WestViking

Totalitarian tactic? You have to be kidding. The original Pledge was published in 1892 as part of America's planned celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. Two men interested in both education and planned Columbus Day celebrations around our Nation's 44 states were Francis Bellamy and James Upham. To this day it is still unknown which of the two men actually authored the words that were to become the Pledge of Allegiance. It was published anonymously and not copyrighted. James Upham was an employee of the Boston publishing firm that produced "The Youth's Companion" in which it first appeared. Francis Bellamy was an educator who served as chairman of the National committee of educators and civic leaders who were planning the Columbus Day activities. No, they have last out working at least 6 months for Donald Trump and agree to appear in one of Michael Moore's movies. Why on earth would 'the rest of the planet' care what pledge Americans make to their nation? Since when do totalitarian dictators demand that people pledge allegiance to their flag and the nation and democratic government that flag represents? Fealty is very different from allegiance. You swear fealty to a person but allegiance to a nation. The American Pledge of Allegiance is to the nation, its legitimate governments and its flag symbol, not to the President or Governors who happen to be in office at the time.

Why not if it is your government? Politicians come to us for a mandate every so often. We choose who will represent us. If we are unhappy with the result we cannot just disengage and hope for the best. The majority of Americans claim to be Christian. Whether an individual American subscribes to any religious belief or none at all is irrelevant. It is still their nation, their government and their flag. Abstaining from the Pledge of Allegiance is a legal right; however abstaining is also the weakest response possible to perceived ills of the nation. America belongs to Americans and abstaining cannot bring about needed change. On the contrary; taking ownership of your nation and the responsibilities that go with ownership is the means to work to its betterment. As I pointed out above, critics and dissenters are essential to a healthy democracy. Where in the Pledge do you see any requirement to accept the status quo? If you think your nation is headed in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons, it is not just your right, but your duty to speak up and solicit like-minded people to work with you and affect a change. The notion that the Pledge is blind acceptance of governance we know can be improved does not stand up under scrutiny. Many of us work for change because we care about our nation and cannot make improvements from the sidelines.

I don't think that is at issue here. Canadians in the US would not be expected to pledge allegiance to another nation, with the exception of Canadians who enlist in the US armed forces. The original Pledge to the Flag dates back to 1892, so the tradition of pledging allegiance to the flag in the US has been ongoing for well over a century. Americans do care about the Pledge and its wording. The wording was amended in 1923 and 1924, but was not 'official' until adopted by Congress 1942. In 1943, the US Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine. The Pledge was last amended in 1954 and became the Pledge of Allegiance, and the words "under God" were added. While reciting the pledge is voluntary, one can only wonder why any American would find the Pledge offensive. We rarely stop to recognize or give thanks to the generations who sacrifices and suffered to build and to protect the nations and the plenty we enjoy today. We seem reluctant to accept that there is value in the lessons of our grandfathers; we need to avoid repeating their mistakes as mush as we need to learn from their many, many triumphs. People are the foundation of any democracy. The nations we live in are the result of the cumulated efforts of generations of ordinary people. We are governed to the extent that we will allow those we elect to govern us. Those who question authority and speak out against what they perceive as excesses of governance are what keeps any democracy healthy. We cannot mature as individuals without occasionally questioning our behaviour and motivations. We cannot mature as nations without examining our adherence to sound fundamental principles. When we make a pledge or oath of allegiance to our nation and its symbols, in part we undertake an obligation to make our nation better; to refuse to allow our nation to slide into sloppy ways; to quit blaming 'government' for governance ills and work for improvement; to ensure that we and our fellow citizens are treated equally, with compassion, justice; and that our freedom is forever protected. Past generation fought for our liberty; we owe it to them to ensure our liberty is not infringed upon by those we have selected as leaders. We will always face power-hungry politicians eager to limit our freedoms ‘for our own good’. As long as we retain the right of the vote, we can curb their excesses and rid ourselves of tyrants in sheep's clothing. Ultimately, our allegiance to our nation is of far greater importance than our allegiance to any political or religious or any other body. The power and influence of secular and religious bodies grow and wane over time; the nation we build together is our heritage to our children and future generations. Our nation, with all its flaws, is worthy of our protection and respect. We really do 'stand on guard for thee'.

