“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, One nation under GOD, indivisible with liberty and justice for all”
ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING “UNDER GOD” IN THE PLEDGE:
Some opponents argue that church and state should be kept separate as the Founding Fathers intended AND I concur. Others say the phrase "under God" in the Pledge places "undue coercion" on young children, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Many advocates of removing "under God" point out that the phrase was not written into the original pledge and that the opposition to returning to the original pledge is proof that "under God" is a religious symbol and not merely a secular practice. Allow me to poke some holes into these "arguments":
1.ARGUMENT: I’m pledging allegiance to a “flag”, a symbol or image that is not of God; God said that You shall have no other gods before Me and that You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
REBUTTAL: Definition of allegiance: adherence to something to which one is bound by a pledge or duty; devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause.
You are pledging allegiance to a cause (the republic of the USA) which is represented by a flag, NOT to the flag itself. The flag is a symbol of a country that was developed under the Laws of Nature (God’s Law) (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen) and is therefore not a “carved image” of any other likeness than God (in other words, not in violation of the Second Commandment) nor expressing any allegiance to any other gods before God (Me, as expressed in the First Commandment).
The words “for which it stands” indicates that the flag is standing for (representative) of the republic (the United States of America) of which one is pledging allegiance to and the following phrase (One nation under God) recognizes that the USA is a nation under God’s law (rule).
Realizing that the country was developed under the Laws of Nature thru our Constitution and the First Amendment forbids Congress from making a law which establishes any religion:
If reciting the Pledge is truly a “religious act” in violation of the Establishment Clause, then so is recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National Anthem (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Newdon II).
2. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:
In the Federalist No. 69: Hamilton, there is a comparison of the duties of the President of the USA and the King of Britain. Part of this comparison included the following phrase: “The one [the President] has no spiritual jurisdiction; The other (King of Britain) is the supreme head and Governor of the national church.” The reflection intended here was that the leader of the USA has no legitimate powers to hold any control over spiritual matters, as opposed to the powers which the King of Britain held over spiritual concerns. Here is the intention regarding “separation of church and state” as intended by the Founding Fathers. The initial immigration to the American soil was for religious freedom. People in European countries and in other areas were tired of excessive taxation (which was driving them out of their homes and property) and oppressive religious servitude as controlled by the leader of their countries. Understanding this, the founding fathers called for “separation of church and state” solely for the purpose of not allowing the “state” (our different levels of government; local, state and federal) to direct what religious belief their patronage/citizens must abide by. Hence, the statement in the First Amendment called for freedom of religion via prohibition of any laws by Congress establishing a religion or of any laws prohibiting any exercise of religion.
3. LAWS OF NATURE (GOD’S LAW) ARE ENDOWED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION
As recognized by constitutional scholars, such as W. Cleon Skousen (author of the 5000 YEAR LEAP), the principles and values of our nation's Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by the morals and ethics of many contemporaries who believed that man's actions would be judged by God. As argued previously, our Founding Fathers recognized that any government on earth could not be a direct reflection of the highest "government". Thus, man could not create a government that directly imposed religious beliefs (of any interpretation) upon it's constituents because we would then be declaring our government on the same level of judgement as God; hence the separation of church and state. Some of the contemporaries who reflected these ideals upon our Founding Fathers included:
A. John Locke: Natural Law is an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that legislators make must be comfortable to the will of God (the laws of Nature) "Second Essay Concerning Civil Government"
B. Sir William Blackstone: The will of man’s Creator is the laws of Nature. Hence, this law is superior to any other manmade law of this world. The Laws of Nature is binding over all laws of any country and that any laws of man contrary to God’s Law bears no validity. "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
C. Algernon Sidney: Insisted that there was no divine right for kings to rule over the people. Insisted that the right to rule was within the people and no one could rule over the people without their consent. "Discourses Concerning Government"
Another argument pursued has regarded the so-called "COMPELLED SPEECH ISSUE". Following is how the Supreme Court has dealt with this approach and maintained Constitutional rights.
WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. BARNETTE (1943): Dealt with the required salute (extended upturned palm while reciting), which members of Jehovah’s Witness said was sacrilegious as applied to the First and Second Commandments; hence this requirement was against the inherited meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Barnette underscored student rights and held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Future cases, such as Holloman vs. the Walker Board of Education of 2004 and Lane vs. Owens (Colorado, 2003) further reinforced that no student would be forced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
My evaluation as to how these cases, and the precedent set by the Barnette ruling, affect our country's principles is two-fold. I, using my rational side of my brain, must agree with the Constitutional argument used by SCOTUS in these and other previous cases, because I am a Constitutionalist. However, my emotional side recognizes that this "issue" would not even be an item for discussion if not for the Socialist/Progressive movement that has slowly plagued our country for over 100 years. On reflection, our Founding Fathers recognized that this "issue" would surface and our approach would be one example of how our country would forever interpret and use Constitutional principles. And so far, our republic has not stood up to the tests of time.
To wrap up the issue regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, it should simply stand as is. As explained, the flag represents a cause reflecting and following the will of God. Hence, one is still honoring God, placing no other Gods before him and creating no graven images of God. Thru Constitutional principles, no one (including children) can be coerced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or any particular part of it, as granted by the freedom of speech, which in turns does not violate the Establishment Clause. By defining what the flag represents, the argument re: the separation of church and state and the First Amendment is still valid as applied to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I welcome any dissenting arguments.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL (PART TWO)
In PART ONE, we discussed how the current UN treaty markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) was based on assumptions without any valid scientific data for support and how actual scientific studies since the 1970s have debunked these assumptions. However, the efforts are still underway for world leaders to meet in Copenhagen in December, 2009 to reach agreement on the current details and approve this treaty. This left us with the following question:
“If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?” Let’s address these questions with the significant details of this treaty, including the “organization” that will be developed and how this “organization” will affect our country.
Basically, this treaty recognizes two categories of international countries: “developed and underdeveloped countries”. This treaty is founded on the principle (see page 8, pp. a) that developed countries have a debt to underdeveloped countries thru financial support and helping to provide adaptations to new systems with low greenhouse (GHG) emissions. All countries (per page 8, pp 12) are required to develop climate response strategies, in line with their individual responsibilities and capabilities (as established under this treaty) to reach a low carbon and GHG emission economy. Developed countries will comply with all provisions within this treaty and will pledge (per page 9) to meet their targets regarding lower carbon and GHG emissions fully, effectively and in a reportable, verifiable manner. All developed countries must present Carbon Neutral Strategies (per page 15) to meet their quantified targets by 2020. Short-term carbon and GHG emission standards shall be met by 2020 with Long Term carbon and GHG emission standards to be met by 2050. These standards include reducing carbon dioxide concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, limit global average temperature rises to 2 degrees Centigrade, all of which would require lowering current 2020 GHG emissions (again, based on faulty unscientific assumptions) by 50% from 1990 levels to 2050.
Developed countries will be required to develop funds to finance full costs for preparation of national communications for developing countries. This funding includes transfer of technology for (to name just a few):
A. mitigation of emissions
B. Development and deployment of low carbon and “environmentally sound” technologies
C. Research and development of such technologies
D. Preparation of national action plans and implementation
E. Taxes on carbon emissions and “carbon-intensive” products and services
F. Share of proceeds from measures to limit emission from international aviation and maritime travel
G. A levy of 2% on international financial/monetary transactions on developed countries.
In essence, all funding collected would be used by “developing [aka: underdeveloped]” countries. Page 136 lists eleven different funds to be raised by developed countries, such as Adaptation, Global support for tariffs, mitigation of “Venture Capital” (start-up funds), and climate insurance, to name some of the funds listed. A Multilateral Climate Technology Fund will be established to:
