Flag, Pledge......Profound and utter disrespect

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

yes there are many other ways to serve, and no less patriotic for sure. I highly respect anyone who supports the constitution of the Unites States, through words and ACTIONS

You are correct, words without action are nothing.

Fianna Éireann (Irish - "Soldiery of Ireland" or "Warriors' of Ireland", named after the mythological Fianna)

In early Ireland, fianna (singular fian) were small, semi-independent warrior bands who lived apart from society in the forests as mercenaries, bandits and hunters, but could be called upon by kings in times of war.

War cry and mottos

The Diord Fionn was the war-cry of the Fianna, and they frequently employed its use prior to and amid battle, either as a mode of communication or to put fear into their enemies. In the legend "The Death of Fionn", Fionn raises the Diord Fionn when he sees his grandson Oscar fall in battle (Battle of Gabhra) against the armies of Cairbre Lifechair, and proceeds to strike back at the enemy with great furiosity killing many dozens of warriors.[6] The Battle of Gabhra also marked the demise of the Fianna.
They had three mottoes:

• Glaine ár g-croí (Purity of our hearts)
• Neart ár n-géag (Strength of our limbs)
• Beart de réir ár m-briathar (Action to match our speech)

Link

I love the Fianna's Motto, as ancient as it is, it remains true even today.

I wonder what America would be like with afew Fianna's; I believe if memory serves me correctly, the Fianna were used mainly in combating and repelling invaders or "Illegal aliens."

 

[hornadylnl]

Ranger,

What makes you think the country (the people) are any better than our government? The people are responsible for the mess we are in. Either they like our current government or they are too apathetic to care. Either way, they are the majority of this country and are not my brothers and sisters. This country is lost.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Ranger,

What makes you think the country (the people) are any better than our government? The people are responsible for the mess we are in. Either they like our current government or they are too apathetic to care. Either way, they are the majority of this country and are not my brothers and sisters. This country is lost.

i dont think the majority of this country is lost. I think that most are just waiting for "the shot heard round the world" that kicks it all off.
Dont forget that most of our elections are controled electronicly and can be manipulated by fraud. I would truely like to know when the last real and legal elections were held in this country. People from the companies that manufacture election software have testified in open court that their have been unexplained discrepencies in election results. the software can be embedded to flip any result. yes the government is lost and corupt, but the country is not. I have faith in Americans that we can and will change the way things are going. Our politicians are puppets of the people who hold the money over their heads. pushing congress to eliminate the unconstitutional federal reserve would be the first step in the right direction. and if rumors are true that they (federal reserve) have control of the U.S. citizens gold supply, then we can take it back with the military.

 

[JBusch8899]

Either they like our current government or they are too apathetic to care.

A rather over simplistic analysis.

I don't care for our current government, and I'm certainly not apathetic to the problem.

 

[doug1980]

The most patriotic people in America are the gun tottin' rednecks. Thank GOD I am one of those. Too bad their are so few of us left.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Ranger,

What makes you think the country (the people) are any better than our government? The people are responsible for the mess we are in. Either they like our current government or they are too apathetic to care. Either way, they are the majority of this country and are not my brothers and sisters. This country is lost.

I personally believe, The People are desperately grasping for anything, anyone who says what the media have taught the people to think is OK, good.

It's quite obvious, over the last blunder, people are furious.

On one hand, I agree that the country is lost; But on the other hand, I refuse to accept defeat. I demand better. I desire the original foundation the Founders wanted, not this liberal/communist fluff.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As I write this there is a copy of the Constitution hanging over my head, I love this country and will defend it to what ever end may come. *However I haven't uttered the Pledge of Allegiance since I left the Boy Scouts. I actually think that it is wrong to ask children to take a vow that they may not understand. **


You can say what you want, but reciting the words of a socialist is not patriotism. *I love America and I respect the flag, but the pledge is indoctrination and propaganda. *
The phrase "Indivisible" goes against the idea that the government and this very nation exist at the lesser of the people. *


My oath is to the Constitution, not the country, and not the flag. *It is the ideas that this nation was founded on that must be defended, not what we have become.

All of this^^

Several months ago, I wrote (modified, anyway) the Pledge. This morning, I attended the IN GOP convention as a delegate. Among the opening actions of the convention was a reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance as an honor guard bore the flags in, Old Glory and the state flag.

The Pledge I recited is in my signature below and has been since that version of it came into being. I love my country. I hate what is being done to it, and in no way do I consider it indivisible.

