Clear and Present Danger Clear and present danger Interestingly, last night on Hannity, introducing Lindsey Graham, he asked the senator, whether news about the abuse of power and the way the media was hyping it, did constitute a clear and present danger to the Reppublic, the rule of Law. Go here: https://topnewsshow.com/hannity-5-7-20-fox-news/   FF to 29:00 (as a sidenote: Note LG rejection of that notion and totally redirecting the attention away from the question: Grenell forced Schifft, hahahaha) Q wrote 5 posts on this topics of clear and present danger. Q: 3905, 3858, 3749, 3721, 617 The posts can be divided into two groups: 617 for the good guys, 3905 - 3721 for the bad guys.  Q617: Select news members / journalists are vital to delivering the message (as are YOU). Imagine if these people were removed. Total control re: MSM. They represent a clear and present danger to the enemy. Q responded to a question of an anon: Form 1649 false imprisonment. Was Hannity sending out a sos? Now reread Q's answer.  With all critique one could rightly have on this man, he actually plays an important role, just as we do. And I do recognize, he shafted Dr Paul, played cheerleader for Romney, offered his apologies only a few months ago. But he knows the kind of role he is playing in this Plan. I would just like to say on this topic: let's be conscious about the True Scottsman argument.  When Q says logical thinking, we need to be aware of the Logical fallacies 101. If you are not familiar, please, take the time to do so. I permit myself to send you an accompanying advice:  -1. if you are so inclined, retreat and reflect on your own responses and reasoning, in light of LF101.  -2. if you are so inclined, have an honest discussion with your friends, or trusted advisor.  -3. Do not shy away, commit to it. you will emerge stronger, sharper, more compassionate from it.  Laying the groundwork as such, the other posts merely reflect the instances in which our ability of logical thinking comes into play, where we have to exercise fortitude, courage, wisdom and fairness.  Do people [human psyche] tend to follow the ‘majority/mainstream viewpoint’ in fear of being isolated and/or shunned? We have probably all seen examples of this. It starts with ridicule, then resistance and trying to besmurch you and outright intent on destroying you (Shelley Luther) (by the way, don't you find it interesting that this is the third Luther standing up of freedom?) In Germany, thousands are on the streets protesting the apparent process of losing freedom and bringing in mandatory vaccinations throught the backdoor.  In the Netherlands, it is a small group now active, but damn, the many who simply ridicule and play down what is at stake! Do they count on the fact that people [human psyche] are more prone to believe something if heard over-and-over again by different ‘trusted’ sources?  So, maybe, we can learn something here. If we want to convince (note the meaning of the word)people, perhaps our first hurdle is to appeat legit, trustworthy. Accepting what someone is saying is much like a business deal. And when a take-out is dirty, would you order your food there?  And then something else: Repetition from different corners. Slogans, headlines, buzzwords. (yeah I know, we'd rather break the programming, but given my experiences with releasing bonds from cult mentality, appeal and trust goes a long way) They want you divided. Exactly, this ties in with our views of Sean Hannity. I guess we should give the man some love.  When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those ‘different’ from you, not those responsible [controllers]. Aha .... we need to keep our eyes on the ball. For whom do we then reserve our anger? From whom do we wish to divide?  authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.  THIS REPRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This is my executive ORDER! OBEY!Or be fined, or have your arse pulled off to jail.  Having said this, now on the topic itself of the clear and present danger doctrine.  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Present+Danger This is an interesting exposé, as it shows the historical development and changes to the application of this doctrine, to wit: proving and perceiving are two different things. Q laid out a good provable case, has he not? But be mindful of how it is applied in your State.