Thursday, October 28, 2010

What is it with the League of Women Vipers?

Is there something wrong with that group?

Do they have some reason to oppose the Pledge of Alligence?

it should ALWAYS take place. And these witches look like left wing slime for opposing it.

Another Debate Audience Recites Pledge When Another Moderator Says ‘No
by Jeff Dunetz

What is it with the League of Woman’s Voters and the Pledge of Allegiance?

For the second time in less than a week a congressional debate began with a request for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and for the second time in a week the League of Woman’s Voters moderator said no, and for the second time in a week the audience got up and said it anyway. One would think that with all of the bad publicity after last week’s incident, the League would have “gotten it.” But Tuesday night the League of Woman Voters proved that they aren’t too “quick on the uptake.”

The Pennsylvania 18th Congressional district debate between Republican incumbent Tim Murphy and his Democratic party challenger Dan Connolly was about to begin when Murphy asked the moderator for the pledge. As the moderator Susan Reuther began to make excuses, the crowd stood up and took action on their own.

After the Pledge of Allegiance was recited, moderator Susan Reuther dealt with her obvious consternation over the spontaneous show of patriotism by scolding Candidate Murphy who Asked for the pledge.

“Next time if you have a request like that, we would appreciate it if you would give it to us when the rules are discussed,” she said.

“It didn’t need to be requested. I assumed you would do it,” Mr. Murphy replied.

Former Peters High School principal Tom Hajzus was sitting in the front row with a 22-yearold Marine veteran wounded by a bomb in Afghanistan.

“The insensitivity, to me, was inexcusable and outrageous,” said the registered Democrat and Murphy supporter. The crowd’s reaction “was an American moment, that’s what that was,” he said.

Once again the League of Woman’s Voters blamed it on politics.

“There have been some groups who want to create a ruckus, call attention to something and using the pledge to the flag and making it seem the league is unpatriotic if we don’t,” says Greater Pittsburgh League President Arlene Levy.

Levy says she thinks some of this is political but the League has no problem with the pledge if requested in advance by the candidates.

While neither Connolly nor Murphy made that request before the debate, both of the candidates said there was nothing political about the pledge.

“I see it as something completely a-political. It’s something that unites all of Americans,” says Connolly.

“If the flag is political, then we have some problems here. The flag is what brings us together,” says Murphy.

Ms Levy says her chapter will be discussing this issue at its next board meeting, perhaps to incorporate the pledge in every candidate debate (YA THINK!?!?)


It takes a monumental amount of arrogance to presume to avoid doing the pledge. And it's idiots determined to lessen the value of the LWV who are moronic enough to deliberately leave it out.

Well done by the crowds in attendence and the candidates in these debates.

HT to Big Government.


Lew Waters said...

Maybe it is time these usurpers woke and realized that we are in American and the citizens are wanting our greatness back.

They are right, the pledge is not a partisan issue.

But, we need to take note of just who has made it partisan in recent years.

HINT: It isn't conservatism.

Danielle said...

Unbelievable! now taking the pledge of allegiance is a right wing issue? These people are crazy! "You have to ask before the forum"...he's right I would assume that the pledge of allegiance is recited at ALL forums and not something that you have to ask for.

Kriss Mitchell M.Ed., CRC said...

Surprisingly, I have an issue with what has happened here. Admittedly, I don't know the history of what happened here any more than anyone else does, so take my comments for what they are worth. Over the last 20+ years, what used to be a normal occurrence, saying the pledge before meetings began, has slowly become something that is left out - perhaps in favor of getting down to business. I don't agree with that, however I don't agree with the kind of disrespect that was shown to the moderators of these two meetings either.

If the individuals who spoke up were so concerned about saying the pledge at the meeting, the time to have brought that up would be prior to the meeting so that it could be put on the agenda. If they had attended these meetings before, or if they had attended other debates they would have known this was not common procedure for the League of Women Voters. I don't understand why a political organization would not put the pledge on their agenda, but they didn't.

Obviously these incidents were political statements, trying to prove a point. However, even so, there are more appropriate avenues to bring these things up....perhaps they did, I don't know. I just believe that we don't have to be disrespectful to make our points. I think the example set by David Madore at the Vancouver City Council meeting is a good example.

It is clear that many people in our country are coming around to understanding that a fundamental part of our culture has been forgotten and we need to get it back. So lets be intentional about that and go through appropriate means available before invoking questionable behavior.

Martin Hash said...

This is a dangerous topic because it has no political positives for me and is rife for demagoguery from the right, but this blog occasionally seems tolerant of some open-minded discussion, so I’ll give it a chance…
Whatever my level of patriotism might be (and it’s high), how does forced chanting (recitation of a pledge) reconcile with “maximum individual freedom” (liberty)? As an American, I can admire the pledge, and I can understand your attachment to it, but the U.S. ain’t no fascist regime of brainwashing and blind loyalty… Or is it? Will you shout me down? Will you burn me at the stake? Will you cover me in scorn and ridicule because I want to exercise my Constitutionally guaranteed liberty?

