Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

The Political Civil War, Is Here by Pete Ketcham

The Kavanaugh issue is that it has totally exposed the Democrats for what they are.

The Political Civil War

The Political Civil War, Is Here

by Pete Ketcham

The following civil war definition by Wikipedia describes what has been, and is currently taking place in our nation in the political arena:

“A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies.”

Although the preceding definition describes a violent deadly war, a  political civil war was launched by Barack Obama when he became president in 2008, and declared he was going to change this nation, I quote:

“the change we seek will take longer than one term or one presidency. Real change—big change—takes many years and requires each generation to embrace the obligations and opportunities that come with the title of Citizen”.

This political civil war has been increasing in intensity since Trump became president, but has now shed the charade of mere differing political opinions to unlimited outright obstruction and deception by the Democrat party, this was fully demonstrated by the Kavanaugh hearings. This civil war is moving to outright violence as Democrat senators and congressmen encourage confrontation, intimidation, and protests against their Republican opponents. These protests and confrontations are financed and organized by Democrat supporters, and are widespread throughout our nation, including the nation’s capital. More security is now being required for Republican legislators as they walk to and from their offices because of the screaming sign carrying mobs.

The trend of this war is towards more disruption and violence as the Democrat party increasingly condones and supports mob confrontation and intimidation against their Republican opponents. Consequently the pushback by the conservatives and the Republican party is beginning too grow, this will result in an increase of violence by opposing mobs in the streets, thus increasing the anarchy that is now present in our streets.

Never in the history of our nation (except for the 1860’s Civil War) has there been such disruption, disinformation, and mob activity in the midst of our traditional constitutional process of governing. This disruption of constitutional governing is being extended to complete state governments as they defy federal immigration policy, with California being the leader in this effort as they defy not only immigration laws, but other federal regulations they disagree with.

As this political civil war progresses, the  Democrat party are being thoroughly exposed in their use of criminal unconstitutional tactics. We see that they are willing to destroy anybody or activity by any means (legal or not) that comes between them and their socialist agenda.

We must not underestimate them, as they are dangerous, and are capable of accomplishing their agenda with the full support of the news media, Hollywood, and academia. In this process they have become cunning and clever in their rhetoric and actions, and It is very probable they will continue to try to discredit and harass Kavanaugh as a siting SCOTUS justice. Any forthcoming decision by SCOTUS that does not support the Democrat agenda they will attribute to Kavanaugh being an unqualified biased jurist, and they will make a major effort to impeach Kavanaugh.

A silver lining to the Kavanaugh issue is that it has totally exposed the Democrats for what they are, (literally, criminal legislators, ripping up the constitution), and has energized and embolden conservative and moderate Republican supporters and legislators.

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

7 Comments on The Political Civil War, Is Here by Pete Ketcham

  1. I agree with what you say about the left, the problem is Kavagnan is the swamp because be of his past support of the Patriot act and lack of support for the 4th 5th admendment, not the BS fake sexual charges the left is spinning. I’d rather have Mike Lee or Judge Nap as SCJ the Kavagnan.

  2. The left criminals are only slightly less criminal compared to the right criminals: both are fighting a privileged war to gain power over each other’s privilege.

    That has nothing to do with morality.

    That has nothing to do, therefore, with true law.

    Mathew 7:12 explained:

    “All things whatsoever … – This command has been usually called the “Saviour’s golden rule,” a name given to it on account of its great value. All that you “expect” or “desire” of others in similar circumstances, do to them. Act not from selfishness or injustice, but put yourself in the place of the other, and ask what you would expect of him. This would make you impartial, candid, and just. It would destroy avarice, envy, treachery, unkindness, slander, theft, adultery, and murder. It has been well said that this law is what the balance-wheel is to machinery. It would prevent all irregularity of movement in the moral world, as that does in a steam-engine. It is easily applied, its justice is seen by all people, and all must acknowledge its force and value. This is the law and the prophets – That is, this is the sum or substance of the Old Testament. It is nowhere found in so many words, but if is a summary expression of all that the law required. The sentiment was in use among the Jews. Hillel, an ancient Rabbi, said to a man who wished to become a proselyte, and who asked him to teach him the whole law, “Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another.” Something of the same sentiment was found among the ancient Greeks and Romans, and is found in the writings of Confucius.”
    Barnes’ Notes

    What happens when people invest in organized crime under the color of law?

    What happens when people decide, by their power of will, to pay for the power struggle to see which criminal gang takes over command of the dictatorship?

    “8 Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors.”

    Is that true?

    Who decides?

    In a dictatorship, the winner of the turf battle to take control of the dictatorship decides what the slaves must do, and do so without question, and the decider group with their decider dictator, having taken all the power required to make good on their threats will, as a routine, make examples out of those who dare to question that pretenious, criminal, authority: see Lavoy Finicum’s murder.

    The Revolutionary War was fought over an idea that each individual has equal protection under the true law.

    Why is this difficult to understand? Those who are confused, or led down a very evil path, are not confessing.

    • Re: “The left criminals are only slightly less criminal compared to the right criminals: both are fighting a privileged war to gain power over each other’s privilege.” -Joe Kelly

      I often here this sort of sentiment from talking heads being careful no to offend. But, I don’t understand the perception that representatives on the right are trying to take rights or privilege from anyone.

