A necessary prelude, especially for members of Congress who apparently don’t bother to read or pay attention to, you know, our actual past:

United States Constitution

Article VI

…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The Pledge of Allegiance

Why we’re not one nation “under God.”

By David Greenberg

Updated Friday, June 28, 2002, at 4:39 PM ET

…the original Pledge of Allegiance – meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith – also made no mention of God. The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, a cousin of the famous radical writer Edward Bellamy. He devised it for the popular magazine Youth’s Companion on the occasion of the nation’s first celebration of Columbus Day. Its wording omitted reference not only to God but also, interestingly, to the United States:

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

Today, via People for the American Way:

Akin: “At The Heart Of Liberalism Really Is A Hatred For God”

Submitted by Brian on June 24, 2011 – 11:14am

Missouri congressman and Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin joined Family Research Council president Tony Perkins to discuss their shared outrage at NBC for omitting the phrase “under God” from a clip of the Pledge of Allegiance in its coverage of the US Open this week…

….Representative Todd Akin (r): This was something that was done systematically, it was done intentionally, and is tremendously corrosive, uh, in terms of all of the values and everything that’s made America such a unique and special nation.

Tony Perkins: Why would NBC do this?

Rep. Akin: Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism it really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God. And, um, so they’ve had a long history of, uh, not being at all, uh, favorable toward, uh, many of things that have been such a blessing to our country.

Rep. Akin: This is a systematic effort to try to separate, uh, our faith and God, which is a source of our belief in individual liberties, uh, from our country. And when you do that you tear the heart out of our country….

Oh, brother:

Those who ignore history are, well….stupid (October 27, 2007)

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624

Justice Jackson wrote:

…The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court’s Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become ‘a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools,’ that all teachers and pupils ‘shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an Act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly.’ 2 [319 U.S. 624, 627] The resolution originally required the ‘commonly accepted salute to the Flag’ which it defined. Objections to the salute as ‘being too much like Hitler’s’ were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl [319 U.S. 624, 628]  Scouts, the Red Cross, and the Federation of Women’s Clubs. Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What is now required is the ‘stiff-arm’ salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of [319 U.S. 624, 629] America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’…

The approved gesture was alarmingly similar to fascist salutes. In 1943. Note the “approved” text of the pledge.

…Symbols of State often convey political ideas just as religious symbols come to convey theological ones. Associated with many of these symbols are appropriate gestures of acceptance or respect: a salute, a bowed or bared head, a bended knee. A person gets from a [319 U.S. 624, 633] symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and inspiration is another’s jest and scorn….

…Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question….

….National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question. The problem is whether under our Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement.

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. [319 U.S. 624, 641]  As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the Fir
st Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

Justice Jackson reminds us of what the Constitution means, even in a time of war:

…If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….

“…If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….” In a time of war, no less. In 1943.

“…no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion…” Powerful words. To believe otherwise would be, well….un-American.

Some of that text Representative Akin (r) is so concerned about wasn’t there in 1892 nor in 1943. And it was written by a socialist? Apparently, the heart was not in our nation until it was put there back in 1954.  

The Constitution is on who’s side?

This bears repeating:

“‘…no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion…’ Powerful words. To believe otherwise would be, well….un-American.”

Gambling is a fool’s occupation. I’d as soon flush money down a toilet as put it on a horse, but I–and you–we’re gamblers, all the same. We just prefer to gamble on political candidates instead of on boxers or dice games.

Where there are gamblers, there are handicappers, and the odds makers are pretty much agreed that Todd Akin will still be in office this time next year.

They’ll point to what happened to Ted House in 2000. Akin was making his first run for the office and House was a name in that part of town, a popular name too. But an internal poll showed House losing to Akin, getting only 43 percent of the vote. House raised the funds, though, to make a credible run for the office: one million dollars. He spent half of that on billboards and half on TV advertising. And garnered 43 percent of the vote.

So? That was eight years ago. It was a Republican year. This is a year for the Democrats. Think of Republicans saying bye-bye in recent special elections to Dennis Hastert’s seat in Illinois as well as strongholds in Mississippi and in Louisiana. As both Mike Garman and Byron DeLear, running for the D nomination, will tell you, more Democrats took ballots in the Second Congressional District on primary day than Republicans.

Mmm-hmm, say the odds makers, but primary voters are a different animal than general election voters. Apples and oranges.

The cockeyed optimists will admit that there are lots of well to do Republicans in West County who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat if George Bush himself told them to, but St. Charles County is trending bluer every day and we can expect to take some House seats there.

DeLear’s campaign manager, Kevin Caravelli, doesn’t think his optimism is cockeyed. He sent me an April 2006 article–by Dave Drebes, one of the handicappers who’s convinced that Akin is invulnerable–about a poll Sam Page conducted in 2 CD a couple of years ago.

Last month Sam Page nearly filed to take on incumbent Congressman Todd Akin. Page, a Democratic state representative from the 82nd district, created lots of scuttlebutt by waiting weeks to file for re-election. He finally did on the second to last day possible. That was after fielding a poll on the 2nd Congressional District to measure the political landscape. It was encouraging enough that Page seriously considered giving up his safe seat for a chance to go to Washington.

Considering that the district has a dismal 42 percent Democratic Performing Index (DPI), and that 98 percent of incumbent congressmen who seek re-election win, that must have been some poll. Apparently it showed a Republican-Democratic split within the margin of error. And when framed as “Would you rather have a Republican rubber-stamping President Bush’s agenda or a Democrat to keep him in check?” the results were even more appealing to Page: 60 percent-40 percent in favor of the Democrat.

