The Future of our beloved freedoms???

If we are to consider Sen. Obama to be principled because he has publicly refused to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, then we should expect him to refuse to take the Presidential oath of office in a similarly principled manner.

Before he [The President] enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Click to expand...
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

Swearing allegiance to our government is a very specific Constitutional requirement of office, at least for the office of the President. If Sen. Obama is truly principled, then he will hold to his principles even when there are material consequences and as the oath of office is an affirmation of loyalty to these United States of America, then any rational person would expect Sen. Obama to refuse to speak those of the oath just as he has refused to publicly express his allegiance to this nation by speaking the word of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I will happily admit that Sen. Obama was refusing to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance as a principled matter of conscience when he also refuses to take the Presidential oath of office, and thus does not assume the office of President if he should be elected.

For that matter, did he not speak an oath affirming his allegiance when assuming his current duties as a Senator representing Illinois? What happened to his principles at that moment?

Personally, I think him an anti-American turd and not a man of conscience at all.

Most Respectfully,
Richard
 
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

Swearing allegiance to our government is a very specific Constitutional requirement of office, at least for the office of the President. If Sen. Obama is truly principled, then he will hold to his principles even when there are material consequences and as the oath of office is an affirmation of loyalty to these United States of America, then any rational person would expect Sen. Obama to refuse to speak those of the oath just as he has refused to publicly express his allegiance to this nation by speaking the word of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I will happily admit that Sen. Obama was refusing to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance as a principled matter of conscience when he also refuses to take the Presidential oath of office, and thus does not assume the office of President if he should be elected.

For that matter, did he not speak an oath affirming his allegiance when assuming his current duties as a Senator representing Illinois? What happened to his principles at that moment?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, has anybody seen (and can they link to) a statement regarding his principles on this? As in, a specific statement as to why he didn't say the pledge at that moment?

Because I see no contradiction between being willing to say a pledge/oath when assuming a position or office, and feeling it serves no purpose (and can actually be counterproductive) to say such pledges "at the drop of a hat."

Again, I've raised my right hand and sworn my allegiance to this nation and its Constitution three times (actually, five). Yet I see no reason to say the Pledge of Allegiance at some random event just because "everybody else is doing it." I think empty pledges said due to what is little more than patriotic peer pressure are worthless, and I think the false sense of patriotism they often breed is harmful to this nation as a whole. Again, much like going to church on Sunday has nothing to do with religion nor does putting your hand over your heart have anything to do with patriotism.
 
Richard Hanson said:
Swearing allegiance to our government is a very specific Constitutional requirement of office, at least for the office of the President.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

As stated in Art. II section 1, that you posted, the candidate-elect is giving their oath or affirmation to execute the office of the executive in a faithful manner and to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

Nowhere does it say they are swearing allegiance to the government, nor is such implied... If it did, I would rise up in arms.

We owe no allegiance to the government of the United State nor to the governments of the individual States. And nowhere is such written.

When people not only don't know what's in the Constitution, but don't know what is meant when they do cite it, we can then point and say, "There's the problem!"
 
I understand that the US Senate & House opens each day with the pledge as followers:

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.
Click to expand...

This may not be a constitutional requirement, but the fact is they are standing and pledging allegiance. So, it appears that by their action they are pledging allegiance to the Flag and Republic it stands for. I can only assume that Obama does not take part in this daily recital.
 
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Antipitas;

As some Christian persons, as a matter of conscience, do not swear, the Constitution makes an allowance for their faith by allowing them to affirm their allegiance. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:33-37. Allowing a President to "affirm" instead of "swear" was a provision to allow men of religious conviction to assume the office of President.

Respectfully, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." does in fact constitute "... swearing allegiance to the government ...", as the Constitution instantiates our government and defines the scope of its powers. If you desire to think otherwise it is unlikely that any rational argument will dissuade you from that perspective as the intellectually honest man is compelled to admit the obvious if nothing else. Certainly, we could waste a great many hours playing semantic games as if a President could protect and defend the Constitution of the United States without protecting and defending the republic the Constitution created, but I think I will decline to dissipate what remains of my evening in such a useless pursuit.