A. Provide technology-related financial resources for R&D, manufacturing and implementation.
B. Developed countries will also assess contributions from:
1. Parts of their regular fiscal budgets
2. Taxation on carbon transactions and/or auction of emission permits
3. Fiscal revenue from energy and environmental taxation.
(Does subsection B remind you of our nation’s ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation; it should)
The question arises: Who will govern this government-styled structure to ensure that all developed countries meet their financial obligations? A Convention of the Parties, as created by member nations of the UN and under the guidance of the UN Governing Body will be established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and verifying global cooperative actions, with the support of an Executive Board which will manage and disperse the funds collected. Will We, the People, allow for the additional taxes that will be needed to raise the revenue for the various funds required within this “treaty”? Will We, the People allow for this loss of national sovereignty that will be created via the terms of this Co-op style of world government as controlled and monitored by the UN’s Convention of the Parties? Both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President BHO have publicly stated recently that the President will not sign onto this “treaty” if the ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation is not law by the time that the Copenhagen meeting takes place. I ask you: do you believe, given the Marxist/Socialist “tax the wealthy, spread the wealth” philosophies of the current administration, that the status of the “Cap and Trade” legislation will affect President BHO’s decision to sign onto this treaty which emulates his administration’s philosophies and actions? It will probably come down to the We, the People working on our Senators to ensure that 2/3 of the Senate does not vote for approval of this “treaty” (world government).
William (Wild Bill) Conant
“If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?” Let’s address these questions with the significant details of this treaty, including the “organization” that will be developed and how this “organization” will affect our country.
Basically, this treaty recognizes two categories of international countries: “developed and underdeveloped countries”. This treaty is founded on the principle (see page 8, pp. a) that developed countries have a debt to underdeveloped countries thru financial support and helping to provide adaptations to new systems with low greenhouse (GHG) emissions. All countries (per page 8, pp 12) are required to develop climate response strategies, in line with their individual responsibilities and capabilities (as established under this treaty) to reach a low carbon and GHG emission economy. Developed countries will comply with all provisions within this treaty and will pledge (per page 9) to meet their targets regarding lower carbon and GHG emissions fully, effectively and in a reportable, verifiable manner. All developed countries must present Carbon Neutral Strategies (per page 15) to meet their quantified targets by 2020. Short-term carbon and GHG emission standards shall be met by 2020 with Long Term carbon and GHG emission standards to be met by 2050. These standards include reducing carbon dioxide concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, limit global average temperature rises to 2 degrees Centigrade, all of which would require lowering current 2020 GHG emissions (again, based on faulty unscientific assumptions) by 50% from 1990 levels to 2050.
Developed countries will be required to develop funds to finance full costs for preparation of national communications for developing countries. This funding includes transfer of technology for (to name just a few):
A. mitigation of emissions
B. Development and deployment of low carbon and “environmentally sound” technologies
C. Research and development of such technologies
D. Preparation of national action plans and implementation
E. Taxes on carbon emissions and “carbon-intensive” products and services
F. Share of proceeds from measures to limit emission from international aviation and maritime travel
G. A levy of 2% on international financial/monetary transactions on developed countries.
In essence, all funding collected would be used by “developing [aka: underdeveloped]” countries. Page 136 lists eleven different funds to be raised by developed countries, such as Adaptation, Global support for tariffs, mitigation of “Venture Capital” (start-up funds), and climate insurance, to name some of the funds listed. A Multilateral Climate Technology Fund will be established to:
A. Provide technology-related financial resources for R&D, manufacturing and implementation.
B. Developed countries will also assess contributions from:
1. Parts of their regular fiscal budgets
2. Taxation on carbon transactions and/or auction of emission permits
3. Fiscal revenue from energy and environmental taxation.
(Does subsection B remind you of our nation’s ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation; it should)
The question arises: Who will govern this government-styled structure to ensure that all developed countries meet their financial obligations? A Convention of the Parties, as created by member nations of the UN and under the guidance of the UN Governing Body will be established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and verifying global cooperative actions, with the support of an Executive Board which will manage and disperse the funds collected. Will We, the People, allow for the additional taxes that will be needed to raise the revenue for the various funds required within this “treaty”? Will We, the People allow for this loss of national sovereignty that will be created via the terms of this Co-op style of world government as controlled and monitored by the UN’s Convention of the Parties? Both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President BHO have publicly stated recently that the President will not sign onto this “treaty” if the ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation is not law by the time that the Copenhagen meeting takes place. I ask you: do you believe, given the Marxist/Socialist “tax the wealthy, spread the wealth” philosophies of the current administration, that the status of the “Cap and Trade” legislation will affect President BHO’s decision to sign onto this treaty which emulates his administration’s philosophies and actions? It will probably come down to the We, the People working on our Senators to ensure that 2/3 of the Senate does not vote for approval of this “treaty” (world government).
William (Wild Bill) Conant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
