Defend Free Speech, Societal change must start with Atheist Marxist hijacked educational systems.
Mark Lowry
August 13, 2007
Everyone has a right to express their thoughts in a manner they choose. The problem arises when speech expressed is incendiary and promoting lawless acts that finally occur. Current interpretation of the first amendment uses the test defined by the Supreme Court back in the tumultuous 60's. Liberals seemed to think the test of shouting fire in a theater was too strict a limitation. The Supreme Court then came up with the concept of:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “Imminent Lawless action” is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The decision overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the Imminent Lawless Action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment. If it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law cane be reasonably summoned. The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, “imminent lawless action” Such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2006, "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.”
The test applied relates to the word "imminent." I don't know of the legal definition of imminent under this ruling except for what it says in defining the time to get a cop to the scene, but the Google dictionary defines it as follows:
Synonyms 1. near, at hand. Imminent, Impending, Threatening all may carry the implication of menace, misfortune, disaster, but they do so in differing degrees. Imminent may portend evil: an imminent catastrophe, but also may mean simply “about to happen.”
It appears the definition used by the courts refers to an immediate threat of lawless action in such a short period of time that a law enforcement officer can not be summoned to prevent the lawless act.
If the use of pornography or profane words, result in lawless acts, like child pornography or molestation for instance at a much later time, those words are protected speech it seems. There must be a direct causal link between the speech and ensuing lawless action.
Speech is protected but hurtful behavior is not. Our forefathers and courts have widely held that freedom of speech is freedom of thought and expression. Criminal acts were delegated to those crimes of action and behavior not thought.
There has never been a reliable test to define words that are prohibited by any measure under freedom of speech except as defined by our Supreme Court. It is generally not considered free speech if the speech hurts another.
The problem of wide spread pornography, child abuse, profanity, and a general disregard and respect for others arises not from freedom of speech as much as it arises from the problem of government control over education of our children in public schools. Schools have changed their mission of education and replaced it with a mission of indoctrination. They introduced the religion of Humanism to replace any socialization by the family. The new school of thought is that each individual child must be stripped of their belief system so they can be indoctrinated with the atheistic communist Humanist religion.
That belief system has destroyed the concept of morality and decency in our nation. It can not be restored by destroying liberties guaranteed by the constitution. We must reverse the process that brought us to this sad state of affairs.
Auguste Comte religion in government Religion of Humanity. 1910 WERNER ENCYCLOPEDIA (American edition of BRITANNICA). March 10, 2007 News With Views.com http://www.newswithviews.com/Erica/Carle31.htm
Comte (1798-1857) was a brilliant French mathematician/philosopher. He had one main ambition which was to remake the world according to his plan. He devoted his entire intellectual life to constructing a philosophical system and plan which could be used to take total control over all the people of the world for all time. Existing religions, governments and systems would be eliminated, and people would be changed so they could be made to adapt to Comte's world communist system,
First Comte arranged all the sciences according to what he believed to be their relative importance and stage of development. Above all the sciences and directing all human activities was to be Comte's new science, sociology, or social science. Replacing and uniting all religions was to be Comte's new religion, the Religion of Humanity or as his early teacher Saint Simon had termed it, Humanitarianism. Comte appointed himself the first High Priest of Humanity. The High Priest would dictate the moral precepts, medical policies and education, but have no other part in governing. Nation states would be replaced by a permanent communist world government.
Comte: “In the name of the Past and of the Future, the servants of Humanity--both its philosophical and its practical servants--come forward to claim as their due the general direction of this world. Their object is to constitute at length a real Providence in all departments, -- moral, intellectual, and material. Consequently they exclude once and for all from political supremacy all the different servants of God--Catholic, Protestant, or Deist--as being at once behindhand and a cause of disturbance.”
Our corrupt Marxist government has eliminated religious values that were the basis for not only our constitution but our laws. This has been a slow but steady process but never ending. Once the basis for our laws was eliminated from the school system it was a short trip to general societal diminished values and respect for our rule of law.
Benjamin Franklin propaganda “Half a truth is often a great lie.”
Josef Stalin, in a 1934-Jul-23 interview “Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”
(V.I.) Lenin propaganda "give me just one generation of youth and I'll transform the whole world."
