« Berkeley Moonbat Calls for Extinction of Human Race | Main | David Shuster's Inept Ambush »

September 27, 2007

Boulder Student Moonbats Protest Pledge of Allegiance

Boulder High School's oxymoronically named club "Student Worker" is waging a righteous campaign against the religious oppression so prominent in their festering nest of moonbattery by protesting the Pledge of Allegiance.

They've called for students to walk out of class every Thursday at 8:30 when the pledge is recited over the intercom, and gather in the courtyard to recite their own moonbat version:

I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all.

Their main problem with the real pledge is the reference to God. As you can see, they have substituted their own god, "diversity." By "choice" I assume they mean abortion.

The club's president, 17-year-old constitutional scholar Emma Martens, holds that the words "on nation, under God" violate the First Amendment, which ironically enough was intended in part to protect our religious freedom.

For a liberal, Martens is quite open-minded. She thinks students who want to hear the real pledge should be allowed to go off to the auditorium and listen to it on their lunch break — just so long as moonbats don't have to hear it, which would qualify as "almost religious oppression," on a par with sprinkling holy water on a vampire.

Slapstick Politics has video of the little darling.

Emma Martens, teenage crusader against God and America.

Posted by Van Helsing at September 27, 2007 7:26 AM


By "choice" I assume they mean abortion.

Since moonbats and their Democrat allies seek to deny us the choice of what kind of car to drive, what food to eat, what we can do with our property, what kind of health care we can have, who we can hire, who we can rent property to, what opinions we can hear on the radio, what schools we can send our children to, what religion we are allowed to profess publicly, what we can do with the money money we earn... what other than contraceptive infanticide could they possibly mean by "choice."

Posted by: V the K at September 27, 2007 7:39 AM

You can tell they haven't been paying attention in their humanities classes. That new "pledge" completely screws up the metre. One of the reasons the US pledge is so enduring is because it actually feels poetic and has a definite rhythm to it. Without that it becomes shite, if you'll excuse my saxon.

Posted by: Archonix at September 27, 2007 8:09 AM

Once again, the fruits of the moonbat takeover of the public education system are evident in the daily news. This is what they learn from elementary school on, to reject what Anmerica was, to despise what it is, and to find moral redemption in embracing the liberal version of what America should be. When liberty and justice get twisted into diversity and abortion for all, the leftist dream of American destruction is achieved.

Posted by: Beef at September 27, 2007 8:39 AM

Wow! A "constitutional scholar" at 17! Not old enough to drink, vote, sign a contract, or serve in the military (without parental consent), but she knows the Constitution inside and out.
You know at 17, I was a Driver's Ed scholar.

Posted by: phil at September 27, 2007 8:54 AM

Some things to remember-

The Pledge Of Allegiance is not an historic part of the US republic. It was written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist** for a children's magazine who were selling flags and wanted something snappy for advertising copy. It contained no reference to God.

The words "under God" were not incorporated into it until the 1950s.

The USA is a secular republic whose constitution prefers no religon. This is one of the things that made it such a big success.

It is no more morally right to force an individual to pledge allegiance to a god in whom they do not believe, than it is right to force an individual to deny a god in whom they do. Indoctrination is a symptom of fascist dictatorships, not free democracies.

You can hardly stand up for the hope that muslims will one day get to live in modern, secular democracies with freedom of and from religious obligation, if you don't want your own country to be one.

**Remember, the Christian Socialist movement were key players in the birth of the progressive movement which evolved into modern moonbattery. It was the devout William Jennings Bryan and his fellow travellers who changed the Democratic Party from being one of free market classical liberals (libertarians) into one of progressivist socialists. Had the Christian Left not been so successful back then, moonbattery would quite possibly never have gotten off the ground.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at September 27, 2007 8:56 AM

Just for the record, no one is ever FORCED to say the pledge, nor are they FORCED to say "under God." Should they choose, they can simply stay silent for either all or part. But it's ridiculous to say that because she and her pals don't like it that others who do should be FORCED into hiding to say it just so these so-called scholars won't be offended. Libs are always telling conservatives to just turn off the TV if they don't like what's on. Well, Emma can simply tune out the pledge if she doesn't like it. Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Pam at September 27, 2007 9:15 AM

Ian, on a semi-nitpicking point, I think grammatically one is pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Republic, not to God.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at September 27, 2007 9:16 AM

I love the way moonbats step forward, it'll make them easier to find later on.

Posted by: Conan at September 27, 2007 9:37 AM

This coming from the town that officially made people 'guardians' of their pets as opposed to owners. It's not like they don't have anything else to do in Boulder besides snowballing their liberal cause thru indoctrinating the indoctroable, but thats what they do. A 5 year old could be considered a constitutional scholar (of the liberal type) if one was trained to regurgitate their hate for anybody who doesn't vote democrat. Emma is scared of liberals because she sees how non-liberals are treated in Boulder and she wants the friends and social stature that come along with being on the side of power, regardless of who's freedom they're steam rolling. The most common theme for liberals is that they have little to no personal integrity. That’s fine if she has a problem with the pledge and doesn't want to hear it, but until the day it's been changed, its still the pledge and she should be the one forced to go to the auditorium to avoid hearing it. She can protest at lunch time.

Posted by: MB at September 27, 2007 9:47 AM

Pam; the problem I would have is that this pledge is recited in schools. Children in schools shouldn't have to opt out of such communal activities. I'm infuriated by moonbats wrecking the education system here in the UK and forcing kids to believe in Gaia, and that Man Is Evil And Destroying The Planet. It's intolerable. Neither do I want a situation where kids have to pledge to one planet under Gaia, or one nation under Allah. One can say "they can opt out" but they shouldn't have to.

American Conservatives IMV would get a lot further politically if they gave up on making every kid pledge to "one nation under God", or pledge anything, and fight for schools to just teach what they're supposed to be teaching; math, english, science, history, music, whatever. You can't argue against loony lefties using schools to indoctrinate if you want to do that yourself. There are more secular, faith-as-a-private-matter, anti-moonbats out there than perhaps conservatives realise.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at September 27, 2007 9:48 AM

There are old pictures showing American reciteing the pledge with their right hands RAISED as if in a Nazi salute! This was the old way, for we were taking an OATH of alegiance to our country: "...and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands;...."

Posted by: KHarn at September 27, 2007 9:54 AM

Amazing, all these little useful idiots. I remember back in the 80's when I was into the punk scene, we didn't even thing communism was cool. So much so that a band called the Dead Kennedys did a song called Holiday in Cambodia to demonstrate the idiocy of those who thought that communism was cool even though they were rich, spoiled socialites. I think the song applies today as it did back in the 80's, even more so now.

So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know youve seen it all
In daddys car
Thinkin youll go far
Back east your type dont crawl

Play ethnicky jazz
To parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin that you know
How the negros feel cold
And the slums got so much soul

Its time to taste what you most fear
Right guard will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear

Its a holiday in cambodia
Its tough, kid, but its life
Its a holiday in cambodia
Dont forget to pack a wife

Youre a star-belly sneech
You suck like a leach
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you bitch
So you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you

Well youll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Till you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake

Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need, my son.

Is a holiday in cambodia
Where people dress in black
A holiday in cambodia
Where youll kiss ass or crack

Pol pot, pol pot, pol pot, pol pot, etc.

And its a holiday in cambodia
Where youll do what youre told
A holiday in cambodia
Where the slums got so much soul

Posted by: Robert Mahoney at September 27, 2007 10:23 AM

What do you expect, shes a public school student. She probably can't perform simple addition or subtraction OR Identify any member of the US Supreme Court OR tell us what Fourth of July really means, BUT, she can probably tell us the exact shade of eye shadow Paris Hilton & Britney Spears wear AND lecture us on Constitutional rights. I presume her parents and teachers are less bright than she is.

Posted by: Refuter Of Liberal Vermin at September 27, 2007 10:50 AM

Ian, I most definitely agree that the saying of the pledge is less important than the fact that schools are shirking their responsibility toward students as far as a real education. A friend of mine who moved to England and married a UK citizen, had a kid, divorced, remarried, and just had another kid, swears he'll send his youngest to private school because, as he said on the phone recently, his oldest (14) is "lost" to him due to the edcuation he received in a UK public school. It's a shame, really.

And it's this very education system that is churning out students like this Emma who thinks that the most important thing she can do as a "constitutional scholar" is to boycott the pledge and come up with a new one that pledges unity with the world, not one's nation. So yes, we need to start with the basics...I am in agreement with you on that.

My children attend public school, and while there is some moonbattery in our system, it's not as bad as some places I've heard of.

Posted by: Pam at September 27, 2007 11:12 AM


I remember the DK poster for that one. It was a grainy black-and-white photo of a man hanging from a tree, with another man running up to him to bash his skull with a folding chair.
Great stuff, but not as good as their Bedtime for Democracy album cover.

Posted by: phil at September 27, 2007 1:24 PM

Pam: over here state education is pretty much lost. Arithmetic is now counting extinct species, science is all global warming, etc etc. It's pretty much a lost cause. :(

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at September 27, 2007 1:31 PM

Ha Haaaa Ha Haaaaaaaaaa

That’s hilarious. Using Dead Kennedys lyrics to defend the pledge of allegiance!

