Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

[saveliberty]

. . .

Pledge:
A pledge is a promise or agreement by which one binds himself to do or forbear something. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1153, (BLD6-1153))

Allegiance:
Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. (BLD6-74).

Just WHY is everyone ignoring the “elephant in the room” with respect to this debate about the presence of the word “God” in the “Pledge of Allegiance?”

I say, dump the whole pledge, it’s mind control.​

Elephant in the Room:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU​

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)
(the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989)
(There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection,

see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307,
the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.)​

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-278P.ZO
Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
366 F.3d 1093, reversed.

(Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property." Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."​

Under the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.
See, for example,
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
(no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection);
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985);
Cal. Govt. Code SSSS 845

(no liability for failure to provide police protection) and 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody);​

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982);
Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep. 339 (1980);
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983);
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App 1981);
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied_ 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977);
Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102;
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968);
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977);
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.);
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969);
Wuetrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930, certif. denied, 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978);
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981);
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984).

Read this book: Call 911 and Die

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK: Do the police owe a duty to protect you from criminal attack? In most of the United States, the answer is "no." In fact, in most cases the police do not even have to respond to your emergency 911 call.

Don't believe it? Read the true stories from all across America about citizens who depended solely upon their telephone and police response for emergency help against a violent criminal. Not only did those crime victims not get help, the local government and police escaped legal responsibility for failing to help those victims.

This compact paperback reviews the law in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia and Canada, showing how statutes and court decisions consistently hold that the police generally have "no duty" to protect individual citizens. When it comes to personal self-defense, citizens are on their own.

Highlighting the importance of preparing to protect oneself and family, the book also retells 45 stories about people who successfully defended themselves long before any police could help.

Check the law of your state, and of the states where your loved ones live. If you are interested in public policy questions about government liability, gun control or victims' rights, or if protecting yourself and your family is your worry, this book tells you what you need to know about whether you have any "right" to police protection.

Certainly you will never look at your telephone the same way again.

. . .

Mind control? Yes, we are all zombies at night raising and lowering the flag, folding it and unfolding it. The pledge was meant to unify us. Too many are busy exerting their will on others today.