Child Indoctrination in the United States of Mexico

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Child Indoctrination in the United States of Mexico

Here is one of the really good things to start coming out of Glenn Beck's new organization. He has been asking for people to send him examples of rights and propaganda abuses.

One man in Texas got sick when his 15 year old daughter told him she had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance of Mexico and sing the Mexican National Anthem as part of her Spanish class. She refused to do it and got a failing grade for it. So he sent her back to class with a video-camera.

Here is the coverage on The Blaze:

Blaze Exclusive: TX High School Students Made to Recite Mexican National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance

by Madeleine Morgenstern

October 17, 2011

The Blaze

From the article:

Students in a Texas public high school were made to stand up and recite the Mexican national anthem and Mexican pledge of allegiance as part of a Spanish class assignment, but the school district maintains there was nothing wrong with the lesson.

It happened last month in an intermediate Spanish class at Achieve Early College High School in McAllen, Texas — a city located about 10 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Wearing red, white and green, students had to memorize the Mexican anthem and pledge and stand up and recite them in individually in front of the class.

That didn’t go over well with sophomore Brenda Brinsdon. The 15-year-old sat down and refused to participate.

She also caught it all on video...

The video is at the link, but I'm putting it here, too. This thing is creepy, especially the Nazi-like extended hand.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC3xejOJyrI?version=3"><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC3xejOJyrI?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC3xejOJyrI?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Glenn interviewed his father on radio earlier today:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT3FdMJFkXI?version=3"><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT3FdMJFkXI?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT3FdMJFkXI?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

One of the main ways all the recent rabble-rousing trouble has happened here in the USA is that the left has invaded the education system, from grade-school all the way up through college. Just because this is Mexico-oriented, that does not mean the push is coming from the Mexican government. If I were to guess who is encouraging this, I would say La Raza, which means "pinko" in Spanish .

But if not them, the system of indoctrinate children with foreign allegiance attitudes certainly comes from people like them.

Nowadays, though, we have easy video. I am sure programs like Glenn is doing are going to multiply. So we will be able to catch a lot of this stuff and nip it in the bud while we are cleaning up the mess.

And don't think the war-mongering crony-capitalist right is going to be able to cash in on this, either, because the video camera doesn't belong to a political party. If and when people catch them making indoctrination attempts on children, that will go out in public, too. With well-deserved outrage.

They will get a taste of what is--as of this posting--getting ready to come down on that McAllen, Texas school teacher and school system.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

I wonder how many schools outside the US are having students pledge allegiance to other countries, let alone ours. I bet zero. What floors me most is that schools and teachers think this line of education is an okay thing to do.

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane,

I got to thinking the other day about the difference between a charter document for a republic (like a constitution) and a normal contract. There are several, but one suddenly jumped out at me more than the others .

It also answers this question: Why do people obey the document? Why don't they just get rid of it if they don't like it? It's only pen and paper.

Here's the answer. The armed forces have to pledge to uphold it against all enemies, external and internal, as part of the job description. Armed force members have to take that oath to get the job and to keep it.

Our Founding Fathers sure as hell knew what they were doing. First they sliced and diced power so much that it was practically impossible for any one person to become a dictator. They set their slicing and dicing in a document. Then they had the armed forces swear to uphold that document.

(The politicians swear that oath, too, but who on earth is stupid enough to believe a politician?)

Now, if you want to undermine the only authority from force the Constitution has, the only guarantee that it can and will survive, you have to water down the oath so that by the time it gets to the military, it doesn't mean much.

What better way than to start with children?

Forcing children in school to pledge allegiance to a foreign power is more than just an outrage. I say it borders on treason.

We either accept that we have a republic, want it, acknowledge how and why it survives, and protect it, or we will lose it.

There is no other alternative.

The bad guys are always trying to get a foot in the door so they can try to dismantle the republic we have and erect a dictatorship-like structure with themselves at the top (and with no individual rights). I don't think they will stop trying anytime soon.

After figuring this out, I came to realize that the oath of allegiance is far more important than mere ceremony.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

As much as I love the military, I love the want of being a writer more. I think there, I'll have a chance at affecting mindsets like my favorite author, Terry Goodkind.

