Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / General Topics / June 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

New Pledge court case is blockbuster sequel

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
rexitis - 27 Jun 2004 02:08 GMT
The Pledge of Allegiance court case is a blessing in disguise, by providing
a temporary delay.   It allows the fight to widen against the entire Pledge,
not just two words.  As a libertarian and a lawyer, I am spearheading the
next court case as a pro bono service to the public to liberate Americans
from government pushing the totalitarian Pledge.
http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html

"Pledge II" will be a blockbuster sequel.  The first case led to scary
discoveries about the Pledge's pedigree. A libertarian made the historic
news-breaking discovery that exposed the Pledge as the origin of the salute
of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis).  It is a
myth that the Pledge's original straight-arm salute is an ancient Roman
salute.  http://members.ij.net/rex/pledgesalute.html

The Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a self-proclaimed
National Socialist in the U.S., who wanted a government takeover of
education to produce an "industrial army" for the authoritarian vision
portrayed in his cousin Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward."  The
Bellamy cousins promoted national socialism worldwide for decades.  Their
acts resulted in racist and segregated government schools that lasted into
the 1960's.

The pledge is a great issue for advocates of freedom.  Americans can change
the entire "pledge issue" from a limited debate about two words, to a
liberating debate about government, totalitarianism and government schools.
http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html

Along with spearheading "Pledge II," I am filing another amicus curiae
brief in a case that is already exposing the entire Pledge of Allegiance, a
case that is more important than Newdow's case was, though it is virtually
unknown: U.S. v. Wonschik, case #03-10249 at the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge4.html

Wonschik argues that judges should not lead jurors in reciting the Pledge
because jurors feel forced to recite the Pledge, and that criminal
defendants are denied a fair trial due to the appearance that Judges favor
the prosecution. http://members.ij.net/rex/pledgelaws.html     I am also a
member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and NACDL
has already filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Wonschik.

People ask if the Pledge of Allegiance promotes authoritarianism. Yes it
does, not only paying homage to a man who wanted the Pledge used to promote
government schools and authoritarianism, who wanted government schools
operated as a socialist monopoly, and to end all of the better alternatives,
and who wanted government schools used to create an "industrial army" (a
Bellamy phrase) modeled after the military, for a socialist economy and
society.

Everyone knows that the Bellamy cousins succeeded in many ways, in that
most schools are government schools, where the socialist's pledge is still
robotically chanted, and where children and their parents have learned to
accept the government school monopoly, social security, socialist slave
numbers, etc.

The pledge is usually recited because it is required by state laws for
government schools, and done collectively as a robotic chant daily on cue
from the government.

The pledge's history is suppressed because it is so un-libertarian. As
strange as it may seem, the ideas that inspired the pledge's author also
resulted in mass atrocities worldwide.
http://members.ij.net/rex/pledgebackward.html

It is hard to imagine a better issue begging for the correct arguments to
be made. Please help make the Pledge of Allegiance debate into a meaningful
debate about liberty.

On July 4th, declare your independence from the Pledge of Allegiance.  If
schoolchildren should recite anything, then they should recite the
Declaration of Independence, not the Pledge of Allegiance.  They are
mutually exclusive and contradictory.

Support individualism, not authoritarianism.  If the government's
antidisestablishmentarianism does not end, then we will be living in an even
bigger police state.  Pledge your independence, and don't declare your
allegiance.

    ****************
A search of Google News at http://news.google.com shows that a libertarian
journalist is the only source listed for exposing the monstrous "National
Socialist German Workers' Party," and that a search for that quoted phrase
leads to articles exposing the history of the Pledge of Allegiance, all
authored by Rex Curry.   It is amazing how intellectually dishonest the
media are, in that there is no instance in Google News of any use of the
actual name of the horrid Nazi Party, other then by a libertarian exposing
the suppressed history of the Pledge.

RexCurry.net is the only website that provides the scary original speech
given by Francis Bellamy for the debut of his Pledge of Allegiance.
http://members.ij.net/rex/pledgespeech.html

RexCurry.net is the only website that collects and displays true historic
photographs of the original Pledge of Allegiance (with the straight-arm
salute).  http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html  that site is provided as
an educational service to the public even though RexCurry.net is not even a
mainstream news media site.

