Posted by Matt Hawes on 10/29/09 4:42 PM Last updated 10/29/09 5:07 PM   [Newer: "If We Do What's Right, It Will Benefit the Entire World."] [Older: Pelosi vs. Vending Machines]

Check out this summarized version of the Bill of Rights being used in a Texas middle school and see how many peculiarities you can spot. (Hint - Amendment II is interesting.)

Thanks to Bonnie Kristian over at the Young Americans for Liberty blog, and be sure to check her post out for more.

Update: The more I look at this document, the more the Amendment IV revision not only annoys me, but strikes me as particularly dangerous.

We went from this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

To this: "[The police] usually need permission to search our homes."

Posted 10/29/09 4:49 PM Jivatman Normal, IL

They totally screwed up the third how do you get "The government has to provide food and shelter for soldiers" from... "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." It's turned from something the government is not allowed to do, to something the government must provide for, not particularly surprising though considering... But the thing that most disturbs me is the entire idea of summarizing the Bill of Rights. I mean, is it really that long? Is it really worded that difficult? Maybe teaching it properly would take too much time away from teaching the communist manifesto? This is one of those things that makes me feel like giving up on humanity.

Posted 10/29/09 4:59 PM bobjones68 Schaumburg, IL

This makes me shudder. As I see things, first this list (or a similar one) is what is taught, then they change it more in a few more years, until we are left with "admendment 1-10: you have no rights, now get back to work".

Posted 10/29/09 5:00 PM jrupchurch Monument, CO

Amendment 2: We can get permission??!?!?!?! to own weapons to protect ourselves. Most of them miss the mark, even if talking to a 5 year old. But this is exactly opposite of the meaning of the second amendment. Five year old version of Amendment 2: A free country cannot exist without tools to forcefully overthrow the government. Therefore, we require NO permission to own weapons to ensure/secure our freedom.

Posted 10/29/09 6:46 PM Father of 7 Knights Saltillo, MS

This just goes to show how much more we need to be involved in local politics: School boards, city councils, county commissions. Educating the masses was a charge given to us by our founders that we (my grandparents, my parents and me) haven't taken seriously, resulting in the tyranny we have today. I find it interesting that this Texas middle school is using 3rd grade grammer in a middle school setting. Keep in mind the despots count on generational forgetfulness. It's our job as citizens to remind others where we came from and the benefits of obeying the principles of natural law and it's creator.

Posted 10/29/09 7:02 PM sweetliberty San Rafael, CA

I agree, Jivatman. It's not that long, nor is it complicated. We as a society need to quit dumbing things down, quit reducing everything to a marketable soundbyte, and just read the words that are already there.

Posted 10/29/09 7:26 PM ScottXS Hoffman Estates, IL

I could rant at length, but to primarily in omitting the term "rights" this gives the impression mere men in government have chosen to give their subjects permissions, rather than, as our constitution, philosophical, and religious traditions recognize our rights are *intrinsic* to our very nature as human beings. Of course, progressives, existentialists, relativists, communists and darwinists subscribe to the thesis man can be molded into whatever "natural" forces make us into. Hitler, Stalin and we Americans have had our failed attrocious eugenics experiments. I rather suspect a govenrment-medical complex with genetic engineering technology will give our government a new, vicious agenda. Of course, these will too fail, giving America an object lesson that Europeans have learned; the delicate balance of stomping down peasants, but not so hard they can't be shoved into combat against rival warlords that have been stomping their own peasants down (but not too hard they can't fight either). Ammendment 1 prohibits the gov. from establishing a state religion. It isn't permission to worship - that is immplicit. Ammendment 2 is especially silly; a right IS a permission. 3. is to prevent a government standing army of informants spying and leeching off civilians, which they now can do at un-constitutional executive order. 4. says nothing about "usually" needing permission. All this is disgusting. The government will go too far one day, pretty soon by the looks of it. And all their reems of paper and pious speeches will not protect them, or us, from the consequences of their treason!

Posted 10/29/09 7:27 PM apoelstra Surrey, Canada

Y'all remember the town charter (or whatever that was) from Animal Farm?

Posted 10/29/09 8:59 PM SunnyD Gulf Breeze, FL

The worst part of it is the change from a list of things the government can't do, to a list of things the people can do. Which reflects the modern interpretation (and I use that word loosely) of the constitution. The original 10th is "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." No mention of "or to the people."

Posted 10/29/09 9:10 PM B Rae C Grandview, TX

Maybe it's time to teach our own children the Bill of Rights so they can correct those that teach it incorrectly. I can just picture the look on a teacher's face if that were to ever happen.