Even when I saw them play, Jello was a moron. He spent the whole show insulting NYC and telling us that we didnt deserve to see his band... all because some skinheads had threatened to beat him up if he came to NY. None of those skinheads were there at the show, ONLY Dead Kennedys fans. The guy dissed his own fans because someone else threatened him. What an idiot!

The next time I saw him was years later at the first Gulf War protests. He did this lame spoken word about the American flag and how much it sucks. Even though I was still an Anarchist punk back then I still thought that his performance was trite.

But for all their moonbattiness, the DKs were entertaining.

Those lyrics cited by Robert are insightful as to the character of those useful tools that glamorize any murderous poverty-stricken anti-American country they can find and hate their own prosperity.

Posted by: Freedom Now at September 27, 2007 1:58 PM

"Almost religious oppression?" How about a taste of the real thing? O.K. Emma, here's your challenge: Go to Saudi Arabia, wearing an "I love Jesus" T-shirt, with a cross around your neck, and a Bible in your hands. If anybody stops you, tell them you are there to spread the Gospel as Christ commanded. If they protest, hand them a Jack Chick comic (available in Arabic!).
Bound to be more fun than an entire season of "Survivor."

Posted by: phil at September 27, 2007 2:14 PM

Really, it's our nation's common allegiance to God that grants us all the liberty to worship Him according to the dictates or our individual consciences. The failure to understand that simple concept drives these fanatical activities to suppress the free expression of our public religion.

Whatever you conceive God to be, it is nevertheless fundamental that devotion to God is what unites us in our common liberties. The instant you make the claim that having to tolerate other's freedom of religious expression is tantamount to oppression, you cross the line yourself and become a tyrant.

If the pledge of allegiance is oppression, so is everything else you are "forced" to hear in school.

Posted by: Cliff at September 27, 2007 4:29 PM

And get this nonsense: the PRINCIPAL is PROUD of them. WHY? Because somehow, disrespect to God is looked upon as actually having some moral quality to it. This isn't some righteous, principled crusade against an oppressive tyrant: it's a display of intolerance towards religion in public.

And the principal has done these CHILDREN, for such they are, in his school, a great disservice for failing, himself, to understand that. While he reaps the benefits of a free and benevolent and united God fearing country, he promotes and encourages rebellion and intolerance for the same in his administration.

Posted by: Cliff at September 27, 2007 4:41 PM

I wasn't so much trying to use Holiday in Cambodia to defend the pledge as I was trying to illustrate how ironic it is that these kids think socialism/communism is sooooo cool, yet, under a real God free, peoples republic they would die trying to escape. What am I saying, they wouldn't even die trying, they would just give up without a fight.

I agree about Jello, he is a narcissist. I enjoy the Dead Kennedy's music, I don't agree much with his political views (How can you take a person serious who thinks Pat Robertson is a greater threat to America than Osama Bin Laden) I enjoy bands like CRASS and the like, but I think they are just people who want to complain.

Posted by: Robert Mahoney at September 27, 2007 4:52 PM

These CHILDREN should not be FORCED to say the words "under God". But neither should they be permitted to disrupt the proceedsings, nor display their intolerance for the freedom of others to pledge their allegiance. This is a moral question: should the philosophy of a few be given preferential treatment? The secular philosophers say yes, all secularists can do as they wish, but religionists cannot, nay, MUST NOT be permitted to utter their beliefs in public, and if they do, they will be protested until they are shut down.

This 17 year old "Constitutional Scholar"-ette is merely a brainwashed, anti-God Marxist in sheep's clothing.

Religion is being persecuted, and hounded out of the town square by the worldly philosophies of intolerant totalitarians, who would like nothing better than to silence this pesky religious business once and for all, and deny us all the free exercise of our religion. Let them continue to rationalize, but the Constitution provides abundant protection of our religious liberties from the encroachment of such ill-informed rascals. Understanding the Constitution requires that you understand the beliefs upon which it was based: That GOD created all men equal. (And women are included in that statement contrary to you nit-picking legal philosophers.) And that GOD is the source of our liberty, not the State. And definitely not your secular philosophy.

Posted by: Cliff at September 27, 2007 4:56 PM

But Cliff, the pledge of allegiance isn't about freedom is it? If it's an obligation by the school on the pupils, they're not choosing to pledge their allegiance. They're being told to. So even the christian kids aren't freely pledging "under God". They're doing it because they're told to stand up and recite it.

So those who object aren't stamping on the freedom of christians. They're objecting to an obligatory ritual religious affirmation, in which they don't believe.

