Posted on 02/12/2011 10:07:29 AM PST by freespirited
Jane Kim is a newly elected member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. She represents District 6 which includes the low-income Tenderloin District as well as the upscale condos in the city’s trendy South of Market.
Kim has refused to join in with the other supervisors to recite the Pledge of Allegiance during meetings.
She says she has a problem with the words "with liberty and justice for all." (video)
Kim told the San Francisco Examiner: “I don’t believe we are a nation with liberty and justice for all — yet. So a lot of my work is motivated by wanting to be a part of achieving that ideal.”
Kim claims she is a loyal American despite her refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Kim told the Examiner, “I think I am very loyal the country. I’ve expressed my patriotism through my years of doing organizing work, being a civil-rights lawyer and being a public servant now.”
Board of Supervisors President David Chiu told ABC-7 News that he "absolutely supports Supervisor Kim's perspective…. I know her as someone who is absolutely patriotic, who loves her country," Chiu said.
District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener told the San Francisco Examiner that he is OK with Kim’s silence but he will continue to recite the pledge himself, “To me, it’s a way about reminding myself about our country and the liberties and democracy that we enjoy. But there are many, many ways of reminding ourselves of why we love our country.”
Is it against the Board’s rules for Kim not to say the pledge?
The Examiner notes that the rules say: “The President shall lead the Board and the audience in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.”
But the paper reports that there is no rule that would require anyone to say it It is considered free one’s free speech rights to not say it, according to the Examiner.
SFist writer Jay Barmann took this take on the controversy: "Reinforcing the public's perception of the Board of Supervisors as a group of whiny liberal high school kids who go to battle, and occasionally try to one-up each other with how forward-thinking and/or blasphemous they can be, newly elected District 6 rep Jane Kim has taken a stand against reciting the Pledge of Allegiance that is sure to garner her some nice, negative national press attention. Way to fill Daly's shoes..."
Barmann was referring to the former District 6 supervisor Chris Daly, who was known for his far-left views. Daly said the Pledge of Allegiance at board meetings but he omitted the words "under God."
By her logic Hussein is also loyal to this country, too bad he's constantly proving otherwise.
Now if only the American corporations that are exporting jobs would pledge Allegiance.
Well, she is correct. If you’re not protected by political correctness, you have no reasonable expectation of receiving justice.
This bitch is going to do great under Sharia law. First off she’ll have to have a clitorectomy! Then the burhka! Then never be seen in public, no driver’s license! And woe be the day when she fornicates. That’s when she’ll lose her head! O yeah, she’s gonna do great!
By her own words she states that she is an America hating COMMIE.
Jane is a self-important prat. She’s just attention whoring.
I wonder how her ancesters felt about the US. I mean those who fled from Korea or China to get here.
Would be interesting to talk to her grandmother.
American corporations’ first allegiance is to their owners.
She represents her district perfectly.
Well, I’m sure it will be very popular in present day San Fran.
She’s certainly wrong on the merits. “With liberty and justice for all” is the ideal toward which we should always aim. Sure, we fall short, but we should remind ourselves of the ideal.
The truth is, she probably doesn’t believe in that ideal. Her vision is more likely: “With liberty and justice for certified minorities, and not for you damned white heterosexual males! You guys go to the bottom of the ladder!”
Old Glory (a song for Michael) by 10 Pound Test
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
If their first allegiance is not to this country, then they shouldn't be permitted to finance candidates. We are in competition with the world militarily and economically and don't need fence sitters.
If their first allegiance is not to this country, then they shouldn’t be permitted to finance candidates.
Exactly. What percent of ownership that is hostile to America does a corporation have to have to lose their privilege of making political contributions?
As noted by a previous poster...already discussed previously.
=8-)
“civil rights lawyer” No further explantion necessary!
Not this again. If she wants to live in a country she really favors; then she should go.
But can we really be that surprised about someone from SF?
An idiot representing other idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.