Posted 10/29/09 9:41 PM RabbitMan seattle , WA

Hey, long time fan, first time user, but I just had to comment here after seeing some of the ridiculous reactions to this document. Do you seriously think a Middle-School Civics teacher is using this as a 'factual' document teaching tool for his or her students? And in TEXAS!? No, this is likely the teachers attempt at poking fun and making a *clear* satire of what our rights look like today. There is almost no earthly way possible that this would be used in a government classroom, let me assure you. You guys can rail on public school all you want, but my experience has shown that although it is not perfect, it is fairly unbiased and is DEFINITELY not out trying to teach our kids the benefits of submission. Please do not make yourselves look any more silly by making ghouls out of nothing, and grow a sense of humor. :)

Posted 10/29/09 10:02 PM bspears1776 Torrance, CA

The Seven Commandments, Animal Farm's original Constitution Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend. No animal shall wear clothes. No animal shall sleep in a bed. No animal shall drink alcohol. No animal shall kill any other animal. All animals are equal. The Seven Commandments, after the pigs' "revisions" "Four legs good, two legs better!" No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Posted 10/29/09 10:19 PM Ike Hall Clarkston, GA

RabbitMan, I hope you're right, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was real. I just saw another of their little worksheets, straight from the publisher referenced above: Because of the Bill of Rights (cause), Americans have many freedoms. (effect) I mean, really. They got it precisely backwards.

Posted 10/29/09 11:38 PM RabbitMan seattle , WA

Ike, True. But again, from experience and knowing many public school and university teachers and professors, nobody is trying to indoctrinate anybody(I've found it difficult to talk politics with my professors, who are mostly liberal, because they aren't even allowed to risk that kind of thing). Likely, it was just a case of the publisher trying to simplify things to make it more simpler to understand, and in the process of doing so, trampled on an idea that we, as Constitutionalists and Libertarians, clearly understand. The best thing to do in this case would be to contact the publisher and file a concise complaint with an easy correction. They make mistakes all the time, oftentimes in judgement, and are not opposed to corrections(though they can take a while to come into effect). People I know have had to do this all the time. I find nothing offensive about this piece.

Posted 10/29/09 11:40 PM Sean Ryan Boston, MA

Disgusting.

Posted 10/30/09 12:18 AM Sovereignty Fort Worth, TX

Rabbitman, Actually I do find it offensive that children are being taught that we have to seek permission from the government to own a weapon and in effect protect ourselves. In Texas one does not need another's permission to own a firearm nor to protect themselves.

Posted 10/30/09 12:37 AM ZelieDad Zelienople, PA

I would not be surprised if this was a genuine teaching tool prepared by for the classroom. I like the title of the source, "Can we abolish government schools already?" A post their locates a possible source, http://www.teacherlinx.com/attachments/p848_Copy_(2)_of_The_Bill_of_Rig hts_Rap.doc

Posted 10/30/09 01:27 AM illuminati hater Las Vegas, NV

Amendment 4: Police sometimes need permission? Wow. This is the future we're teaching? If so, then guess what? We have no future. This is what happens when education gets filtered by bureaucracy. I can't argue with the way people feel about the 2nd amendment. The word "permission" sucks. If you want a gun, then you can go get one. It's as simple as that.

Posted 10/30/09 08:35 AM AudraM Orlando, FL

As to whether or not this is offensive, I have to argue in favor of it being offensive. My reasoning is two-fold. 1) Let's assume that this is definitely being taught in middle schools. If that is true, it's a gross re-writing of the Bill of Rights that teaches middle schoolers a bastardized and backwards version of this excellent document. 2) Let's again assume this is in fact being taught in middle schools. I would be offended as a parent that the school system, or at the very least, the publishers think so little of our young peoples' mental capacities. If we trust that middle schoolers can read and comprehend Shakespeare, why would we assume they then cannot comprehend the Founding documents in the original language? In Liberty, Audra M.

Posted 10/30/09 10:33 AM AuthenticAuthor Canutillo, TX

I don't know whether this is real or not, but if it is then I pity the children who have to put up with this during social studies. When they do eventually ask "Why?" like the smart kids they are, they'll be told in one way or another that kids can't understand but adults do. Eventually when they grow up, they'll be told like the rest of us that adults can't understand...but government bureaucrats do.

Posted 10/30/09 11:18 AM pensotti Reno, NV

They forgot to mention anything about the last sentence of the 5th "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." What school was this from? I think we should all send them some letters.

Posted 10/30/09 11:26 AM CTLovesNathanHale Atlanta, GA

Puke, some brain-washed "teacher" has summarized as best as their poisoned, tiny brain can. This shouldn't even be allowed to fly in special ed. Even retarded children are smarter than this...

Posted 10/30/09 11:28 AM CTLovesNathanHale Atlanta, GA

Oh, and no way RabbitMan isn't a shill: "I find nothing offensive about this piece." Now THAT is offensive...

