Harry Reid talks about how much he enjoys hearing the version of the Pledge of Allegiance that omits God

by editor on April 13, 2011

Harry Reid, Nevada’s senile Democrat Senator, really enjoys hearing the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each Senate session. Interestingly, Harry’s version doesn’t include the words “under God.”

Senility or intentional? What’s your opinion?

Leave a Reply

26 Comments on "Harry Reid talks about how much he enjoys hearing the version of the Pledge of Allegiance that omits God"

Notify of
Kashada
Guest

The real scary part here is that no one seems to even care that he wasn’t reciting the pledge. Yes he left out “under God”, but he left out 95% of the pledge, including the words “I pledge allegience”.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to actually watch a video of Harry? To actually listen to the little twerp speak? Come on now.

KimmyQueen
Guest

I have to agree with RHG here, it is very hard to go through it once, but to go through it again is sheer torture. I am not a masochist, I got to have limits to the amount of pain that I get daily.

MightyManfred
Member

The entire pledge is a bogus bit of statist programming. Its author intended to help the Whigs (Abe Lincoln and company) in deconstructing THESE United States of America from a voluntary association of several sovereign states and forging it into an amalgam of one glob of a country with only a national identity – THE U S of A.

The flag should not be the object of a pledge anyway. It’s not what makes this country unique – it’s a symbol. If we pledge anything, it should align with the oath of office Reid repeated but does not follow – to support and defend the Constitution of these United States – not the flag.

perlcat
Member

Words have meaning. The originator was a socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

With the addition of two words, “under God”, the pledge is changed to be the opposite of everything the original author stood for. With the subtraction of those two words, it changes the entire purpose of the pledge to the state to be a pledge to an all-encompassing, self-justifying leviathan. No wonder Harry hates those two words. He does not subject himself to the jurisdiction of any higher power than his self-serving greed and ambition.

I do not think that tinkering with the mechanisms of patriotism should be taken lightly. The fact remains that this country was formed under the idea that we are subject to a higher power, and are to be called to account for our actions in the end. Whether that is God, FSM, a social purpose, or whatever, the government still has to serve something, or it serves something else. The “something else” disturbs me greatly.

The flag is a representation — it represents not only the government, it represents the country, the people, the Constitution, the laws, the very spirit of the people. No wonder the hippies want to burn it. They hate everything about their country — young, old, black, white, women, children, good, bad, rich, poor, whatever. Therefore, destroying the symbol of all that has a twisted and evil meaning all of its own. In their ignorance, you see them for what they are — fools battling towards ragnarok, with nothing beyond but death.

I am thrilled to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and have taught new citizens this very pledge. I also make them promise to *never* remove the words “under God” from it, as it then devolves into nationalism, as opposed to patriotism. It becomes a pledge to greed and hatred as opposed to a pledge to keep the nation under the obligation to a higher power.

Tatersalad
Member

Dingy Harry and deleting “under God” ………….looser!

Barack Obama and his usual “crotch salute” during the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegance……………looser!

Both have the usual thing that is common with their elk……………Socialists!

perlcat
Member

…so Socialists are “elk”? AWESOME!! I’m going to get me a permit immediately, gonna bag me my limit!

Oh, wait. You meant “ilk”.

Not sure I can live with this crushing disappointment.

KimmyQueen
Guest

Even if they were elk, I am not sure how you could cook the socialist taste off them though.

KimmyQueen
Guest

LOL I love it when my little pathetic stalker comes around.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

I would like it more if your pathetic little stalker would post, though. It would be such fun to see you rip him limb from limb. Verbally, of course. He’d actually have to give you thumbs-down in person for you to rip his pathetic little metrosexual head off for real.

KimmyQueen
Guest

I do too. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t go out looking for problems, but I am not at all adverse for standing my ground. If he or she or they have something INTELLIGENT to apport to the situation so be it let’s talk like adults who are mature and have things to say to one another in a respectful manner, but if all that they have is crap and stupidity, they are deserving of whatever I got for them. I am sorry that is just how I roll.

Thumbing down just because that is all they got because they don’t want to debate me is pathetic. I do my best to post why I put a thumbs down on someone’s post UNLESS there are several opinions already posted that speak to my feelings just fine. I at least have that courtesy.

Paden
Member

Liberals are bastards.

Noelegy
Guest

My parents are the same age as Harry Reid, and they still have all their faculties. I vote for Freudian slip or outright insulting omission.

hisham
Guest

Wes April 13, 2011 at 8:23 am

Well, “under God” wasn’t even in the pledge until 1954.

Wes, Wes, Wes, come on buddy, do your homework and find out why it was added in the first place! President Eisenhower had it added so that we, as a nation, would place our trust in something greater than man and his governments! It was placed there to publicly affirm and recognize that God was at the national helm, not some windbag like say, Bareback Obama!

Kurtis
Guest

Hisham, and how does that not conflict with the first amendment? I love the fact that under God is in our pledge, but if we’re gonna hold the liberals to the constitution, we have to be willing to do the same.

KimmyQueen
Guest

I know what you are talking about, but I would like to interject.

“under God” says under God only. It doesn’t say under the Jewish G-d, under the Christian G-d, under the Islamic G-d, under the Earth G-d…. you understand what I am saying? There is no true first amendment issue here. The government/the pledge of allegiance to it, is not ENDORSING a specific god, God, G-d, dogma, religion or faith. What it is doing is stating that the government itself and those who pledge to it are at the mercy of a bigger entity, Whom is not limited in anyway and is All Powerful who provide us with the rights and liberties we enjoy, in which the govt is a STEWARD of, so it can impart it responsibly to its citizens.

The point that hisham is stating is someone LARGER than MAN and man’s governments. If we are not under God, then we can only be under Government, which means that Government can do whatever the heck it wants to us and we would have no reason to NOT subject ourself to it. Since I am under God and in MY case (Judeo-Christian G-d), I don’t have to kowtow to government when I know/feel that government is out of control, in fact I can take my G-d and my beliefs and my guns and make sure government knows that it can’t be playing with my rights… rights given to me by God whom I am “under”.

hisham
Guest

Because Kurtis, there’s no place in the Constitution nor in any of the founding documents that suggests “separation of church and state!” The first amendment clearly says, and I quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (because several of the states already had official religions and they didn’t want a centralized government to usurp they’re ‘national’ soverignty and establish an official ‘American’ religion or prevent them from being able to openly express and publicly argue for their own!) 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.”

This whole establishment clause is taken entirely out of context and as long as the dim bulbs in the MSM keep beating this drum, people are going to fall for it because they buy the rubbish that we, as a people and a nation, in order to facilitate ‘all peoples,’ must be politically correct about what we say in the public sector. Political correctness is nowhere in, nor has it ever been, a part of our Constitution…it’s sneeked in over the past eight or so decades as a result of the advances of progressivism and our lack of vigilance as a people! There is NO conflict with the First Amendment, trust me. If the Muslims are allowed to say ALLAHU AKBAR from every podium and pulpit in the land, we can certainly affirm UNDER GOD and IN GOD WE TRUST! This is our land and as long as we remember that we may yet keep it!

I don’t let liberals tell me what our founding documents mean, especially if they try to tell me that The Constitution is somehow different in meaning today than it was 230 years ago! We don’t have a constitutional meaning sliding bar that goes up and down with the whims of a few dissatisfied and dissaffected malcontents that only represent themselves and their own very narrow agenda! These progressives might as well be drug hustlers for all the damage they do to the national community! Don’t buy into their argument that our positions are somehow equal because they aren’t, we are right and have always been right and they are wrong and have always been wrong! Arguing with libtards is a lot like arguing with adolescents; they think that because they’re as big as you are and have read a book, they are somehow smarter than you. These people are very skilled at the bait and switch question and false premise argumentation, but it doesn’t make them logical. If you’ll notice, they love the emotional approach, because it’s almost guranteed to stop the brain and start the heart. You need to learn to rip their false assumptions up right in front of their faces, make them stammer and whimper and stamp their feet and gnash their teeth, that’s when you know they’ve completely lost the debate! Do that and the rest is a cake walk!

toocoldinwa
Member

What an a-hole.

rs
Member

To be fair, I think the video was edited.

Wes
Guest

Well, “under God” wasn’t even in the pledge until 1954.

KimmyQueen
Guest

So… your point is that he is so old and senile that he only remembers the OLD pledge? Because I want to understand your intentions here…

Navyvet
Member

Harry’s proposed new pledge for us minions.
I pledge my allegiance to the flag, of the Socialist States of Amerika, and to the dictatorship for which it now stands, one area, under Obama, where the rulers give the shaft to all.

Big Al
Member

If you listen real closely you can hear him rubbing his cloven hooves together.

whiskeyriver
Guest

If this isn’t enough proof for the fools from Nevada that keep electing Reid to office then I don’t know what more they need.

As a born and raised American and a proud veteran of our armed forces, I find this “person”, I refuse to call him a man, discusting. I cannot say what I really think about him or how much I would love to meet him at the corner pub, some little limp-dick, noodle necked nerd working for the gooberment may be checking out this site to see what anti-government “commies” may be saying.

Keep up the good work Mr. Administrator and Mr. Editor! I promise I will not threaten to slap the shit out of the next politician I happen to meet in my favorite watering hole, on this site.

wpDiscuz