This entry was posted on Thursday, September 15th, 2005 at 12:44 and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Site Search:
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Since our liberal circuit court decided to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in our classrooms this week, I would urge you to write your Senator and S.1046 passed to protect our nations heritage and patriotism. I can’t think of one nation that stayed strong and mighty without a vocal pledge by it’s members. United we stand, divided by the courts we fall.
Here’s what I wrote Boxer and Feinstein.
I know you do not believe in patriotism or unity of our country, as your voting history indicates this, but since 9 out of 10 people believe in our Pledge of Allegiance, I demand you as an employee of the people to vote yes on the Pledge Protection Act of 2005 – S.1046.
As a proud American who took citizenship in 1989 in a sun filled room in San Jose, I was glad to recite that pledge that day for the first time as a citizen. I believe the majority of my fellow American’s agree and I would hope that you hear their voice and not yours.
September 15th, 2005 at 21:27
As an agnostic, I have no problem with the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegence. I do, however, have a problem with Bush supporters who are quick to pass judgments regarding someones patriotism. Do you really expect them to take you seriously with your opening sentence?
“Decent is the highest form of patriotism”
Thomas Jefferson
Just because someone doesn’t subscribe to the same viewpoints as yourself doesn’t give you the right to question their patriotism. You’ve questioned my patriotism. While my grandparents on my fathers side were immigrants from Sweden, I’ll have you know my Father fought in World War II, my grandfather was an Officer and professor at the Naval Acadamy in Annapolis. My ancestor William Peca signed the Declaration of Independence, and was the first Governor of Maryland. I find it very insulting when you question my Patriotism, and I’m sure our Senators will as well. In my view, you owe them an apology.
The Other Sven
September 15th, 2005 at 22:27
I would say it is safe to state that your founding fathers, your ancestor Peca, would be ashamed of this latest ruling. Putting their lives down for this nation to succeed outside of the Kings rule. Remember, it was the early settlers who made a pledge to the King of England and once that pledge was broken, well, let’s just say they had a party in Boston.
Yes, anyone can have an opinion on anything, but once someone burns the flag of the United States or bans the Pledge of Allegiance from our schools, then yes, I do question their patriotism. I think if we allow the courts to continue their legislation from the bench, then we have bigger problems ahead of us. It’s like Jefferson said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” I won’t remain silent!
September 16th, 2005 at 5:32
When did our Senators had participated in flag burning or ban anyone from reciting the Pledge? It’s your opening statement that I object strongly to: “I know you do not believe in patriotism or unity of our country.” If you want our Senators to listen to you, I would suggest you do so politely. It is obvious from this statement that you didn’t vote for them in the first place, but most Californians did.
I’m not defending the ruling. I’m questioning the devisive and hateful tone of your opening statements to our Senators. If you have something you feel strongly about, and want to communicate it to our government, great. But there is no need to question the patriotism of fellow United States citizens.
I would ask that you look at both sides of the argument however. There is more history behind the pledge than it seems you are looking at. While the Pledge of Allegence was written by a minister, he purposefully left any reference to God or religion out of the pledge. The words “under God” were added much later. While I have no objections to adding these two words, I do understand the objections of Atheists. Imagine if people were trying to change the pledge to include some statement about “under Darwin”, and I think you might appreciate how they feel.
It isn’t a battle I care to wage myself however. Whether we “Pledge Allegence to the Flag” under God, or without God, we are all Americans. We all have the right to our opinions, and our Patriotism should not be questioned for it.
Lets take the wayback machine back to when Clinton was president. There were many Republicans who didn’t support him, or his war in Bosnia. A war in which no U.S. soldiers were killed I might add.
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
–Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
–Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
By not supporting President Clinton’s choice to take us to war then, dissenting Republicans were not being Patriotic by your definition.
If you have a point to make, then make it. You certainly have a right to your opinion. But please stop questioning the patriotism of others for dissagreeing with you, as it is divisive, hateful, and counterproductive.
September 16th, 2005 at 23:12
I agree, I could have refrained from being so critical of Boxer and Feinstein. Their voting history _does_ show their unpatriotic since they voted against the previous Pledge Allegiance bill in 2004.
I don’t know how being against a foreign war makes you unpatriotic. I have not fingered our fine California Senators for their anti-Iraq war speeches as unpatriotic and thus wouldn’t of those you quoted above.
I’d love to know your sources for the quotes, too, because I don’t know why the governor of Texas would be committing on Bosnia so many years before running for president.
September 17th, 2005 at 9:32
I appreciate your respect for the Pledge of Allegiance. I’ve been reciting it in school since I was 5, including the words “under God,” and see no reason to change it, nor do I wish to. I do however try to see both sides of every issue. We need to respect everyones religious freedoms in this country, even Atheists. Personally, I don’t see any point in Atheists attempts to remove every reference to God from our country, and wish they would stop. By doing so, they are being disrespectful of those who do believe in God, and I believe that is wrong. While I don’t know the specifics of the bill you are saying Boxer and Feinstein rejected, I would question if it was really necessary. If it didn’t pass, a majority of Senators, including Republicans, must have had their reasons. I do understand your feelings in this matter, and think it is very Patriotic of you to write our Senators to express these feelings. If you want them to listen, however, I think you’ll need to be more diplomatic about it.
