I have had it past my level of tolerance with people who pervert everything they touch — especially people who cannot even conform to the rules which govern our language. If we are to the point where we can’t even agree on the meaning and proper use of something as simple and basic as words, then it is time to allow chaos to rule and sort things out after the blood has dried in the streets (which is what the people perverting our language want). However, I am not ready to do that — not as long as I can still prove to the sane and reasonable among us that these riots are actually an insurrection, not a protest.
Let’s just get right to it. This is how ‘protest’ is defined:
1 : a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent: such as
a : a sworn declaration that payment of a note or bill has been refused and that all responsible signers or debtors are liable for resulting loss or damage
b : a declaration made especially before or while paying that a tax is illegal and that payment is not voluntary
2 : the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval resigned in protest especially : a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval
3 : a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an idea or a course of action went under protest
4 : an objection made to an official or a governing body of a sport
Do you read any part of that definition that mentions violence or destruction, or of an attack on a duly authorized government or governing body? NO! You do not.
Now, let’s look at the definition of ‘riot:’
1a : a violent public disorder specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
b : public violence, tumult, or disorder
2 : a random or disorderly profusion the woods were a riot of color
3 : one that is wildly amusing the new comedy is a riot
Bingo! What we are seeing — not what the ‘news’ is showing us — but what we are actually seeing, on the ground, meets this definition. Therefore — ‘by definition’ (one of — if not the — strongest forms of logical proof) — we are experiencing riots — not ‘protests.’ Anyone who claims otherwise is either criminal ignorant, or lying (with the best odds being on the latter).
So, we have proven that this violence is a riot — not a ‘protest.’ However, there is still something missing. This violence certainly meets the definition of a ‘riot,’ but could it possibly be something more? Let’s find out by looking at the definition of another word, shall we:
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Wait! Don’t stop there. Make sure you know what a ‘revolt’ means:
1 : a renouncing of allegiance (as to a government or party) especially : a determined armed uprising
2 : a movement or expression of vigorous dissent
OK, boys and girls, it’s time to play ‘Sesame Street.’
Are these riots aimed at the government and/or civil authority?
Are these riots a ‘vigorous dissent’ of said government or civil authority?
Then what does that make these riots, boys and girls?
IT MAKES THEM AN INSURRECTION!
But, please, don’t take my word for it, listen to one of those who has planned and now supports this rebellion tell you, herself:
“So yes, I said “insurrection”: People acting out of frustration and hopelessness and understanding that they don’t have an establishment — political or otherwise — that really cared about their ability to work or have good health care. Yes, I choose to call it an insurrection.”
Maxine Waters is a member of the Federal government — and she is black. Here’s the problem: that means she is wrong when she says black people don’t have any establishment. She is the establishment — and she is black. It just so happens that the majority of the people running the Minneapolis police departments and the State Attorney General are also black. In fact, a great many of the people in charge of the governments where it is claimed the police are racist are controlled by blacks. So this factually undercuts Water’s claim to not being represented or being powerless. That claim is a lie — period!
So, what does that leave us with? It leaves us with the fact that these riots are exactly what Waters says they are — an insurrection. President Trump would not only be justified to invoke the Insurrection Act, he is compelled to do so. He has a Constitutional duty to do so — to protect and defend both the Constitution and the nation. The only people who are objecting to doing so are those who support this insurrection.
Now, to you believers out there: know this. You cannot align yourself with the people behind this revolt. There is nothing lawful about it. Some of the people in this revolt are trying to convince you that it is no different from our own Revolution. This is a lie! Ou founders actually sought legal recourse the entire way. The Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It appeals to the Highest Court in this universe. The people currently trying to destroy the U.S. are not doing anything of the sort. Rather than trying to seek legal recourse, they are seeking to destroy any and all semblance of the law. This is lawlessness. It is destruction. And it is hiding behind lies and deception. All of this is the work of Satan. A believer can have no part of this movement. If they do, they willingly align themselves with the laws of this world, and not YHWH’s Law.
Make no doubt about it, we are living in a prophetic time. It is important that you know which side leads to eternal life, and which leads to eternal death. Then get on the side of light and life. A word of caution. When you are trying to figure out which side is righteous and which is lawless, you would do well to remember that you and I do not decide that — YHWH does.
Isaiah 5:20-21 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!