While I'm not a Jehova's witness, I have considered a pledge of allegiance to a flag to be idolatrous.... ... Personally, I think such pledges are meaningless pap. To me anyways. Others find value in such things. I wouldn't have recited the pledge either. I betcha if I'd have been in attendance no one would notice me not reciting. I believe the current Pledge reads: 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. I Pledge Allegiance - I Promise to be faithful and true (Promise my loyalty) to the flag - to the emblem that stands for and represents of the United States - all 50 states, each of them individual, and individually represented on the flag of America - yet formed into a union of one Nation. and to the Republic - And I also pledge my loyalty to the Government that is itself a Republic, a form of government where the people are sovereign, for which it stands, - this government also being represented by the Flag to which I promise loyalty. one Nation under God, - These 50 individual states are united as a single Republic under the Divine providence of God, "our most powerful resource" (according to the words of President Eisenhower) indivisible, - and can not be separated. (This part of the original version of the pledge was written just 50 years after the beginning of the Civil War and demonstrates the unity sought in the years after that divisive period in our history) with Liberty - The people of this Nation being afforded the freedom to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness", and Justice - And each person entitled to be treated justly, fairly, and according to proper law and principle, for All. - And these principles afforded to EVERY AMERICAN, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, or any other criteria. Just as the flag represents 50 individual states that can not be divided or separated, this Nation represents millions of people who can not be separated or divided.

deleted

And yet your choice of words for titles sounds like nothing so much as a variation on the anti-Jewish propaganda from before the Second World War. You're not helping your argument by failing to notice the details like that. That is hardly an accurate observation unless you can show some parallel to Jews not just threatening other ethnic groups, but undertaking aggressive acts to carry out those threats in the period 1919 to 1939. I think you also have to consider the several wars Arabs have mounted against Israel. There are no parallels in modern history. Pre-WW II, Jews were accused of things they had not done. That is far different than holding Arabs accountable for what they have done and openly threaten to do.

When you are out of lucid, supported argument all you can do is mount ad hominem attacks on those who do have valid arguments. Frankly, your posted opinion of me is a worthless as the rest of the drivel you post.

The british turned over there 'protecterate'?? You do mean someone elses country, filled with citizens of that country, right? protectorate: is a political entity (a sovereign state or less developed native polity, such as a tribal chiefstainship or feudal princely state) that formally agrees by treaty to enter into an unequal relationship with another, stronger state, called the protector, which engages to protect it (diplomatically or, if needed, militarily) against third parties, in exchange for which the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations, which may vary greatly, depending on the real nature of their relationship. So Britian failed under international law, like the US has in Iraq, to protect it's protectorate. Rich! On the contrary, Britain turned over its protectorate to the United Nations so that the interests of both Arabs and Jews could be properly dealt with by the world body. The UN in turn created both Israeli and Palestinian nations within the old protectorate. Israel accepted the UN plan; the Arab states refused to accept the UN plan for Palestine, declaring that they would destroy Israel instead. The Arabs have been trying to do so ever since.

The Ottoman Empire lost ownership and control over the lands of the Middle East in 1919 to Britain and France as the spoils of war. The Middle East was partitioned into French and British protectorates from 1919 to 1949. Following WW-II, the British turned over their protectorate to the United Nations for a resolution of valid land claims by both the Arabs and Jews. It is not possible to steal something from the Palestinians that they did did not own for over 500 years of Ottoman and British ownership and rule.

Thanks to the tyranny of minorities and cranks, our children no longer learn about the Commandments and the Deadly Sins. Members of our society have grown more compassionate, respectful and responsible as a result. Our schools are splendid examples of dedicated, industrious scholars who take great pains to show respect for their teachers and peers.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is not about radical Islamism. It is about territory. A significant proportion of Palestinian Arabs are Christian. Get your facts straight. The Arab / Israeli conflict is about ethnic hatred and genocide. When the United Nations proposed separate states for Israel and Palestine, the Arab states surrounding Israel answered that they did not need a state as they were going to push the Jews (that survived) into the Red Sea. The people camped on the West Bank and in Gaza are there because ARABS told them to flee Israel to avoid harm in the coming Armageddon back in 1948. They were NOT displaced by Israel; the nation was at war with several Arab states within 24 hours of becoming a state and had no time to do more than try to prepare to defend itself. Israel (barely) won the 1948 war at a terrible price. She has been on a constant war footing since and has won several other attempts at genocide through war by neighbour nations. If you refuse to read history and are unaware, please do not burden us with trivia.

The cartoons are appalling, but as I said on that board.... teaching to hate is bad whether done openly as they do or privately as you do. I do think though that we should move to that board to carry this discussion further, because in my opinion, Palestinians teaching their kids to hate Israel and the US still doesn't explain how Muslim extremism is an EXISTENTIAL threat to western way of life and its destruction as you repeatedly imply. Perhaps the stark reality that there are several terrorist groups who include Canada as well as the US on their "hit list". When an enemy declared it is about to wreak vengence on you, it is wise to pay attention. I have no wish to wake up dead thanks to some terrorist who set off a bomb where I happened to be.

Palestinians have not controlled the section of the Middle East where Israel is today since 1517 - nearly 500 years ago so current Palestinian claims to the land are baseless. From 1517 to 1918 the area was governed by the Ottoman Turks. From 1918 to 1948, the area was a protectorate of Great Britain. Great Britain turned partitioning of the territory between the Arabs and Jews over to the United Nations. No party had valid prior claim to the lands and do not have at present. The decision was made, Israel was mapped out became a free nations and the Arabs were unhappy. Life happens whether we are happy about it or not. If Lebanon is really a sovereign state she is responsible for the Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel as the rocket attacks came from Lebanese territory and constitute an act of war. When a nation condones or commits acts of war from its territory, it can expect a retaliatory strike. Israel’s recent invasion of Lebanon was perfectly justified under international law.

Next time, I suggest reading the post that I quoted to understand the context of my comments. My "statistics" were not meant to be accurate, they were meant to illustrate a point. Wild exaggerations do not make a valid point.

May 15, 1948 the combined armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan,Lebanon and Syria attacked Israel, who had declared independence less than 24 hours earlier. What has been forgotten was that prior to the invasion, Arab agents from neighbouring nations circulated through the new state of Israel telling Arabs resident there to flee to escape the carnage to be rained on the Israeli people. The Arabs from Israel were told to flee to the borders and await the Arab triumph so that they could return to take up the (former Israel) land as their own. The Arabs lost the 1948 war and eventually sued for peace, but that left the Arabs from Israeli lands adrift without a home. None of the nations who attacked Israel would give the Arabs they displaced a home, and they became the original "Palestinian" refugees - actually refugees from their own people. It suited Arab states who still held a delusion of eliminating Israel to have a camp of discontented people residing literally on Israel's borders and even better, people who could claim no state and hence any actions they undertook could not be blamed on their 'home state' as they had none. The final piece of the puzzle was to blame Israel for 'expelling' the Arabs, thus burying the actions of Arab agents prior to May 1948. Today, few people have the inclination to go back and study the history of Israel's creation or the response of the Arab world. When we look at the Middle East over the recent short term (one or two decades), it is impossible to understand the dynamics of interplay between states.

The problem I have is Hamas kills 5 Israelis and Israel strikes back and kills 10,000 Hamas...Hamas then spreads some propoganda and recruits more militans. These new militants kill 10 Israelis, so Israel strikes back and kills 20,000...and it continues. If they had done nothing, they would have lost 5 people. By fighting back, they lost 15. Israel should focus on preventing deaths from happening in the first place, they should not be killing purely out of revenge. Your statistics are plain silly. You have no proof that the figures you cite are even remotely realistic. We don't see news reports of the bomb attacks, rocket attacks and sniper attacks that are commonplace in Israel. There have been countless efforts to make peace and the Arab position is essentially leave the Middle East and you can have peace. If you (Israel) don't leave, we are going to drive you into the (Red) sea. The Arab position is essentially unchanged since they turned down formation of a separate state of Palestine in 1948. They bragged then that they did not need a Palestine as they would destroy Israel, ending the matter. 60 years later it is Israel's fault the Arabs failed in their efforts. Look at it this way - Israel share the Middle East with neighbours from Hell who are bent on the destruction of Israel. They do not want co-existence, harmony, peace, tolerance or anything else but the elimination of Israel and her people. It is starkly simple. Israel 'overreacts' by beating off the multi-national armies raised to defeat her and refusing to put down her arms and be defeated. When Hamas decides to fire rockets into Israel and endanger her people Israel shoots back, making the point that such attacks are a very bad idea. Since the Arabs can't win and won't quit, they deserve no pity for they created the mess they lay in. The most sleazy participants in the Middle East are the nations and organizations who provide 'humanitarian relief' to the Palestinians. All they really do is sustain the Palestinians for more killing. One would think that the orgy of murderous encounters between the PLO and Hamas would have awakened a few people, but apparently not. Ironic isn't it? The peacemakers are sustaining unending slaughter.

