fox files

REMEMBER THIS AND NEVER FORGET IT.

EVEN THOSE THAT REFUSE, EVENTUALLY THROUGH NATURAL ATTRITION, WILL DIE OFF AND WITH LAWS IN PLACE STIPULATING EVERY NEW BORN MUST COMPLY, EVENTUALLY THE NWO WILL HAVE 100% COMPLIANCE IN FUTURE GENERATIONS!

THIS QUOTE CONCERNING GOVERNMENT LAWS IS MORE IMPORTANT TODAY THAN EVER BEFORE.

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”

US President Calvin Coolidge

EVEN IF 99.9% OF ALL HUMANS ON EARTH HATED YOU, 7.7 MILLION WOULD STILL LIKE YOU

REMEMBER THIS:

THE ABSOLUTE FACT THAT THE ANTI-GUN, ANTI-FREEDOM CROWD AND POLITICIANS CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE TRUTH THAT CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW LAWS AND THEIR PUSH TO CREATE MORE LAWS WHICH ONLY AFFECT THE INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AND GUN OWNERS SAYS A LOT ABOUT THEIR TRUE MOTIVES.

NEVER FORGET THIS.

A BRAIN FOG OF BIASED DATA PRODUCED WITH TAXPAYER FUNDED MONIES TO CONFUSE THE MASSES EXISTS TODAY IN GREAT NUMBERS, AND THE PUBLIC IS FALLING FOR IT TOOTH AND NAIL.

It’s a never-ending cycle of complete and utter rubbish and garbage from the elite ivory towers that are behind this giant push.

Who Zucks the Zuckerberg?

Facebook CEO would like the U.S. government to fix Facebook for him

Mark Zuckerberg is upset.

All he wanted to do is harvest your private data and sell it to the highest bidder. And now everyone is mad at him. (What gives, guys?)

In a watery op-ed published in the Washington Post over the weekend, Zuckerberg executed one of the most lackluster attempts at passing the buck I have ever seen in my life.

Zuckerberg’s piece can be boiled down to, “We don’t want to police our own platform. People get mad at us when we try. The government should do it instead.”

A change of character

Facebook has spent millions lobbying against anti-privacy laws. But as of late, its billionaire CEO has become a champion for online privacy for no apparent reason.

(*Cough* Cambridge Analytica *cough* government probes *cough* doesn’t want to go to jail.)

In his article, Zuckerberg called for global regulation of the internet, identified four key problems that need to be addressed, and made some suggestions on how to fix these problems.

This is a bit like El Chapo telling the DEA how to police the Mexican cartels. But let’s hear the little lizard man out.

Hateful and Violent Content

In recent years, Facebook has taken flak for allowing hate speech and terrorist propaganda on its platform.

But when it finally stepped up to the plate and tried to stamp it out, Facebook was accused of over-policing and snuffing out free speech.

Zuckerberg doesn’t like it when people are mad at his little data harvesting machine, so he wants to pass the buck to the government.

“One idea is for third-party bodies to set standards governing the distribution of harmful content and measure companies against those standards,” says Zuckerberg. “Regulation could set baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum.”

Great idea, Zuck! Hand over the reins of free speech to the government. Because that specific idea has never backfired in the course of human history before.

Election Integrity

Zuckerberg has admitted in the past that his platform was used to meddle in elections around the world.

(Zuck’s about-face on the issue of privacy was likely motivated by Congress dragging his ass to Washington and forcing him to explain about election meddling on live television.)

In his op-ed, Zuckerberg said that Facebook has tried to put a system into place to identify election meddling on Facebook. But he says it’s also not very good.

“We built a searchable archive that shows who pays for ads, what other ads they ran and what audiences saw the ads. However, deciding whether an ad is political isn’t always straightforward. Our systems would be more effective if regulation created common standards for verifying political actors.”

Mark’s solution? Regulation that clearly defines what constitutes election meddling.

