“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits…”
It was not my plan to add more hype to an already disturbing act, but I find I need to point out a few possible reasons for what has recently taken place with the insult of anothers culture and the burning of their religious Holy Scripture.
I enjoy the privilege of having freedom of speech and being able to express my opinions uncensored and unedited–unmoderated and respect others to have that same God Given Right and firmly believe you OWN, are personally responsible for, what you say or write.
However, for me personally and morally, this right does not include doing so with malice nor at the expense of creating outrage from one person, muchless 5 Billion, and justifiable so, Islamic followers, nor extends to the detriment of others in life and death situations, such as may concern our soldiers in a war zone.
This does not mean creating laws against it, but shows that morally, some things are best left unsaid or undone, OR at the very least, not media hyped, if it could cause bodily harm to another.
Rhetoric and hate speech are fine to do if that is what a person lives for—they are easily ignored and discounted on a personal or local level, click a button, change a channel, stop participation of; but when the actions of a few extremist coupled with an agenda driven corrupted media uses it as a world wide weapon, where do we draw the line? What can be done?
Could implementing laws against harmful freedom of speech be the REAL purpose of insulting 5 Billion followers of Islam around the world?
I agree, that the actions of a FEW American’s to exercise their freedom of speech/expression of burning another Religions Holy Book here at home is 100% Constitutional but ONLY IF, in addition and in accordance with State and LOCAL CODE (Something most Americans are ignoring or failing to even consider given nothing but the media spin).
This being said though, I personally find the very thought of doing such an outrageous and hurtful act, so very disturbing and ominous, filling me with a sense of foreboding on so many levels, its hard to get my mind wrapped around it!
By that same token, I must wonder and find it odd, that for some ELUSIVE reasons, a few EXTREME points of view, were broadcast repeatedly by the main stream media, then sent around the world with up to the minute updates, which in essence rallied a WHOLE Religion against us, which has endangered not only us, but has also created more hatred for our honorable soldiers who fight on foreign ISLAMIC soil—they are the closest to the fire, least ye forget!
It is at this point in the drama, that I find, I don’t blame the extremist doing the book burning, but those who gave them one second of air time to begin with!
Funny thing, how the media works in today’s time and filters what THEY want us to feel or see–I call it selective coverage. They for the most part, can sure ignore approximately 2 million American people from all over the USA who marched on DC to protest the government corruption, yet, almost every channel was broadcasting a handful of those threatening or doing the act of, burning another Religion’s Holy Sacred Book?? Go figure?
Whose agenda does this benefit? IMO—Not that of the USA for sure. Those of the Islam faith who may have supported the USA have just been given one of the greatest insults I can think of, because IMO, that is how I would feel if it was done to me.
So this agenda in the media, who benefits from it? Who is pushing the NWO? Could the United Nations maybe somehow have a solution already worked up and ready to implement? I say stay tuned in to what takes place within the UN for what is coming!
“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.”
Can America say INTERNATIONAL LAW, governed by the UN? Because of the actions of a few, blasted in the media, do you not see what it coming?
IMO—The UN has the solution already worked out—-wait for it to be revealed soon and sanctified by our government leadership with the forfeiture of our Constitution and all the rights thereof.
Where could all of this malicious activity be leading us? Maybe a war with Iran=WWIII? From my understanding and interpretation of chapters 10-11 of Daniel, The Archangel Michael is in alliance with the King of Persia. Could the emergence of the Mahdi in the Koran, be that of Michael? Read them and decide for yourself their meaning.
With that being said, here is one more simple matter to consider while we are at it. China + Russia + Islam uniting under ONE banner, are not GOOD things for those arrogant Americans who seem to think WE are on the high road. IMO–WWIII will end with the USA, British and IsRaEl’s destruction and then the coming battle of Armageddon. Our Father in Heaven’s Will shall be done.
Dan 10:13 “I will remain WITH the Kings of Persia; 20) “I will return to fight WITH the Prince of Persia
The word “With” refers to being aligned with, going with, standing with = An Alliance, in the example above.
“Gabriel was bringer of enlightenment and God’s message and is often depicted with a vessel containing the sacred water of God’s salvation. By contrast, Michael was the instrument of God’s wrath and is often depicted with a sword and the severed heads of the Lord’s enemies.”
Below is a compelling video which I agree with.
Here is another intriguing one from the same source.
Here is one possibility to consider that could affect the USA
Clear and present danger is a term used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States, concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:
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 the United States 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.
Following Schenck v. United States, “clear and present danger” became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen’s First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a “clear and present danger”. However, the “clear and present danger” criterion of the Schenck decision was later modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio, and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an imminent lawless action.
The vast majority of legal scholars have concluded that in writing the Schenck opinion Justice Holmes never meant to replace the “bad tendency” test which had been established in the 1868 English case R. v. Hicklin and incorporated into American jurisprudence in the 1904 Supreme Court case U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams. This is demonstrated by the use of the word “tendency” in Schenck itself, a paragraph in Schenck explaining that the success of speech in causing the actual harm was not a prerequisite for conviction, and use of the bad-tendency test in the simultaneous Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States decisions (both of which cite Schenck without using the words “clear and present danger”).
However, a subsequent essay by Zechariah Chafee entitled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” argued despite context that Holmes had intended to substitute clear and present danger for the bad-tendency standard a more protective standard of free speech. Bad tendency was a far more ambiguous standard where speech could be punished even in the absence of identifiable danger, and as such was strongly opposed by the fledgling ACLU and other libertarians of the time.
Having read Chafee’s article, Holmes decided to retroactively reinterpret what he had meant by “clear and present danger” and accepted Chafee’s characterization of the new test in his dissent in Abrams v. United States just six months after Schenck. Significantly unlike Abrams, the cases of Schenck, Frohwerk, and Debs had all produced unanimous decisions. Justice Brandeis soon began citing the “clear and present danger” test in his concurrences, but the new standard was not accepted by the full court until its official adoption in Brandenburg v. Ohio fifty years later.
Here are a few to consider along with a few from the United Nations
“The United Nations is the centre of the world’s efforts to advance mutual respect, understanding and dialogue. We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists on different sides with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict.”