fox files

Venezuela: The Proxy War that could hit closer to home.

Venezuela has been in the spotlight recently. Given the past several years of it’s economic collapse, there is division among the government and it’s people. While the country is rich in petroleum, it has been hit with sanctions. The military now tends to its crops, which is to say that the government controls the food.

There are approximately 13 main military bases in Venezuela, I’m not sure how many satellites, lilly pads, and outposts are scattered throughout the country. What I do know is that they have a formidable fighting force if they truly do stay loyal to Maduro.

George Orwell and his book titled ‘1984’

Boy did he ever get that right!

THE INDEPENDENT MEDIA JUST SAVED AMERICA FROM A BLOODY RACE WAR THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WAS TRYING TO START

In reviewing the Jussie Smollett fiasco, it’s important to note that Smollett staged his hate crime hoax in a location where he believed it would be caught and recorded on a surveillance camera. The purpose of this was to have video footage that the media would play up nationwide, fomenting an outbreak of racially-charged violence that would ultimately lead to a full-blown race war across America, which the media, of course, would blame on Trump.

This is the goal of the left-wing media, which now functions as a cabal of enemy combatants in a civil war they started. And I have no doubt that Barack Obama and his “community organizers” are behind the whole thing. Smollett is well known to be a cohort of Obama, and this is exactly the kind of thing Obama continues to direct from his “bunker” command center near the White House.

The independent media blew the hoax wide open and the Chicago police did a damn fine job too.

Yet the hoax was revealed thanks to the efforts of the independent media and old school police work by the Chicago PD, not the ‘mainstream’ media news cartels which pushed endless lies and propaganda to prop up the hoax for as long as possible.

It was the indy media that asked the first questions about the flimsy story that Smollett pushed on the world. Too many things didn’t add up, and while the left-wing media swallowed the hoax without asking a single critical question, the independent media pointed out the many holes in Smollett’s story, such as the fact that he refused to hand over his full phone records to the police… or his claim that he was attacked by two men but somehow managed to hold on to his Subway sandwich the entire time, even walking home with it. Other facts highlighted by the independent media also blew holes in the Smollett story, such as the observation that Smollett was spotted on camera walking home with the fake noose still around his neck. Why would a victim of an attempted lynching continue to wear the noose? And why would he wait 40 minutes to call the police? Why didn’t he desperately shout to the doorman of his apartment to call the police, explaining he had just been attacked?

None of it added up. But the left-wing media didn’t care. The fake hate crime hoax fit their narrative of America as a racist nation filled with homophobic Trump supporters, and the delicious ingredients in that recipe made such an enticing narrative that the media couldn’t resist. So they risked a race war breaking out across America to try to once again demonize Trump supporters and ‘keeping the hate alive’, which is a key job of the left-wing media these days.

America was just saved by the same independent media that the tech giants are trying to wipe out

All this underscores the importance of speech diversity in a free society. Dissenting voices are sometimes the most important voices of all since they question the official narrative of lies and deception. This is exactly why systematic censorship of the independent media by the dishonest, fascist tech giants is so dangerous to Democracy.

In this case, it was the dissenting voices — the independent media — that exposed the hoax and very likely stopped the outbreak of racial violence from taking place. In other words, while the mainstream media was actively pushing for a race war in America, the independent media threw water on the embers before it become a firestorm. In response, numerous “journalists” in the media are publicly admitting they are disappointed and saddened that the hate crime wasn’t real. They actually wish for hate crime violence in America, and they don’t even try to hide their dark desires anymore.

Yes, we’ve actually reached the point of insanity in America where “mainstream” media journalists actively wish for hate crimes and race wars. And they are willing to lie and deceive the public to try to make that happen.

If anyone should be censored and de-platformed today, it’s CNN, the NYT and the Washington Post. Those are the organizations spreading dangerous lies in a deliberate effort to spark a nationwide race war. They are complicit in the plot to destroy America, and they are acting with extreme malice in trying to carry out their intended agendas to see America rip itself apart.

So why do the tech giants selectively censor the independent media while granting the lying left-wing media near-total control over the public narrative? Because the tech giants want to destroy America, too. They’re all in on it. It’s a plot to bring down this nation, blame white people, depose Trump, silence all dissent and sweep in an authoritarian regime run by deranged, fraudulent Leftists.

The time to be aware and awaken is right now!

Remember this.

The people you’re trying to step on, we’re everyone you depend on. We’re the people who do your laundry and cook your food and serve your dinner. We make your bed. We guard you while you’re asleep. We drive the ambulances. We direct your call. We are cooks and taxi drivers and we know everything about you. We process your insurance claims and credit card charges. We control every part of your life.