That way Facebook is simply enforcing someone else’s rules. (So you can’t get mad at Mark if you don’t like it.)

Privacy and Data Protection

Zuckerberg, the great privacy violator, would like stricter privacy laws (as long as they don’t actually do anything).

Mark would like the rest of the world to regulate privacy and data just like the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

“New privacy regulation in the United States and around the world should build on the protections GDPR provides,” says Zuckerberg. “It should protect your right to choose how your information is used — while enabling companies to use information for safety purposes and to provide services.”

This seems like a major concession at a glance. But for anyone even slightly familiar with the GDPR, it’s obvious why Zuckerberg loves the GDPR.

The GDPR is what you get when you have people who know nothing about the internet writing laws about the internet.

The GDPR:

Allows Facebook to appear to be concerned about your data, while still allowing it to harvest it in droves.

Legally covers Facebook’s ass. If someone accuses Facebook of misusing the data it can simply point to the law (which allows the company to do what it likes as long as it covers certain bases).

All Facebook had to do after the law was passed was add a simple agree-to-data-sharing button, some paper-thin parental controls, and a privacy settings menu that most people don’t know exists.

Technically, you can use this settings menu to customize how you’d like your data to be shared. But since nobody really knows about it, Facebook gets to reap all the data it likes. And now Facebook’s ass is covered by the law.

Mighty big of you, Mark.

Data Portability

Data portability is the ability to move your data between apps.

Zuckerberg initially introduces this as a “problem.” But in the actual op-ed, Markie boy goes on to say how great data portability is and how everyone wants it.

He just wants the government’s rubber stamp to allow Facebook to share data across apps (like WhatsApp and Instagram, which are both owned by Facebook).

Facebook’s investors and users don’t see eye-to-eye

It looks like Facebook’s investors are buying Mark’s shtick for now. Facebook’s stock rose about 1% when the markets woke up this morning.

But investors don’t hold Facebook’s future in their hands. The next generation of social media users do.

And boy, they do not like Facebook.

According to a Pew study released last year, the rate of teens using Facebook is plummeting.

Between 2015 and 2018 the number of U.S. teens who use Facebook plunged dramatically from 71% to just 51%.

So where is this all heading? You tell me.

Did you know that most of the $33 Billion in Remittances to Mexico Flow Via a U.S. Govt. Banking Program?

Though President Trump said he would block money transfers to Mexico to fund a much-needed border wall, Mexicans in the U.S. sent a record $33.48 billion in remittances last year and a big chunk of it flowed through a government program operated by the Federal Reserve.

This means that, amid an onslaught of illegal immigration, the U.S. government is largely responsible for the billions in remittances flowing south of the border from illegal aliens. Figures released by Mexico’s central bank show that 104 million transactions were executed in 2018, nearly six million more than the previous year.

Uncle Sam facilitates the process with a program called “Directo a Mexico” (Direct to Mexico), launched by the Federal Reserve, the government agency that serves as the nation’s central bank, more than a decade ago. President George W. Bush came up with the idea following the 2001 U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Prosperity to provide low-cost banking services to illegal immigrants and facilitate the procedure for those sending money home.

In its first year, 2005, remittances to Mexico topped $20 billion and the Federal Reserve reports “double-digit percentage growth for the past several years.” Remittances are transferred through the Federal Reserve’s own automated clearinghouse linked directly to Mexico’s central bank (Banco de Mexico). The Trump administration should eliminate it because it undermines our nation’s immigration laws and is a potential national security nightmare.

Back in 2006 Judicial Watch investigated the outrageous taxpayer-subsidized initiative and obtained government records that shed light on how it functions. Marketing materials target immigrant workers in the U.S.—regardless of their legal status—as well as banks, credit unions and other financial institutions.

