Democrat leads Pledge in House, omits “under God,” claims she just paused and “took a breath”

by editor on October 31, 2010

Advertisements

Minnesota Congresswoman Betty McCallum is not very happy. She’s also not very honest.

Opponents dug up a video clip of the Minnesota Congresswoman leading the Pledge of Allegiance in the House of Representatives. They say she omitted the words “under God.” She says she “took a breath.”

Here’s a press release posted on McCollum’s on Tuesday:

Congresswoman condemns radical right-wing agenda of hate, intolerance and racism

St. Paul, MN — Congresswoman Betty McCollum honors and respects the Pledge of Allegiance and believes the United States is one Nation under God. She has led the Pledge of Allegiance on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives numerous times as can be seen in these video links.

Conservatives are using an eight year old video clip to incite hate, racism, and intolerance among Tea Party Republicans. This right-wing effort to call into question Congresswoman McCollum’s Christian faith, her belief in God, and her patriotism is blatantly anti-American and all too similar to the extremists who earlier this year mailed a soiled American flag to her Congressional office and threatened the Congresswoman with violence.

Congresswoman McCollum rejects this radical agenda and condemns the extremist tactics behind this poisonous political exploitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

There are three possibilities here:

(1) She took a breath. (2) She intentionally omitted the words “under God.” (3) She doesn’t know the words to the Pledge.

We think it’s probably number three, since she also incorrectly inserted the word “the” in front of “allegiance” at the beginning of Pledge.

And the third possibility is probably the worst of the three.

Source: McCollum.house.gov

{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }

tootie November 1, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Brian November 1, 2010 at 9:14 am

Its pretty obvious to me that she got her “dander” up about saying the word “God,” stood up to it by refusing to say it and then then the wave crashed. Instead of braving the storm and standing up for something she seems to believe, she did what most Politicians do, duck and cover! I don’t care if you are an Atheist, a Christian, A Muslim or a Pagan. This is so obvious it’s almost painful to see. PEOPLE! STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE! That is why we are here, because people desired to be somewhere that no one could tell them what to do. If you are going to buck the system, at least be honest about it!

Deb November 1, 2010 at 8:33 am

A picture (or video) is worth a thousand words. She is not gasping for breath, she has deliberately stopped speaking through those words. Besides, it is one phrase, “one nation under God” not “one nation, under God” It is an awkward place to pause for a breath. One would stop after “to the Republic for which it stands (breath) one nation under God.” Or you could breathe after God. Her story just doesn’t add up. And her response is waaayyyy too hysterical. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

YouCanCallMeAL October 31, 2010 at 10:41 pm

Pausing to take a breath?? It’s 30 seconds of speaking how winded can you get? It’s not like she is in the Presidents Own Marching and she is playing “Tbe Star Spangled Banner” on the trumpet.
What a lame excuse

tracycolorado November 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm

Maybe this Witch will just forget how to breathe, altogether . We can only Hope

SoberVoter November 1, 2010 at 9:12 pm

I thought Christine O’donnel was the witch. Wasn’t she? I know you’re mad and throwing the word “witch” out there to be hatefull, but isn’t one of your Tea Pary candidates a former witch for real? How do you square the two? You consider a witch to be a dispicable character (or you wouldn’t have used the term as an insult) and yet you support an actual former witch.
How does that work?

SCDiver November 2, 2010 at 9:13 am

Christine never claimed to BE a witch.

Get your facts straight.

SoberVoter October 31, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Perhaps she was excercising her right to freedom of religion and now has to deny excercising her right to avoid political attack by people who have convinced themselves beyond all evidence to the contrary that America is somehow a theocracy.
Why do you hate Americans who excercise their rights? She denies doing it on purpose and you attack her for that. And yet, if she admitted not saying God on purpose you would crucify her for her pesonal convictions.
Honestly, I don’t see why she would care what you think, your insects anyway.

matthew s harrison October 31, 2010 at 5:40 pm

sober voter and antonio.
To assume, or assert that America is a theocracy because the pledge, and other documents mention God is hilarious!
You guys are brainwashed lefties.
At no time in the history of this country has a church called the shots for America-however now, very very left wing organizations like the Vatican are beginning to play a larger role in our governance.
But, at the end of the day, the use of the phrase “one nation, under god” not only says nothing about the governance of our country, it also in no way speaks to a specific religion controlling our nation.
Your argument is a joke! It is the same old argument we get from the left all the time.
Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Its called The Ten Commandments. …..you know, those civil laws that your ilk seem to have such a hard time following?
To come here, or to go anywhere and argue that the use of that phrase, or by way of having the ten commandments on our courthouses is somehow evidence that we live under a theocracy is lunacy! If you want to know what it is like to live under a theocracy, go to Iran or Saudi Arabia. Until you visit a real theocracy, and understand what one is, and how it functions, leave that bullshit at the door.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a simple statement to make as an American, that you pledge to protect yours and our America. It is a simple pledge to act in a way that is comporting yourself by the very Christian values that made this country what it is-the most civilized society on earth, where people actually DIE trying to get here-at all costs.
Grow up you brainwashed kool aid drinking lefties-under god means that we take our civility seriously and that we will continue to live by those very tenets that keep your neighbor from stealing from you, taking your wife, etc……..and as long as we are on this subject, if your ilk would live a little more by those tenets, you may find that you aren’t angry with us all the time for pointing out that you have devolved into a group of amoral dope smoking, wife cheating, stealing, lying, reprobates who hold us in low regard because we choose to live “godly lives” and follow those horrible 10 rules that make you feel guilty for all of your constant hateful, selfish, narcissistic life-styles!
Go read a real book-go read the founding documents, and then recite the pledge 10 times and come back here and tell me where in that pledge it says that you are forced to worship a specific god in a specific way, and are forced to follow a specific religious way of life.
And, remember you were told by us-a bunch of “radical” conservatives…..you keep letting muslims dictate how we control our borders, our government, our laws, and our way of life-and you will quickly find out what it means to live under a theocracy-one called Islamic Shariah, and let me tell you-you will regret for eternity not following our horrible 10 commandments!
Here endith the lesson.

Spiff October 31, 2010 at 9:37 pm

MH, I wish I could thumbs-up your comment more than once! And copter1, as well!

SoberVoter November 1, 2010 at 12:57 pm

The pledge of allegience is like any other swear or pledge. It can and is broken by people all of the time. Especially those in office.

Better to live as a good American than pretend at it with fancy words. I live as a good American and do it while dragging soft whiny sissies like you along the way.

Go cry about something else, Daddy has to work now.
So saeth the father to the son.

P.S. Your the only person who needs nine paragraphs to say nothing. Apperantly you’re as stupid as you are weak.

Deb November 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm
copter1 October 31, 2010 at 6:19 pm

SV, when someone is reciting an oath, one does not get to pick and choose which words they will say. That’s why President Obama had to re-take the oath of office when he and the Chief Justice goobered it up on Inauguration Day. They aren’t just random words, they mean something, and they have been agreed upon by our elected representatives. Yes, the words “under God” were added years after the original writing; we’ve also amended the Constitution, should we ignore those words too, if we don’t agree with them?

She denies leaving the words out on purpose — the visual evidence indicates otherwise — and in so doing, accuses Republicans of every sin in the book, none of which has anything to do with this particular issue. That’s the deny-distract-disparage-destroy philosophy to a T.

She’s not exercising a right, she’s trying to cover up a wrong. Even if that was her defense, she’s already backed down on it. When the going gets tough, the tough, what, send out a press release? And thanks for calling us names, that’s a very effective debating tool.

tootie November 1, 2010 at 8:58 am

Amen! A lie to justify her actions, why not just tell the truth?!!!

