|
Posted on 06/27/2020 8:59:12 AM PDT by ransomnote
Q is the result of the sacrifices and commitment of countless patriots to win back our captured country from the Deep State and achieve the transformation President Trump promised in this campaign video. President Trump has said the awakening of the public is key to this transformation.
Q describes this awakening as follows:
"The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment).When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone.
Trust and put faith in yourself.
You are not alone and you are not in the minority.
Difficult truths will soon see the light of day.
WWG1WGA!!!" ~ Q (#3038)
We discuss Q drop content on our threads to learn the truth about the capture of our country, after a lifetime of reading, watching and listening to lies and distortions used to control us and tame the American spirit. The truth shall set us free.
For summaries of Q drops (i.e., posts) discussed on our threads, I invite you to read the latest editions of The Oracle, which include helpful links and quotes to explain Q drop content.
Q drops can be found here in their original format.
Links to our Q threads, and Q drops posted on our threads, are listed in this table.
The video, Qanon is 100% coming from the Trump Administration, is just one of many excellent responses to the all-important question, "Whom does Q serve?" Another excellent source for identifying Q's involvement with President Trump is found at the website titled Qproofs.com.
Q Boot Camp is a quick, condensed way to learn the background and basics about the Q movement.
Q has reminded us repeatedly that together, we are strong. As the false "narrative" is destroyed and the divisive machinery put in place by the Deep State fails, the fact that patriotism has no skin color or political party is exposed for all to see.
In the battle between Good and Evil, we can't afford to let false divisions separate us any longer. The changes heading our way and the information revealed will, at times, be very difficult to face, but we will face it together. We, and our country, will be forever made stronger for having reclaimed the truth and freedom of thought.
Where We Go 1, We Go All
Note: Links in the post above are included in a resource table linked in Post #2 below, along with many additional excellent links to the best Q analysts and information sources we've identified.
At least Burr is no longer the chairman of the Senate Intel Committee (and, therefore, not in the “Gang of Eight”)
Haven’t heard much about the concealed carry guy that shot an antifa guy that was trying to beat him with a skateboard while the antifa lackeys were yelling “kill him”.
I think the concealed carry guy was let off. But the guy he shot???
If the SCOTUS rules that Trump can use the money, does the 9th circuit actually think they can over rule the SCOTUS or is this a different money matter?
If enough people called CVS and asked for tests, then the number of “cases” would become statistically impossible, and the gig would be up.
Tomorrow is my birthday - 39 {sort of, like Jack Benny}. Hanging in there.
“Clear and present danger” - quick search results, this seems relevant in the Q usage of this phrase.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test
Clear and Present Danger Test
By Richard Parker
Early in the 20th century, the Supreme Court established the clear and present danger test as the predominant standard for determining when speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The Court crafted the test — and the bad tendency test, with which it is often conflated or contrasted — in cases involving seditious libels, that is, criticisms of the government, its officials, or its policies. It would be superseded by the imminent lawless action test in the late 1960s.
Holmes introduces idea of clear and present danger test
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the classic statement of the clear and present danger test in Schenck v. United States (1919): “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”
In Schenck, Justice Holmes clearly distinguished the clear and present danger test from the bad tendency test — which was predominant in English common law and would be articulated in Gitlow v. New York (1925) — when he stated that “in time of peace,” the pamphleteer and co-defendants “would have been within their constitutional rights.”
Distinction from bad tendency test
The bad tendency test provides that when the facts of a case indicate that the communicator intended a result that the state has prohibited, the court may reasonably assume that the communication has a tendency to produce that result.
Furthermore, on the basis of that tendency, the court may punish the communicator for violation of the law. For example, if a pamphleteer urges conscripts to resist military conscription, and if a law criminalizes noncompliance, judges may rightfully conclude that the pamphlet has a tendency to encourage violations of the law and therefore convict the pamphleteer.
In contrast to the clear and present danger test, the bad tendency test proposes no distinction based upon circumstances. The Supreme Court observed in Gitlow, “Freedom of speech and press . . . does not protect publications or teachings which tend to subvert or imperil the government or to impede or hinder it in the performance of its governmental duties” (italics added). The bad tendency test protects only innocuous speech; it criminalizes all seditious libels.
