Saturday, January 26, 2013

Indoctrination Nation: Students Taking Oath To Constitution In Order To Graduate?

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

Obama's second inaugural speech referenced the dictator Lincoln, and lap-dog Chris Matthews referred to the speech as very "Lincoln-Esque."

Lincoln, after invading and conquering the South, forced the male civilians to swear to a loyalty oath. Those who refused were shot.

Well, check out what is cropping up in Arizona.

The Blaze reports (my emphasis):
A bill making its way through the Arizona state legislature would require public high school students to swear an oath to defend the Constitution before they receive their diplomas...

If passed, it would require principals to verify in writing that a student had recited the following oath before they were allowed to graduate, beginning in the 2013-2014 school year:

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.
The whole purpose of the public schools indoctrination centers really comes to light with this scheme.

Ironically, the Constitution is almost completely ignored by the government as it is...but that's besides the point. Only a small percentage of the students will make that connection.


25 comments:

  1. I live in Arizona. I 100% guarantee this will never pass. Individual legislators come up with hair-brained bills every day across this country. This one is more loony than most.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This oath is the United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office for enlisted members of the military (As a former soldier, I recognized it immediately). High school students taking a military oath to receive their diplomas?. If this is indeed true, it is deeply disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I once worked for a non profit organization; and when the new management team came, the new Director called a meeting and asked us all to sign loyalty oaths to him personally; I did; but I left within 90 days, as I have only one loyalty, and that is to Christ the Lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please let us know which non-profit this was, so we don't inadvertently support it.

      Delete
  4. That will make for a whole generation of oath breakers.

    Just like all currently and formerly enlisted members of the US military are: all of them are collaborators of the main enemy of the Constitution, the federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sorry. Is it wrong to swear an oath to defend the most sacred document the world has ever experienced, even if you are young? Please inform me on how this is a bad thing . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sacred? Do you know what that word means?

      Do you know the history of the making of the Constitution, or is this just some blather you picked up from Glenn Beck?

      Delete
    2. So what's your point Scott? That our Constitution somehow has less legitimacy than the Constitution of any other country, because the founders weren't morally perfect enough for your tastes?

      Delete
    3. The constitution either allows for the government that we have or it failed to prevent it. Either way it doesn't deserve to exist. It is an example of "Never let a crisis go to waste." The crisis was Shay's Rebellion, which was a revolt against taxes to pay off Massachusetts' portion of the war debt. The first act of congress was to quadruple taxes to pay off that debt. It is a document created by white land owners to protect their property, women and minorities need not apply. It describes blacks as 2/3 human. Yeah, what a lovely piece of parchment.

      Delete
    4. Did I mention any other constitutions, Jonny? Did I say anything about the founders, Jonny? Are you erecting strawmen, Jonny?

      This nonsense about the Constitution having been "divinely inspired" is propaganda meant to stifle any objection to the legitimacy of much of what the US government does, if not the legitimacy of the US government itself. It's on par with Lincoln worship, and it is intellectually embarrassing.

      The making of the US Constitution is the story of a coup, not of divine inspiration. Its implementation was a step BACKWARD in terms of human freedom, and a step FORWARD in terms of the power of the state. Are you a human being first, Jonny? Or are you an "American" first? What matters to people of moral conscience and intellectual consistency is the soveriegnty of individuals, not of some imaginary entity called "America" which resides not in physical dimensions but only in the weak minds of people who don't realize that they're collectivists, too.

      Delete
    5. Anon 11:26, if you read anon 8:08's post, the oath is the same one the United States Uniformed Services take. To me, it sounds like a back door way of getting these kids to sign up for a draft.

      Delete
    6. Well Scott, if you think the Constitution was a step backward from life under the monarchy and the church, then so be it. What the Constititution represents is one of the first tentative steps toward recognition of individual rights. Not perfect. But capable of being perfected. It escapes me that you would fault the founders for wanting to do the same thing that every other British colony in the world wanted to do: Get free from the colonizers. Even knowing the fact that they themselves behaved less than perfectly toward yet other minority people once they had emancipated themselves.

      And Mike, what's the point of distorting history?

      Both of you are examples of what I'm talking about. Destroying the country is pointless. What needs to be done is improve on the mistakes of the past and move forward; not seek retaliation against people who aren't even alive anymore.

