Pledge of Allegiance Secrets of Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, Pledging Allegiance http://rexcurry.net/i-pledge-allegiance-to-the-flag.jpg Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, Holocaust, Inquisition

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SECRETS
Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward at the Pledge of Allegiance http://rexcurry.net/i-pledge-allegiance-to-the-flag.jpg


One of the big myths about government schools is that children gain good "socialization." The socialist pledge of allegiance is more proof that the socialization of government schools is so bad that government schools should end. This webpage helps students in government schools to stop repeating the pledge of allegiance to the flag, and to end all government school policy for it. http://rexcurry.net/stopthepledge.html

Hundreds of children were expelled from government schools (socialized schools) for refusing to repeat the socialist pledge of allegiance to the flag.

Even after parents rejected government schools in favor of the many better alternatives, some government school administrators still harassed the families.

The Superintendent of government schools in Minersville, Pennsylvania had required students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance since World War I. None had ever objected until in 1935 Lillian and William Gobitas refused to stand and recite the Pledge. They knew that the socialist pledge glorified government.

Lillian Gobitas, then a seventh-grader, later recalled in an interview that she had been a popular student until her refusal. Lillian Gobitas said "...the students were awful. I really should have explained to the whole class but I was fearful. I didn't know whether it was right to stand up or sit down. These days, we realize that the salute itself is the motions and the words. So I sat down and the whole room was aghast. After that, when I'd come to school, they would throw a hail of pebbles and yell things like, Here comes Jehovah! (because she was a Jehovah's Witness) They were just jeering at me...."

Some time later, Lillian saw two girls pass by on the street. They were once her close friends. She heard them say, "Just think, we used to be friends with her!" Lillian and William were expelled from government school for their disobedience and their father sued the school board. The family won at trial and a federal appeals court upheld the decision, but then the school board appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 1940 decision written by Justice Felix Frankfurter, the Court ruled that requiring the Gobitas children to salute the flag or be expelled did not violate their free speech right. He wrote that exempting them might make other children less loyal to government. When Lillian heard the Court's decision on the radio, she felt cold all over. Like other children who refused to glorify socialism, the Gobitas family would just have to endure.

After the Supreme Court's ruling against them, Lillian and William Gobitas never returned to government schools. They used the many better alternatives.

The United States of America is one of the only nations since Germany under the National Socialist German Workers' Party that has designated an official pledge to its flag.

To this day, children are still ostracized and persecuted in government schools that still dictate a daily routine of all children standing for a robotic recitation of a pledge and salute written by a socialist to glorify government.



This case presents the highest court with the opportunity to liberate Americans from the Pledge of Allegiance in government schools and functions, and could begin the end of government schools.
The Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was not a beautiful friend of freedom. He was freedom’s foe and a self-proclaimed national socialist. Also in the Society of Christian Socialists.
The Pledge of Allegiance is an example of how close the U.S. came (and is still coming) to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The Department of Homeland Security.
How many justices spent the first 12 years of their lives robotically chanting the Pledge of Allegiance collectively at the ring of a bell every day on cue from the government? Pavlov’s lap dogs of the state. How many of their children did so or are still doing so and what effect would that have on bias?
It is a pledge to the flag, a pledge to the republic and a pledge to the pledge.

One reason the scarey socialist past of the pledge in Elk Grove is because one of the parties was a socialist and is philosophically unwilling to expose socialism’s horrors.

Publik skool edumacation at a government indoctrination center (hereafter GIC)

William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, was born in 1924. He has three children. He attended Stanford University and Harvard University.
John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice, was born in 1920. He has four children. He attended the University of Chicago, and Northwestern University School of Law.
Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice, was born in 1930. She has three sons. She attended Stanford University.
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, was born in 1936. He has nine children. He attended Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and Harvard Law School.
Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice, was born in 1936. He has three children. He attended Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and Harvard Law School.
David Hackett Souter, Associate Justice, was born in 1939. He attended Harvard College and Magdalen College, Oxford, and Oxford University and Harvard Law School.
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, was born in 1948. He has one child. He attended Conception Seminary and Holy Cross College, and Yale Law School.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, was born in 1933. She has a daughter and a son. She attended Cornell University and Harvard Law School, and Columbia Law School.
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, was born in 1938. He has three children. He attended Stanford University, and Magdalen College, Oxford, and Harvard Law School.

By adding 18 years to each birth year we approximate the year that each justice was graduated from high school, to wit:

Justice John Paul Stevens, 1938 (born 1920).
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 1942 (born 1924).
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 1948 (born in 1930).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1951 (born 1933).
Justice Antonin Scalia, 1954 (born March 11, 1936). He attended high school at Xavier High School, a Catholic military academy in Manhattan. He is fortunate that he did not attend a government high school. Even so, some non-government schools mimic government schools, even to the extent of chanting the Pledge of Allegiance. It could not be determined if Justice Scalia attended middle school and elementary school in government schools that chanted the pledge or in non-government schools that mimicked government schools. Justice Scalia was nine years of age at the end of WWII and might very well have still been saluting the flag with a straight arm salute. Some schools continued the practiced well after WWII.
Of course the same questions could be asked of all the justices.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 1954 (born 1936).
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, 1956 (born 1938).
Justice David Hackett Souter, 1957 (born 1939).
Justice Clarence Thomas, 1966 (born 1948).

Some Justices may have attended government schools during the time of Minersville School Board v. Gobitas, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) (1940), and that was a time when they were compelled by law and by the Gobitas supreme court decision to chant the pledge. Gobitas was not reversed until 1943 in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
In the 1930s, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) passed laws that required everyone to pledge allegiance, similar to many U.S. laws that have tried to require school children to recite the pledge. Jehovah's Witnesses believed that people who enjoy reciting government pledges are people who worship government. Jehovah's Witnesses were officially banned for refusing to join the raised palm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party in schools and at public events. Many of the German Witnesses were imprisoned in concentration camps.
In the 1940's, before the phrase "under God" was added to the U.S. pledge of allegiance, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to recite the pledge of allegiance in school on the grounds that it constituted worship of government. They hoped for a different response than they had met from the National Socialist German Workers' Party. In 1940, in Gobitas, the Supreme Court ruled that a government school could expel those children for refusing to salute the flag.
What did the justices think about all of that as they lived through it? What do they still think about it (essentially the same government sponsored pledge in government schools daily)?
In 1940, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter was freaking about France falling to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party when Frankfurter wrote the Gobitas decision that allowed schools to expel students who refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Frankfurter was very concerned about the progress of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party in the war and Frankfurter believed it was important for the country to come together and for everyone to be loyal.
Yet, Frankfurter’s decision allowed compelled collective pledges by the government in government schools that were using a straight-arm salute similar to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party salute, for a pledge of allegiance that was written by a National Socialist in the U.S. who was a member of the "Nationalism" movement and a vice president of its socialist auxiliary group, and shared the views of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as its members wanted the federal government to nationalize most of the American economy.
It is fortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Gobitas decision 3 years later. In Barnette the Supreme Court reversed itself and decided that school children may not be forced to stand and salute the flag.
Despite the reversal, the U.S. retained government schools that robotically chanted the socialist’s pledge, some still used the straight-arm salute, and they imposed racist and segregated classes well into the 1960’s and beyond, with socialized schools poisoning hearts and minds.
What if some justices had been compelled to chant a pledge supporting government racism and government segregation and government schools to impose it (e.g. I Pledge allegiance to government requiring racism and segregation....) for all of their lives? And what if some justices were then were asked to rule that the Pledge to government racism was unconstitutional? And then what if the Brown case came before them? Would someone ask whether the justices who had chanted the pledge to racism could decide Brown without bias? Would someone point out that the justices were raised pledging to socialist compelled racism and segregation via government schools. Would someone point out that the same pledge was still the current pledge that many of them probably still recite on occasion?
Is that why the Brown decision only offered desegregation of government schools, and missed the correct decision, and did not go far enough: ending government schools, removing government from education, reversing the government schools that the Pledge of Allegiance promoted and the government imposed racism and segregation that socialized schools enabled?
One admirable result of the Gobitas case and every Supreme Court case regarding government schools is that many people remove their children from government schools. And that is the real solution to the pledge debate and all other issues: reduce government and remove government from education. As Libertarians say: The separation of school and state is as important as the separation of church and state.
The Gobitas kids were right: The Pledge of Allegiance is worship of the government. The original single right-arm salute was no less worshipful idolatry then if the left arm had been extended also. That is the mentality that led to its adoption by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The right hand over the heart is no less worshipful idolatry then if the left hand were crossed over the right, in another clearer position of prayer.
The Pledge arose from the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient government with God-like qualities with no limits on its size or power. And that lesson is still being taught in government schools today, and the government’s size and power grows and grows.
Jurors should not deify the government. Jurors should defy the Pledge. They should finish what the heroic Gobitis kids started and the Court should too. The Pledge of Allegiance is desecration of the flag.
Libertarians like to say they oppose "the cult of the omnipotent state." There are many parallels between the legal arguments made by Jehovah's Witnesses and the libertarian catchphrase.
And the topic in hand is not a vanilla legal issue, the topic is the “Pledge of Allegiance.” How many justices have already pledged their allegiance to the flag, the very issue in this case? How many pledged their allegiance, to rule against the defendant’s issue, while robotically chanting for the first 12 of the most formative years of their lives? Can any justice declare his/her independence instead of pledging his/her allegiance in this case? Or will they declare the Pledge of Allegiance to have been a “quaint period piece,” in order to assert that it had no meaning in their daily chants on cue from the government and that it has no meaning today in government schools, chanted upon the ring of a bell, on cue from the government daily? If we were living in Germany during the National Socialist German Workers’ Party would we expect a different result there in a case like this, or different rationalization to uphold a pledge of allegiance?
It would be odd if the Court began each meeting, including the meeting to discuss this case, with a Pledge of Allegiance, pledging to support the opposing party in this case. Or if oral arguments occurred in this case and they were preceded by the Court pledging allegiance to the opposing party. If the Court did exactly what the jurors were cowed into doing in this case.
The Pledge is a reminder of how close the U.S. came (and is still coming) to mirroring the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
And how well did the Pledge do in creating bias? Today schools are prisons with assembly line searches, and the same applies to the outside with assembly line searches, papers required to be carried, your papers produced on demand, the Department of Homeland Security. New taxes for sports stadia and sports entertainment. we have social security and socialist slave numbers, and the court case the switch in time humiliating disgrace. It has never been reversed. See the article “My socialist slave number is 262-00-6302” by Rex Curry at http://rexcurry.net/ssnunconstitutional.html.
None of the above government actions have anything to do with protecting individuals and their property from violence and theft. All of the above are examples of government initiating violence and theft against individuals. If the government’s antidisestablishmentarianism does not end, then the police state will grow.
Some say disloyal people hate the pledge. The anti-american ones are the ones who pay homage to the national socialism of Francis Bellamy and his hatred of liberty and disloyalty to capitalism. Of course, most people are ignorant of the Pledge’s history. Ignorance is not an excuse. It is another reason why government schools should not exist and are unconstitutional.
And it is more than a pledge to a flag, it is a pledge “to the Republic for which it stands” -so it is a pledge to the opposing party in Wonschik’s case and there is no corresponding Pledge of Allegiance to Wonschik by the jurors nor by the judge or prosecutor.
How can anyone claim that there is no actual meaning or import of bias in the above? How can anyone claim that there is not the APPEARANCE of bias in a pledge to the opposing party by the jurors, the judge, the prosecutor and by the justice who hears the appeal?
Jurors have the right to pardon a defendant, or to nullify bad laws. The pledge is another attempt by the government to make the jurors think that they cannot pardon the defendant, cannot nullify the law, and that they must submit and to do the government’s bidding, just as the jurors were taught to do in government schools.
It is relevant to note that the National Socialist German Workers’ Party had been in existence since 1920 (with electoral breakthroughs in 1930 and dictatorship in 1933, and WWII in 1939 with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics starting as its ally). In 1940, in Minersville School Board v. Gobitas, the Supreme Court ruled that a government school could expel children for refusing to perform the straight-arm socialist salute to the U.S. flag. About three years later (1943), in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette the Supreme Court reversed itself and decided that school children may not be forced to stand and salute the flag.

All of the justices presumably used the straight-arm salute, especially if all who attended government schools. Some were using the straight arm salute as WWII began when the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics invaded Poland in 1939 as allies. What did they think then? Many people did not immediately comprehend the horror of socialism. Did they feel a kinship or familiarity due to the similar salute and the fact that the salute originated with a national socialist in the U.S.?

The recusal is similar to asking how the justices would rule if they had been the Supreme Court under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and this case and others like it awaited decision. Would the Court rule for the defendant, for the Jehovah’s witnesses, for the people who would eventually die? Or would the ruling be more like Gobitas? And would that ruling be reversed three years later, as in Barnette?

That is why the written rules regarding recusal recite an appearance. How can one know what effect robotic chanting has on a person? Are they little Manchurian candidates? the bell rings they like Pavlov’s lapdogs of the state. Will they claim that the pledge means nothing and then, when anyone anywhere says “stand for the pledge of allegiance” the little voice inside the head screams “Achtung!” and they leap to their feet and salute (straight-armed or reformed?). Which ones exercise his/her right to remain silent during pledges today? Which ones have ever had the guts to solitarily exercise his/her right to be left alone in a crowd of robotic chanting?

What do they think now? What do they think about the government taking over education, which is no where mentioned in the constitution and which was one of the goals of the author of the Pledge of Allegiance? What do they think about state laws that promote a collective robotic chanting of the pledge on cue from the government daily in government schools? What do they think about the social security system and socialist slave numbers that are given to infants to track their movements, residences, employment, finances and to tax them their entire lives? A government that grows and grows no matter who is in office.

No one has any idea what they were thinking at that time, whether they were performing the salute, aware of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, aware that the Pledge of Allegiance, the origin of the salute, was written by a National Socialist in the U.S. who wanted government to take over all schools, eliminate all of the better alternatives, and nationalize most of the economy.

If the Justices had been schooled in a true free school (a non-government school) a similar conflict and a similar need for recusal could arise. For example, some justices attended Harvard as if it were grade school, and a case arguing that a defendant was prosecuted by the U.S. government for shooting at Harvard, and if every morning while the Justices attended Harvard, a bell would ring and all the justices would rise and stretch out their right arm to the flag of Harvard and robotically pledge allegiance “I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of Harvard , and to the education for which it stands, one school, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.” Easily the defendant would make the same motion. It is fortunate that I know of no private schools that participate in such an oddball ritual, other than those private schools that mimic the government schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. or victimized, especially if the same pledge were performed by the trial judge and jurors in his trial.

If the Justices had been schooled in a true free school (a non-government school) a similar conflict and a similar need for recusal could arise. For example, some justices attended religious oriented schools, and a case arguing that a defendant was prosecuted by the U.S. government for shooting at that religious institution, and if every morning while the Justices attended the religious school, a bell would ring and all the justices would rise and stretch out their right arms to the flag of the religion and robotically pledge allegiance “I Pledge Allegiance to the religious flag, and to the ideology for which it stands, one church, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.” Easily the defendant would make the same motion for recusal based on a conflict. Of course, there are religious schools in which people participate in worshipful religious practices, and some might even mimic the government schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. If a defendant was prosecuted in a case as described in this paragraph then there would be a conflict and grounds for recusal of any justice who attended any particular religious school that was shot at or victimized, especially if the same pledge were performed by the trial judge and jurors in his trial.

