might be a concern of others who might be reading this blog.

stay puft said:

...sounds like amnesty to me, Jack!

Had Enough said:

Obama hussain might have been better in the entertainment field and should have published his books as fiction, did I read that in Life or Ebony? Gee it might have been .....

The more I see and hear of this guy the more I wonder what his problems are, he appears to have some heavy personal issues. He sure does crave the spotlight.

My black friends were not impressed at all when he was in Selma, Alabama a few months back when he said Selma I'm coming home.

It just goes from one extreme to the other with this guy.

Jack said:

Then you have very strange notions of amnesty, puffalump. As I said, the soldiers' oaths were to their states, not to the United States.

stay puft said:

ok. I'm sure Lincoln's decision was based solely on a legal technicality and had nothing to do with the fact that the nation needed to heal it's wounds.

The North could have categorized the rebel soldiers however they wanted to (unlawful enemy combatants?)

It would have been really easy to define them as traitors and sentence them to death. Lincoln decided not to do it because it wasn't in the country's interest to have more Americans killing Americans, not because his hands were tied by legalese

jacob said:

Why do you keep overlooking the fact that we are a nation of Laws and not men. Soldiers like Lee did not pledge loyalty to the US, but to VA. The constitution was vague in this area. The 500K+ dead on each side settled the matter, but it was NOT settled law back then until the war was settled.

zimzo said:

With Joe becoming the kinder, gentler face of the not-bigoted-in-any-way-how-could-you-even-believe-such-a-thing anti-immigrant movement I think this is a perfect time for engaging in Civil War revisionism. Of course, Robert E. Lee was not a traitor, not the way those liberals who oppose President Bush are, and he just wanted to help the slaves because they were his friends. And his "black friends" as he used to call them were on his side in the Civil War and were a lot happier being slaves, just as Had Enough's "black friends" don't trust that Barack Obama guy with the strange, suspiciously foreign name, which sure sounds Muslim, doesn't it? Did I mention that the anti-immigrant movement isn't bigoted at all?

Somebody please teach Zimzo another trick. I fear our readers will take to skimming his posts.

Ahoy Zimzo, can ye' talk like a pirate? Yargh, it be a fine way a' speakin'.

Jack said:

Sorry, Joe, but it is impossible to teach someone who refuses to learn.

jacob said:

getting zimzo to stop playing the race card is like getting a dog to take a bath. The dog doesn't think it needs a bath and zimzo thinks he is justified in his invective. The interesting part is that they both stink, though the dog is an intelligent animal.

This is zimzo's cue to start crying that I was being mean to him.

Since his memory does not stretch back far enough to remember he just called me a racist, just two comments ago, it's a really pitiful case of lib Alzheimers.

stay puft said:


I do it so that you get the opportunity to use the phrase "we are a nation of laws" outside of the immigration context!

...what was that about name calling?

Tom said:

Robert E. Lee's citizenship was restored in 1975. Like other confederate leaders he had to petition to get it back. So for his actions as an unlawful combatant he lost his US citizenship. It took until 1975 because someone screwed up the paperwork.
Still though, I don't understand how you can say in the same post that you pledge allegiance to the stars and stripes while flying the flag of a short lived nation that existed soley as an act of rebellion against the country you are so passionately in love with? I made no comment about whom General Lee pledged his citzienship to, but the whole Lee had to serve VA story is BS. Look at all the US military officers from Virginia who chose not to join the Confederacy- for instance some nobody called Winfield Scott. Secondly, I suppose in your mind the 48 counties that now make up West Va committed an act of treason against the state they were supposed to be pledging allegiance to when they separated in 1863 and chose to remain loyal to the Union?
I have no interest in debating the merits of Robert E. Lee-I grew tired of him after working two years for the NPS at Arlington House to honor him. And, according to Lee's own writings this was no obvious choice. He was very torn about resigning in April of 61. Perhaps you should look at the recently released collection of letters that had been stored at Riggs by his daughter Mary.
Finally, your own link does not state Lee was required to serve Virginia, just that he chose to do so even though he had called the seccession movement an unlawful revolution and betrayal of the work of the founders( including his many members of his own family). How is Lee any better than a Tim McVeigh? Both committed acts of war against the country of their birth.

Jack said:


West "by fraud" Virginia is a clear violation of Article 4, Section 3: "[No] new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

There is nothing in our Constitution, however, that says a State may not secede.

Tom said:

It's always good to see the patriots of this website rush to the defense of the people who attacked your dear nation. I am amazed that you have anger toward West Virginia, but again not to the traitors who went to war against their own nation, a crime incidentally that is mentioned in the Constitution along with WV's faulty creation. If you are so passionate about Virginia and the righteousness of its cause I am tempted to conclude you long for the days of darkies and masters that have so sadly passed you by.

Activist said:


The deal with Obama taken oath on the Koran was not parody, just supposition. From his own mouth while campaigning he has said that he was raised Muslim and then has said he was raised Christian. I never said anything about him being a "radical" Muslim as I don't think that most Muslims are radical. I can call him Osama-Bama-Llama or anything else I choose. Namer calling? That is just being an ignorant right-winger who doesn't know how to spell. I don't like the guy because I can't trust someone who panders to EVERYONE so that he may get your vote. He would tell me exactly what I want to hear. You don't trust them kind of people...especially running for the highest position in government. We have a whole gaggle of candidates like that.

Why is it always race with you? No, I don't get anyone confused as far as color. I see Americans as people. The point being, no hyphenated -Americans! It is a disconnect. Get a clue, will you.

Jack said:

The South seceded, Tom. Do you see anything in the U.S. Constitution that says a State may not do that?

I do long for the days when the Constitution was the law of the land.

Activist said:


What kind of a teacher are you?

What would have happened if the Revolutionary War had failed? That was a rebellion also. Unlike the Japanese who waited till the eleventh hour (and beyond) to give their ultimatum before declaring war, the south went thru secession, all open and above board. It had been in the wind for years. It had been some time after the first 7 states seceeded before an ultimatum had been given to Fort Sumter to relinquish their command or be driven out. Most other areas were already vacated and turned over to the States. Don't even try to compare the dispicable act of the Japanese to the act of secession of the south. Apples and oranges, pal.

As I stated above, the symbols of our nation are all protected but the flag. People throughout our history have died for honor of that flag. Coffins are still draped and hand-salutes still raised for that flag. You say "One's patriotism should not be defined by how they protect the flag, but more importantly by how they protect both the values and the land it supposedly stands for." I say that I am a southerner and that is exactly why I fly my "failed" flag. It is a way of life that was around before the Civil War and, if you choose to take the slaves out of the picture, is what the south fought for.....our way of life. That has always been the problems with the "Yankee" thing. Do it our way cause you don't know what you are doing. Well, when I fly the other flag of MY nation, it is manners, God fearing and a slower (isn't that called quality) way of life. You sound as biggoted as Zippo.

The flag is not just a piece of cloth. I can love my nation AND love my heritage, both being American. Since you already have agreed with me, how can you disagree also? I don't understand your point.

Bobby Lee was a patriot. Remember "Light-horse" Harry Lee? That was his linage. Why wouldn't he and many others be torn about the division of a country and the choice that had to be made. Many did it and it split families (literally) or didn't you know that? Treason. Isn't that what the redcoats said about our patriots?

Finally, West Virginia became a state thru the granting of the Union government. The only way that was possible is when Union loyalists in Virginia set up THEIR OWN illegal government and called it the represented government of the state. If I remember correctly, the legal government for the state of Virginia voted FOR secession and that is how the state of Virginia became a confederate state. That being said, the state of West Virginia in all truth (and probably constitutional law, if it were to be pursued) is in actuality an illegal entity and not a state at all. It is still part of Virginia. Nice try, Tom, but no cigar!

Peter Wolf said:

This site is a joke, right? Come on, you can’t be that ignorant, can you? all three or four of you that is..

jacob said:

Oh for petes sake, zimzo calls others 'racist' or implies as much at the drop of a hat. It gets old dude. He keeps asking for it. Would you tolerate it? hmmmm; WWMD? Blessed are the 150' puffalumps ...

Face it, at least I am creative, that heathen just keeps on going with "you're a racist" over and over again. hmmmm, the energizer lib? it keeps going and going ...! Hey you got any of that ascii art that looks like the energizer bunny?

Jack said:

Well done, Peter. Jump right in with the ad hominem attack, and add nothing of substance to the conversation. Is zimzo, perchance, your Mentor, and you about to embark on your own little liberal Odyssey?

zimzo said:

When you guys stop using racist rhetoric, I'll stop pointing it out. This thread started out with Activist singling out two black politicians and implying that they were un-American. Then it devolved into the kind of Civil War revisionism that is common among extremist racist groups. Activist then reiterated that he is unable to tell two prominent black politicians apart (Barack Obama, who is a Christian and Keith Ellison, who is a Muslim) even when he was called on it repeatedly.