You err.

Regards,
Richard
 
Yes, I have seen several other pictures and read about this from many sources.
Click to expand...

Juan, you are correct about the arm salute. Yes, I am old enough to have first hand (arm) knowledge. To be honest, I can't remember when the change came to hold your hand over your heart. I am sure each state and area changed at different times. I was raised in Kentucky, so things changed slower than some. Of course, the change was due to worry about it looking like the Nazi salute.
 
Richard, it is not a game of semantics, as you put it. To "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," is to defend the Republic which it created. That Republic is not the Central Government. If it was, then the States as individual but shared sovereigns, is meaningless.

The founders were smart people. If they meant the oath to mean an oath of allegiance to the Central Government, they would have wrote it that way. Instead, they wrote it the way it is.
 
I used to say the pledge every day in school, with no idea or real conviction about what I was doing. I did it because I was told to, or because everyone else did. Then one day I started thinking about it...and I stopped. I asked myself what am I really doing? Why am I doing it? What does it really mean?

Well, it means I believe in the government set up by the Constitution (which is not the government we have today). I'm loyal to that ideal that the Constitution outlines, and I always will be. I said the Pledge one more time, to that ideal, and I meant every word of it. I have no need to reaffirm my loyalty and commitment to that ideal. If I hadn't meant if the first time, I won't mean it the next.

The other people in that picture saying the pledge and following the forms disgust me. They are not doing it because they mean it or believe it. They are doing it so they look good for the photographer and the voters. They are whores who will do absolutely anything to win. I respect Obama for not pandering. It's too bad he doesn't feel the same way about firearms as I do, he might have earned my vote. He certainly has my respect.
 
Antipitas,

Please do not be obtuse. Our central government is a republican government and thus a republic, the very same republic the flag symbolizes in the Pledge of Alliance as in "... and to the Republic for which it stands ...". I happily agree with your statement that "... "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," is to defend the Republic which it created ...", the contrapositive is also true.

The Constitutional requirement that the President take an oath of office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.", does not require even a modest understanding of the issues of federalism v. nationalism to properly comprehend. It is simply a pragmatic requirement that any man that would be President pledge his allegiance to the government in which he is going to assume his high office. I certainly would not want a man who harbors disdain for the rule of Constitutional law, or treasonous intent, or the disposition of a tyrant, to hold the office of President.

Regards,
Richard
 
The Presidential Oath is interesting. It clearly says that the President promises to defend the Constitution of the United States.

But if you ask almost any current presidential candidate what is the most important job of the President, they won't answer to defend the Constitution. They will say to protect the American People.

Now keeping the American people safe is fine, but keeping the Constitution safe is a much more important role of the President. I believe that keeping the Constitution safe and secure is the best way to keep the American people safe and secure. But, no one in charge now seems to agree. Everyone is too afraid of terrorism.
 
I must admit I am a suspicious person. Obama indicated he quit wearing the flag after 9/11 because he didn't want to look like some super patriot. Same with the pledge of allegiance. But as I said I am a suspicious person. Maybe Obama just doesn't believe in the fundamental ideas of our constitutional government. Maybe he does have allegiance but just not to our flag. Maybe he is just not telling us the real truth. But that is just my personal suspicion.

Having said that, I just don't see the problem in wearing a flag or pledging allegiance the flag. It's clear to me you are not really pledging blind allegiance to Bush or is cabinet. I don't think you are really pledging allegiance to the Congress or Senate. I think you are just showing respect for the ideals of the founding fathers and respect for Americans that have given their lives to protect this Country. I don't automatically vote for anyone that salutes our flag, but I sure have a problem with anyone that can't show basic respect for our Country. But I am an old timer and maybe my ideals are out of date.


BTW. For anyone that thinks it's terrible that I voice my suspicion of Obama's views. I would point out that he has no problem implying that many wear the flag or do the pledge under false pretense. He has no problem in not accepting wearing of the flag at face value and being suspicious of the wearers real intent.
 