Communist Party USA Propaganda In 1932 William Z. Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party USA wrote a book entitled, "Toward a Soviet America" in which the first thing that he called for was a U. S Department of education and much more Marxism. All of this doctrine has been enacted and established by the unconstitutional and illegal Federal Dept of Education. Page 19, Charlotte Iserbyt's book, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America". We in the Constitution Committee US have been on this case since 1997 with some modest success. We would appreciate some allies. Lee Coleman, Founder and Chairman
National Education system CHARLES A. ELLWOOD (1923) one world order propaganda “If it were possible to control the learning of all individuals, in the way both of ideas and of emotional attitudes, as they come on the stage of life, it would be possible to modify the whole complex of our social life, or our civilization, within the comparatively short space of one or two generations.”
National Education system Benjamin Bloom propaganda 1964 one world order Author -Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II is published states: "… a large part of what we call ‘good teaching’ is the teacher’s ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students’ fixed beliefs." His Outcome-Based Education (OBE) method of teaching would first be tried as Mastery Learning in Chicago schools. After five years, Chicago students’ test scores had plummeted causing outrage among parents. OBE would leave a trail of wreckage wherever it would be tried and under whatever name it would be used. At the same time, it would become crucial to globalists for overhauling the world order.
National Education system Helen Cordes propaganda “A troubling number of teachers at all levels regard the bulk of American history and heritage as racist, sexist, and classist, and believe their purpose is to bring about social change...” - Utne Reader, July-August '91, p.52 excerpted from TIME magazine
National Education system Rockefeller Foundation on Education 1987 —one world order The Secret Constitution and Need for Constitutional Change is sponsored in part by the Rockefeller Foundation. Some thoughts of author Arthur S. Miller are:"… a pervasive system of thought control exists in the United States… the citizenry is indoctrinated by employment of the mass media and the system of public education… people are told what to think about… the old order is crumbling… Nationalism should be seen as a dangerous social disease… A new vision is required to plan and manage the future, a global vision that will transcend national boundaries and eliminate the poison of nationalistic solutions… a new Constitution is necessary."
Given that environment our corrupt Marxist government, under the objective of one world government, has in turn made it illegal in most instances to object to “educational” indoctrination. If one wants to change what you see and hear in the music industry, you must change what our children have seen and heard in their school indoctrination programs.
This critical issue must be addressed from a logical and well formed basis in law that assures we don’t infringe on sacred God given inalienable liberties necessary for a free society.
We can never go down the slippery slope of infringement on freedom of speech based on group judgment of what is and is not "offensive." We can however define what we want in our educational systems to assure our children are not indoctrinated with "belief" systems taught by liberal Marxist school overseers. We must take the federal government out of the school systems and let the control return to the local communities.
Hate Speech Legislation, the Fairness Doctrine, The Communications Decency Act, were all measures defined to restrict freedom of speech and are all ideas that have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Founding fathers and our courts have debated this issue for the last 200 years and came to the conclusion it was better to not infringe on freedom of speech lest we endanger the other liberties we enjoy. Those people were a lot smarter than many debating this issue about how to set up any set of laws that insure happiness of a particular society.
One of the issues founding fathers failed to recognize however is adverse affects of “diversity” on our nation. The “salad bowl” with multiple different belief systems can not be combined under one set of laws unless those other societies melt into and assimilate into the basic American belief system and our constitutional republic. Those founding fathers recognized the need for the melting pot to assure all Americans shared the same values and the same support for the laws of the nation that were derived from that set of values.
American patriots must occasionally test limits of those freedoms to assure they remain. It is prudent for all American Patriots to test those limits. The bigger the threat against our liberty the more we must push the issue. If hate speech becomes the law, we must push the limits of the constitution. All Patriots must reject any encroachment on our freedoms.
Alexander Hamilton rule of law “If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” —Alexander Hamilton
John C. Calhoun rule of law "The government of the absolute majority is but the government of the strongest interests; and when not effectively checked, is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised. [To read the Constitution is to realize that] no free system was ever farther removed from the principle that the absolute majority, without check or limitation, ought to govern." -- John C. Calhoun - (1782-1850) American statesman
John Jay, our first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Rule of law "Any law that is repugnant to our constitution is no law at all."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr rule of law free speech, “The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think.”
William O. Douglas Justice rule of law Free speech “The great and invigorating influences in American life have been the unorthodox: the people who challenge an existing institution or way of life, or say and do things that make people think.”
William O. Douglas Justice Supreme Court rule of law "The liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected."