So I'm sorry if you are so bored by my pointing out bigoted rhetoric. If you don't want to hear my calling you on it, you could always stop using it.

jacob said:

Peter Wolf,
You speak of ignorance. OK.

1. Go read the constitution. Tell me what you think it says about a single state deciding to secede.

2 Read some history regarding both West Point and the Army, you will see to what people were swearing fealty to. Tell me, did they swear it to uphold the constitution as we do today?

3. Lee actually wanted to fight for the Union but his oath and loyalty were to VA. When did VA secede relative to the other states?

4. People thought of their state (NY, PA, VA etc) back then as we would
think now of the US. Do think it is legal for the US to leave the UN?

5. To this day each individual state is sovereign. Tell me, are the the individual provinces of other countries, like Canada, sovereign?

6. Are the above 5 points I made incorrect? Can you answer the questions?

jacob said:

OK. Please be so kind as to point _my_ racist comments. I want to see what qualifies as racist in your mind. At least the conversation will swerve back to something concrete.

Had Enough said:

We have been accused of being racists, kkk, ignorant and a whole lotta other things but they keep coming back, I don't get it!

If we are that disgusting, why do they come back? They should know by now that rambling and insults won't change any of us.

zimzo said:

Let's get this straight. I have never accused any of you of being racists. I don't know any of you and I don't know what is in your hearts. I have only pointed out when you have used arguments or made statements that seemed bigoted or are similar to rhetoric used by racists in the past.

Much of the rhetoric used against immigrants on this site, mirrors rhetoric used against people perceived as "foreigners" in the past, whether by the xenophobic Know-Nothings, anti-semites in Europe or ethnic cleansers in the Balkans. You have made dubious claims that immigrants are more prone to committing crimes (when in fact the opposite is true), are spreading disease (again, not true, and one of the lies Lou Dobbs was caught telling on the purportedly liberal CNN), that they are not assimilating as quickly as immigrants of the past (false), that they are having a negative impact on the economy (when in fact statistics don't show this). These are all arguments that have been made in the past to justify their dislike of people who are in some way different from the majority population.

In this thread, Activist singled out two black politicians and falsely accused one of them of taking his oath of office on the Quran (which he is would be entitled to do under the law of the land) and slandered him by mixing up his name with Osama Bin Laden's and attacked the other for wearing "Africa garb," then claiming that they were somehow un-American. He seemed to be making the argument that only Christians or those who erase their African heritage can truly be called Americans.

Activist's rant was so full of half truths that I didn't even attack them all. The idea that Ben Franklin wanted German to be the national language is a perfect example of his inability to even get his smears right.

Here are the facts of Activist's urban legend:
--In 1795 Congress considered a proposal to print federal laws in German, which failed on a procedural vote. This historical event was later distorted to claim that German almost became the official language of the U.S.
--Benjamin Franklin printed the first German-language newspaper in the U.S. But his views on Germans sound uncannily like the views of Latinos propounded by many on this blog: "Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion?"

Franklin actually considered Germans to be "swarthy" and he attacked them in 1751 exactly as many people here attack immigrants in 2007.


So when you accuse me of recycling the same charges then all I can say is stop using the same rhetoric, which is more than 250 years old!

Jack said:

"I have only pointed out when you have used arguments or made statements that seemed bigoted or are similar to rhetoric used by racists in the past."

If the point was not to call us racists, then what WAS the point?

The fallacy of the ad hominem attack, in which you specialize, is that the validity of an argument depends on the qualities of the person espousing that argument. The wisest men have been wrong on occasion, and the most foolish have been right on occasion. Even Einstein erred with his "Cosmological Constant," and Thomas Jefferson erred with his Bible and with UVA. ;-)

I am of German descent myself (although of the late 1800's migration), and considering the behavior of the German people throughout the history of Europe, they were quite rightly considered uncivilized.

You own article says that, "The Germans were accused by other eighteenth-century Anglos of laziness, illiteracy, clannishness, a reluctance to assimilate, excessive fertility, and Catholicism." I do not think any of that was untrue at the time. Had the German migration continued as it had been, the "Germanization" of Pennsylvania might very well have occurred. As for assimilation, we see that the "Pennsylvania Dutch" still keep their own culture and language.