We are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday we’ll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but we won’t. And we’re just learning this fact. So don’t fuck with us.”

Too often, it seems — especially when it comes to mass shootings — anti-gunners are quick to use only the end results of such tragic events to justify the need for (you guessed it!) MORE gun control.

Case in point: the latest mass shooting at the Henry Pratt Company in Aurora, Illinois, last Friday.

According to the Washington Post, the suspect, who “fatally shot five people and wounded five officers at an Illinois warehouse Friday, severely beat a woman years ago in a domestic violence incident that turned him into a felon — and should have kept him from buying a gun.”

Dr. John R. Lott, (I’ve read every book he has penned) author of More Guns, Less Crime, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center and staunch gun-rights advocate, recently penned an article on the incident over at Town-hall. He wrote: “Twice, background checks failed to catch the criminal background of killer Gary Martin. Even worse, the errors that occurred in Illinois were a result of dramatic cuts in funding for background checks.”

“But, as usual, gun-control advocates called for more background checks before the facts of the case were even known,” he added.

Indeed, it at least appears that those individuals who seek to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens only look at the end results of such a tragedy … and not what led up to it.

Don’t misconstrue my point here.

At the end of the day, Martin, who began shooting at fellow employees “after he was told he was being fired,” per the Washington Post, is SOLELY responsible for his heinous actions. But I think it’s a mistake to look only at the aftermath of a critical incident when it comes to calling for sweeping change.

After all, as Dr. Lott so aptly noted, “The proposed gun control laws aren’t addressing the problems we face.”

So why aren’t we looking at what other factors are at play?

Dr. Lott noted that, “undoubtedly, the first two mistaken [background] checks were due to human error. But the fault lies with Illinois. The media has made much of the fact that, after the third check, police didn’t follow through and make sure that Martin’s illegally obtained gun was taken away from him. But this isn’t due to any loophole in the law. Rather, it was a politically created problem. The automatic push for the universal background checks makes little sense, as it uses the same federal NICS system. If the problem is human error, why not concentrate on fixing that issue?”

Why aren’t we looking at the fact that Martin shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place?

Why aren’t we looking at the fact that this terrible event transpired in yet another “gun-free” zone?

And let’s not end there:

In situations where an armed citizen helped prevent casualties, what factors helped to drive that outcome? (Anti-gunners are notorious for overlooking these particular stories, but we can certainly learn something from them too.)

Let me reiterate: The perpetrators of violent crimes are the ones responsible for those violent crimes. But until we start looking at the whole picture, I fear we’re at a standstill in making any real progress toward preventing such terrible tragedies in the future.

IF YOU’RE AFRAID TO SPEAK UP AGAINST TYRANNY, THEN YOU’RE ALREADY A SLAVE!

As courts again rule that police have no duty to protect individual Americans, anti-gun activists continue to push schemes to make armed self-defense more difficult.

Fault for the terrible tragedy last year at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has been placed on various entities by different observers. Some on the left—defying all logic—have even blamed you, me and other NRA members for that vicious attack.

A number of failures led to that murderer being able to enter the school unchallenged, spend many minutes shooting defenseless students and staff, and then simply walk away.

Make no mistake, though: True blame lies with the crazed former student who attacked and killed 17 students and staff members last February in Parkland, Fla. However, plenty of information is now available showing that a number of failures led to that murderer being able to enter the school unchallenged, spend many minutes shooting defenseless students and staff, and then simply walk away.

In fact, a recent report by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission confirmed that one of the more egregious errors was one we have all known about since shortly after the shooting. Broward County Deputy Scot Peterson, the school resource officer (SRO), refused to enter the building during the massacre. Instead, he huddled outside while the perpetrator walked up and down the unguarded halls, killing student after student.

To many, Peterson’s actions reeked of cowardice. After all, since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, law enforcement agencies of all kinds have been taught that the old method of locking down the scene and waiting for more help to come doesn’t apply anymore. That tactic simply costs too many lives, as proven again in Parkland.

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled that sheriff’s deputies were not constitutionally obligated to protect the students, so were not liable for their trauma.

Who Will Protect Students? Because of Peterson’s inaction, more than a dozen survivors of the attack filed a lawsuit in district court, claiming that county officials should have protected them.

The lawsuit claimed that Peterson’s “arbitrary and conscience-shocking actions and inactions directly and predictably caused children to die, get injured, and get traumatized.” It further claimed that the sheriff’s office and school officials “either have a policy that allows killers to walk through a school killing people without being stopped” or “have such inadequate training that the individuals tasked with carrying out the policies … lack the basic fundamental understandings of what those policies are such that they are incapable of carrying them out.”