What you speak of is a two-edged sword, Michael. One one edge, you have the govertment moving to a more socialist stance. On the other edge, you have the parents who turn a blind eye at what schools teach their kids (especially if they've been through similar experiences... though most of my school years were during the Republican times). It's hard to figure out which edge is sharper, but I know one thing: our children aren't holding the sword. At least for this 15 year-old, she carried a shield. Good for her!

~ Shane

[sjw]

Speaking of the Nazi salute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane,

I want to make something clearer than I did before.

Only people of good character can be counted on to keep their word.

Some people may have their criticisms the military, but one thing is for sure in my world--I hold there are many, many people of high integrity in the USA military. I'm tempted to say more in the USA military than in other human groups, but it's not necessary to go that far.

From what I have seen, military people take their oath to protect the USA constitution very seriously. I'm talking about the bulk of personnel, not the sporadic exception.

So should a politician--one who does not have such an intimate relationship with his word--wish to overthrow the constitution and take power by organizing a putsch of some sort, he has a shit ton of bad-asses standing in his way, most of whom are not very corruptible and not too friendly to anyone attacking the very document they have sworn to protect.

I think that oath (to the USA constitution) is a wonderful thing when people of integrity take it. Those are the folks who stand between what freedom we do have and those who would take it from us.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Speaking of the Nazi salute: http://en.wikipedia..../Bellamy_salute

Shayne

You beat me to it, but I didn't know it had a name.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

Let's see if I get this right.

The school teacher in McAllen--and the general public--has no idea that the Nazis used a salute very similar to what she was doing and instead is committed to continuing the tradition of Bellamy (like the general public is, of course), even though she prefers to replace the country the children pledge allegiance to.

Hmmmmmmm...

I'm trying, but something ain't clickin'.

Michael

[syrakusos]

This is ridiculous on many levels.

First, we used to sing Das Deutschlandlied in German class (never the first verse)... along with Die Lorelei and half a dozen others. It is how you learn the language and the culture. And one time in the 10th or 11th grade, like something out of Casablanca, we got La Marseilles in reply from down the hall.

Second, the right arm salute goes back to the Romans. (re the above, Latin classes in my time were forbidden from using it. "Ave," "Ave atque vale" and "Semper vale" could be spoken only.) It was resurrected for America by Francis Bellamy, to be sure. My mother was born in 1929 and she learned it in grade school. You start the pledge with your hand on your heart and then extend your right hand, palm up to the flag. The same scene appears in the movie of G. Gordon Liddy's Will.

It was the Olympic salute -- and at the Berlin 1936 Summer Games some teams refused to salute the German reviewing stand.

Third, in 1940, Jehovah's Witnesses in West Virginia were prosecuted for refusing to say the pledge in school. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction with patriotic mumbo-jumbo, but once the war came to America, a new case came forward and the refusing to give the pledge in school was no longer a crime.

In more modern times, learning Japanese or taking Tae Kwon Do, I have learned the forms of bowing. By then, as adults, we all had more nuanced understandings of the wider world. One time, in Japanese class, the instructor was attempting to explain "Asahi" which is sunrise - Asahi Shimbun: Morning Newspaper. The guy behind me said, "It is also the name of the Japanese battle flag, so it's a little more fascist than sunrise."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Indoctrination exists.

Ditto for indoctrination of children.

And it works.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Indoctrination exists.

Ditto for indoctrination of children.

And it works.

Michael

This is tragically and blatantly true. You can take 9 and 10 yo boys and turn them into stone-cold killers with automatic rifles. With the slightest command and encouragement they will pull those triggers.

--Brant

[sbeaulieu]

Michael,

I follow on post #6. One of the things us in the military abhor is politicians lobbying for reducing our benefits while keeping/increasing theirs. They are far and few between from my personal experince. But I get the impression from what you're saying that had they taken the oath of enlistment and signed their life on the line for the Constitution, defended it against enemies, foreign and domestic, the notion of trying to eliminate benefits never would have seen daylight. But there are those that stand for us and lobby for us. They are the ones that act on what you speak of. In the AF alone, about 1% of the US population enlist. Funny... what about the other 99% (the protestors...haha!)

