Help support alternative media by visiting our Allies

Selkirk Mountain Real Estate

Dangerous Avista Sellout and Civil War 2.0 Teaser


RFR on KTW – 2018-10-20 Dangerous Avista Sellout and Civil War 2.0 Teaser


Listen to more episodes at: Radio Free Redoubt

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

4 Comments on Dangerous Avista Sellout and Civil War 2.0 Teaser

  1. Time: 2:35
    Civil War in America 2.0
    “Is what we think we’re seeing real?”
    “Is there historical precedence to gauge?”
    “How can we look at the current situation in our country and say: yea I think there is a high probability of a civil war coming.?”

    Time: 22:31
    “It is not going to be like the Civil War…North and South…”
    “Probably more like Ireland…”
    “…more like the Balkans.”

    Time: 26:51
    Host reading from an article:
    “This is the latent pre-insurgency indicators of an attempted coup or regime change or to otherwise alter and change your government unlawfully, but they’re using our constitution and our freedoms to hide behind to allow them to openly operate.”

    Words can be accurate words that mean the same thing to everyone, which is based upon the principle of agreement. If someone says night, and everyone agrees that the meaning of the word is the opposite of day, then like a carpenter asking for a specific length of wood, the effort to communicate accurately is accomplished from one individual to all the other individuals who may need to know the facts that matter. Is it day or night? How much are you willing to bet that the government is going to tell the truth?

    Civil War:
    a war between citizens of the same country

    a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory

    The aggressive war for profit perpetrated by the British against the former British Colonies was called a Revolutionary War, not a Civil War.

    The former colonies were formed into sovereign countries, each agreed to abide by the common laws of free people, which include certain rights, like the right to hold the people in government to account, as demonstrated, and as exemplified, in a Declaration of Independence, or a declaration of mixed war. When the people in government declare war on the people, that warmongering government is no longer a government of the people, as that government thereby breaks the agreement that was made in order for that government to become the government of the people.

    First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled 1776:
    “That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

    “That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

    “That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”

    One country became criminal and that country was called Britain, it was, and still is, a Corporate Nation State, complete with a functioning central bank extortion racket: a despotic, criminal, government. That country of criminals persecuted a war of aggression on free people in America, people who declared something self-evident on the official records: we are born free, we are not your property to dispose of as you please; thanks, but no thanks.

    That was not called a Civil War, for obvious reasons.

    What was Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1787?

    This may help:

    Why would anyone call the pogrom in 1861-1865 a Civil War? What would be the reason for choosing the term Civil War to describe 2 independent, sovereign, Nation States, slaughtering each other’s slaves? I call it a culling of the slave population, so as to keep the slaves from any further revolutionary ideas. You can use the false term Civil War as you please.

    A country can only be so big before a country becomes despotic, for obvious reasons.

    The last battle of the Revolutionary War was fought in Massachusetts, and it is a useful battle for anyone who cares to know what may happen in any country sized area, such as a State, in America. When the government in a country-sized area turns despotic, enslaving the people through central bank extortion racketeering, and other despotic means, the people in history who fought against such crimes serve posterity, if people who constitute posterity care to look.

    If it is a federation of states under the common law, then the criminals in government can be prosecuted by the people, through independent grand jury indictments, and trial by the country, which is trial by jury according to the common laws of free people. If it isn’t a federation of states under the common law, then the following has already happened:

    “This is the latent pre-insurgency indicators of an attempted coup or regime change or to otherwise alter and change your government unlawfully, but they’re using our constitution and our freedoms to hide behind to allow them to openly operate.”

    That whistle was blown loud and clear in 1787:

    “But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.”
    Luther Martin reporting inside the first Con Con Con Job.

  2. Can there be or is there a way to get a Statewide Restraining Order Petition on this Utility selling out to this Canadian Company ?
    I’m in AL, but these type of deals should concern all American’s. Globalist will try anything to get their foot in our door and pry it open like a sardine can.
    It’s UN-American and against American Values. Trading is one thing but this isn’t trading Like the Uranium One deal, it’s selling out our resources for foreign entitlement.

  3. here we go. totally under the influence of the California invasion. They are truly bringing an unwanted change to north Idaho. more rules/regulations. next thing you know, they’ll want to bring in jerry brown.

Comments are closed.