Pledge of Allegiance Banned by League of Women Voters at a Debate in Illinois

By Douglas V. Gibbs

At a U.S. House of Representatives candidate debate in Grayslake, Illinois for the seat of the 8th Congressional District in Illinois a crowd of about 300 asked the moderator, Kathy Tate-Bradish of the League of Women Voters, if they could recite the Pledge of Allegiance before the debate began. The moderator stated, "No, we are not. That is not part of the proposal tonight."

A number of members of the audience shouted, "Why not?"

The moderator stood by her decision, so the folks in the audience took matters into their own hands, and recited the Pledge anyway.

The moderator, surely bothered by the lack of order has prescribed by Robert's Rules, said she had been "disrespected" by being "forced" to include the pledge "in presumably a planned way."

Was that an elitist type of response by someone who feels she has a certain amount of power, status, and position?

"Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that will be the last time I am disrespected," she said. "There is no disrespect to the flag when something in a forum which does not typically begin with the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't begin with it. There is no disrespect intended. The League of Women Voters does forums like this constantly. … It's never been requested. And I have to say that being forced by having audience members stand up and in presumably a planned way – to have something like that happen – seems a bit disrespectful."

Republican candidate Joe Walsh said later about the episode, "My favorite part of the entire evening was when the audience stood up and compelled the entire auditorium to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The League of Women Voters should have demanded that we do, and the fact that the audience drove us all to say it is wonderful."

Walsh and Democratic U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean, recited the Pledge. The Green Party participant, Bill Scheurer, did not.

"It's not that I oppose reciting the Pledge," Scheurer told the Herald. "I opposed having my actions that evening being dictated by a mob."

Mr. Scheurer's statement is one that must be seriously considered. As a Constitutional Republic, though the will of the people is very important, the rule of law is what we are governed by. The frustration with the American People is that President Obama, and the Congressional Democrats, could care less about both the rule of law (U.S. Constitution in their case) and the will of the people. It seems the people in the case of the Pledge at the debate were willing to bypass the rules of the event to demand the "mob" got what it wanted. . . but in the case where the rules are being ignored or twisted, shouldn't the People demand a return to the normal order of proceedings? Or is such actions by the people in this audience an act of "mob rules," which places us precariously close to acting in a manner of a purely democratic society? Remember, democracies are not stable forms of government. A democracy is a transitional form of government that normally leads to anarchy, and ultimately to an oligarchy.

But, once again, if the leadership refuses to follow the rule of law, what other recourse does the people have?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary