Posted on 07/13/2004 12:04:37 AM PDT by ladylibertyok
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold un-Reagan-like
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 21, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Now that a decent interval has passed since the moving tributes and funeral of the late Ronald Reagan, maybe it's time to comment on something unseemly that took place before the late president was laid to rest.
There was Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister of Great Britain, standing next to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Thatcher recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America – not her own flag.
Schwarzenegger, an American running the executive branch of government of the largest state in the union, did not.
I didn't notice it when it took place. It was brought to my attention by a caller to my radio program. I had to go back and check the tapes. Sure enough, the caller was right.
Since then, other people who witnessed the funeral have told me they noticed it right away.
I wonder how many millions of people around the world took notice?
This troubles me.
I always liked Schwarzenegger's movies. But I've never liked him as a politician. I don't think he has any principles, any deeply held convictions, any beliefs beyond what the pollsters and the media advisers tell him.
Most of the positions he has taken are wrong. And when he takes the right position on an issue, you never know if he will reverse himself the following week.
Now this.
How can one explain why the governor of California, of all people, would not say the Pledge of Allegiance at an internationally televised funeral for Ronald Reagan? What was he thinking? Was it an oversight of some kind? Was he so in awe of the event that he lost himself? Is it possible he doesn't know the words? Maybe it's time for a crash course.
I've tried to think about this in ways in which I could give him the benefit of the doubt.
But I'm deeply troubled by it.
How embarrassing for our nation.
On the one hand, Lady Thatcher says the pledge though no one would expect her to do so. She's a British citizen who should not be expected to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. But she did. And she is standing next to a man who has chosen America as his adopted homeland – a man in a high-profile elected office – and he refuses to say it.
To me, this is more egregious than Bill and Hillary Clinton apparently dozing off during the eulogies at the National Cathedral. That bit of rudeness should be expected from a couple of cheap politicians. But I can't even imagine Bill or Hillary failing to say the Pledge of Allegiance – not when they know the whole world is watching.
I think Arnold Schwarzenegger needs to explain himself.
After all, Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah, has introduced legislation in the U.S. Congress to amend the Constitution so that the foreign-born Schwarzenegger could someday run for president. I don't expect that amendment to go anywhere, but, nevertheless, it has been introduced.
And Schwarzenegger is still the governor of California – the state, ironically enough, from where the latest challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, and its "under God" phrase, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He needs to explain himself and apologize for the poor etiquette and unpatriotic attitude he displayed during the Reagan funeral. It was a slight not only to the United States of America, but to the late president.
Comparisons have actually been drawn between Schwarzenegger and Reagan. Reagan, an actor, launched his political career as governor of California. But, as far as I'm concerned, that's where the comparisons stop.
We all knew Ronald Reagan. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is no Ronald Reagan.
"This really troubles me too folks!! I don't think something like this should be over looked. There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be saying the Pledge of Allegiance. He's the governor of "Culifawnya" for pete's sake. Last time I looked at a map, it was still part of the USA. Like the author, I find him to be lacking in political beliefs and I think he only ran for governor because he is so obsessed with power. Am I off the mark on this or what?? I noticed no one else in the media picked up on it. Not surprising!!!"
Alright. Seems quite a few have been saying that - for reasons of their own, I'm sure. That's the good thing you see on 'freeper'. It's not just conservative opinion. You've got some 'moles', or whatever, who pop up to question basic belief in this, or that. But you need that give and take - at least in my opinion.
loyal citizen of another country saying the Pledge strikes me as odd.
Respect for the nation.
And if part of the service had been the Pledge of Allegiance,
It's different when it's the late President.
I resigned my commission rather than serve under Clinton.
Not that it might matter, but I admire you for that. Actually, that itself was an act of patriotism; standing up for the nation, what it is supposed to represent, standing for a true sense of honor against one who really held that and the nation in contempt - clearly who still does. But the reason for saying the Pledge at a state funeral might be because it's a state funeral. And clearly Arnold should have said the Pledge. I'm pretty sure you or I would have proudly recited the Pledge, if we'd been invited.
I do know though, that from the point of view of the Italian government I can never really lose my citizenship there by dint of the fact that I accepted citizenship here.
The last time I checked, I was and will always be considered an Italian citizen. I could move back there and establish residency without the slightest difficulty.