Page might have stood a better chance than the two candidates leading this year’s field, being already known because he’s a state rep. Neither Garman nor DeLear have held political office. Nor do they seem to be on track to rake in anywhere near a million dollars.

By contrast, Kay Barnes is challenging another political dinosaur, Sam Graves, on the west side of the state. Barnes, the former–and popular–mayor of K.C., had hauled in almost a million and a half dollars as of the end of March.

Byron’s campaign says he’s up to about $150,000 ($100,000 of which he loaned himself, according to the FEC). Garman had receipts of only $21,590 at the end of March ($15,000 of which he loaned himself). At the end of March, Akin had $615,159.

Numbers like that can make Dems dread that Akin will hold on. Caravelli recommends that instead of dread, we dare engage in the audacity of hope. He believes that if we all backed whichever Democrat gets the nod, Akin would be history.

Who knows? I’m just telling you what the handicappers say–and hoping that DeLear or Garman will turn out to be a Seabiscuit.

As a decades long fan of Gore Vidal’s acerbic wit and astute analysis of how power brokers have always pulled the wool over the eyes of American voters, I was impressed when Byron DeLear told me he had met with Vidal and gotten Vidal’s endorsement in his run for the Democratic nomination in the Second Congressional District. Vidal, now in his eighties, sat quietly next to DeLear in the five videos posted on YouTube where Byron talks about his candidacy.

In fact, when you look at the earned media DeLear has racked up so far, it’s easy to believe he spent quite a few years in media production. He has been interviewed on radio stations around the country–in Arizona and Boston, for example, as well as an interview with Dori Smith on Talk Nation Radio. DeLear also appeared on Bradblog, the premier national site for election protection issues. In that interview he spoke about the need for a 28th amendment to the Constitution:

“I talk about the necessity for the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution to be securing the most sacrosanct institution of our Republic which is the vote – the cornerstone of our democracy. And how is it that we can allow corporations to own the source code that instructs voting machines how to count the vote? How is it that in our supposedly popular and public owned electoral system can we have privatization occurring where the basic functions of our elections are in secret and are not available to the scrutiny of the American people?”

DeLear’s zeal for progressive ideas has garnered him endorsements from the MNEA PAC and from the large and active Jefferson Township Democratic Club, as well as from a number of state politicos, including Representative Robin Wright-Jones and Senator Jeff Smith.

Educators seem particularly drawn to him. Although the West County Democrats are not endorsing him or anyone in this primary, a goodly number of its members, including lots of retired teachers, are working for him. And Kevin Caravelli, his campaign manager, pointed out that 80 percent of the primary voters in the Second District will be over 55 and that many in those ranks are teachers, who will take note of the MNEA recommendation.

DeLear’s campaign has leased an office and set up ten phone lines. When I talked to Caravelli, I could hear Byron on the phone in the background–doing what he aims to do most days, phone calling for eight hours. On May 24th, the campaign started its door to door canvassing with twenty volunteers.

Caravelli likes to kid. “We’ve got some big things coming up. … But I’m not going to tell you about them. So there.” And he laughed. But I know that they’re hoping for endorsements from Chesterfield Township and Meramec Township. If there’s anything else, I’ll let you know.

Mike Garman is old fashioned, in the best sense of the word.  He’s the type that stands when a lady comes to the table.  And his Democratic values are old fashioned:  he enthusiastically believes that we’re all in this together.  Health care is his biggest issue–and always has been. Jobs are his second biggest concern.  

Maybe some people equate old fashioned with corny.  In his case, they’d be wrong.  What he is, is genuine.  You should see his face light up when he starts talking about health care.

Garman’s concern about health care is understandable, since he is 6th District Director of the Saint Charles Ambulance District and specializes in urgent care diagnostic imaging for Saint Johns Mercy Health Systems.  What that means in practice is that he sees thousands of patients a year, and he sees how many of them are concerned about not being able to pay for the care they need.  The real challenge of his job, often, is figuring out how to work the system so that such people get the care they need.

In fact, just such a situation was perhaps the impetus toward getting him into politics.  He knocked on some 3,000 doors a couple of years ago as part of his job.  He was surveying St. Charles residents, asking them what they thought of the EMS care and what, if anything, the city could do to improve it.  One of the first people he talked to was a woman who had Medicare D, the government drug prescription program.  She had been doing fine until she hit that $2500 donut hole and couldn’t pay for her prescriptions.  Her ankles were swollen to the size of soccer balls. Using some of his contacts as a health care provider, Garman was able to arrange for the woman to get her meds until the end of the year.

Sure, he can give you all the statistics you want about the health care crisis in this country:  How we spend $2.9 trillion a year on health care–16 percent of our GDP–and we could cut that cost by a third. How Medicare spends only 2 1/2 to 3 percent of its budget on administrative costs, whereas insurance companies spend 20-25 percent on that because there are so many companies, and each one has administrators duplicating the work done by the administrators in every other company. How insurance companies make $60 billion a year in profits.  He knows all the data, and he has plenty of ideas about how to correct it, starting with single payer.

But first and foremost, he just empathizes with the father of a boy who’s broken his arm and who can’t pay.  Certainly, hospitals must provide care when a boy walks in with a broken arm, but the follow up care is another matter.  Garman helps children he sees who are in that kind of fix, and the more often he helps them, the more incensed he becomes that health care is not a right in this country.

He wants to go to Congress and become the squeakiest wheel ever to grate and screak on the legislature’s collective ear.

I’ll have more to say about Garman tomorrow.  Meanwhile, let me point out that his kickoff fundraiser will be Dec. 17th at McGurk’s Public House at 108 S. Main in O’Fallon.  It’s from 5:30 to 8:00, and the recommended minimum donation is $25.