DoubleU October 31, 2010 at 1:55 pm

It wouldn’t bother me that they left out the “under God” part, it is lying and making up some cheesy excuse that bothers me.

danybhoy October 31, 2010 at 7:02 pm

Actually, the left seems to have a problem with the part that says, “…& to the republic for which it stands”. as well. All I ever hear from these dolts is democracy this & democracy that, when we actually live in a constitutional republic. Yeah, they don’t like the God thingy in the pledge, but they also hate the republic part as well.

Another thing that points towards that is the Soros backed movement to scrap/bypass the Electoral College System. Those who are in, IL,NJ, WA, HI, MD, MA, & DC(Washington DC). DC is also pushing for Congressional representation, which is not allowed in the contstitution, but is being pushed by the left. Keep your eye on this because it will happen if nobody is looking, & that’s how guys like Soros & the left like to do buisiness.

kohler November 1, 2010 at 11:58 am

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.

Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Jim Stewart November 1, 2010 at 1:03 pm

The National Popular Vote bill is a bad idea. With NPV the candidates will focus on New York, California and Texas and the small states are completely shut out. Mob rule should not elect presidents.

SoberVoter November 1, 2010 at 1:28 pm

How is it mob rule to have one person one vote?
You say it would give more power to people in larger states but you’re mistaken. The bigger states would cast more votes than the smaller ones but only becuase there are more people.
The current electoral system awards power to regions. Right now for all intent and purpose a person in Utah has a more powerful vote than someone in New York. If state A has 100 people and 10 electoral votes and state B has 10 people and 5 electoral votes then voters in state B have a much more powerful vote. They only need six people to give their guy 5 electoral votes. In state A they need 61 votes to give their guy 10 electoral votes. This causes some people to campaign in smaller states and ignore most Americans. Two small state wins will give you the same 10 electoral votes for only 12 actual voters.

editor November 1, 2010 at 1:37 pm

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College to avoid exactly the situation you describe. They didn’t want a handful of large population states to be able to dictate the nation’s laws and elections. That’s exactly what would happen if popular vote were the law of the land.

We live in California and we certainly don’t want the morons who run this state to have any more influence on the rest of the country than they already have. We wouldn’t imagine that you would, either.

SoberVoter November 1, 2010 at 8:54 pm

Morons because they’ve been tested by psychologists and diagnosed as such?, or morons because their philosophy differs from yours?
I support direct elections of our leaders because it is a direct representation of the desire of the American people. You keep placing control of the popular vote on large states, but you completely fail to see that the current system awards power by state and the popular vote does not.
On election day we would not see maps and hear people talking about “if he holds Ohio, or can take Florida” you see, the states play a role now. Take out the electoral votes and you get one vote for each American voter. In fact, theres no reason to even display a map in a popular vote. Just show the tally. Each and every American whether he stands in New York City or Boise Idaho gets a vote, state boarders be dammed. Can’t get more American than that.

Jim Stewart November 1, 2010 at 3:40 pm

Sober Voter – You answered your own question. Mob rule is exactly what you have if the president were elected by direct popular vote. The top 9 most populous states have more people than the other 40 states plus the District of Columbia. With national popular vote candidates wouldn’t give a hoot in hell about the bottom 25 states. Sometimes I think the 17th Amendment is a bad idea.

SoberVoter November 1, 2010 at 9:06 pm

Mob rule is a term in civics that implies that there is no formal authority whatsoever, not even a commonly-accepted view of anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force – might makes right, but only in a very local and temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision.
The government and the way in which it conducts its business would not change. Only the way in which the president is elected. And that too will be done in a legal and orderly fasion.
As for the seventeenth ammendment, I’ve heard some Tea Partiers bandying this argument around. So instead of people electing their senators, the senators would be appointed by the governor or some other body of that state.
Hmm, sounds like a Blagoyovich argument to me. He could have made a lot of money under that system. And what’s more, Scott Brown would never have been the Senator from Mass.

Jim Stewart November 2, 2010 at 5:55 am

Ok, let’s split hairs. The national direct election of the president isn’t mob rule, it’s a mob decision.