However, the migration DID stop, or at least slowed considerably, with Germany's industrialization: http://www.rootsweb.com/~paberks/library/GermanMigrationToAmerica.html

Will conditions change in Latin America to halt or slow the migration? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think we should count on it.

It is also worth noting that not only were the German immigrants LEGALLY here, they were INVITED by William Penn (ibid). It is not with LEGAL immigration that we take issue. In fact, I think we need to increase our quotas. However, the ILLEGAL immigration must be drastically reduced before that is feasible.

That some racists many years ago made similar arguments about their situation in their time does nothing to establish or diminish the validity of similar arguments about our situation in our time.

So I ask again, what is your point?

zimzo said:

Jack, you've made my point even better than I did. Thank you. I think I'll have another piece of shoo-fly pie.

Jack said:

As I asked before, what point is that?

Activist said:


I read your site and read all the pertinant Franklin letters. I was using erronious information and stand corrected. I retract the "german/national language" statement. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

Now I wish you would point out the "full of half truths" that I have espoused in my "thread"? It seems that you have a problem with what I wrote yet you don't want to address me for it. Still stuck on the "blacks all look alike" thing. Still stuck on picking on blacks for what they wear and that makes them un-american. You are stuck on race and everything is assumption. I've already explained it to you. Don't read between the lines....read the lines. Just as you put it, "un-american". See the hyphen? Get the point. Hyphenated people are doing everything they can to cause disconnect and champion....something. Be an american or get out. Take an oath for THIS country and its meaning. The problem with liberals and neo-visinaries is that they want to change things to fit their ideals. I'm sure you can find another country to fit that need. That way you can be an American-(whatever, fill in the blank) and that should satisfy you. Our laws, our way-of-life, our principles. I reiterate, if you feel you were born here by mistake (you were born here, right?) or that you are here all-but-for a freak of nature, leave with my blessings. Otherwise adapt and show some kind of allegiance.

How far would your mouth be agape if I was to tell you I was Black? Be careful with that racist card. Some of us don't like it.

Kevin said:

"Otherwise adapt and show some kind of allegiance."

WADR, ACTivist, "How far would your mouth be agape if I was to tell you I was Black?". . .if that is the case I'm sure your ancestors' mouths would be agape as well. Would you have told them to adapt and show some kind of allegiance to the law of the land?


zimzo said:

Are you telling us that you are black, Activist? If so, who cares? Because there are plenty of African-Americans that have idiotic things to say about race--Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, La Shawn Barber are just a few that come to mind--just as there are many women who are clueless when it comes to feminism.

As I said before, I am not calling anyone racist, I am only pointing out the use of bigoted rhetoric. If you are black, so what. That doesn't render you magically incapable of saying something that sounds like what a racist might say.

I have already pointed out two huge mistakes in your post--your confusing Barack Obama with Keith Ellison, which you still haven't acknowledged was a mistake, and your urban legend about Ben Franklin. Much of the rest of your rant was as incoherent as your last comment and I have neither the time nor energy to parse it.

Jack said:

So, zimzo, IS there a point, besides insinuating that others are racists?

jacob said:

dodging questions again. Oh well. Go eat some shoo fly pie.

ACTivist said:

"Would you have told them to adapt and show some kind of allegiance to the law of the land?"

Well, if they were americans or to become americans, kevin, then yes, I would. If you were referencing slaves, they weren't considered citizens, only property (a shame). That was ago and now is now.

Zimzo, I see that you are still using the hyphenated-american thing. Shows me that you don't and never will understand the meaning of being nothing but American and showing allegiance there to.

I will assume that your scroll does not work to look at previous comments so I will address your statements AGAIN!

1. You said "..you are confusing Barack Obama with Keith Ellison,.."

I said "Zimzo,

The deal with Obama taken oath on the Koran was not parody, just supposition. From his own mouth while campaigning he has said that he was raised Muslim and then has said he was raised Christian."

As well as"No, I don't get anyone confused as far as color. I see Americans as people."

2. You said "and your urban legend about Ben Franklin."

I said "Zimzo

I read your site and read all the pertinant Franklin letters. I was using erronious information and stand corrected. I retract the "german/national language" statement. Thank you for pointing this out to me."