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane,

The worst part of it is that the politicians swear to defend the Constitution, too.

Here is exactly what I am talking about: US Code, Title 5, 3331:

TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

                           PART III--EMPLOYEES

                   Subpart B--Employment and Retention

            CHAPTER 33--EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT

                      SUBCHAPTER II--OATH OF OFFICE


Sec. 3331. Oath of office

    An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an 
office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, 
shall take the following oath: ``I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 
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 the duties of the office on which I am about to 
enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths 
required by law.

(Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.)

                      Historical and Revision Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Revised Statutes and
     Derivation                U.S. Code             Statutes at Large
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     5 U.S.C. 16.                  R.S. Sec.  1757.
                                                   May 13, 1884, ch. 46,
                                                    Secs.  2, 3, 23
                                                    Stat. 22.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All but the quoted language in R.S. Sec. 1757 is omitted as obsolete 
since R.S. Sec. 1757 was originally an alternative oath to the oath 
prescribed in R.S. Sec. 1756 which oath was repealed by the Act of May 
13, 1884, ch. 46, Sec. 2, 23 Stat. 22. The words ``An individual, except 
the President, . . . in the civil service or uniformed services'' are 
substituted for ``any person . . . either in the civil, military, or 
naval service, except the President of the United States''. The second 
sentence of former section 16 is changed to read, ``This section does 
not affect other oaths required by law.''.
    Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable 
and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Unless I misunderstood, politicians have to include the following part in their own oaths of office: "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..."

When a politician does that, I'll take his word with a grain of salt. When a military man does it, I am more convinced that he means it--even if he doesn't understand fully what the Constitution is.

Michael

[syrakusos]

Indoctrination exists. Ditto for indoctrination of children. And it works. Michael

Baloney.

How many Objectivists were raised to be Objectivists?

I agree that we all grow up with messages that become part of us, our thinking patterns, assumptions, perceptions. Seldom is any of it coordinated. That which is tends to evaporate when touched by the light of reason. In fact, insight and self-awareness can identify and modify any of those previous messages.

Indoctrination only controls those who never question it. Questions kill indoctrination. You don't even need answers. Just the questions will do it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Baloney.

How many Objectivists were raised to be Objectivists?

Baloney yourself.

How many children of Objectivists grow up to be suicide bombers?

I stand by what I wrote. And evidence backs me up.

I refer you to an article by Ayn Rand called "The Comprachicos." From your comments, you appear to think that her essay is baloney, too.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

Michael,

The oaths are quite similar. There is a minor difference between officers and enlisted. As enlisted, we state to follow the orders of those appointed over us (lawful... a very important distinction which seems to land a lot of folks in hot water during wartime). The officers' oath is more aligned with the ones the politicians take.

But as you mention, the politicians take the same oath. But I think the line of demarcation lies in who might end up on the fighting end of the stick. One reason those of us in uniform take the Constitution quite seriously. I admire prior-service politicians (though our views may be different), in that they have placed their lives on the line for the Constitution. The one that stands out for me most is Senator McCain in that regard. His ordeal exemplifies how a politician should take the oath.

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane,

We agree in every detail except for one (and I suspect we agree on that, too.)

But I think the line of demarcation lies in who might end up on the fighting end of the stick.

There is another line of demarcation going the other way--those who have their sights set on the pot-of-gold-from-the-public-treasury end of the stick.

I call this line of demarcation by another name: good character versus bad character.

I don't see many politicians laying down their lives for the Constitution, but I also don't see many ex-service people going into politics with full intent to ignore the Constitution and line their pockets. Granted, some may get corrupted after they get in, but I just don't see them starting off that way.

In other words, for me, the general default position of a career-minded politician is bad character. And the general default position for a member of the armed services is good character.

I believe the oath of those with good character keeps those with bad character from taking over completely.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

On that, we agree.

My take was specifically the intent on taking the oath knowing that your life might be forfeit if called to war to defend the consitution. But your point is taken. I need to actively improve my "whole picture" view. I feel that mine might be a bit narrow, or naive, in thinking that politicians would actually pursue that as a primary purpose of taking office. Never thought of it that way. Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes, reality sucks. Ha!

~ Shane