The program is promoted as “the best way to send money home,” offering “more pesos for every dollar.” American financial institutions are charged $0.67 per item to transfer money from the United States to Mexican banks, ensuring a “highly competitive rate.” The Federal Reserve also provides participating U.S. financial institutions with Spanish language promotional materials to “help get your message out.” The marketing materials also include the number of Mexican migrants in the U.S. with no distinction between those here illegally or not. A separate list identifies thousands of Mexican banks receiving “Directo a México” transfers.

When the program was created Federal Reserve officials acknowledged that most of the Mexican nationals who send money back home are illegal immigrants so a Mexican-issued identification is the only requirement to use the government banking service. A colorful brochure promoting “Directo a Mexico” offered to help immigrants who don’t have bank accounts and assured the best foreign exchange rate and low transfer fees.

A frequently asked question section posed this: “If I return to Mexico or am deported, will I lose the money in my bank account?” The answer: “No. The money still belongs to you and can easily be accessed at an ATM in Mexico using your debit card.” In short, the U.S. created this special banking system specifically for illegal aliens and tens of billions of dollars have streamed through it.

As a presidential candidate Trump proposed a plan to get Mexico to fund a border wall by cutting off remittance payments from Mexican migrants in the U.S. In a memo to a mainstream newspaper Trump wrote that Mexican migrants send $24 billion in remittances annually and the estimated cost of a border wall would be between $5 billion and $10 billion.

According to his plan, the U.S. Patriot Act would be amended to block wire transfers from Mexican nationals using companies such as Western Union. Nowhere in the document is the Federal Reserve’s special program, which clearly caters to illegal immigrants. The president is well aware that the overwhelming majority of remittances to Mexico are sent by those living in the U.S. illegally.

In fact, his proposal was to create a rule that “no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.” The Federal Reserve’s “Directo a Mexico” has no such requirement as the commander-in-chief completes his first term.

JUST A LITTLE SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE TO THINK ABOUT.

Have you even noticed?

Counties across the country are actually jailing people for living the way they want to live — off the grid. The headlines are all over the place …

The Burden Of Income Tax Implies that Government Owns You

The income tax is enshrined into law but it is an idea that stands in total contradiction to the driving force behind the American Revolution and the idea of freedom itself.

We desperately need a serious national movement to get rid of it – not reform it, not replace it, not flatten it or refocus its sting from this group to that. It just needs to go.

The great essayist Frank Chodorov once described the income tax as the root of all evil. His target was not the tax itself, but the principle behind it.

Since its implementation in 1913, he wrote, “The government says to the citizen: ‘Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.”

He really does have a point. That’s evil. When Congress ratified the 16th Amendment on Feb. 3, 1913, there was a sense in which all private income in the U.S. was nationalized. What was not taxed from then on was a favor granted unto us, and continues to be so.

This is implied in the text of the amendment itself: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

No Limits

Where are the limits? There weren’t any. There was some discussion about putting a limit on the tax, but it seemed unnecessary. Only 1% of the income earners would end up paying about 1% to the government. Everyone else was initially untouched. Who really cares that the rich have to pay a bit more, right? They can afford it.

This perspective totally misunderstands the true nature of government, which always wants more money and more power and will stop at nothing to get both. The 16th Amendment was more than a modern additive to an antique document. It was a new philosophy of the fiscal life of the entire country.

Today, the ruling elite no longer bothers with things like amendments. But back in the day, it was different. The amendment was made necessary because of previous court decisions that stated what was once considered a bottom-line presumption of the free society: Government cannot tax personal property.

What you make is your own. You get to keep the product of your labors. Government can tax sales, perhaps, or raise money through tariffs on goods coming in and out of the country. But your bank account is off-limits.

The amendment changed that idea. In the beginning, it applied to very few people. This was one reason it passed. It was pitched as a replacement tax, not a new money raiser. After all the havoc caused by the divisive tariffs of the 19th century, this sounded like a great deal to many people, particularly Southerners and Westerners fed up with paying such high prices for manufactured goods while seeing their trading relations with foreign consumers disrupted.