I do address your statements but it seems that you tend to overlook things. Pattern I've noticed most often with you. Read, don't assume. And as far as you not "parsing" my incoherent rant, of that I would be pleased. You don't get the point anyway.

zimzo said:

Here's what you wrote Activist. Don't try to fudge it after you've been called on it:

"Barrack Osama-bama talking oath on the Koran? I thought the reason we used the Holy Bible was because we based our laws on Christian doctrine."

Again, you claimed Barack Obama took the oath of office on the Quran. He did not. Keith Ellison did. You clearly got them mixed up. Barack Obama did not say "that he was raised Muslim and then has said he was raised Christian." It is yet another Urban Legend.

Before you write something false again try to Google the subject along with the words "urban legend."

And you're right I have no idea what it means to be "nothing but American," because there is no such thing. We don't live in a country where virtually everyone has the same ethnic heritage, religion or culture. That is what makes this country great. If you want to try to erase your heritage so that you can fit in to some nebulous idea of a homogenous American culture that doesn't exist because of some deep-seated psychological need on your part, then that is your business.

ACTivist said:


Again, supposition! To show what can occur. It still got your attention.

Here is another side without the "urban legend". http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=754. You were saying?

Kevin said:

"Well, if they were americans or to become americans, kevin, then yes, I would. If you were referencing slaves, they weren't considered citizens"

duh duh duh duuuuuuunnnnhhhh!

"That was ago and now is now"

Precisely my point! Would you not say the changes (what progress HAS been made)were, on the whole, for the better? That to NOT change and to NOT accept what was the law, even up until 47 and 27 years ago, would have been a disservice? Or maybe the Civil Rights movement, which involved actual citizens, was not a good example of a group of people working to change the status quo? Non-citizens, slaves, property, whatever you want to call the human beings that built this country you call yours did not get this far by accepting the status quo.

Wow, way to go, ACTivist. If anyone would have the scoop on Barack Obama, Andy Martin would seem to be that guy.

Nice takedown. Or, "pwning" as the kids say.

Whether Obama was a Muslim who became a Christian would not be a story with much legs, but Obama denying something that was so - now THAT is a story we could take delight in casting the ol' spotlight on at least every week.

Anyone care to turn this into a new post? I think it deserves it.

zimzo said:

So a post with three outright falsehoods qualifies as good journalism in your book, Joe? Sue K. would be so proud.

Once again, Obama was not raised a Muslim and never said he was. The article that Andy Martin linked to doesn't say so either.


Most people would be embarrassed that a post like Activist's appeared on their blog. How low you have sunk, Joe.

Kevin said:

"How low you have sunk, Joe."

This line alone gets an honest chuckle out of me every single time and I never know why. Could someone please explain?

jacob said:

Whenever I see zimzo in his 'I am shocked, outraged and disappointed' mode I know that someone other than zimmy is spot on.

Jack said:

Hey, zimzo, have you figured out what your point is yet?

I thought I had already sunk as low as I could go. But I see there is still progress to be made! Ah, the possibilities are endless.

BTW Zimzo, you do not get to invoke her, ok? Stick to what you know.

Jack said:

Well, Joe, you could always sink to zimzo's level and just call people racists when you cannot come up with any facts or logic to support your case.

I plan to sink that far when I'm about 85 years old, which is when I also plan to start smoking again.

Jack said:

Yes, I have already posted on the correlation between development and decay of the prefrontal lobe (responsible for logic and reason) and the tendency of people to be most conservative when the development of the prefrontal lobe is at its peak.

ACTivist said:

"duh duh duh duuuuuuunnnnhhhh!" Not sure what that means Kevin. I think that you are more intelligent then that.

"Would you not say the changes (what progress HAS been made)were, on the whole, for the better?

Progress is pretty much synonomous with better. Yes, the changes made were for the better. What you have to remember is that you have to work within the system as it was constructed, regardless of who had a hand in it. That is what the rules are for. You don't like the rules, change them. If you wanted to play high stakes poker but didn't have the required ante, are you going to force them to let you play? Only if you change the rules. And since you don't have a stake in the game, you don't get a vote. It has to be changed by those IN THE GAME. Do you understand what I am saying?

ACTivist said:


Half-truths, half-lies, falsehoods, inuendo, conspiracy,.....I have finally figured it out. This is not off-subject. You are an angry young man. I would like you to read a book from Harville Hendrix called "Giving The Love That Heals". It deals with self esteem and how to raise your children right as well as see how you were raised. Their seems to be much hatred in your past and you need to address it. Projection is one of those issues.

stay puft said:

agh, that book sounds lame. better yet, check out a book called "Days of War, Nights of Love"

jacob said:

Did not the Greeks write something call the Iliad that covered all that? Homer baby did that shtick over two thousands years ago? I think he ate a whole box of donuts and then went blind. And here you are, reading cheap immitations and trying to turn others on to them! How provincial and common.