Prior to the 17th Amendment the various state legislatures elected the Senators. I suppose in Illinois all elected politicians could be corrupt. As for Scott Brown, you conveniently forgot the state of Massachusetts flips their special election law depending if there’s a Republican or Democrat governor in office.

kohler November 2, 2010 at 8:39 am

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

kohler November 2, 2010 at 8:42 am

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

kohler November 2, 2010 at 8:43 am

Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Nine state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.

Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) states’ total 166 electoral votes.

Jim Stewart November 2, 2010 at 8:46 am

And despite all that we still got stuck with Obama.

Deb November 2, 2010 at 2:41 pm

Electoral votes are assigned based on population, so bigger (more populated) states get more electoral votes. Besides, while the electoral college hasn’t done it ina while, they are under no obligation to vote the way the state they represent voted. Most do, but they have the option of ignoring the popular vote altogether and doing what they believe-voting with their hearts-for the well being of the country overall and also for their states. I would not object to the Electoral college assigning votes to reflect the popular vote (for instance if there are 3 candidates, each gets a proportion of the electors, based on their votes.)

SoberVoter November 3, 2010 at 7:14 am

I too think that splitting the electoral votes would be a fair comprimise to an all out popular vote.
Look, I don’t know why people have a problem with a popular vote. Whether you’re a conservative or a liberal it doesn’t matter. Yes Gore had more popular votes than Bush, but Bush had more popular votes than Kerry.
It doesn’t matter so much the party, it really comes down to the economy and the mood of the country at the time.
Does anyone beleive that Obama would have got most of the popular vote yesterday against a strong Republican candidate?
The current system does confer power on states (which means it is taken from the actual voting Americans).
As Kohler’s stats show, even though Democrats traditionally win California, millions of conservatives live and vote Republican there. Their votes essentially mean nothing every presidential election. Millions of conservatives vote in California only to see every electoral vote go to a Dem.

Antonio October 31, 2010 at 1:29 pm

Good. We need less god and more intelligence.
And the way most of you speak of atheists in the previous posts is the reason why I would never praise, admire or respect your god.

Warren October 31, 2010 at 6:22 pm

Wow it took longer then I thought it would for a comment like this to pop up.

Because it is totally original and has never be posted on any thread involving God in the history of the internet ever. Thank you, sir, I think I will go and ponder your words! Someday, because of this moment, I may throw all my beliefs in to the wind and become a truly intelligent person unshackled by mere thoughts of “God.”

Ruben November 1, 2010 at 8:38 am

What victims atheists are, Antonio. You did the very thing you’re accusing religious posters of doing. Hypocrite.

KimmyQueen November 1, 2010 at 12:53 pm

I am guessing it is you who keeps giving people a thumbs down… I bet you gave yourself that one thumbs up you have there. Pathetic.

I don’t know about your god but my G-d is EXTREMELY intelligent, He is beyond genius seeing how He created the entire universe and everything and everyone in it.

The reason why it is difficult to respect an atheist is because atheists are arrogant. Unless you were there at the beginning of time, you cannot in any way shape or form say that there is definetly NO G-D whatsoever. Granted I may not 100% convince you that there is a G-d, but you also canot 100% convince me that there isn’t. At this point in time me as a believer will state Faith as the reason for my belief in spite of my inability to give you 100% proof that He does exist that is a state of humility because, I admit that I am ignorant in the ability to demonstrate 100% proof of G-d’s existence and I am okay with that. I am also admitting that I do not know everything and I NEED a Higher Power to fill in those blanks. An agnostic AT LEAST has the humility and the grace to indicate that even though he or she is not entirely convinced that there is a G-d, they realize that the possibilities of His existence is high and without further information they decide to keep their mind open that AT SOME POINT there COULD BE enough verifiable information of His existence that would be acceptable to them. All atheists though are not humble enough to accept that there is or could be a possibility of His existence, they define the world accordint to their own understanding and considering the limitations of our thoughts and our understanding that is a very arrogant position indeed. They TRULY have their minds CLOSED, they are not open minded at all. It takes true open mindness to either accept that there is a Higher Power or to understand that there COULD be a Higher Power and being opened to the possibilities. HOWEVER most (not all) atheists go beyond not accepting that there is a G-d OR that there is a possibility of there being a G-d, it is the serious lack of tolerance. Many atheists want to be tolerated and accepted but do not extend that acceptance nor tolerance to others. To the point like Bill Maher of insulting people just for the heck of insulting them without any respect nor consideration of people’s feelings YET he would be the first one to demand people to consider him and his feelings.