Last edited:
Richard Hanson said:
Please do not be obtuse.
Click to expand...
If reading the oath, word for word, adding nor subtracting from it, is lacking intellectual acuity, then so be it. From an originalists point of view, the meaning is clear.

I respectfully, disagree.
 
It is simply a pragmatic requirement that any man that would be President pledge his allegiance to the government in which he is going to assume his high office.
Click to expand...

No, the Oath of Office is NOT a pledge of allegiance to the GOVERNMENT, it is a pledge to defend the CONSTITUTION from its enemies, whether foreign or domestic. If the government itself has become corrupt, and therefore an enemy of the Constitution, it is the duty of the president to defend the Constitution, and not a corrupt, unconstitional national government.

I do not want a President who will defend the US Government. I want a President who will defend the concepts of freedom and self determination embodied in the US Constitution.
 
Saying the pledge with out-stretched arms

The pledge of allegiance was send with an out-stretched hand. It was done prior to WWII. It was stopped because it resembled the motions made for Hitler.
It was started with the hand over the heart and when you said to the flag, you stretched your arm/hand toward the flag. It was not done with disrespect.
 
For what's it worth here is the oath for US Senator. Notice it does have the word allegiance....make of it what you want. Also, notice that is missing from the Presidential oath.

US Senate Oath (also for the House of Rep.)
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Click to expand...


Presidential Oath
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

Back to the original point of thread.
Respect
Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem.
Click to expand...

I think it is more about respect than allegiance. My view is still unchanged that Sen. Obama does not show respect to our flag, and his reasons for not doing so are weak at best. Some have argued that the oath or pledge does not mean allegiance to the central boverment...and I tend to agree. But Obama is a smart guy. Don't you think he really knows that by pledging to the flag he is not really supporting Bush's war policies. In fact, I personally don't support Bush and I am a Republican. But I still salute the flag. Like I said, his reasons are suspect.
 
Last edited:
I always understood it to be an affirmation of patriotism. Not a pledge of obedience to the govt, but to the nation, the flag, and the ideas under which this nation was founded.
Click to expand...

As a senior citizen I have been witness to the decline of our freedom and
as our population grows and becomes more fragmented we will continue
to deteriorate, we must have a common bond in some form while you can
disagree with some parts of that bond it is needed no matter if it is the
Constitution, 10 commandments or the flag otherwise we will fail simple
as that. Part of the problem is we tear away at small things nationwide
such as the pledge,flag, GOD in any form, it is a bond folks nothing more
nothing less.
 
I have seen the preacher from Obama's church interviewed on television. He professes to preach "Black Liberation Theology". If I am correct, Liberation Theology uses many of the same principles as Marxism such as class struggle and use of government to establish "social justice". These concepts are almost completely opposite the concept of limited government, individual rights and liberty set forth in the Constitution. I think all politicians should be encouraged to be much more open about how they feel about upholding the Constitution. At least Obama is taking the first steps in showing how he feels.
 
What's with the whole hand on the heart thing anyway? Back when I was in the military we had to salute if in uniform or stand at attention if not, the hand on the heart was considered wrong by the UCMJ. Apparantly things changed? I still stand at attention, both hands at my sides, habits of a lifetime.

Personally I think anyone who is willing to put the time and effort in to try and help govern the unrulely bunch of us who make up the USA deserves some credit. Seriously, left right or inbetween I think that doing the job proves that you respect the republic and the constitution. Obviously there are those who lie and cheat and don't respect the trust they have been given, but those guys usually get caught sooner or later.
 
Ditto Wingman. I am also a senior citizen and all you said rings true.

Like George Carlin (comedian) said. This country is CTD. Medical slang for Circling The Drain....as good as gone just don't know it yet.
 
Perhaps the United States of America simply isn't the entity to which Barack Hussein Obama feels the most allegiance.

Who knows? He's certainly vague about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top