Posted 10/30/09 1:16 PM FREEDOMFIRST BIG SUR, CA

RabbitMan, this document is obviously a perversion of the original language and intent of our founding fathers, it would be better to teach nothing than purposeful, incremental undermining of documented freedoms. Comments here might sound revolutionary and even reactionary to you, but passionate freedom lovers detest these kind of misrepresentations placed on our next generation. Lies are never moral, and government can't change moral law. Many signers with forsight demanded this list, (though some thought it implied and unnessesary) in order to even sign the constitution.

Posted 10/30/09 2:19 PM CodeMonkey Mobile, AL

RabbitMan, I have no doubt the publisher was only trying to simplify things. The offensive part is that these people, who are educating our children, actually believe that this piece of trash conveys the true meaning of the Bill of Rights.

Posted 10/30/09 3:05 PM jbo5112 Kansas City, MO

I've only been out of middle school for about 15 years, and still have contact with people in middle school. At least around here, this would be lost on them as satire. It might be usable in conjunction with Animal Farm at a high school level, but even then, you would have to include the original bill of rights. In middle school, the closest we had to "Civics" was history, and in high-school it was a "Constitution and government" class, which is still a bit different. Hampton-Brown, where the list was adopted from, is a branch of National Geographic school publishing. I'm hoping someone else is more informed about National Geographic than me, since I've pretty much just looked at pictures and read old articles on the space program, but I wouldn't put it past them to indoctrinate children. I find indoctrination a more likely explanation than a publishing company really being stupid enough to think that the paper said the same thing as the Bill of Rights, but it's not completely clear that they were the ones that mangled it. I haven't been able to find National Geographic's material to verify who made the change, and their website is unusably slow.

Posted 10/30/09 4:46 PM Sovereignty Fort Worth, TX

What I imagine has happened is that some teacher "ebonics" (sorry, if there is a better term I couldn't think of it) the Bill of Rights and this is the result. What bothers me is that how it was interpreted. I don't think that Hampton-Brown is publishing this particular page and I hope that's not how they are teaching it.

Posted 10/30/09 6:52 PM fortsmith1 Discovery Bay, CA

That is totally screwed up. The 2nd amendment doesn't say I need permission. I hope that the school using this bill of rights gets corrected soon. FYI: pay attention to your kids school work.

Posted 10/30/09 7:00 PM ctredennick Santa Clara, CA

Doesn't look like a joke to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuZXfouLPzw

Posted 10/31/09 10:41 PM BrendonDeMeo North Chelmsford, MA

Read John Taylor Gatto's book, which is free in the education section of this website under Educational Freedom. We need to abolish public schools. They're the government indoctrination, institutionalization centers. They're dangerous prisons for our children, particularly in the inner cities. Imagine no public schools. I bet the teen pregnancy rate would drop. Hardly any school shootings (how many private schools have had one of these? Homeschoolers have none!). Let's end socialized education.

Posted 11/01/09 08:30 AM seamus.bradley New Port Richey, FL

Rabbit Man, I get what you are trying to say, but it is still wrong. A misprint is one thing, screwing up puntutuation and spelling are one thing (I know I suck at spelling)but getting the spirit of ALL 10 Amendments wrong is NOT a mistake, it had to be deliberate. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are its a duck. And this is why my children (when I have them) will NEVER go to public school.

Posted 11/01/09 12:38 PM Joey Batz Brooklyn, NY

Is this something that's seriously being taught to children? Is this widespread throughout the country, or in Texas, or is it the product of one single teacher? I ask because until just a few years ago, I've been in NYC public schools. I've never stepped inside a private school class and I've never been homeschooled. I was in public school since Pre-K and graudated high school Class of 03 and went through SUNY afterwards. And I have never seen ANYTHING like this in ANY of my classes. Ever. My Social Studies and English teachers stuck to the material for the Regents, but that never stopped them from discussing current events with us and allowing us to shape the debates and think for ourselves. And my professors never sat there and tried to indoctrinate us into liberalism or neoconservatism or communism or Islam or Christianity or atheism, etc. They stuck to the topic they were teaching, even during open discussions. Say what you will about their taxpayer-subsidized nature; there was no indoctrination when I was there just a few years ago. This Neo-Bill of Rights is a reprehensible document that serves no useful purpose other than for something to use that butane lighter on. But I think we must exercise caution before screaming that the sky is falling. How widespread is this? How accepted is this? These are the questions we must ask first before engaging in knee-jerk emotive reactions. Remember, after all, that knee-jerk emotive reactions taking the place of calm rational questioning got us the Patriot Act and the War on Terror.

Posted 11/03/09 12:19 AM William Hodges Naperville, IL

The schoolboard members who approved this curriculum for their school should all be hung from the highest branches! What is this NONSENSE?!!!