      • Jim Boyer,

        If choosing the term “talking heads” is an example of your intention not offend, then I’m wondering what terms you would choose when you are intending to offend.

        The words quoted are words I wrote, and my name is not Joe Kelly.

        Privilege has been understood as a gift from a sovereign (powerful) individual (or group) to the underprivileged (powerless) individuals or groups; especially in the context of so-called government actions.

        Case in point:
        “For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution. (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men.” Roger Roots, The Conviction Factory.

        When the people govern themselves they – the whole people, not a privileged segment of the whole – constitute the judge, jury, and executioner: not a privileged segment of the population taking government power by fraud, extortion, and aggressive violence.

        As in the official record of the first Congress of the United States (13 at the time) of America:
        14th of October, 1774:
        On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

        We the people consent to or do not consent to whatever any government, anywhere, anytime, claims as right, true, lawful, legal, justified, or whatnot.

        We are the privileged, because we say so, peacefully, in our jury trials.

        The case in point is the case where the government perpetrated numerous crimes against the Bundy family and many others, and that case included a so-called judge stating on the record that a so-called prosecutor withheld evidence.

        Before continuing with this answer to the comment by Jom Boyer, about talking heads, here is another talking head:

        “The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.” George Mason against the Con Job Constitution of 1787

        So there is a crime in front of God and everyone confessed as a crime by a so-called “District Judge.”

        Which crime?

        “The Supreme Court held that the suppression of favorable evidence violated Brady’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 69
        69. Id. at 86. The Due Process Clause states that “[n]o State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV.”
        Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias

        On the statutes that these “privileged” people claim to be their source of authority (under oath no less, and bonded) they are confessing to their crimes in open, public, proceedings under the color of law: i.e. treason.

        What do these “privileged” people also claim?

        “While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system.”
        87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 (“[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.”).

        “In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88”
        88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that “prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function”).
        Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias

        So I can talk my head off, but where is my equal protection under the law that these criminals claim to be their source of authority? They can assume guilt upon anyone they target, anywhere, anytime, and they don’t even need a reason. They kidnap innocent people, torture them into submission, take everything worth taking from them, including their lives, and during the process that is supposedly in place to accurately identify those who are guilty of crimes, they – the criminals – claim that they are immune from that process. They not only do this out in the open, but they also do this on their own official records.

        The talking head George Mason, who refused to sign the bogus Constitution of 1787, was correct. So was Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, and many other’s who knew that rat smell when those rats stole the good name of the American government.

        Another talking head:
        To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
        November 15, 1802

        “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property.”

        Equal protection, or equal footing, or equitable, fair, impartial, actions by people for people – the law of the land – is the Revolutionary idea, but that idea is only revolutionary in places and times when the norm is blind obedience to the dictates of a criminal organization operating under the color of law.

        The Patriots against the con job of 1787 knew the criminals were going after our common law trial by jury, and that is why they insisted upon a Bill of Rights.

        Back to Jim Boyer:
        “I often here this sort of sentiment from talking heads being careful no to offend. But, I don’t understand the perception that representatives on the right are trying to take rights or privilege from anyone.”

        If access to trial by the country, which is trial by jury, which is the method by which the people consent to or do not consent to anything any government claims to have the authority to do – if our trial by jury process – does not apply to a privileged class that can openly commit kidnapping, torture, extortion, murder, mass murder, and worse crimes, then I think my point is valid, even if some listening heads don’t get it: yet.

        I will admit error here when someone on the so-called right indicts one of these criminals, like “Judge” Navarro, or why not those Clinton monsters, or how about the author of the Patriot Act? When those on the so-called right stop doing almost the same cover-up of criminals running government job as the so-called left, then there will be criminals in government on trial, according to the common laws of free people, and the whole country will be the judge of fact, law, and remedy, through their jury.

  3. As Mr Ketchum notes, the feverish political divide of today has strong parallels with our country in the 1860s. When we see rioting mobs in the streets, and gratuitous attacks on peaceful demonstrators, we approach the breaking point, the flash point. Will the riot escalate? Virginia voted to secede in the spring of 1861, producing an intolerable sight for unionists in Washington. Just across the Potomac on the Virginia side, a large Confederate flag was visible atop the Marshall House Hotel, flown defiantly by it’s owner, one James Jackson. While leading Union troops across the river and into Alexandria, Col Elmer Ellsworth spotted the offending flag and, racing up to the roof, tore it down. As he returned through the lobby carrying his prize, he was shot dead by Jackson, who was shot and killed himself by Ellsworth’s Lieutenant……

  4. “The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.” George Mason

  5. When the “government” is a profitable monopoly those who desire it (with malice aforethought) will do anything to get it.

    “Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted – as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.”
    New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, March 7, 1788

    Neil Wampler:
    “…the feverish political divide of today has strong parallels with our country in the 1860s.”

    That divide was predicted. That divide is the same divide in principle as the one faced by every slave wishing to run away from slavery, or fight for freedom, peacefully if possible, and if the slave masters insist, and there is no place to run, then defensive fighting on the foundation of moral principle is forced by the aggressors.

    Why stop looking back once the predictable Civil War is found? What about Shays’s Rebellion?

    When the criminals took over Massachusetts after the British gave up their aggressive war for profit, that same divide seen now was afoot then, and even then the criminals had to take-over the trial by jury process.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*