Just a guy said...


First, the politics of it.

This kind of thing plays directly into the hands of the right. It's precisely the wrong thing to do politically, since it becomes an "ah ha!" moment.

Right or wrong, the Right will view this through a conservative lense. Does the LVW want participation from both ends of the political spectrum?

"See? LWV is a leftist outfit because they don't even do the Pledge!"

Second, this can be seen as the gradual weakening of the American fabric of society.

The left complains about this... they ignore the Pledge... they leave the parts out they don't happen to like ("under God" immediately comes to mind) and by many, it's viewed as an effort to engage in social engineering... matched by Obama's deliberate modification of the Declaration of Independence... by leaving out any reference to "our Creator."

That's not a mistake. That's deliberate. And it's stupid because his deliberate decision to leave that out does nothing to motivate HIS base... but it does a great deal to motivate the Right. And in the run up to 12, he;s going to see this over, and over, and over again.

The failure of the LVW to do the Pledge is also deliberate. And many more find that offensive then find that decision on the LVW's part to be proper.

Failing to include it does nothing to strengthen them as an organization; on the contrary, it subjects them to social ridicule and lessens their value as a political group.

Let's say in 2012, they hold other debates (and they will) and they announce as a procedural matter that they will no longer do the Pledge.

Few, if any, GOP candidates would go to such a thing; democrats supporting the LVW would hand the GOP a campaign issue... and their "debate" would be with an empty chair.

You ask "Whatever my level of patriotism might be (and it’s high), how does forced chanting (recitation of a pledge) reconcile with “maximum individual freedom” (liberty)?"

I answer, first, that no one makes anyone say anything. Don't want to recite it?

Then don't.

Second, I answer, what harm does it do?

The answer is none, while eliminating the Pledge does the LVW a great deal of harm.

Proponents of abortion tell us: "Don't like one? Then don't have one."

I say: don't want to recite the Pledge, then don't. But don't deny the opportunity for those who support the Pledge to actually say it.

The allegedly non-partisan LVW comes out of this looking like a group of fringe-left nutters.

Is that what they want? Or do they want to continue to matter in the process?

If they want to matter, then hold the damned Pledge before every meeting... or risk walkouts as opposition to this sort of thing becomes more emboldened and more organized.


Just a guy said...


I have attended a great many of these debates, and the Pledge has never been left out in any of them.

There was an element of arbitrariness here, and for all the reasons I explained to Martin this was a monumentally stupid thing to do.

Having the Pledge should offend no one. Failing to have it offends many.

And the last thing any of us need is for the LVW to leave their purpose and engage in what could be construed as social engineering.

Failing to hold it was short sighted and ultimately will cost them far more then they will gain.

All of this is a political equation. And what you want to do in politics is be at +1 when it's over... not -10.

Martin Hash said...

As a political issue - you're correct.

If I was not censured for not saying the plege while everyone else is then that is the solution - but we both know that would NOT be the case.

Kriss Mitchell M.Ed., CRC said...

I hear what you are saying Kelly and admit that I don't always have the political experience that those in the political arena have. I do agree that leaving the pledge out of situations where it normally should be and has been is not wisdom. I just have been one who has put a meeting agenda together, trying to respect the time constraints and schedules of those who attend the meeting and I know what it does when the agenda is messed with. That's what I heard one of these ladies start to say before she was shouted down. However, again, I fully admit I don't know the history here.

My main point is that there is inherent power in a position backed by truth and honor. Those of us who prefer the conservative side of things don't have to stoop to the levels that we are seeing in many of these political races. We don't have to mock or make things up...we just need to say what is true and keep saying it....over and over and over until it can't be denied.

Perhaps these individuals had done that, perhaps they had gone through appropriate channels prior to taking this action...I don't know. I hope so. It would have been the right thing to do.

Just a guy said...


The time constraint issue won't play politically, either.

We're talking about 25 seconds or so here. Not allowing 25 seconds to be spent saying something ingrained in most participants since we were barely beyond the molecular level smacks of a social statement much more then a scheduling issue.

The default position should be to hold the ceremony, because for that one, brief moment, all the participants are united and simultaneously reminded of what this is SUPPOSED to be about.

In the audience, there are two choices: do you remain silent in the face of what seems to be social engineering?

Does evil triumph when good men (and women) do nothing?

Remember, in tennis, you have enough unforced errors by hitting the ball long or into the net, and you're going to lose.

Failing to recite the pledge is the political variety of the unforced, unnecessary and diminished returns.

Never forget: in politics, perception is reality. and in about 53 hours, the left is going to discover what that means in an up close and personal way that may shake the very foundations of this Nation.

If LVW wants to be a player, then they have to play the game. Otherwise, they become a footnote... and I can't believe they don't understand that.