The lawsuit also focused on something else we all learned shortly after the shooting—the Broward County Sheriff’s Office was well aware of the potential danger the shooter posed, but for whatever reason failed to address that danger.

In mid-December, a federal judge in South Florida threw out the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled that sheriff’s deputies were not constitutionally obligated to protect the students, so were not liable for their trauma.

“The claim arises from the actions of [the shooter], a third party, and not a state actor,” Bloom, a Barack Obama appointee, stated in her ruling on the case. “Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of [the shooter].”

So Who Then Will Protect You?

Lest you think this post is anti-law enforcement, be rest assured that it is NOT. It’s important to understand that police officers have signed up to protect and serve American citizens, and many do so every day throughout this country.

In fact, vast numbers of police officers are willing to be the first on the line and the first to charge into dangerous situations when the need arises to protect innocent lives.

Sure, the job can be complicated and confusing—especially in volatile situations involving active shooters—but police regularly do their best to protect everyone they can. Most cops were just as outraged with Peterson’s actions as were the survivors of the shooting and their families.

Yet it’s important to note that this isn’t the first time a court has ruled police have no duty to protect us.

Most notable is the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia.

On a March night in 1975, Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their Washington, D.C., rooming house, where Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house, and Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her 4-year-old daughter. Early that morning, two men kicked in the door, entered Douglas’ room and began to sexually assault her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard her screams and telephoned the police, reporting that the house was being burglarized and requesting assistance. After the call, Warren and Taliaferro crawled through their window onto an adjoining roof and awaited help. According to court documents, the department dispatched cars, but officers left after knocking on the door and receiving no answer.

After crawling back into their room, Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ continued screams. They again called police at 6:42 and told them the intruders had entered the home. This time, no officers were dispatched. Believing the police might have entered the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, which alerted the attackers that they were there. The intruders then sexually assaulted all three women for several more hours before finally ending the attack.

Ultimately, the court ruled against the plaintiffs based on, “the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

In truth, the ruling of “no duty” to protect makes sense. If such a duty did exist, all law enforcement agencies would be constantly bombarded with lawsuits, leaving little time to perform their everyday duties. Moreover, many states have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against state or local officials for failure to protect.

Gun-Banners Could Not Care Less About You

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of police officers will go that extra to protect their constituents. But as we all know, police can’t be everywhere at the same time.

And when seconds count, it will be minutes before they arrive. NEVER forget that!

Those facts, plus court rulings that police have “no duty to protect:’ make the constant push by anti-gun advocates for laws that would make armed self-defense more difficult and still even more perplexing. And make no mistake: They do so with regularity.

Do anti-gun zealots simply not care about your life or mine? That would certainly seem to be the case.

► When Moms Demand Action lobbies against national concealed-carry reciprocity, they are working to ensure you are defenseless outside your home state against armed attackers, who illegally carry their guns wherever they want.

■ When Everytown for Gun Safety members push for a federal ban on “high-capacity” magazines (standard capacity for many, many models of self-defense handguns), they show a disdain for your life and that of your loved ones.

■ When the Brady Campaign fights against implementation of Stand Your Ground laws in your state, they are indicating that they don’t care if you are brutally murdered.

► When the gun-ban group Giffords pushes for firearm registration schemes that would eventually lead to confiscation, they show their contempt for you and your natural right of self-defense.

► When billionaire Michael Bloomberg spends millions of dollars to air television ads against pro-gun politicians, he takes the side of violent criminals, who prefer their victims to be unarmed and helpless.

► When u.s. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, introduces legislation that would ban hundreds of firearms and magazines for law-abiding Americans, she shows that she would rather violent criminals be better armed than you.

► When Virginia’s new governor, Ralph Northam, introduces a sweeping anti-gun package ranging from outright gun bans, to magazine bans, to one-gun-a-month purchase laws, he tells gun owners in the Old Dominion that his political ambitions mean more than their safety.

■ When the so-called “mainstream” media parrot lies about the number of school shootings to help push their anti-gun agenda, they show their agenda is more important than your safety and security.

► And when all of those groups and individuals actively fight against the Second Amendment while basking in the safety of their very own armed security forces, they form a call to action that law-abiding American gun owners simply cannot ignore.

So What To Do?

The plain fact is, the ABSOLUTE ONLY person truly responsible for protecting you and your family is YOU. And the best way to even the odds between you and armed criminals is having a firearm and adequate training to use it safely and effectively.

With the Democrats recently taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives, anti-gunners have quickly ratcheted up their agenda, pushing all manners of restrictive proposals. And mid-term election victories by gun-ban proponents in a handful of states have emboldened lawmakers there to further push -AND- to push further their anti-gun legislation to the state level.