People who supported it – and they were not so much the left but the right-wing populists of the time – imagined that the tax would hit the robber baron class of industrialists in the North. And that it did. Their fortunes began to dwindle, and their confidence in their ability to amass and retain inter-generational fortunes began to wane.

Limit to Accumulation

We all know the stories of how the grandchildren of the Gilded Age tycoons squandered their family heritage in the 1920’s and failed to carry on the tradition. Well, it is hardly surprising. The government put a timetable and limit on accumulation. Private families and individuals would no longer be permitted to exist except in subjugation to the taxing state. The kids left their private estates to live in the cities, put off marriage, stopped bothering with all that hearth and home stuff. Time horizons shortened, and the Jazz Age began.

Class warfare was part of the deal from the beginning. The income tax turned the social fabric of the country into a giant lifetime boat, with everyone arguing about who had to be thrown overboard so that others might live.

The demon in the beginning was the rich. That remained true until the 1930’s, when FDR changed the deal. Suddenly, the income would be collected, but taxed in a different way. It would be taken from everyone, but a portion would be given back late in life as a permanent income stream. Thus was the payroll tax born. This tax today is far more significant than the income tax.

The class warfare unleashed all those years ago continues today. One side wants to tax the rich. The other side finds it appalling that the percentage of people who pay no income tax has risen from 30% to nearly 50%. Now we see the appalling spectacle of Republicans regarding this as a disgrace that must change. They have joined the political classes that seek advancement by hurting people.

The Payroll Tax

It’s extremely strange that the payroll tax is rarely considered in this debate. The poor, the middle class and the rich are all being hammered by payroll taxes that fund failed programs that provide no security and few benefits at all.

It’s impossible to take seriously the claims that the income tax doesn’t harm wealth creation. When Congress wants to discourage something – smoking, imports, selling stocks or whatever – they know what to do: Tax it. Tax income, and on the margin, you discourage people from earning it.

Tax debates are always about “reform” – which always means a slight shift in who pays what, with an eye to raising ever more money for the government. A far better solution would be to forget the whole thing and return to the original idea of a free society: You get to keep what you earn or inherit. That means nothing short of abolishing the great mistake of 1913.

Forget the flat tax. The only just solution is no tax on incomes ever.

But let’s say that one day we actually become safe from the income tax collectors and something like blessed peace arrives. There is still another problem that emerged in 1913. Congress created the Federal Reserve, which eventually developed the power to create all the money that government would ever need, even without taxing.

For the practical running of the affairs of the state, the Fed is far worse than the income tax. It creates the more-insidious tax because it is so sneaky. In a strange way, it has made all the debates about taxation superfluous. Denying the government revenue does nothing to curb its appetites for our liberties and property. The Fed has managed to make it impossible to starve the beast.

Chodorov was correct about the evil of the income tax. Its passage signaled the beginning of a century of despotism. Our property is no longer safe. Our income is not our own. We are legally obligated to turn over whatever our masters say we owe them. You can fudge this point: None of this is compatible with the old liberal idea of freedom.

You doubt it? Listen to Thomas Jefferson from his inaugural address of 1801. What he said then remains true today:

“…what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one more thing fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

Smart men our ancestors were. Very smart people indeed!

THAT ANSWER RIGHT THE HELL HERE. BAM!

Anti-gunners like to bring up a term when they argue for gun control: “gun violence.” They make it sound so reasonable that gun violence must be stopped, but we need to ask ourselves: What is gun violence, and is gun violence even real?

If you talk to an anti-gunner, they will, of course, tell you that gun violence is the most horrible thing occurring in the world today, but Robert A. Margulies, M.D. (yes, a medical doctor) begs to differ. In fact, Margulies says that gun violence is a myth. He writes,

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH THING AS “GUN VIOLENCE.” THERE IS ALSO NO SUCH THING AS KNIFE VIOLENCE, CAR VIOLENCE, ALCOHOL VIOLENCE, ETC. VIOLENCE IS PERPETRATED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP. THE TOOL USED IS IRRELEVANT.