As to where I got my quotes: Markos Moulitsas over at Daily Kos. They can be found all over the internet as well if you want to search google.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
If you doubt their accuracy, the specifics of the quotes were beside my point. I remember many Republicans being critical of Clinton for his war in Bosnia. Besides our Senators, you have previously been quick to question the patriotism of Cindy Sheehan and other war supporters like myself, which is why I wanted to point out these quotes to you. It is possible to disagree with our president, while still being patriotic, and supporting our troops. You have every right to your opinion, of course. I have no doubt of your patriotism to this country, I just ask that you not be so quick to question the patriotism of others for having an opinion different than yours. It’s not as if Boxer or Feinstein have publicly outed an undercover CIA operative like Valerie Plame or anything.
Respectfully,
The Other Sven
September 17th, 2005 at 22:08
Delighted to see that not all Sven’s are as closed-minded and judgmental as you appear to be! And, if you will not be “silenced”, could you at least be a bit more grammatical? Thnx
September 17th, 2005 at 23:04
How closed-minded and judgmental of you, Martin.
September 19th, 2005 at 21:00
Martin, you’re right, I am close-minded and judgmental. It’s open-mindedness that allows grown men to walk naked in the streets in San Francisco during a parade committing indecent acts that I would suspect would even offend you. It is open-mindedness that allows millions of babies to be killed every year due to legalized abortion. It is open-mindedness that allows 19 men to learn how to fly a plane but not desire how to land it and not be questioned. It is open-mindedness that allows no racial profiling of such terrorists and thus giving them easy access to these planes. Yes, I am close-minded about some things and if you are open-minded about them, then you must live and die by that. I’m not prepared to do that for something I feel that should not be tampered with.
September 20th, 2005 at 20:58
Holy cow, Batman!
Martin: please excuse my earlier comment. I was confused as to who you were directing your comment to. I wouldn’t have thought it was directed at me, except for the comment about being “silent”, I took as some kind of right-wing / fascist statement against expressing ones opinion. I started thinking perhaps you were part of some kind of Svenrox posse, out to ridicule me for our disagreement. I consider myself pretty liberal, which I define to mean open-minded and forward thinking, which had me confused about your comment. My mistake, so please accept my apologies.
Svenrox: You’re actually proud to be narrow-minded and judgmental? Wow. That explains a lot, although I do appreciate your honesty. I guess since liberal is defined as open-minded, it makes sense that a conservative would be the opposite: narrow-minded and backwards thinking.
Open-minded does not mean stupid, however. From your statements it sounds like you are blaming Liberals for 9-11? Talk about conspiracy theories! I don’t blame Bush for 9/11. However, he is accountable for the mess he’s made since 9/11. Four years later, and we still aren’t any safer than we were then, as has been made all too apparent in recent weeks. Osama Bin Ladin is still out there. Watching. Laughing. Plotting.
Oh, and by the way: while New Orleans was drowning, Bush was finishing his vacation in my sunny San Diego. While he was here, he admit it: the war in Iraq is about oil.
Bush: “If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks. They’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/
Of course, Bush is playing a dangerous game in resorting to vaguely honest rationales. If the point of our being in Iraq was to keep its oil out of the hands of dangerous extremists like Zarqawi and bin Laden, we could have just left Saddam in charge; he was doing a perfectly good job of maintaining a secular bulwark against radical Islam. That, after all, is why Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the first place, assisting him during Iraq’s war with Iran.
Bush supporters like to harp on the talking point that “Zarqawi was in Iraq before we invaded.” Well, yes. He was operating in the Northern No-Fly Zone, where we had created a lawless region outside the government’s control. Now that we’ve turned the entire country into a lawless region outside the government’s control, Zarqawi’s freedom to operate has, if anything, been enhanced.
None of this is meant to excuse Saddam. He was a brutal dictator. But just because he was a very bad man does not mean that replacing him with (in effect) no workable government at all is necessarily a positive development in terms of US interests. The recognition of this fundamental problem is, after all, what led Bush’s predecessors to leave Saddam in power. For Bush to cite the argument now as a reason why we must sustain the daily toll in blood and dollars that his inept policy is currently consuming isn’t so much an argument that supports his decision-making, as condemns it.
One final noteworthy thing about this quote of Bush’s: He actually mentioned bin Laden by name. When was the last time you heard that?
But, hey. I respect oil as a valid reason for going to war in Iraq. Of course I don’t agree with it, but at least it’s honest. But I’m sure your too narrow-minded to ever see that. At least Bush has finally admit it.
September 21st, 2005 at 7:53
The Other Sven, good job on putting words into my (and other’s mouth) and thus completely altering what I said. You should be a reporter when you grow up.