Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Identifying Tyrants Not Just By Actions But By Words They Use

Written by:

Published on: February 9, 2022

Tyrants are not only identified by their actions and deeds; they are also identified by the words they use and misuse. By examining the words used and misused, it allows one to gain an insight into their thinking process.

Take the words of Diana Deans, chair of the board of the Ottawa City Council, as an example.

Blacklisted News reported on an article from ZeroHedge.

We are on day eight of this occupation. Our city is under siege. What we’re seeing is bigger than just a City of Ottawa problem. This is a nationwide insurrection. This is madness. We need a concrete plan to put an end to this.”

As people from all over Canada have gathered in Ottawa in support of what started out as a Freedom Convoy of truckers to protest in peaceful assembly against the lawlessness of the civil government there, petitioning for a redress of grievances, Diana Deans has used language inappropriately to label the people as something they are not.

Deans called the lawful assembly of people petitioning government for a redress of grievances an “occupation.” According to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, occupation is defined as “the act of taking possession; possession; a holding or keeping; tenure; ….” The people have every right and authority to gather on the very streets and sidewalks their taxes support for as long as the people deem is necessary to have their grievances addressed. In this case, it is lawlessness of the civil authorities in making pretend law and having that pretend law enforced by their agents of the State.

She also referred to the city as under “siege”. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines siege as “The setting of an army around or before a fortified place for the purpose of compelling the garrison to surrender; or the surrounding or investing of a place by an army, and approaching it by passages and advanced works, which cover the besiegers from the enemy’s fire. A siege differs from a blockade, as in a siege the investing army approaches the fortified place to attach and reduce it by force; but in a blockade, the army secures all the avenues to the place to intercept all supplies, and waits till famine compels the garrison to surrender.” It also defined as “any continued endeavor to gain possession.”

Can you really define this assembly of the people an “army”? Not hardly. Can anyone really say “parliament”, a place built by the people, with their money, is a “fortified place”? It shouldn’t be since it is a place for the representatives of the people, the people’s servants, to convene to enact just and righteous legislation. The people are not present in an endeavor to gain possession. They are there to oppose lawlessness – mandates the servants have zero authority to enact – and call the servants to repentance – refrain from violating the law.

Deans, then, called this gathering a nationwide “insurrection”; but, is it? Again, Webster’s 1828 dictionary provides a clear definition of insurrection – “A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.”

Are the people rising against civil or political authority? Yes, they are; but, it is not because the civil and political authority are acting lawfully. The civil and political authority have engaged in lawlessness, executing dictatorial edicts with no basis in law and no lawful legislation to enforce.

Armed with these definitions from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, who then are the occupiers, the besiegers, and the insurrectionists? Hint – it’s not the assembled people standing against lawlessness.

The Ottawa chief of police, Peter Stoly, agreed with Deans’ assessment of the situation also calling the assemble of the people a “siege.” Stoly then decried the “lack of legal authority” to disperse protestors. A siege is a lot different than a protest – peaceful assembly to petition government for a redress of grievances. While Stoly agreed with Deans, saying the assembly is a siege, he knows there is no legal authority to stop the people from exercising their God-given unalienable individual rights.

The civil officials know exactly the type of language they are using while recognizing there is zero authority to infringe upon rights. What these criminals are trying to do is find unlawful, immoral, unethical justification for continued tyranny. In essence, they are becoming a law unto themselves, instead of submitting to the law created by the people.

Deans also wondered if the city had “legal grounds” to declare this gathering an “unlawful assembly” then a riot to engage in mass arrests of the people. She then designated this “terrorism”.

There are so many people out there engaged in a broader act of… mayhem, that we need to be able to bring it all under control,” she said.

We can’t allow this kind of terrorism in our community to continue this way.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary does not contain a definition for terrorism. However, the original definition of terrorism found in Oxford’s English Dictionary is “government by intimidation.” Knowing this, who is truly engaging in terrorism? And, who is engaging in “mayhem”? The agents of the State are stealing property, fuel, from the people. Instigators are engaging in deception, acting as though someone in the assembly hit them with a vehicle and complaining about the lawful act of using a vehicle horn as though it is unlawful.

Not one servant of the people has lost their job. How many Canadians, just like US residents, have lost their jobs because of lawlessness? How many civil government employees have remained on the job, continuing to get their paychecks?

In all of this the Mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, declared a state of emergency. As we have seen a “state of emergency” is used to cover additional lawlessness of civil servants and civil employees.

Mayor Jim Watson today declared a state of emergency for the City of Ottawa due to the ongoing demonstration.

Declaring a state of emergency reflects the serious danger and threat to the safety and security of residents posed by the ongoing demonstrations and highlights the need for support from other jurisdictions and levels of government. It also provides greater flexibility within the municipal administration to enable the City of Ottawa to manage business continuity for essential services for its residents and enables a more flexible procurement process, which could help purchase equipment required by frontline workers and first responders.

The mayor now indicates the assembly “reflects the serious danger and threat to the safety and security of residents …” requiring support from other jurisdictions and levels of government. This is a blanket statement with zero specifics. It is telling in the fact that without any specifics one cannot say there is a threat to “safety and security.” What is the “serious danger”? What is the “threat to the safety and security of residents”? The issuing of a statement by anyone does not make it fact without specific details and proof to support the statement.

But, notice the end of the statement by Mayor Watson – “enables a more flexible procurement process, which could help purchase equipment required by frontline workers and first responders.” In other words, this declaration of an emergency would allow the city more flexibility to purchase crowd control equipment/military equipment the government can use against a lawful assembly of people petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

Again, who are the intimidators, the besiegers, the insurrectionists, and the occupiers? Who is dividing the people in order to create a “caste system”? Who has created the mayhem and chaos, visiting it upon the people in the form of lost jobs, lost lives, injuries, supply chain disruptions, coercion, denial of medical services, and blackmail?

The answer to those questions can be determined by the language being used by those who are supposedly the servants of the people. These servants are projecting upon the people what they themselves are guilty of perpetrating. It’s time to “educate” these tyrants on language, proper definitions, and instruct these servants in their lawlessness using the proper definitions to describe their actions.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook and Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Newsletter SignupStay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!

Stay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!