We the people can never destroy our individual freedoms to provide controls necessary to defeat the menace that has destroyed our schools. We need to attack the cause and not symptoms of the profane and pornographic world our country has become. We can never destroy our freedoms and accomplish that objective.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “Imminent Lawless action” is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The decision overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the Imminent Lawless Action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment. If it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law cane be reasonably summoned. The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, “imminent lawless action” Such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2006, "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.”
The test applied relates to the word "imminent." I don't know of the legal definition of imminent under this ruling except for what it says in defining the time to get a cop to the scene, but the Google dictionary defines it as follows:
Synonyms 1. near, at hand. Imminent, Impending, Threatening all may carry the implication of menace, misfortune, disaster, but they do so in differing degrees. Imminent may portend evil: an imminent catastrophe, but also may mean simply “about to happen.”
It appears the definition used by the courts refers to an immediate threat of lawless action in such a short period of time that a law enforcement officer can not be summoned to prevent the lawless act.
If the use of pornography or profane words, result in lawless acts, like child pornography or molestation for instance at a much later time, those words are protected speech it seems. There must be a direct causal link between the speech and ensuing lawless action.
Speech is protected but hurtful behavior is not. Our forefathers and courts have widely held that freedom of speech is freedom of thought and expression. Criminal acts were delegated to those crimes of action and behavior not thought.
There has never been a reliable test to define words that are prohibited by any measure under freedom of speech except as defined by our Supreme Court. It is generally not considered free speech if the speech hurts another.
The problem of wide spread pornography, child abuse, profanity, and a general disregard and respect for others arises not from freedom of speech as much as it arises from the problem of government control over education of our children in public schools. Schools have changed their mission of education and replaced it with a mission of indoctrination. They introduced the religion of Humanism to replace any socialization by the family. The new school of thought is that each individual child must be stripped of their belief system so they can be indoctrinated with the atheistic communist Humanist religion.
That belief system has destroyed the concept of morality and decency in our nation. It can not be restored by destroying liberties guaranteed by the constitution. We must reverse the process that brought us to this sad state of affairs.
Auguste Comte religion in government Religion of Humanity. 1910 WERNER ENCYCLOPEDIA (American edition of BRITANNICA). March 10, 2007 News With Views.com http://www.newswithviews.com/Erica/Carle31.htm
Comte (1798-1857) was a brilliant French mathematician/philosopher. He had one main ambition which was to remake the world according to his plan. He devoted his entire intellectual life to constructing a philosophical system and plan which could be used to take total control over all the people of the world for all time. Existing religions, governments and systems would be eliminated, and people would be changed so they could be made to adapt to Comte's world communist system,
First Comte arranged all the sciences according to what he believed to be their relative importance and stage of development. Above all the sciences and directing all human activities was to be Comte's new science, sociology, or social science. Replacing and uniting all religions was to be Comte's new religion, the Religion of Humanity or as his early teacher Saint Simon had termed it, Humanitarianism. Comte appointed himself the first High Priest of Humanity. The High Priest would dictate the moral precepts, medical policies and education, but have no other part in governing. Nation states would be replaced by a permanent communist world government.
Comte: “In the name of the Past and of the Future, the servants of Humanity--both its philosophical and its practical servants--come forward to claim as their due the general direction of this world. Their object is to constitute at length a real Providence in all departments, -- moral, intellectual, and material. Consequently they exclude once and for all from political supremacy all the different servants of God--Catholic, Protestant, or Deist--as being at once behindhand and a cause of disturbance.”
Our corrupt Marxist government has eliminated religious values that were the basis for not only our constitution but our laws. This has been a slow but steady process but never ending. Once the basis for our laws was eliminated from the school system it was a short trip to general societal diminished values and respect for our rule of law.
Benjamin Franklin propaganda “Half a truth is often a great lie.”
Josef Stalin, in a 1934-Jul-23 interview “Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”
(V.I.) Lenin propaganda "give me just one generation of youth and I'll transform the whole world."
Communist Party USA Propaganda In 1932 William Z. Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party USA wrote a book entitled, "Toward a Soviet America" in which the first thing that he called for was a U. S Department of education and much more Marxism. All of this doctrine has been enacted and established by the unconstitutional and illegal Federal Dept of Education. Page 19, Charlotte Iserbyt's book, "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America". We in the Constitution Committee US have been on this case since 1997 with some modest success. We would appreciate some allies. Lee Coleman, Founder and Chairman
National Education system CHARLES A. ELLWOOD (1923) one world order propaganda “If it were possible to control the learning of all individuals, in the way both of ideas and of emotional attitudes, as they come on the stage of life, it would be possible to modify the whole complex of our social life, or our civilization, within the comparatively short space of one or two generations.”