Kevin said:

'"duh duh duh duuuuuuunnnnhhhh!" Not sure what that means Kevin. I think that you are more intelligent then that.'

Nope. You're pretty much getting the best of it. Just ask Jack. That was the scope of my sheer genius.

Kevin said:

While we're at it, Trickster Makes This World by Lewis Hyde is a must read.

Jack said:

You must make allowances for Kevin -- he IS a liberal.

stay puft said:

what? the book is not a knock off of the iliad, it's a knock off of the anarchist's cook book!

"How provincial and common"

what pretentious snobbery, and coming from a down home conservative no less!

now if you'll excuse me, it's dusk already and I still haven't pledged my allegiance to the flag today

Kevin said:

Thank you, Jack.

jacob said:

Such ingratitude ...
"what pretentious snobbery, and coming from a down home conservative no less!"

It was not mere 'pretentious' snobbery, it was snobbery of the highest caliber. And from a down home conservative no less!!

Hope you remembered the words to the pledge oh urban liberal.

stay puft said:

oh of course I know the words, I had to say it every morning for 10 years! Sometimes, if we misbehaved in the classroom, the teacher would make us say 10 pledges and an ABC!

jacob said:

Sounds very Catholic in a strange secular/non-sectarian kind of way. I can it see now "Marsh! you bad boy, you dipped Cindy-loo's hair in the ink well. That will be 20 pledges, 10 ABCs and 5 National Anthems!!"

I remember having to copy the Gettysburg address for acting up in class by my 4th grade teacher.

stay puft said:

yes, those PS teachers were vicious, but they instilled in me a healthy appreciation of secular non-sectarianism!

Jack said:

Yes, they taught you to be a good little communist.

stay puft said:

and thank God for that!

Jack said:

Please, like you believe in God.

Tom said:

I've been out of town a while, but I wanted to answer your questions, Jacob-
. Go read the constitution. Tell me what you think it says about a single state deciding to secede. Did I ever say that the Constitution forbade secession? I guess someone should have warned me ya'll are very defensive about the Confederacy around here. That's fine with me if you are. Unlike some here I won't accuse you of racism. I have nothing to base that on. Besides, to the power structure of the South slaves were merely a required cog in the plantation system the economy was dependent upon. The race angle was secondary at best. South Carolina seceded to protect the economic interests of its planter class. I don't have a problem with that. I think the whole attacking Ft. Sumter thing though could be construed as an act of war by some against the US. And it is this "act of war" that caused my confusion about the original poster's loyalty to both flags. If the flag has great symbolic value, then how can you fly side by side a symbol of Union and the dissolution of the Union? If you feel they had a just cause and lost, fine, but then why not be angry that the oppressive US still tramples on states' rights? Certainly S.C. and the others did not win the guarantee of the rights they sought. If the flag brings to mind some sort of genteel, old way of life fine. But the flag almost everyone flies is the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. This was intended as a symbol of war, not old times in the cotton fields.

2 Read some history regarding both West Point and the Army, you will see to what people were swearing fealty to. Tell me, did they swear it to uphold the constitution as we do today?
According to Jacob Kolbrik's (Villanova Univ) article "The failure of antebellum Nationalism at West Point" they did have to take an oath of loyalty to the country and Constitution, and he cites an incident in 1844 when a cadet refused to take the oath, but was not allowed to resign. After the outset of the war the oath was revised and made stronger by Congress specifically stating no local, regional or state loyalty would come before that of the nation. The author of the article I sight points out that nationalism was not a goal of the West Pt. engineering curriculum, but neverless there was an oath of loyalty to the country and constitution.
I think you have a better argument pointing out that since he resigned, his oath should no longer be binding. Although I don't know if an oath of loyalty offered an escape clause.
Finally, in 1855 on promotion to Lt. Col, Lee made the following oath to "bear true allegiance to the United States, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully.”

