112 votes

Video: Student Expelled for Refusing Location Tracking RFID Badge

School makes good on threat of ‘consequences’ for refusing to submit to ‘Mark of the Beast’ ID scheme


Aaron Dykes | Infowars.com
November 19, 2012

After months of protesting a policy requiring high school students to wear an RFID-enabled ID badge around their necks at all times, Andrea Hernandez is being involuntarily withdrawn from John Jay High School in San Antonio effective November 26th, according to a letter sent by the district that has now been made public.

The letter, sent on November 13, informs her father that the Smart ID program, which was phased in with the new school year, is now in “full implementation” and requires all students to comply by wearing the location-tracking badges

Read more: http://www.infowars.com/s...


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I 100% agree. See John Holt's book, "How Children Learn" if you want to get a great grasp on how to educate a child properly. How Humans learn is a natural process that is only hindered by being force fed information. I hate my state in regard to this and I live in NY.


I will check that book out. And I agree that learning is a natural process.

Every step of the way government interferes with human development and hinders its potential in an alarming way. Quite frankly, i'm
F % & K I N G SICK of it!!!!

Pawing this crap on us and our children and calling it education is an absolute joke! And unfortunately, the joke is on us!!!

But, at the end of the day, many people feel that sending their kids to government public schools is a great idea. They think it betters their kids mind. They themselves being the product of the public education system in most cases!

when in reality, it's just molding the childs mind to become an obedient subject to the state.

Get 'em while they are young and then you have the ability to greatly suppress the ability of any kid throughout their life by attempting to instill fear and dependence into any person that passes through the public domain of "brainwashing" cough cough... i mean education! LOL

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

John Jay would be so proud

of his namesake high school. (sarc.)

I am ashamed that there were not more people there supporting

These parents. I do not know how it is in Texas, but where I live I pay taxes for the school systems, and my kids are both out of school. As a tax payer every individual has a responsibility to join with these parents and fight this tooth and nail, as it only serves to numb these kids down to later accept these chips in everyday life, and for what? So the elite can track their cattle? I propose that the lady sitting on the commission board be chipped so all of the parents can track her, as a public official I find it far more useful for the people to know where she is, so they can track backroom deals to implement such tyranny. What we all must mourn is the fact that the majority of parents are just fine with their children being wards of the state and tracked like a lost pet, it is sickening and I would have never thought in all of my years that Americans would stand for this. It is fine for parents to submit and give their rights away, but for them to sentence their children to a forced public school which uses police state tactics on children to indoctrinate them is disgusting, and I am ashamed of all parents who are happy about this move regardless of the problem with truancy or whatever false paradigm these ignorant fools have created. There is no hope for this nation with parents this stupid, it is time for parents to grow a pair and take back control of their children's lives.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Parents Rarely Object

My daughter went to public school for a while, and I used to teach there. Now I homeschool and teach online. Anyway, I noticed that even when parents are given a choice to opt out of something, most won't. They think their kids shouldn't be singled out in any way. For example, when my daughter was in second grade, the school did a presentation on AIDS, which I thought was a completely ridiculous and unnecessary destruction of innocence. A letter was sent home saying that you could have your child leave the room during the presentation. Of course I notified them that I wanted her to opt out.

I was shocked to find out that my daughter was the only one in the whole school who opted out. I asked a friend of mine whose daughter was in the school, from a traditional Christian family that I have known for decades, about it. She said she wasn't too happy about them doing it, but she decided to go ahead and let her daughter participate anyway. In other words, even if parents don't like it and don't think it's good for their kids; most have been programmed to go along with the program.

Get your kids out of public schools. We have no satellite TV, no cell phones, no restaurant or convenience foods, no new clothes, etc., but I wouldn't trade it for anything. We do have peace of mind that our kids' minds are not going to be taken over by the state.

Texas is the biggest authoritarian crap hole in the nation.

When you go to church in Texas, you don't worship God, you worship the authority figures that He put over you.

And those authority figures worship everything but God.

You worship police, teachers, anyone and everyone the works for government federal, state and especially local.

Hitler would be so proud of Texas.


gee, I thought they were about to secede?

....or, migrate to Montana, a state with a seemingly real secessionstn attitude

NOONE should be complying with this "order"

The government has overstepped their boundary. They know it. They don't care. They rationalize every stinking thing they do.

And, so did HITLER!

Michael Nystrom's picture

Someone is getting paid off here

That is my guess. Someone selling out to get these chips on these kids.

