Dreamer Cesar Vargas: Change the Pledge of Allegiance

Dreamer Cesar Vargas: Change the Pledge of Allegiance

Dreamer Cesar Vargas: Change the Pledge of Allegiance

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.

Written by

18 Comments
  • Scott says:

    Great post as usual Amanda!. I say this with the utmost in heartfelt sincerity, and I truly mean it from the bottom of my soul… F*@K THAT GUY!!!

  • Nicki says:

    That pledge is literally the dumbest fucking thing I’ve read in months! And I work for the government, so that’s saying something!

  • SFC D says:

    Cesar Vargas, IF and when you become a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, you may then take any legal action you deem necessary to change the pledge of allegiance. Until that day comes, and you seem to have no desire to make that day possible, kindly keep your opinions about the pledge and the flag to yourself. Why, you may ask? It’s very simple:

    The US flag is not your flag. You are a citizen of Mexico. The Mexican flag is your flag. That is where your allegiance obviously lies.

    There. So easy, even a lawyer can understand it.

  • GWB says:

    “Dreamer” Cesar Vargas telling us it is time to change the Pledge and everything it stands for
    I’m sorry, you’re here illegally, and you want ME to change MY COUNTRY? Go to hell in a handbasket, a*hole.
    Very first rule of immigration is “Don’t tell the country you’re wanting to join how wrong they are in their fundamental concepts.”

    it didn’t include “people of color and immigrants particularly those coming from southern and eastern Europe.”
    WTF? How does it even remotely exclude anyone who is American? I mean I’ve never expected little Sergei to say the pledge if he isn’t actually an American, but just here visiting. But, if he’s American (or his family is in the process of becoming Americans), then there shouldn’t be anything objectionable in it. *baffled look*

    Of course, he does so without citing anything to support his stance.
    Well, sorta he does. In the original article’s sentence “the pledge sought to define ‘true Americanism'”, “define” is a hyperlink to a book (To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance) which discusses the Pledge. Ironically, the blurbs on the linked page state things like “a poem intended to unite the people” and “a national effort to Americanize immigrants” and “the very words ‘indivisible’ and ‘allegiance’ were intended to invoke Civil War sentiments”. Which doesn’t seem much like “excluding people of color and some immigrants.”

    He actually suggests it should be no easier to amend the pledge than it is to amend the Constitution.
    Boggles, indeed. To make it that hard to change, he could always… well, propose an amendment adding the Pledge to our Constitution. That oughta do it. *eyeroll*

    So he will pledge to the heritage of the country but not the country itself?
    Yep. Because his real objection is our country, not the Pledge. He wants to pledge to one little slice (well, two, since he throws in “civil rights”, too) of America, so he can help overthrow the rest of it.

    One voice and one nation (emphasis added)
    That doesn’t sound fascist AT ALL. OW! Could someone get my eyes from under the couch where they rolled?

    We are a nation of laws
    If we still were, he wouldn’t still be here.

    We should face the flag and face each other.
    Ummm, so he wants us to become two-faced?

    Another bit from the original, related to adding ‘love’:
    This is a sharp contrast to the past and current misguided nationalism
    So, we should “love” our nation so we don’t become “nationalists”? Do they actually require rational thought to pass the bar nowadays? (Oh, wait, it’s the law. Forget I asked.)

    BTW, he’s also a liar:
    White teenagers harassing a Native American elder

    His editorial is a muddle, ill thought out, with at least one hyperlink to nowhere, and patently not focused on the America that was built on these shores on the basis of freedom, equality under the law, and property rights. He quotes the very end of the DoI, but he ignores the first part.

    • Amanda Green says:

      Very first rule of immigration is “Don’t tell the country you’re wanting to join how wrong they are in their fundamental concepts.”

      Except I don’t think he really does want to join. At least he’s not willing to go through the steps to do it like tens of thousands before him have done.

      And isn’t it amazing (terrifying actually) that Vargas and his ilk can read so much into a few words, things that aren’t really there? Also, I noticed he doesn’t seem to worry about the immigrants from non-Hispanic countries who are here illegally and who are then deported. He, and almost every politician screaming about how evil ICE is, forget about them because they don’t fit the optic. Unless and until they start advocating for the same rights for all immigrants who have come here illegally, outstayed their student visas, etc., I refuse to take any of them seriously.

  • Did you notice how he erases the word “liberty”?

    • GWB says:

      Yep. In exchange for “civil rights”.
      While the etymology of that phrase goes back to our “liberties”, it has certainly morphed into something more in the last few decades.

      • Amanda Green says:

        Not only that, GWB, but what you and I think of as “civil rights” isn’t the same thing Vargas and company think they should be. So who’s to decide?

    • Amanda Green says:

      Of course he did. Liberty’s dangerous in the wrong hands (ours). I thought you knew that. VBEG

  • GWB says:

    If anyone asked me to change it…..
    I pledge allegiance to the Republic of the United States of America, and to its Constitution, to the proposition that all men are created equal with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to equality under the law, and to justice for all.

    (Feel free to write scathing retorts, witty snark, and to throw rotten vegetables.)

  • Joe R. says:

    Chillery tried to push for a change to the National Anthem back in the early 90’s. There was some push to have Bruce “Run Off To Canada” Springsteen write one.

    To hell with all of that.

    The Dreamers are their own evidence of the problem they are, if you listen long enough. It’d be better to listen over a crackly long-distance call from south of the border.

    I have one policy with regard to American Sovereignty in relation to immigration, and it is this: “If America is yours to give away, it’s mine to take away from you”.

    Choose wisely.

    You have 30 seconds.

    • Amanda Green says:

      Yep.

      I get tired of the “we’re a land of immigrants” argument. Yes, we are. But those immigrants came here legally or took steps to become legal.

      Beyond that, as I said above, if you are going to claim to stand for the rights of immigrants, you need to do so for all immigrants, not just those who come from Mexico, Central and South America.

  • “I pledge allegiance to the Principles of the Declaration and the Constitution, especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and above all the Second Amendment. DTOM.”

  • GWB says:

    And now Californicate universities get in on the act:
    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11805

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram