Once upon a time, school children across the nation started their day by standing, facing the flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. They learned the history of our nation, the good and the bad. They understood pride in our nation was not a bad thing. Now we have “Dreamer” Cesar Vargas telling us it is time to change the Pledge and everything it stands for.

Vargas begins his argument for changing the pledge by saying he he first recited it when he began second grade 30 years ago. That was the same year he and his mother immigrated to the US “in search of a better life.” So far, so good.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t last.

[T]oday the pledge still does not speak to me or even encourage patriotic introspection. It’s not due to a lack of appreciation for my new homeland, however.”

Riiiight. That’s sort of like starting a comment off with, “with all due respect.” When someone does that, they usually mean anything but that. Then there’s that little slip of the keyboard and his “my new homeland” comment even though he’s been here for 30 years. Hmmm.

Vargas goes on to allege the Pledge “is deeply rooted in nativism and white supremacy. ” He claims Francis Bellamy wrote it to define “true Americanism” in such a way that it didn’t include “people of color and immigrants particularly those coming from southern and eastern Europe.” If that’s not enough, he says the Pledge’s “disturbing history” excludes a number of communities, including his own.

Wait, what?

Of course, he does so without citing anything to support his stance. It’s all about the feels, you see.

He objects, without coming right out and saying it, to the addition of “the Flag of the United States of America” and “under God” to the original pledge. He actually suggests it should be no easier to amend the pledge than it is to amend the Constitution. The mind boggles.

Here’s the original text of the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Here is the current text:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

“My flag” vs “the flag of the United States of America”. Even though I usually hate playing semantics, in this case and in this day and age, it is an important distinction. “My flag” could be the flag of any country or cause. Yes, you can argue the next phrase modifies “my flag” to stand for the US flag but it leaves the door open. Yet Vargas has a problem with the additional language and the way it clarifies the clause.

So what does Vargas want? Wait for it. Have a seat and prepare yourselves, considering this explanation for part of his proposed changes:

Faced with an unceasing wave of xenophobia and discrimination against native Americans, we need to constantly remind ourselves that the United States is at its best when we embrace our immigrant and indigenous heritage.”

Keep that in mind as you read his version of the Pledge:

I pledge allegiance and love to our indigenous and immigrant heritage, rooted in the United States of America, to our civil rights for which we strive, one voice, one nation, for equality and justice for all.”

Say what?

So he will pledge to the heritage of the country but not the country itself?

He will pledge to the civil rights “for which we strive”. But what are these civil rights and who is the “we”?

One voice and one nation for equality and justice for all.

Now, I can hear the Left saying this is soooo wonderful. This new “pledge” stands for the people. It does away with the evil white nationalism of the original. Oh, how well they parrot the party line.

All this touchy-feely bs is fine, up to a point. But we are a nation. We are a nation of laws, something Vargas conveniently forgets when it suits him. A nation we should be loyal to, even if we don’t always agree with those on Capitol Hill. All that is gone from this new pledge. It is yet another way the Left is eroding our nation and what it stands for.

According to Vargas, he added “love” because it shows we must have a “genuine patriotic affection for civic virtue.” What the hell does that mean?

What Vargas doesn’t tell us is that he and his mother came here illegally. He not only made it through public school but he went to college and law school, passed the bar and became a licensed attorney. Who is still not, as far as I can tell, a citizen. Oh, he can spend time and money as an activist. He can tell us how what the Pledge should say and even how we should say it.

And finally, we should also upgrade the way we express our pledge. We should face the flag and face each other. Not only are we represented by the red, white, and blue but also by the colors of the world.”

What’s next? Are we supposed to then join hands and sing “Kumbaya” while someone makes s’mores?

Not only no, but hell no. This is yet another attempt to tear down something historical, something that has meaning simply because it doesn’t fit the current views of a few. The Pledge of Allegiance is to our country, not to individual people. If Vargas and others really were concerned about our immigrant heritage, they wouldn’t be clamoring for parts of it to be erased because those parts might be uncomfortable or unpalatable by today’s standards.

There is so much wrong with what Vargas proposes. The Left wants to change our history, erasing the parts they don’t like. Now they want to change the Pledge of Allegiance. What’s next? And, even as I wonder if I want to know, I know we have to. Otherwise, they will win the war.

Welcome Instapundit readers!

Featured image by DWilliams via Pixabay.