On reflection, I'm thinking I may need to make one modification to that pledge, however: I'm thinking that the word "united" was not originally intended to be capitalized, and it probably should not be so in that pledge, either. We are, or at least according to the Declaration of Independence were supposed to be the States of America, united. (this had changed, apparently, by 1789)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JBusch8899]

On reflection, I'm thinking I may need to make one modification to that pledge, however: I'm thinking that the word "united" was not originally intended to be capitalized, and it probably should not be so in that pledge, either. We are, or at least according to the Declaration of Independence were supposed to be the States of America, united. (this had changed, apparently, by 1789)

As our country is known as the U.S.A., and not the S.A.u., I think you're safe as it stands now.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As our country is known as the U.S.A., and not the S.A.u., I think you're safe as it stands now.

Less a question of safety and more one of propriety. In the Declaration of Independence, the first lines read,

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

It seems clear to me what the Founders' intent was.

Regardless, I was (and may still) going to simply change the version I modified by de-capitalizing the word "united", not by changing the order of words.

 

[JBusch8899]

It seems clear to me what the Founders' intent was.

The Founders, yes. What of the Framers of 1787 to 1789?

Most were the same men.

 

[Greenmonsta79]

Everyone can complain about the meaning and who you are saying it to or about, but whenever I hear it and or the national anthem I do not think about the "government" all I think about is the brave men and women that serve and have served and the ones that gave their life so, I can live and do what I enjoy without being persecuted (for now anyway!) But I am afraid the mass of the public could give a **** less and that really infuriates me. My grandfather served in the Army in Korea and I would ask about the war and he would never talk about it the only stories we got were about the boat ride over there and he showed me pictures of Alcatraz as they left San Fransico, my mother said he never said anything about the war and whenever it was brought up he changed the subject and they never went to 4th of July fireworks (from being shell shocked) my grandmother said once he told her how he saw a bunch of little naked Korean children digging through trash cans for something to eat. I can only imagine some of the horrors he saw. So whenever I see the flag and pledge I remember all the battles I have read about and all the fallen soldiers that gave their lives for my freedom.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Founders, yes. What of the Framers of 1787 to 1789?

Most were the same men.

I don't think any of them, Founders or Framers, meant for the union to be "indivisible". We had to wait for Lincoln to come to that idea.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Bill, I agree with you and i like your pledge

 

[JBusch8899]

I don't think any of them, Founders or Framers, meant for the union to be "indivisible". We had to wait for Lincoln to come to that idea.

Arguably plausible. However, due to the wording:

Article IV: The better to secure and perpetuate (emphasis added) mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union.....

and proper title of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union,

as well as the language in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), which provided insight of such language. The Scotus opinion, in part, is quoted:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." (Emphasis added) And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Furthermore, Articles I and II of the A of C, as well as the introductory of the actual Constitution ratified in 1789, clearly shows that the word United is capitalized as the proper word of the phrase, the United States, and The United States of America.

Images provided.

Its not a far leap to believe that the Founder/Framers intended that the Union to be not dissolved.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, I agree with you and i like your pledge

Thank you, sir.

Arguably plausible. However, due to the wording:

and proper title of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union,

as well as the language in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), which provided insight of such language. The Scotus opinion, in part, is quoted:

Furthermore, Articles I and II of the A of C, as well as the introductory of the actual Constitution ratified in 1789, clearly shows that the word United is capitalized as the proper word of the phrase, the United States, and The United States of America.

Images provided.

Its not a far leap to believe that the Founder/Framers intended that the Union to be not dissolved.

Well, now, the A of C did come "sometime between 1776 and 1789", just as I said, did it not?

In all seriousness, it may well be that the Framers did, in fact, consider the Union indissoluble, however I would not rely on a SCOTUS decision from 1868 to make that determination, for 1868 was only three years after the War of Northern Aggression ended, and general moods of the day were still anti-Southern. Didn't Mr. Jefferson make some statement to the effect that he believed there should be a Revolutionary-type war every generation? (Forgive, I'm running late and don't have time to look it up at the moment.)

I do not believe that any would expect that a contract entered could never be left, especially when one side was no longer honoring it, as was going on with the Northern states (by and large) attempting to dictate to the South what they could and could not have within their own states. The example I've used in the past has been a woman, we'll call her Dixie, and a man, "Sam", marry, and over time, Sam becomes more domineering and controlling and when she tries to leave him, he puts her in chains and proceeds to brutally rape her repeatedly. Would any deny her right to leave him and end the marriage?

OK, gotta run, gonna be late for work.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JBusch8899]

Well, now, the A of C did come "sometime between 1776 and 1789", just as I said, did it not?