If this were so important why is a link to the offending video not posted?
Joseph Farah hyperventilates often. I highly suspect that he is hyperventilating now. I bet that Farah's interpretation is incorrect.
If someone might post a video confirming Farah's contention, I shall apologize, ask forgiveness and donate $50 to FreeRepublic.
You just get more and more interesting. You call the website "freeper"... which is usually the only word the left knows us by. And then you propose that the other people who disagree with you must be "moles".
And you yourself are a brand, spanking NEW MEMBER who has done nothing but criticize Bush and Republicans.
Not another Arnold bashing thread.
There are some conservatives who think by actively defeating Republicans at the polls, the GOP would then cave in to all of their demands and promote a more conservative agenda in the next election cycle.
Per last annual Harris Poll on political trends, February 27, 2004
Conservatives 33%
Moderates 40%
Liberals 18%
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444
It's anti-conservative to believe that 33% of the country should be able to rule it as if we were King... even if we DO have the best ideology ;-)
These malcontents are guppies who wish to be the alpha fish in a tiny fish bowl. That is why they love 3rd parties so much.
Its odd.
I think Arnold still has an affinity for the fatherland.
He's been in the US for 30 years!
What's the need to go over to Europe? Again, I think its odd.
You don't object to the word, 'mole', do you?
done nothing but criticize Bush and Republicans.
I have? And here I thought Reagan was a Republican. And I thought that the Republicans had insisted that WMD had been found, and that there was a link between Al-Qaida and 'Mr. Saddam'. And so on. And that's just what I've been saying, to a lot of objection, I might add. Strange objections. I thought Reaganism was something Republicans ought to confess, and that conservatives did. I thought that Moore was a cheap propagandist. But then even some libs saw it that way. Or maybe you just haven't been reading. Or:
So - you don't object to that word, 'mole', do you?
Mmmm . . . I see.
How about that 'mole' thing? Should be an interesting reply.
And, btw, just by my own guess, the libs are over 30%, the conservatives probably about 30-35, but those that believed in the 'better tomorrow', and still do, about 60% or better. Some of those libs will just never be peeled away. And they'll try to bring everyone down to their level, every day. And they'll remain the vocal minority, in charge of the societal institutions until the 'boomers' start to retire. But even as they raise the dead to vote, I think conservatism is necessarily the present and future majority. And I do believe that the President will win re-election in what given the expectations of a 50/50 split will seem a landslide, instead.
Oh... so you are claiming that a lot of people at Free Republic have disagreed with you on those points. Let's see the links, please.
And it's a tad unusual to see newbies running around accusing long-term folks of being "moles"... you are either a disruptor or you need to get over yourself.
California voters had their chance to elect a serious candidate, Tom McClintock, who knows the ropes and would have been a Governor like we haven't had since Reagan. Instead, they went for the 54-year-old adolescent who thought it would be cool to be governor. Minnesota made the same mistake when they elected Jesse Ventura.
I don't like dual citizenship either, not for Americans -- whether they're immigrants or not. If this country isn't good enough for them and they want citizenship in some other country, then they should emigrate and become Austrians or Slovakians or whatever.
I thought that was odd, Tamsey. IMO, she should not have recited it. She's a British subject.
Arnold, OTOH, is an American, an American governor. He represents us, he's standing in front of the cameras on national TV and the jackass can't even bring himself to recite the pledge.
Read more of the thread... Freepers reviewed the funeral tapes and the Pledge wasn't given during the funeral. Farah blew it.
Here's what I suggest, Tamsey. Email Farah. Give him your evidence and ask that he correct his error in the next column. I'm sure he'll do that, if you ask him nicely -- and if you're right.
I already planned to. I really liked his site in the past and try to buy merchandise through it to help support it financially.
If he won't issue a correction on something so easily discredited from a polite pointing out of the error, then his site is worse than useless to the right.
The he can go see his opthalmologist about this lying eyes.
this = his
This is the 'tamsey', again - right? I don't know why you think such a complaint against Farah is credible. In fact, he claims to have seen this on his own tape, himself, after having been directed to it by others, who saw it - too. That starts to become quite a conspiracy.
Why not allow for the possibility that Joe Farah got it right, saw exactly what he claimed, didn't like what he saw, and wrote to complain?
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.