3. Lee actually wanted to fight for the Union but his oath and loyalty were to VA. When did VA secede relative to the other states? I assume this is a rhetorical question as we all know VA seceded in April of 61. The reason Lee was so torn is he recognized his loyalty to the Union, but felt bound as well by familial ties to Virginia-
"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword....." Lee in a letter to his sister, April 20, 1861.
Clearly this quote illustrates that Lee recognized he was breaking his loyalty to the Union by making his decision because as noted above he had made an oath. Surely you don't think Lee was fighting for the farmers of Westmoreland or arlington when he rode into Mexico with Winfield Scott in the 1840's?

4. People thought of their state (NY, PA, VA etc) back then as we would
think now of the US. Do think it is legal for the US to leave the UN? Again, I don't dispute the right of a state to secede or the right of the US to get out of the UN. All I ever meant to point out was my confusion over loyalty to the Confederacy and Union at the same time by flying both flags.
You are right that at the time many thought of their state as some today think of their country. I never said they didn't, but clearly Lee's quote indicates that he has pledged loyalty to the nation, but feels he cannot honor his oath because it would require him to fight against his family, state, etc...A tough, noble decision. Lee was in the majority here, but 40% of Virginia West Point graduates in 1861 did choose to remain with the Union. Are they traitors to Virginia?

5. To this day each individual state is sovereign. Tell me, are the the individual provinces of other countries, like Canada, sovereign? In 2000, in response to the 1995 Quebec seccession movement, Canada created the Clarity Act, which states that if a majority of the pop. of a province votes for indepedence in a referendum that the national government in Ottawa will enter into negotiations to settle land issues, debts, borders, etc.. to enable secession. Canadian law does not allow unilateral secession.

6. Are the above 5 points I made incorrect? Can you answer the questions?
I answered your questions, but I'm sure I'm wrong on every point. I quickly learned that on this site one is always wrong if they fail to agree with the original post.

ACTivist said:


I am the original poster and I do feel that the states had rights to do what they did. It was a "rebellion" as referred by Lincoln and he was sending troups to squelch it. The South was making a statement not unlike that of the Boston Tea Party; just different causes. Am I still angry at the way the U.S. Government tramples on state rights? You better believe it. After all, the Constitution and Bill of Rights took many years of fine tuning (after the Revolutionary War was over) just for the reason of having a "common" government that didn't trample on state's rights.

The flags I fly, either seperately or together, does not detract from my patriotism. I fly the Stars and Bars (First National Flag of the Confederacy, second version-11 stars to include Virginia) because that is my heritage. It is also my way of life. The battle flag was not solely used by the Army of Northern Virginia as you will find thru regiments of all states throughout the South. Some people tend to identify differently-so be it. It is still symbolic just as the "Don't Tread On Me" flag. It is also a reminder that when state's rights are trampled on, people need to take notice and act. Would you not say that there is a growing discontent with the Federal elitist government today?

By the way. The "Union is dissolved" is a misnomer. The Union was segregated and seperated but had it been "dissolved", all states would have been sovereign with no alligiance to any other state or whole body of states.

Tom said:

Has the Federal government ever not been elitist? Lincoln was actually one of those rare leaders not born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth.
The founding fathers were as elite as you could get, but nevertheless, I understand your point.
As for dissolved, you're right. Poor word choice, although not originally mine.

kermit said:

BTW Our system of justice and government is based on English Common Law NOT Cristian Principles. English Common Law was around for more than a hundred years before Christianity arrived in England.

Jack said:

Funny, how did we get ENGLISH Common Law before Christianity, when Christianity reached the Roman Province of Britain in the third century, but the Anglii did not come until the fifth century?


Sanity said:

"Common Law" means that judges, not Bishops, Popes, Imam's or other religious leaders, interpret the law and that the judges rulings are used as precedent (that is, their rulings are also law). Our law is based on English Common Law.

While our code has significant overlap with Christianity (as well as almost all other major religions) whether it stays that way or not is coincidental. Legally, Christianity is irrelevant to U.S. law. You can take the oath on a paper plate if you want.

Also, Einstein may not have been wrong about the Cosmological Constant (though if not, he was wrong calling it his "biggest blunder"). With new data, the constant may, in fact, be valid (though, admittedly, not for the reason Einstein thought).

Jack said:

While our system has some basis in English Common Law, which came well after the Anglii and Saxons, BTW
it has one important difference. While English Common Law is based on "the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent," our law is based on the Constitution.

Yes, inSanity, our current crop of Cosmologists are using a variant of Einstein's Cosmological Constant to try to match their theories to observations. There is also the "inflationary period," during which the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. It's starting to look like epicycles all over again.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here