I don't think Muslim infighting has much to do with religion as it has to do with ancient strife over scarce resources and 'blood feuds'. The same can be said of the Irish 'troubles'. The media played up the Catoholic vs Protestant angle, but most of the bitterness traced back to clan and other disputes outside faith. Here in Canada we have countless examples of differing congregations coming to the aid of one another in times of disaster. A church burns and neighbouring congregations offer their church until the burned building can be replaced. Various churches serve the whole community at funerals, for example, and work together for charity. Where I live, various Christian denominations, Jewish denominations, Hindus, Mormons, Hutterites, Menonites and various others manage to live in harmony and respect one another's religious views. We do not get into strife or harm one another.

We already know that NATO allies have no stomach for armed confrontation with the terrorists, but we are screwing up by not having our timid allies set up and administer prison camps for captured terror suspects. That would solve the 'problem' and give the rear-echelon types something useful to do.

France was once an imperial power - the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was towards the end of the seven year war with Britain. France was also a heavy in Algeria for decades and once held a large part of Viet Nam. They were also heavily engaged in parts of Africa beyond Algeria. Where do you get your history from?

Don't be silly, Canada respects the U.S. 86%. It has no choice. http://www.buyusa.gov/canada/en/traderelationsusacanada.html Canada is a sovereign nation and the US has long recognized her independence. This is somewhat blurred due to the many common interests and common memberships in international organizations such as NATO and NAFTA. We often disagree as separate nations, but we fight in a civilized manner. There have been cases in 'friendly' war exercises where Canadians have won the day despite the overwhelming superiority in the size and resources of the American military. The US has never played a bad sport in these instances. Trade relations have been different with the US playing protectionist. However, we are in a poor position to argue as we play the protectionist card against one another at the provincial level. Neither nation is perfect, and like people living together in one house, we get irritated at one another's habits and idiosyncrasies. We do not have the option of filing for a divorce and moving to another continent. We can continue to bitch and complain about one another or learn to focus on the multitude of assets each nation brings to the table. The choice is ours.

Nevertheless, the two battalions that suffered the heavies casualties were both French volunteers from Quebec.

that is an impossible mission. Not even the Liberals know who they are or what they stand for.

Never in my life would I want elected Judges. The people want all sorts of screwy things that are not right . More importantly elected judges are looking for decisions that will get them re-elected rather than decisions that are balanced, fair and just.

You don't even have the argument right. The question is whether or not global warming is man-made or even significantly affected by man. The earth has gone through several cycles of warming and cooling, some long before man made any significant GHG contributions. Your unsupported theory about oil dependency driven by oil companies is suspect - unless you would care to explain how oil companies manages to gather people into urban centers in huge nations where travel is imperative and the only efficient source of power has been the internal combustion engine. How do you explain that the much-hyped Kyoto Protocol only addresses GHG emissions from some industrialized nations and does not address the alleged GW crises every nation contributes to? There is much to question respecting the 'science' of global warming and in particular the half-vast plans to address this alleged crisis.

At least Canada (over your opposition) believes that people can recover from depression, or at least its conservatives do. Better than the way compassionate lefties (link) </ sarcasm> treat their own when they've had issues. Can you keep the Fox News left vs right BS out of this. I'm taking a stand I refuse to let my country get drawn into this f&&king stupid ideological insultfest. where nothing gets solved and good ideas are lost because sarcasm rules the day. Lefties? What are you some kind of cheap version of Ann Coulter? If you are seeking the high road, you just drove off a precipice.