9th Circuit Court Of Appeals comes through for Pledge of Allegiance.

I grew up with the Pledge of Allegiance and have never had a problem with the words or saying the Pledge. Michael Newdow has been trying for years to get this changed and perhaps now, he is out of options for attacking what are sacred words for so many Americans. Yes, I know there are those out there who dislike the way the Pledge was changed in the 1950's and I respect their beliefs, in addition to their freedom of speech. Those who do not want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance are free not to do so. They can omit the words they dislike or not say anything at all. This is still a free country in spite of Obama. I am sure he is one who has an extreme dislike of the Pledge of Allegiance. His disregard for our country has been well played out here and on the world stage. Please, if you do not like the Pledge of Allegiance at least have the respect and courtesy to stand while it is being recited. If at the very least you are unable to do that, then you are FREE to leave this country.

---

Court OKs ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance
In a 2-1 ruling, a federal appeals court says the phrase is constitution

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."

The same court ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter's school district for forcing students to recite the pledge.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court ruled that Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.

So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed the challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to their children being required to recite the pledge. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, ruling that the pledge was unconstitutional.

"I want to be treated equally," Newdow said when he argued the case before the 9th Circuit in December 2007. He added that supporters of the phrase "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."

In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on coins and currency.

MSNBC