Title: Security Stops Middle Schoolers From Singing The National Anthem At 9/11 Memorial Source:
From The Trenches/Daily Sheeple URL Source:http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo ... -anthem-at-911-memorial/158950 Published:Apr 27, 2016 Author:Melissa Dykes Post Date:2016-04-27 08:49:58 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:12761 Comments:70
This is the epitome of modern Orwellian America.
A group of 51 middle schoolers from North Carolina traveled all the way to the 9/11 memorial and decided to sing the national anthem.
They were stopped — from singing the national anthem at the 9/11 memorial — halfway through by 9/11 memorial security because, well, it seems they didn’t have the proper permit.
“You have to stop. This is considered a public demonstration!” one of the guards of one of Disneyland of American false flag monuments with a $60 million/year operating budget shouted at kids who don’t understand how misplaced their patriotism has become in modern America.
Even though the teacher had previously asked a security guard for verbal permission, that was not good enough. The teacher was supposed to apply for a permit, pay $35 in fees, and wait the requisite ten days so the kids would be granted the permission by the memorial staff to sing the national anthem.
The punchline?
Waynesville Middle School principal Trevor Putnam reportedly said the whole incident was a great lesson in civics, NOT because they could have discussed the First Amendment or destruction of the Bill of Rights, but then he could ask the kids “Why are there limits put in place in public forums?”
Melissa Dykes is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheepleand a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!
#1. To: Gatlin, misterwhite, Roscoe, GrandIsland (#0)
A group of 51 middle schoolers from North Carolina traveled all the way to the 9/11 memorial and decided to sing the national anthem.
They were stopped — from singing the national anthem at the 9/11 memorial — halfway through by 9/11 memorial security because, well, it seems they didn’t have the proper permit.
#16. To: Gatlin, the liar, Satanic preacher, Romans 13 1-7, Deckard (#11)
Do you consider quoting the Bible to be nonsense?
Misquoting the bible is worse than mere nonsense. Romans 13 refers to "legitimate" government and "law(s)" only. Since you don't understand the difference between good and evil government, you'll never "get it".
If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."
Powers Not Ordained By God
Romans 13 is probably the most devastating thing to a Christian in the hands of the ungodly. It sounds so convincing to obey those who appear to be in power. For too long, secular governments have used Romans 13 as a club to beat Christians into obedience to them. Just because a group maintains power through their guns and jails, does not mean God put them there.
God said there are powers not ordained by Him at Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."
God didn't put them in power over the righteous. That's Satan's idea. The righteous don't need worldly, filthy authorities, which are no authorities at all. Do you think that they can instruct the righteous? They themselves steal. They themselves are perverts. And they presume to instruct the righteous? I don't think so.
#55. To: A K A Stone, GrandIsland, pinguinite, vicomte13 (#53)(Edited)
Seems to me that Romans 13 lays out the legitimate functions of government. Anything else maybe isn't legitimate government.
Paul lays it out this way:
“First (13:1) Paul states that every person is to be subject to the governing authorities, because God is the sovereign who ordains all human governments. Then (13:2) he draws the implication: If you resist government authority, which God has established, you are opposing God Himself and you’ll come under judgment. Then (13:3-4) Paul explains that the purpose of civil government is to protect law-abiding citizens and punish law-breakers. As such, the government is acting as a minister of God in avenging wrong. Thus (13:5) there are two reasons to be in subjection to the government: Fear of punishment and conscience before God, who has ordained the government. Finally (13:6-7), Paul applies it by showing why we should pay taxes, namely, because government officials are servants of God. Thus they deserve our taxes as well as our respect.”
Nowhere do I find where Paul said one could pick and choose which laws they want to follow or disobey, with one exception. He did say that you could resist government authority and the law could be disobeyed if they did not follow God’s law. Am I right on wrong on this?
Paul doesn’t go into specifics and what he does not say, and I think we all believe … is that if the government officials who are servants of God screw things up, then they should be removed from office. I fully expect that removal will start from the top down under Trump. GO TRUMP!!!
Nowhere do I find where Paul said one could pick and choose which laws they want to follow or disobey,
Wasn't it the law in Nazi Germany that Jews had to be gassed.
Just following orders.
I will only take one of these, all others have the same relative answer.
Paul said that if the law (orders) conflicted with God's law, then it should not be obeyed.
The law (order) should not have been followed by Christians ...
The “I was just following orders” defense to charges of military atrocity and human rights violations were rejected in the Nuremberg trals, held by the Allies after WWII. This was a landmark decision in international law, as the denial of the superior orders defense confirms that responsibility runs to the individual even when the individual was acting on their orders.
I didn't read the last part of your original quote. Ok.
It was still a work in progress and I made an add on while I was thinking about it. Sorry if I messed you up.
I don't believe we are apart on this. I say that if "it" violates God's law, then don't do it. If it doesn't violate God's law and you don't like it, then it is your personal choice to violate the law (as in civil disobedience) but be prepared to accept the consequences.
How far one will go for a principle is a personal choice.