Flash points everywhere. This country is getting ready to blow.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

bravo to the Hernadez family

I hope more folks join them

Language Use: Constitutional Rights or Constitutional...?

First, great article and video. Good job, you journalists (as opposed to what most media persons are, slot fillers and propagandists). And, Hernandez family members and supporters, you exhibit a champion's attitude and fortitude.

Next, from the article:

"Steve Hernandez stated, '[A]s part of the accommodation my daughter and I would have to agree to stop criticizing the program and publicly support … it. I told [the Deputy Superintendent] that was unacceptable because it would imply an endorsement of the district’s policy and my daughter and I should not have to give up our constitutional rights to speak out against a program that we feel is wrong.'"

I put constitutional rights in bold because it's time that phrase be discarded and the correct one used. Using "constitutional rights" makes freedom weak. What should be said is what is unequivocal to all its receivers or at least prompts thinking in the form of, Wait, what did I just hear, what? The message that's unequivocal: protection of what is n-a-t-u-r-a-l. What is natural? Rights.

Starting today, each of us should abandon constitutional rights for: constitutional protections.

Rights -- abilities that enable self performance -- are inherent in each human. They are not removable, they are nontransferable and they are incapable of growing in number and size and are incapable of reduction in number and size. They are steady, constant, continuous and always.

Each human has his or her right to his life, freedom and -- I know what I'm going to say will be unsettling to some people -- happiness.

Briefly, why I say happiness rather than "pursuit of happiness" is the human is a happy being, not a dour, sour being. In other words, innately, or biologically, our constitution is happiness. You can disagree with my assessment of course, but if you do, still I'd believe you to be or want to be happy instead of unhappy. (I understand the argument between what I stated and "pursuit of happiness." I believe the latter phrase is from a material standpoint, not a biological standpoint.)

In a sense, my assessment of rights can be summed up in "what is right naturally," the operative word being naturally, as in what is natural, what is from nature, what is biological. Therefore, I say it is right that once you are alive you live your life until you cease naturally; that it is right you do whatever you want provided you commit no harm and that if you do harm you resolve it with the person(s) you harmed; and that it is right to be happy, content, relaxed -- again, happy.

I've wrestled with the phrase constitutional guarantees. Might guarantees be preferable to constitutional protections? On the face of this argument, I'd say no, but wouldn't protections not convey but imply guarantees? If protections does that, however, this question: Would guarantees mean something besides the individual, instead of he for himself, ensures he is in certain conditions, and wouldn't that dynamic be offensive (read: constrictive and controlled) rather than defensive (read: able, flexible, forgiving, continuance)?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Regarding guarantee or protection . . .

Just one opinion here, I would choose the word protection rather than guarantee. The term guarantee to me, implies a contract or legal obligation which can be argued, leagally debated, etc. But the word protection, implies, again, to me, a moral and more "natural" action based on relationships. For example, my husband protects me, his wife. This is a very strong meaning. People can guarantee something but in the end, it may or may not happen. Protection seems more base and all encompasing and personal.

Secondly, in current political usage, the word protection is being used for example, the president says his job is to "protect" the people. The police are supposed to "protect" us (maybe? theoretically?). If the constitution is also to protect us, it can be used rhetoriclly to catch someone in their own argument, depending on circumstances.

Two cents from the peanut gallery!


Fantastic comment. Laden in

Fantastic comment. Laden in semantics and supported by sturdy examples. Pithy too. Thank you for the mental floss, LTD.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Right on the money AB

We are human beings - not creations of the state. As such we have NATURAL rights which fortunately for us have been guaranteed through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I also agree with the other poster who says it is our employees that must be tagged (so long as they are employees) so we the owners of this country and our schools know where they are in their service to us. We did not hire these employees to track us - we hired them to perform certain and specific services. Anything other than that is a violation of implied contract and basis for dismissal.

Hi, dalesvp,Thank you for

Hi, dalesvp,

Thank you for your reply. I agree with the DPer above who said the school employee should wear this tracking device. Same goes for administrators in the school district office if this rule passed through it or originated from it.

Not only should teachers or any other employee of the school wear this device, they should wear them not when the students wear them but BEFORE the students wear them so that they, the enforcers, know how wearing them is, know how being tracked and punished for a misstep is.

It's fair the enforcers (and the indirect enforcers such as rules originators and drafters) wear the device consisting of the same regulations and punishments the students would incur. So, if an employee missteps, she, who is functioning under the same rules or ones tantamount to those of the students, would be punished how the student would be or if not the same punishment then punishment equal to it.