S.E. Cupp claims to be an atheist but she is more than likely an agnostic. She accepts that benevolent religion is appropriate and is TOLERANT and in many ways accepting of the fact that OTHERS have the right and according to where they are in life, should follow a religious path. If she is truly an atheist she is one of those rare ones that although will not necessarily be humbled enough to admit that there could be a G-d if facts presented at least she understands why people want to have a G-d and does not speak down to them because of it.

Warren November 1, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Tell ’em what you *really* think Kimmy XD heh.

KimmyQueen November 2, 2010 at 12:06 pm

LOL 😉 Intimating that there is less intelligence with more G-d is extremely insulting to me personally and of course to G-d whom I know can take care of Himself and He will do what He will do with people like that. I personally found that the more G-d involved I become, the less stupid I become and the more AWAKE I am. Also the Bible is an extremely complex book that even though I have actually studied it, it is still not a book that one can just go through as a light reading.

trinity October 31, 2010 at 12:00 pm

She wasn’t taking a breath…she omitted “under God” on purpose. Most liberals are atheists, and loathe having to mention God in any way, shape or form unless they are on the campaign trail. Then they pretend to believe in God to garner votes.

KimmyQueen October 31, 2010 at 11:53 am

Well… I love G-d and He does many times leaves me breathless with joy however when I am reciting the Pledge I don’t omit my G-d just to take a breath. It is possible to BREATHE and SAY “UNDER G-D” at the same time. It is not that hard, her expression was not that dissimilar to Obama’s omission as well.

copter1 October 31, 2010 at 11:34 am

“Hate, racism and intolerance?” Where is that? Showing that your Congressional representative clearly omitted two significant words in a 30-second pledge that every schoolchild knows, then having her blatantly lie about it (“took a breath?” Really?), is not defaming anyone. It’s called definition of character. Or lack thereof. Sit down Betty. You messed up, now own up.

Gigabyte October 31, 2010 at 11:26 am

Uh, no. That was not a pause for a breath. If so, where are the other pauses for breathing she would need to do during the entire recital? That eliminates reason #1.

I don’t buy reason #3 as they say the Pledge every day in that “august” chamber of representatives. Example-I haven’t been to Catholic Mass in years and go back for a funeral Mass and because of all the years I sat in a pew as a kid, I STILL remember all the words in all the right places. Reason #3 doesn’t wash.

That leaves reason #2. It is the only logical conclusion left and if you watch the tape closely and look carefully at her facial features, you see a leftist sourpuss that clearly bristles at mentioning “under God” in the Pledge. Case closed, my ruling is for the Plaintiff; Defendant is Guilty as charged. Punishment should be loss of your House seat.

Unfortunately, voters in your District are too stupid to replace your azz, so next time, just don’t lie about it, and admit that you have a problem with saying “under God” when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Your anti-American constituents will love you for your honesty.

RIM October 31, 2010 at 11:26 am

For Heaven’s sake Betty, it’s not rocket science. Just lead the Pledge! Your big moment in life and you flub it? Oh, you’re a Godless Dem? Ok, now it makes sense.

Ruben October 31, 2010 at 11:18 am

…sitting squarely in the middle of her district with constituents. To quote one of them: “Dude, that is not cool!”

If someone who assigns the moniker, “Dude” to another gets it, how come liberals can’t?

Gregory Tart October 31, 2010 at 10:53 am

Its hard for a democrat to do two things at a time- like raising their hand and speaking. Thats why they have bullet points.

{ 1 trackback }