      Marxism is the cloud of locusts on the historical landscape. It offers nothing but division, retaliation and constant upheaval.

      Delete
    7. What did the Constitution have to do with freeing the people in American colonies from living under a monarchy? You must have a different history book than I, Jonny. And, when did I say ANYTHING about minorities?

      Delete
    8. Yes Scott, you sure must have a different book. Either that, or you haven't read the one you have, if it is a valid one. It's amazing that you don't understand what I meant.

      Delete
    9. Well why don't you clarify yourself, then? Because as I understood it, the colonists declared their independence in 1776, while the Constitution wasn't ratified until 1787, I believe... And that after a few good years of organization under another document known as the Articles of Confederation which - now, I learned this from my publik skool edukation, so bare wif me - I understand "didn't give the central government enough power."

      I really look forward to you clearing all this up, Jonny. I really do...

      Delete
    10. You need me to clarify what I mean when I say the colonies freed themselves from life under a monarchy? I mean, I understand that you want to split hairs about documents, as if the Declaration and the Constitution are somehow galaxies apart and have no more commonality of purpose and history... than say, the Upanishads and the French Revolution.

      Now, exactly what is it you need cleared up? That the colonists who declared independence from Britain and those who authored the Constitution a decade or so later were in fact the same bunch of people?

      Delete
    11. What is it that you are pretending needs to be cleared up for you Scott?

      That the American colonists who declared independence from Britain and later hammered out the Constitution a decade or so later are, in fact, the same group of people? And yes, the two documents are a continuum of nation building in America.

      Anything else you need clearing up?

      Delete
  6. You people who object to this are crazy. Let me tell you, unless something is done, and done quickly to reverse the anti-Americanism being inculcated in our schools and universities today, this nation doesn't have a prayer. Why don't you object to the teaching of division and hate and chaos?

    And this gesture isn't even 1/1000th of what needs to be done. I'm just amazed that there are enough patriots left in any statehouse in the country to even joke around about it... much less actually propose it in a bill.

    If I were elected president, I'd order the military to arrest every Marxist on campus and hold them in concentration camps until we could find someplace to deport them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assuming you are in earnest, I would hate to see the remaining 999/1000 of what you think "needs to be done."

      BTW, wouldn't it be blatantly unconstitutional for the president to simply order the detention and deportation of those who hold (or who are alleged to hold) objectionable ideologies? So much for your oath to that "sacred" document . . .

      But hey, sometimes you've gotta destroy stuff to save it, amirite?

      Delete
    2. Here is some history of the constitution that you were not taught in school:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north1229.html

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north445.html

      Delete
    3. No thanks Mic. I'll stick to legitimate history. And a rational understanding that no human system can ever be faultless or free of reproach. I see no need to have another "revolution" for the same group of people that already launched one.

      Delete
    4. We replaced a permanent king with a temporary king 200 years ago. Is that the end of our evolution? We can't do any better than a temporary king and 535 gas bags? You acknowledge the fallibility of human systems. Does it make sense to create huge power centers and give them control over every aspect of our lives? And lastly, what is your response to Anon 9:17, Jonny?

      Delete
    5. No, it sure doesn't make sense Mic. That's why I'm not in favor of replacing what is an improvement over monarchy and autocracy, with an even more autocratic and dictatorial system. The Constitution needs to be honored and improved as necessary. Not trashed for a return to imperial edicts.

      My response to Anon 9:17? Simple.

      We're not talking about just objectionable ideologies. We're talking about people who actively advocate the overthrow of the Constitutional government, which is a crime and is illegal. As president, I would ask for an emergency session of Congress to pass legislation that categorizes such people as domestic enemies and combatants, and place them under the domain of the military after due process.

      Sorry, that's just me. I don't think that the enemies of the Constitution should be able to use the Constitution to destroy the Constitution.

      Delete
  7. While they chant such an oath they could include the early American Nazi salute (the Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior -see the book "Pledge of Allegiance & Swastika Secrets" by Ian Tinny and the historian Dr. Rex Curry).

    ReplyDelete
  8. A great deal of what the government does today is unconstitutional - Social Security, EPA, department of education, Medicare, Medicaid. If the government forces students to take this pledge then the students would either have to join a rebellion against the federal government, or ignore their pledge. Thus, this pledge forces the students to either become revolutionaries or liars.

    ReplyDelete