Of course, ignoring these blatantly unconstitutional proposals is simply not an option. There are many actions we all can take to get involved in this fight, and we should do so ABSOLUTELY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

First, visit the Institute for Legislative Action’s (NRA-ILA) web page and sign up for updates that will keep you apprised of pending legislations, both in your state and at the federal levels, AS WELL AS FOR OTHER STATES, BECAUSE, REMEMBER, IF IT HAPPENS IN ‘THEIR’ BACK YARD, IT’S JUST SIMPLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE IT HAPPENS IN YOUR BACK YARD.

Each time you learn of pending legislation, whether federal or state level, call or email your representative or senator and let your voice be heard. INDIVIDUAL calls and emails MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Next, THINK about becoming an NRA member, or even better still, a GOA member. And if you already are, then consider signing up for upgraded or Life memberships. THERE IS POWER IN NUMBERS!

Finally, TRY to sign up OTHERS, EVEN if only ONE, to further boost our ability to continue winning this battle for freedom’s future. It’s not hard to do or expensive, and it will pay dividends in spades moving forward.

If we don’t all work together now to protect our right to arms—and our right to self-defense—those rights will continue to be whittled away a little at a time. By way of the Frog In The Water Syndrome.
Look it up.

For the sake of our children, grandchildren and future generations to come, we MUST NOT let that happen on our watch.

REMEMBER. FREEDOM IS ONLY ONE OR TWO GENERATIONS AWAY FROM LOSING IT, AND IT IS A ABSOLUTELY CONTINUOUS PROCESS!

THAT AWKWARD MOMENT WHEN ZOMBIES ARE LOOKING FOR BRAINS AND THEN WALK RIGHT PAST YOU!

SMALL MEN SERVE THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

GREAT MEN SERVE JUSTICE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.

Anti-Gunners Come for Remington. AGAIN!
BY TIM SCHMIDT – USCCA FOUNDER

Does any good firearms-related news come out of Connecticut? If what happened this week is any indication, I’d say that’s a resounding no.

According to the Washington Post, “Gun-maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.”

If this story sounds familiar, you’re probably recalling how, back in April 2016, Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled to allow the same wrongful death suit to move forward, rejecting the “argument that a 2005 federal law can protect gun businesses from civil lawsuits.”

That federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), “protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct and other actions for which they are directly responsible,” GovTrack.us explains.

Families of several children killed in the Newtown attack and one surviving teacher brought the original lawsuit against Remington Arms, parent company of Bushmaster Firearms, who manufactured the weapon — a Bushmaster AR-15 — used by Adam Lanza in the school shooting. According to The Washington Examiner, the basis of the families’ suit was that “the military-style gun should have never been available for civilians to purchase.”

Although lawyers for Remington Arms sought to dismiss the lawsuit back in 2016, Bellis ruled that Remington’s argument “that the federal law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products … would be best made in a motion later in the process and [was] not grounds to dismiss the lawsuit.”

But it was later dismissed — by the same judge, no less:

According to PBS News Hour, in October 2016, Bellis “granted a motion by the North Carolina-based Remington Arms to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit brought by the families of nine Sandy Hook victims.”

But in a stunning 4-3 decision this past Thursday, as reported in the Washington Post, “justices reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington filed by a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the school massacre. The decision overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit, citing a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes. The majority said that while most of the lawsuit’s claims were barred by the federal law, Remington could still be sued for alleged wrongful marketing under Connecticut law.”

Nicole Hockley, mother of a 6-year-old boy who died in the shooting, said Thursday that “a main goal of the lawsuit is to stop Remington and other gun makers from gearing their advertising toward troubled young men,” the Washington Post reported. “We have always said our case is about reckless sales and marketing to disturbed youth,” Hockley said. “We wanted our day in court. This is a step forward to ensure that manufacturers like Remington are not allowed to keep targeting people who are at risk.”

I’m not sure how it can be argued that Remington “marketed” its product to Lanza. He wasn’t even the one who purchased it.

I stand by previous comments that Sandy Hook was a terrible, terrible tragedy perpetrated by the evil intentions and actions of ONE man. Remington couldn’t have known that he would murder his mother and steal her Bushmaster. Insinuating that the company is somehow responsible for the 2012 event is entirely off-base and is COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE!. It sets VERY dangerous precedents.

Regardless of the outcome, this is a devastating blow to the firearms industry and — quite frankly — a blatant attempt by anti-gunners to put firearms manufacturers out of business, thus denying millions of responsible Americans their God-given right to keep and bear arms.

I will forever mourn the loss of innocent life at Sandy Hook, but I can’t sit back and say nothing when, once again, the fingers are pointed in the wrong directions.