National Education system Benjamin Bloom propaganda 1964 one world order Author -Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II is published states: "… a large part of what we call ‘good teaching’ is the teacher’s ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students’ fixed beliefs." His Outcome-Based Education (OBE) method of teaching would first be tried as Mastery Learning in Chicago schools. After five years, Chicago students’ test scores had plummeted causing outrage among parents. OBE would leave a trail of wreckage wherever it would be tried and under whatever name it would be used. At the same time, it would become crucial to globalists for overhauling the world order.
National Education system Helen Cordes propaganda “A troubling number of teachers at all levels regard the bulk of American history and heritage as racist, sexist, and classist, and believe their purpose is to bring about social change...” - Utne Reader, July-August '91, p.52 excerpted from TIME magazine
National Education system Rockefeller Foundation on Education 1987 —one world order The Secret Constitution and Need for Constitutional Change is sponsored in part by the Rockefeller Foundation. Some thoughts of author Arthur S. Miller are:"… a pervasive system of thought control exists in the United States… the citizenry is indoctrinated by employment of the mass media and the system of public education… people are told what to think about… the old order is crumbling… Nationalism should be seen as a dangerous social disease… A new vision is required to plan and manage the future, a global vision that will transcend national boundaries and eliminate the poison of nationalistic solutions… a new Constitution is necessary."
Given that environment our corrupt Marxist government, under the objective of one world government, has in turn made it illegal in most instances to object to “educational” indoctrination. If one wants to change what you see and hear in the music industry, you must change what our children have seen and heard in their school indoctrination programs.
This critical issue must be addressed from a logical and well formed basis in law that assures we don’t infringe on sacred God given inalienable liberties necessary for a free society.
We can never go down the slippery slope of infringement on freedom of speech based on group judgment of what is and is not "offensive." We can however define what we want in our educational systems to assure our children are not indoctrinated with "belief" systems taught by liberal Marxist school overseers. We must take the federal government out of the school systems and let the control return to the local communities.
Hate Speech Legislation, the Fairness Doctrine, The Communications Decency Act, were all measures defined to restrict freedom of speech and are all ideas that have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Founding fathers and our courts have debated this issue for the last 200 years and came to the conclusion it was better to not infringe on freedom of speech lest we endanger the other liberties we enjoy. Those people were a lot smarter than many debating this issue about how to set up any set of laws that insure happiness of a particular society.
One of the issues founding fathers failed to recognize however is adverse affects of “diversity” on our nation. The “salad bowl” with multiple different belief systems can not be combined under one set of laws unless those other societies melt into and assimilate into the basic American belief system and our constitutional republic. Those founding fathers recognized the need for the melting pot to assure all Americans shared the same values and the same support for the laws of the nation that were derived from that set of values.
American patriots must occasionally test limits of those freedoms to assure they remain. It is prudent for all American Patriots to test those limits. The bigger the threat against our liberty the more we must push the issue. If hate speech becomes the law, we must push the limits of the constitution. All Patriots must reject any encroachment on our freedoms.
Alexander Hamilton rule of law “If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” —Alexander Hamilton
John C. Calhoun rule of law "The government of the absolute majority is but the government of the strongest interests; and when not effectively checked, is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised. [To read the Constitution is to realize that] no free system was ever farther removed from the principle that the absolute majority, without check or limitation, ought to govern." -- John C. Calhoun - (1782-1850) American statesman
John Jay, our first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Rule of law "Any law that is repugnant to our constitution is no law at all."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr rule of law free speech, “The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think.”
William O. Douglas Justice rule of law Free speech “The great and invigorating influences in American life have been the unorthodox: the people who challenge an existing institution or way of life, or say and do things that make people think.”
William O. Douglas Justice Supreme Court rule of law "The liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected."
We the people can never destroy our individual freedoms to provide controls necessary to defeat the menace that has destroyed our schools. We need to attack the cause and not symptoms of the profane and pornographic world our country has become. We can never destroy our freedoms and accomplish that objective.
Print
Email