If a rule were imposed that the children may not of their own choice mention their God, pray to that God, or otherwise affirm their belief as they choose, i'd be right there on the picket line with you standing up for their right to be Christian and proud. But saying their rights are being compromised by the withdrawal of an obligatory affirmation to God is nonsensical. A person is not exercising any right at all if they are forced to pray by an authority. Ergo, no such non-existent right can be compromised.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at September 27, 2007 5:49 PM

Crass? Boy, you are an 80s punker. I like when they try to play music and dont fart about with "art", but boy they can be pretentious.

I still dig bands like DOA, the Alleycats, the Vktms, Legal Weapon, the Subhumans etc...


Posted by: Freedom Now at September 27, 2007 6:54 PM

Isn't this a great country, one in which young people can express their opinions and views without fear of reprisal. I spent 20 years in the military so that these freedoms are enjoyed by all.

However, I believe a Civics lesson is in order. While the Student Workers Club may think that "one nation, under God" violates the US Constitution, it does not. The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Forgive me if I am wrong, but I don't think the English language has changed that much that someone sees the words "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment. As a matter of fact, no where in the US Constitution will you find the words "separation of church and state".

Next, I would direct the Student Workers Club to do a search on the internet – please Google the following “Jefferson letter Danbury Baptists”. They may be surprised to find were the phrase "separation of church and state" actually comes from. In 1947, the US Supreme Court ruled in Everson vs. Board Of Education in a 5-4 decision that this letter, and the last I checked this letter wasn't a part of the US Constitution, as being the basis for what the First Amendment means. It does not. The First Amendment is pretty black and white if you ask me. All five judges in the majority during this ruling were Democrats that were appointed by Democratic presidents, go figure. These judges “interpreted” the First Amendment. “No law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I could be wrong, and I’m not a lawyer, but it seems pretty straight forward to me. Besides, I don’t think there are any laws that have established a national religion. I guess what I am trying to say is, simply put, the Student Workers Club argument that "one nation, under God" violates the Constitution is bogus.

If you want to stand up and walk out on the Pledge of Allegiance, I say more power to you and you are protected by the First Amendment to do that. However, you just might want to stay in class, you might learn something.

US Navy - Retired Veteran

Posted by: Retired Veteran at September 27, 2007 7:01 PM

And Retired Veteran, let me elaborate on your well-made point. Neither does the first amendment place a limitation on where the freedom of religion may or may not be practiced. Nothing in it implies that this fundamental freedom is to be excluded in publicly funded institutions where the other freedoms ( speech, press, peaceful assembly and the redress of grievances against the government )are openly promoted.

Posted by: IOpian at September 27, 2007 8:11 PM

“No law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I could be wrong, and I’m not a lawyer, but it seems pretty straight forward to me.

It is pretty straightforward, but you're maybe not reading it as it's meant. It doesn't contain the phrase "separation of church and state" but that is what it means, just as if for example it said "no law respecting a man's skin colour" wouldn't include the phrase "racial equality before the law" but that would be what it meant.

An established church is an official church- an official religion. It's that meaning of "established" rather than "starting up". My country, the UK, has an established church, the Church Of England, which is mainly a social club for middle aged gay men, but that's besides the point.

That constitutional amendment is designed to say that the state will give no preference to any religious view. It conceives of religion as entirely a matter for the private conscience. It's quite clear what the intention is. Probably the biggest mistake Jefferson et al made was the assumption that future generations would try to stick with the spirit of the constitution, instead of picking apart the wording to try and make it mean what they want it to mean. It amuses me. Liberals (modern type) look at the Constitution and read it in such a way that it tells them America was meant to be a socialist utopia. Religous conservatives read it, and magically find it to establish a theocracy. It's neither. Jefferson et al were classical liberals; libertarians in modern parlance. They hoped to create a maximally free society with minimal central governance. They must be spinning in their graves.

Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at September 27, 2007 8:14 PM

I'm a Crank.

I think that the words "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge, for the same reason that I think that any version of Huckleberry Finn that doesn't contain he "N" word is grounds for burning some interfering twit at the stake.


First Amendment issues don't enter into it for me.

Posted by: C. S. P. Schofield at September 27, 2007 8:25 PM

I agree CSP, but I would hope that you would also agree that for these students to claim "oppression" is really silly. I am an atheist and dont feel at all threatened by the Pledge. It is their own insecurity that oppresses them.

Posted by: Freedom Now at September 30, 2007 5:11 PM

i think this is kewl that students have
made their own pledge and took out the word in god it does really violate the rights of the first ammendmant. some people think that its ridiculous because of the fact that if we dont like it we should leave out of this country which is STUPID!!!

Posted by: Audrianna garcia at October 17, 2007 10:25 AM