Fan mail praising the expose' of the totalitarian Pledge of Allegiance is at
http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge_heart.html

(For more ideas on liberty and the libertarian philosophy see
http://members.ij.net/rex and http://rexcurry.net from Rex Curry at
rexy@ij.net or ecurry@interaccess.net  or rexatious@hotmail.com ).
Liberty1st - 27 Jun 2004 19:09 GMT
This is going to come across harsh... and while I don't mean to be uncivil,
I think what I say below needs to be said:

Is the pledge really an important issue today?  When compared to the war on
terror, beheadings, 911 style attacks, failing public schools and a
Department of Human Services that can steal a families children without due
process and keep even the children's grandparents, aunts, uncles and other
family from having contact with them. I think it is not a worthwhile issue.

Besides that, how can anyone claim to support libertarian views and liberty
then turn around and be all about censoring people's rights to say something
that is voluntary to say?  I can look up the USSC ruling if needed, but they
have ruled on this issue as you should know as and attorney.

Let us talk facts for a moment:  NOBODY can be forced to say the pledge of
allegiance.  Not you.  Not me.  Not my children.  NOBODY in the US can be,
by law.

Thus, it is only common logic to note that attacks on the pledge, for
whatever reason, are nothing but anti-freedom, anti-liberty political
correctness.  CENSORSHIP is the best descriptive for what these attacks are
really about.  They are designed to deprive people of their rights because
someone is claiming they are "offended".

The fact is, these attacks on the pledge do not grant more rights and
liberty. they remove them by pushing censorship.

Censorship is wrong in any form.  Political correctness and "I'm Offended"
are not reason enough to call for censoring what other people can and cannot
say in a public place.

Frankly if the pledge offends one so badly that one feels they must censor
others... I pity them when the precedent is set and someone crushes their
right to speak words they believe in because of their false notion.

The fact is there is no, and should be no, right to never be offended.

I prefer freedom and frankly, those people who are offended by things like
the pledge, the 10 Commandments etc., and expect them to be removed because,
"they're offended". these types are nothing but anti freedom/liberty and are
really nothing but fascists.

They need to get over themselves and deal with the fact that it is they who
are the oppressors and that they are the bigots who are denying equal
freedom to others.

So let me ask you this rexitis.. If someone else's beliefs bother one to the
point they feel they need to censor that person... who is really the
problem?

> The Pledge of Allegiance court case is a blessing in disguise, by providing
> a temporary delay.   It allows the fight to widen against the entire Pledge,
[quoted text clipped - 103 lines]
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Michael S. Morris - 27 Jun 2004 20:25 GMT
                          Sunday, the 27th of June, 2004

   Let us talk facts for a moment:  NOBODY can

   be forced to say the pledge of allegiance.  

   Not you.  Not me.  Not my children.  NOBODY in

   the US can be, by law.

Sorry, but that is simply not the liberty of conscience
issue. The problem comes against the establishment clause
and the meaning thereof. An "established church" meant
paying tax dollars to the state, which dollars then went
to the support of one (state-approved) church's ministers.
The fundamentally objectionable thing in the pledge is
the teacher-as-employee-of-the-state leading what amounts
to a profession of faith. Even if it were performed to an
empty room, it would still be objectionable as a liberty violation
in the same way. You, your kids, me, mine can say the Pledge
on our our time in our own way any time we like. Or not say it.
No one, as far as I can see, is disputing that. Heck, if churches
want to make the "under God" version a regular part of the liturgy,
fine by me. The issue, however, is the state's imprimitur on
it as an officially funded public-school religious or
quasi-religious rite.

In any event, I certainly agree that other things---
such as the Supreme Court letting stand state laws that
make it a crime not to provide a police officer with your
name, and such as the long-term detention of Padilla without
ever charging him with a crime are much more important
liberty issues.

                Mike Morris
          (msmorris@netdirect.net)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.