If employees wear the tracking devices, what would have to be known is who would be monitoring the employees and who carries out their punishments. And wouldn't those people, the ones watching the employees of the school and district, the highest on this pyramid such as the originators and drafters even if they reside in government no matter its level, have to wear them? Yes. The watchers' activities would be recorded then the people the watchers watch, those people working at the school and those working at the district office, would view the recordings and dole out the watchers' punishments. But maybe the students and their parents could watch those recordings: from highest to "lowest," everyone is watched and watches each other. This way, fairness is performed. Everyone would get screwed and a tremendous amount of time is wasted.

Regardless of the enforcer's opinion about wearing the device before or while wearing it, whoever wears it should wear it because he wants to, not because he's coerced to. This wearing, preference, should be the case because when the bringer of a rule applies the rule to someone without applying it to himself first or worse, without applying it to himself at any time, he is a hypocrite and worse, a tyrant. He is out of order, that is, out of sequence, which could and probably does mean he's out of control, control that when (functioning) out(side) of does do harm which could be to the operator only or to a person or persons besides or in addition to the operator.


One, despite the administrators and teachers are stupid or evil, or both, to track students, they are stupid or evil to subject the students to these devices instead of wearing them before the students wear them.

Two, they're stupid or evil to do so without intention of they themselves wearing it at any time.

Three, they miss its application should accord preference, a quality of individualism or at most should accord warrant, that is, someone who's committed a violation that warrants wearing the device. There's only one violation can I can fathom a tracking device would be for, extreme physical harm. Otherwise, no violation warrants this device.

THREE strikes. Whoever drafted and enforces this device has three strikes against him. He should be out! No more employment for him in that school and district or wherever he is employed. He should be a goner!

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Creator-Given Rights (age unknown)

Guaranteed by the Constitution (224 years old).

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

I understand. But saying

I understand. But saying "creator" begins debate on what is a private issue. Creator is God? Creator is Allah? Creator is Yahweh? Creator is mom and dad, so creators? See what I mean? The insertion of creator is nothing but divisive and cause for spats and quibbles, wastes of time and effort, things to not engage in, to avoid.

That's why I ask, why go that route, why even spend time on what someone puts his mind to when it affects him only, that is, when that issue is personal (read: of the person)?

My goal in this language riddle is to keep personal what is personal instead of making social what is personal. To do that retains the integrity of what is personal AND what is social. I want to locate then use the language that satisfies what's intrinsic, ensuring satisfaction for everyone in the given society.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.


Without an ultimate creator, not mom and dad, but some Deity, there can be NO such thing as rights. They are a false concept in a naturalist ideology or framework. Rights are hard enough to prove even IF a God exists. Take a deity out of the equation and say goodbye to "rights" completely.

I understand your concern about private verses public and in many situations I would heartily agree, but in this case that line can not be drawn, given that "rights" don't exist without a theistic framework. So they must be spoken of, IF we're honest, in a metaphysical way.

Nice reply. The following

Nice reply. The following sentence of yours caught me.

Rights are hard enough to prove even IF a god exists.

I disagree they're difficult to prove, but they are difficult to describe. What do you think about describing rights this way: abilities to perform without harm to someone?

That description covers the mental (read: thinking) and physical (read: acting) planes, and those two planes cover life, all life. Because of this coverage, it follows every human should promote the mind despite that one of its creations, or idas, takes the form of belief.

To attack belief is to attack the mind and to attack the mind is to enslave and kill the body.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

I think

I think your statement "abilities to perform without harm to someone?" is confusing. This has nothing to do with a description of why rights would exist and I say this for your benefit not mine. I am a believer in the existence of rights and of an almighty God, namely Jesus Christ. I was keeping my first response as secular as possible to not be too in anyone's face, I'm not looking to proselytize anyone. I'm stating what I believe to be a logical and philosophical truth.

1) in a universe created by a God, rights may exist but they are only able to be upheld in a framework of theism and God's holiness.

2) in a purely naturalistic framework, there is NO basis to "believe" in a concept such as rights. They are a false construct that people think would be cool, but they are as imaginary as a "god". Just like all concepts in a purely naturalistic worldview.

Which is why I quite like the idea of "constitutional protections" due to the fact that I believe rights exist and that we live in the first context I just outlined.

First, does your "in a

First, does your "in a universe created by a God, rights may exist but they are able to be upheld in a framework of theism and God's holiness" mean

In a universe created only by a god or God, rights exist?

In other words, does my rewrite of your sentence say what your sentence says?