1781 to be exact, but yes.

In all seriousness, it may well be that the Framers did, in fact, consider the Union indissoluble, however I would not rely on a SCOTUS decision from 1868 to make that determination, for 1868 was only three years after the War of Northern Aggression ended, and general moods of the day were still anti-Southern. Didn't Mr. Jefferson make some statement to the effect that he believed there should be a Revolutionary-type war every generation? (Forgive, I'm running late and don't have time to look it up at the moment.)

Jefferson did state:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.......

I'm not stating that the SCOTUS decision to be infallible, merely that it should be considered, in light of the level of legal expertise imparted upon the subject.

I do not believe that any would expect that a contract entered could never be left, especially when one side was no longer honoring it, as was going on with the Northern states (by and large) attempting to dictate to the South what they could and could not have within their own states. The example I've used in the past has been a woman, we'll call her Dixie, and a man, "Sam", marry, and over time, Sam becomes more domineering and controlling and when she tries to leave him, he puts her in chains and proceeds to brutally rape her repeatedly. Would any deny her right to leave him and end the marriage?

Probably not the best example to use, considering the state of woman's suffrage, and generally the denial of rights at the time , but I do understand the argument.

As this great experiment that we know as America has never been attempted in the collective history of mankind, there lies a great number of questions and particularly, a number of "what ifs", regarding the state of affairs of the founding of this Republic. To compound this matter, we are debating matters well over one and two centuries old.

Unlike contract law and the breach of same, the mechanism to resolve differences between the Federal government and the respective states, isn't succession, but before the federal bench as a matter of original & exclusive jurisdiction.

 

[MTC]

notes

Re: succession vs. secession

The best chance any one or group of States had to successfully secede from the Union was in 1861. A group of States had, in rapid succession, joined and formed a Confederacy, and thereafter decided on secession.
They were not successful at secession.

The term "indivisible" is meant to reaffirm the concept of E Pluribus Unum.

On conflicts of interest or differences between the federal government and the respective states, someone (or ones) somewhere has disregarded or not honored contractual obligations by arrogating power to themselves not authorized by these terms:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In order to receive a fair and impartial hearing, placing arbitration of disputes in the hands of one or a few persons presupposes they will not be biased in favor of either party, but will honor the terms of the agreement as written.

 

[SSGSAD]

The flag is a symbol of my country not the government. The government which is a joke and more tyrantical than great brittain ever was to the colonies. I shall always respect my flag for what it represents. Its something much bigger than the government could ever be. And I will still stomp someones face in if they disrespect it infront of me. jail or not. I will eat 3 meals a day and watch cable with pride knowing I did the right thing. the right thing sometimes isnt the legal thing according to pansy standards.

AMEN !!!!! My thoughts EXACTLY !!!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Unlike contract law and the breach of same, the mechanism to resolve differences between the Federal government and the respective states, isn't succession, but before the federal bench as a matter of original & exclusive jurisdiction.

Why does the phrase "fox guarding the henhouse" come to mind?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it is preferable to adjudicate the argument of fed power > states' rights than to simply end the association between the two. I might agree IF there was a neutral third party to arbitrate, but there is not. You're suggesting that the Federal courts resolve a difference between the state(s) and the Federal government, which in many cases tends to rule in it's own favor. IMHO, being party to the case, there is no federal or state judge who should not find it appropriate to recuse him/herself on the grounds of bias. No, I cannot think of any judge in our current system of law that would be truly unbiased, which indicates to me a failing in the system.

Given only the two alternatives, a) a probably-biased courtroom or b) peaceful secession, I can find no reason to prefer the former as a remedy providing true justice over the latter, though obviously, I would prefer arbitration to either of those two extreme endpoints.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Son of Liberty]

As I write this there is a copy of the Constitution hanging over my head, I love this country and will defend it to what ever end may come. *However I haven't uttered the Pledge of Allegiance since I left the Boy Scouts. I actually think that it is wrong to ask children to take a vow that they may not understand. **


You can say what you want, but reciting the words of a socialist is not patriotism. *I love America and I respect the flag, but the pledge is indoctrination and propaganda. *
The phrase "Indivisible" goes against the idea that the government and this very nation exist at the lesser of the people. *


My oath is to the Constitution, not the country, and not the flag. *It is the ideas that this nation was founded on that must be defended, not what we have become.

finally someone with some sense of the issue, how do you ask a five year to vow allegence to a flag or anything, when they dont even understand what they are saying or doing. Unless you don't take the vow seriously, I person only should vow anything when they are able to understand what they are saying and what the ramifications are for such a statement.