Terry Everett, May 3, 2004

If a Federal Appeals Court ruling banning the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because it includes the words "under God" was not bad enough, now a Congressman has taken it upon himself to "edit" the Pledge during its recitation before the U.S. House of Representatives. This represents yet another attempt by liberals to alter America's tradition of acknowledgement of God and proper values in public life.

Last Tuesday, Washington state Congressman Jim McDermott, a Democrat, was called upon to lead the House in the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The liberal representative did so but omitted the words "under God" as he spoke. Furthermore, in an act of obvious disrespect, he did not place his right hand over his heart or face the flag while delivering the Pledge. These omissions are in violation of Section 4, Title 4 of U.S. Code, but the bigger issue is McDermott's disdain for America's moral values and his attempt to force his radical agenda upon others.

After the Pledge incident, Congressman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, took to the Floor to question McDermott's conduct and violation of House rules. Sessions also issued a press statement critical of his conduct noting, "By purposely omitting the words, 'under God,' from his recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance today, Congressman McDermott has stated that he and those like him stand more for the liberal left than they do for our friends and neighbors."

Congressman McDermott has since defended his action by claiming that it was not intended as a slight. In a statement, he said "My thoughts were not where they should have been and I reverted to the Pledge as it was written and taught in public schools throughout my childhood. The Pledge has indeed been amended since then and I will endeavor to concentrate on what I'm doing in the future and say the modern version."

Those familiar with McDermott's previous position on the Pledge are likely to take issue with his defense. He has twice taken stands of support for the 2002 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. First, he voted "present" on June 27, 2002 when the House passed H. Res. 459 which opposed the Ninth Circuit Court decision. Furthermore, McDermott voted "no" on March 20, 2003 when the House passed H. Res. 132 expressing that the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling on the Pledge was without merit and should be overturned.

McDermott's penchant for the left fringe is well known. In fact, he was one of three House Democrats to journey to Baghdad in late September and early October 2002 to meet with Saddam Hussein. The group criticized the Bush Administration while on the trip and McDermott told the media that he took Saddam Hussein's assurances "at face value" that he would allow U.N. inspectors unfettered access to Iraqi weapons - something Saddam later refused to do.

Extreme liberals like McDermott who believe that America would be better off without the moral values that our belief in God provides, should take heed to a question posed by Thomas Jefferson. "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"

Unless the radical liberals and activist judges are challenged, America risks a steady moral erosion which threatens to undermine our very liberties. I support the Pledge and join a vast majority in Congress who are on record to protect it.

Congressman Terry Everett, a Republican, represents Alabama's 2nd Congressional District, which includes the state capitol, Montgomery.