Holmes dissent says imminent danger must be present
Justice Holmes ultimately found the clear and present danger test as articulated in Schenck insufficient to protect basic constitutional rights. Thus, in his dissent later in the year in Abrams v. United States (1919) he wrote that “we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions . . . unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purpose of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Thus, he elevated the danger requirement from “clear” to “imminent” interference with legal action.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis further elaborated upon the test in his concurring opinion (which Holmes joined) in Whitney v. California (1927), when he argued that the “evil apprehended” as a result of expression should be “so substantial as to justify the stringent restriction apprehended by the legislature.”
Adoption of clear and present danger test
The clear and present danger test was not accepted by a majority of the Supreme Court until Herndon v. Lowry (1937), when Justice Owen J. Roberts invoked it while rejecting the bad tendency test as an appropriate standard for identifying the protections of the First Amendment.
From 1940 to 1951, the Court employed the clear and present danger test to decide 12 cases.
In American Communications Association v. Douds (1950), however, the Court had begun to switch gears when it assessed the constitutionality of a statute aimed not at political expression but at political strikes in the communications industry.
For the majority, Chief Justice Frederick M. Vinson wrote, “When the effect of a statute or ordinance upon the exercise of First Amendment freedoms is relatively small and the public interest to be protected is substantial, it is obvious that a rigid test requiring a showing of imminent danger to the security of the Nation is an absurdity.”
“Gravity of evil” introduced as a balance test
Vinson then reconstructed the clear and present danger test: “[N]ot the relative certainty that evil conduct will result from speech in the immediate future, but the extent and gravity of the substantive evil must be measured by the test laid down in the Schenck case.”
Judge Learned Hand of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals adapted the Vinson revision in United States v. Dennis (1950): “Clear and present danger depends upon whether the mischief of the repression is greater than the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability.” Vinson embraced this rephrasing when Dennis was appealed to the Supreme Court in Dennis v. United States (1951).
Professor Samuel Krislov wrote that the clear and present danger standard had been transformed into a balancing test, “so completely blurred” that it served only to provide “apologetic acceptance of all legislative action” (p. 88).
Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas agreed.
When Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), reached the Court, Black demanded that Justice Abe Fortas remove all references to the test from his draft opinion for a unanimous Court. Fortas refused, but resigned from the Court before the announcement of the decision in Brandenburg.
“Imminent lawless action” test supplants “clear and present danger” test
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. redrafted the per curiam opinion, substituting for clear and present danger a new standard (Schwartz 1995: 27): “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
The imminent lawless action test has largely supplanted the clear and present danger test. The clear and present danger remains, however, the standard for assessing constitutional protection for speech in the military courts.
Q has said 99% are good, 1% bad. Trump has gotten who he wanted in charge of the DoJ and FBI, they’re doing their jobs well or they’d be out.
That is great!
Parler doesnt require ID. That is only if you want a “verfied” account.
I heard all charges were dropped. Then I read something a few days ago that he had been arrested. So I do not know current status; second article had his name and I should have copied so I could check. I would like to know. I do not think the thug he shot died, fortunately for the shooter. BUt I could be wrong. If you find out anything, please post and let me know. I’ll do the same.
No. Value to the derps. Think sheep to be shorn. Cattle to be butchered.
G’Day, Bob! I hope things working a bit better.
“THIS REPRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
“How do we fix that? Can we fix that?”
Trust the plan. This has all been gamed out with solutions (probably multiple solutions) for each of these seemingly insolvable issues. Q would not make the statement without a plan to resolve it.
WE can’t FIX this. All we can continue to do is support Q, Q+, etc, and red-pill the daylights out of our friends, family and social media cohorts by pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the media. Their destruction is complete when no one believes them.
We may not make it all the way there, but there will be a point where they turn to save themselves. But there will always be 20% who won’t/can’t change - both from media and the public.
Report: Leader of Group Handling “BLM Fundraising” is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC (source could use confirmation)
https://www.waynedupree.com/2020/06/susan-rosenberg-terrorist-black-lives-matter/
But it DOES require a phone number.
Holmes introduces idea of clear and present danger test
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the classic statement of the clear and present danger test in Schenck v. United States (1919): “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”
“Imminent lawless action” test supplants “clear and present danger” test
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. redrafted the per curiam opinion, substituting for clear and present danger a new standard (Schwartz 1995: 27): “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The imminent lawless action test has largely supplanted the clear and present danger test. The clear and present danger remains, however, the standard for assessing constitutional protection for speech in the military courts.
Adrenochrome
Everyone should check the SpunQ thread with many, many Q proofs. Too many graphics for me to want to try to copy now. Looks as though Q may be made much more public soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