Similar points hold for home schooling. If a justice was home-schooled by his own mother, and a case arguing that a defendant was prosecuted by the U.S. government for shooting at the justice’s mother, and if every morning while that Justice was home-schooled, his/her mother would ring a bell all the justice would rise and stretch out his/her right arm to the family flag and robotically pledge allegiance “I Pledge Allegiance to my mother, and to the familial loyalty for which she stands, one home-school, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.” Easily the defendant would make the same motion for recusal due to a conflict. There is probably no home school that has such an oddball ritual, other than those home schools that mimic the government schools and the Pledge of Allegiance or victimized, especially if the same pledge were performed by the trial judge and jurors in his trial.

In that sense, the same argument about bias for the jurors and trial judge also applied to the Supreme Court justices hearing this case.

In the previous refusal in the Newdow case, Justice Scalia recused himself for remarks that Justice Scalia had made about the phrase “under God.” The argument for recusal here is even more compelling for any justice who chanted the pledge for years. “Under God” is only two words and Scalia’s remarks justifying recusal were few. Justices who recited the pledge in school and elsewhere not only repeated the two words, they repeated the entire pledge, and it IS A “PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.” It is daily robotic remarks much more repetitive and indoctrinating than the remarks the recused Justice Scalia. “I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.....” How can one claim that there is no conflict or need for recusal for any justice who has spent years robotically chanting his bias en masse and on cue from the government?

We need justices who did not attend government schools, or who did not participate in schools that had a daily robotic chanting on cue from the government. Although non-government schools can recite the pledge it seems to be rare, and of course, it is not compelled or cajoled by law, nor done on the cue of government.

It is different from pledging to uphold the constitution. Which would mean no government schools. Etc.

Does the supreme court start with a pledge of allegiance?

When a socialist says “liberty and justice for all” he means he wants to rob and enslave you.

According to reliable news accounts (Exhibit A), Justice Scalia was “the main speaker at an event for Religious Freedom Day” held on January 12, 2003. There, Justice Scalia apparently indicated that the Ninth Circuit decision in the instant case was based on a flawed reading of the Establishment Clause. Yet it is highly unlikely that the Justice had ever read any of the briefs in the case, and – although his knowledge base is prodigious – it is doubtful that Justice Scalia has been fully apprised of all the facts related to Congress’s Act of 1954. Under such circumstances – where he prematurely indicated that a lower court’s decision was wrong in a case he would likely hear – one might certainly reasonably question his impartiality.

The fact that he chose to give these remarks at an event in which the Knights of Columbus played a sponsoring role (Exhibit B) is especially noteworthy. The Knights of Columbus is the organization that “led the effort to officially include the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.”http://www.kofc.org/knights/history/history.cfm. In fact, since Justice Scalia made his comments, the Knights of Columbus has submitted an amicus brief in the hope of overturning the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Exhibit C. In that document, it is claimed that “American concepts of freedom flow from an authority higher than the State.”Brief Amicus Curiae of the Knights of Columbus That idea is, of course, found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Yet it is a foundational concept of the brief which, of necessity, turns atheists such as Newdow into “outsiders, not full members of the political community.” Certainly Justice Scalia was aware of the Knights’ hosting of the Religious Freedom Day activities, and it is likely that he is also cognizant of the role that organization played in effecting the change in the Pledge. That he deliberately chose to allude to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in such a venue gives further cause to reasonably question his impartiality in this litigation.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
It should first be noted that Justice Scalia’s voluntary, disapproving statements about the lower court’s ruling – in a case obviously destined to come before him – is at odds with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Canon 3(A)(6) of that Code states (in pertinent part) that “A judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action.” Justice Scalia’s comments on January 12, 2003 unequivocally violated that Canon.

Under current case law, the totality of these circumstances supports recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) – authored by Justice Scalia, himself – reviewed the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 455, especially in view of the “massive changes” made in 1974. It was specifically noted that, “what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance. Quite simply and quite universally, recusal [i]s required whenever ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” Moreover, subsection (a) “covers all aspects of partiality”

Justice Kennedy’s concurrence also made the point that recusal is mandatory here:
[T]he central inquiry under § 455(a) is the appearance of partiality, not its place of origin;

Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified. Indeed, in such circumstances, I should think that any judge who understands the judicial office and oath would be the first to insist that another judge hear the case; and

Section 455(a) … addresses the appearance of partiality, guaranteeing not only that a partisan judge will not sit, but also that no reasonable person will have that suspicion.


Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) – another Supreme Court case that considered 28 U.S.C. § 455 in depth – similarly emphasized that “a violation of § 455(a) is established when a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would expect that a justice, judge, or magistrate knew of circumstances creating an appearance of partiality, notwithstanding a finding that the judge was not actually conscious of those circumstances.” Along these lines, the lower courts have determined that:
[T]he judge’s actual state of mind, purity of heart, incorruptibility, or lack of partiality are not the issue. … The standard is purely objective. The inquiry is limited to outward manifestations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. In applying the test, the initial inquiry is whether a reasonable factual basis exists for calling the judge’s impartiality into question.

United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).

It should be emphasized that it is not only the statements Justice Scalia has made that are of concern. His conscious decision to appear as the “featured speaker” at an event sponsored by the Knights of Columbus – the religious organization that initiated the drive to place “under God” into the Pledge – and to use that forum to decry the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is of enormous moment. In fact, it was “the judge’s expressive conduct in deliberately making the choice to appear in such a forum at a sensitive time to deliver strong views on matters which were likely to be ongoing before him” that resulted in the Tenth Circuit’s determination that the District Judge in Cooley should have recused himself.

The foregoing in no way suggests that a judge or justice, even in an extrajudicial setting, is prohibited from enunciating his views on legal matters. On the contrary, “expressions of opinion on legal issues are not disqualifying” (Leaman v. Ohio Dep’t of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 825 F.2d 946, 950 (6th Cir. 1987) (note 1), and “[a] judge’s views on legal issues may not serve as the basis for motions to disqualify.” (United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 882 (9th Cir. 1980)). However, Justice Scalia’s challenged actions go far beyond such an enunciation. In January 2003, he indicated that he has already applied his Establishment Clause analysis to the case at bar and reached his conclusion before ever reading the briefs or hearing the arguments. That is what provides the grounds for recusal.

The Court has noted the importance of “ensur[ing] that our deliberations will have the benefit of adversary presentation and a full development of the relevant facts.” Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 542 (1986). Here, a justice has indicated that he is prepared to rule in a given manner absent such deliberations, precisely the situation for which 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a) was promulgated. If “[t]he test is whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality,” Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988), then it would seem that the following would lead to exactly that doubt:
The constitutionality of the words, “under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance is at issue;

A justice – fully aware that the case would soon likely appear before him – accepted a speaking invitation sponsored by the organization that “led the effort to officially include the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance;”

At that venue, the justice indicated – before the first petition ever reached his court – that the case was wrongly decided in the court below.

“[T]he appearance of partiality is as dangerous as the fact of it.” Conforte, 624 F.2d at 881. Because “a judge is under an affirmative, self-enforcing obligation to recuse himself sua sponte whenever the proper grounds exist.” United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 744 (11th Cir. 1989), Justice Scalia should recuse himself from deliberations in this litigation.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully suggested that Justice Scalia recuse himself from any consideration of the instant litigation.

Under penalty of perjury, I affirm that the foregoing Motion is made in the good faith belief that the facts are true, that the arguments are appropriate, and that recusal by Justice Scalia will best serve the interests of justice and the integrity of the judiciary.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg FRANCIS BELLAMY
Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy, Industrial Army, Military Socialism
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE http://rexcurry.net/edward%20bellamy.jpg EDWARD BELLAMY

SWASTIKA http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg SWASTIKA
Edward Bellamy Swastika, Industrial Army
SWASTIKA http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg EDWARD BELLAMY


Rex Curry blog spot http://rexcurry.blogspot.com/

Pledge of Allegiance blog spot http://pledge-of-allegiance.blogspot.com/

Pledge Allegiance blog spot http://pledge-allegiance.blogspot.com/



Site Meter