If not, please help me understand "rights may exist" and "upheld in a framework of theism and God's holiness." Your use of may, do you mean might or do? From my experience writing and editing, most writers of "may" misuse it, because they meant to say might. Might: possibility. May: permission. If may, then permission from whom? And if you meant do, then say "do" because it is a different than may and might.

If yes, I ask you this question:

Does the person who doesn't believe in a god or in God have rights?

I'll reply to your second numbered point after I receive your answer to that question. I need more information to reply to it. Your two points stand alone and run on knowledge you're thinking about but didn't write, making them statements identified as assumptions, NOT premises which are statements that are close in idea conveyance to produce a conclusion. Because you made assumptions, I must request more information, missing information. Therefore, your "yes" or "no" to my question above and your explanation it should provide me information I can reply to.

As well, I welcome you to expand on your second point. Feel welcomed to explain why belief in the concept rights is without basis in nature, meaning, from what I gather, an environment without a god or God. Likely your explanation would be similar if not the same as your answer to my question above.

As for my description you quoted, I agree with you if it's read without reading my preceding comments, the exclusion of context. Of course that description derives from my first description, which I recall is in my comment your first reply was to. If my recollection is correct, you know or should know I was talking about rights being intrinsic.

On a side note, I reread my two descriptions just now and I think my first one is better than my second one and I think it's correct. Irrespective of that evaluation, one thing I said immediately after my first description, that abilities are incapable of growing in number, is wrong; my reason is a baby born ill who gets well would acquire additional abilities. So, somewhere in my description of rights would be the word standard, natural or healthy, or a combination of them.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.


As you outlined I did properly mean "might" rather than may.

Of course I believe people that don't believe in a God have rights, but it's only because he exists. Without that God, there is no way rights can exist.

People do not evolve a rights gland or have a vestigial rights organ. They are mere concepts, as is TRUTH which also breaks down without the existence of a God. But we should deal exclusively with the rights thing for now if you want to continue.

Well, Baptist, I'm exhausted

Well, Baptist, I'm exhausted talking about rights how we're talking about them. You and I are talking past each other. Your argument and my argument start from a different starting point. You, from your mind. Me, initially from the acknowledgment of the mental plane and physical plane, but now no where.

No where because I'm trying to understand what your assertion -- that rights exist only because a god made them -- connects to. As far as I see, it connects to nothing except maybe your injection of concepts. I need something to converse with you about, a basis, a set of premises if you will. Otherwise, I'm incapable of replying, let alone answering.

If you want to explain your argument, go ahead. Otherwise, I'm finished talking about it with you here. But perhaps you and I can pick up this issue elsewhere. If you reply here, I'll see you then. If not or if not here but different location on the DP, take care until then.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

If you say so

But I think you're copping out. If there is only a physical world. We have no rights. Rights are a concept and all concepts are false in a purely naturalistic of physical world. That's my point. Something like rights needs justice and justice needs ethics, good and evil and these things don't exist in the physical, naturalistic world view. That's my assertion. It's pretty simple, if you want to pretend it's complicated or ambiguous you can.

Simple solution...

Simple solution, Google "RFID Badge Blocker" This blocks the RFID and complies with the rules that you have to wear the badge.



Why is it when I hear that "solution" I think...'how republican party of you!'? lol

My point was...

My point was that no matter what they throw at you, you need to resist, neutralize and counter any ground that they gain in trying to take away your rights. Doing this makes them realize that they are wasting their time and should give up because no one will submit. Mate and checkmate.


Sorry Rick

Sorry to only reply today. The reason I made the comment I did is because the solution you propose still includes complying by wearing the badge. I said republican because it reminds me of how the republicans are 'statist lite'. In other words, suggesting neutralizing it, but still give in and 'at least' submit to wearing the badge to please the masters. That, my friend is still giving up ground. We can't do it. If we really want these jerkoffs to realize they are wasting their time these kids must refuse to wear them at all. Throw the damn things in a pile in front of administrators and piss on them.....figuratively of course.

Any form of resistance ...

Any form of resistance is a step forward. Thinking back, using the word solution was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more along the line of civil disobedience. My idea was to out smart them with their own rules so they would see that they had been neutralized and give up on the concept. Direct confrontation usually escalates the situation and someone gets hurt and or goes to jail. This young girl kind of reminds me of Dr Paul when he is the only one with principle of all the representatives that votes against a bill.



Any step of resistance is positive. I guess I am just so sick of all this crap that I want it to end totally and immediately. I hate seeing almost daily these slobs that run schools playing facist dictators.