MOST ARTICLES ABOUT ‘GUN VIOLENCE’ ARE WRITTEN AS IF TO JUSTIFY POSITIONS THAT THE AUTHORS DON’T RECOGNIZE OR ACCEPT AREN’T TRUE. LET’S BREAK IT DOWN:

1. SUICIDE, WHETHER INVOLVING FIREARMS OR NOT, IS AN ACT OF DESPERATION, REMORSE, INABILITY TO ACCEPT CIRCUMSTANCES, OR CHOOSING TO AVOID A SITUATION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT CONTROL.

THE LITERATURE IS REPLETE WITH DATA ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES’ NUMBERS AND RATES OF SUICIDE. CULTURE STRONGLY INFLUENCES RATES AS WELL AS THE PREFERRED MECHANISMS. SUICIDE BY FIREARM MAKES UP APPROXIMATELY TWO-THIRDS OF UNITED STATES FIREARM-ASSOCIATED DEATHS.

2. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF SELF-DEFENSE, INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION. WHETHER IT INVOLVES FIREARMS, CONDUCTED ELECTRICAL WEAPONS, BLUNT OBJECTS, POINTED OBJECTS OR BLADES, OR HANDS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE END.

THESE MAKE UP 20 TO 25% OF FIREARMS-ASSOCIATED DEATHS. THESE OUTCOMES ARE SOCIALLY AND CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE.

3. THERE ARE SMALL AND DECLINING NUMBERS OF ACCIDENTAL FIREARM DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES.

4. THAT LEAVES APPROXIMATELY 25% OF FIREARMS ASSOCIATED DEATHS DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. MORE THAN HALF OF THESE OCCUR IN JUST A FEW OF OUR LARGE CITIES AND ARE ASSOCIATED WITH GANG ACTIVITY AND OTHER DRUG OR SEX TRAFFICKING CRIME.

WITH THAT BASIC INFORMATION ON THE TABLE, THE QUESTION BECOMES: WHAT TO DO ABOUT VIOLENCE? THE EMPHASIS ON FIREARMS IS A PROVERBIAL RED HERRING. THE PROBLEM IS NOT FIREARMS, KNIVES, OR TIRE IRONS IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICE OR HONEST CITIZENS.

THE AVOWED INTENT OF MUCH OF THE LITERATURE ON “GUN VIOLENCE” IS TO DESIGN LAWS THAT WILL PRECLUDE CRIMINALS OBTAINING FIREARMS. THAT IDEA IS EITHER MISTAKEN OR MALICIOUS. NO LAW WILL PREVENT A CRIMINAL FROM BREAKING THE LAW. THAT IS WHAT DEFINES “CRIMINAL”. THE ONLY PURPOSE OF LAWS IS TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR VIOLATING THEM, WHICH MAY BE OF SOME DETERRENCE. UNTIL HUMAN NATURE BECOMES ANGELIC, THERE WILL BE THE NEED TO PUNISH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

Dr. Margulies nails this issue on the head. Gun violence is a myth. Violence is a reality, but the tool used in violence is irrelevant, and banning guns hasn’t and won’t solve the problem of violence committed by criminals.

It is exactly this reason that we need to both oppose all gun control laws and also train to be able to protect ourselves and those we love. Because a law isn’t going to prevent a criminal from doing evil; you will be what restrains evil when it appears at your proverbial ‘front door’.

FACT:

DON’T SUPPORT NEWS MEDIA THAT HATES YOUR VALUES!

Gun customization’s can be a hobby, fun and flashy, but did you know that customizing can also be used as evidence against you in a trial?

They also go as far as to attack posters on your car, what is written on your T-shirts and every single word scrutinized on your social media accounts.

LET’S PUT IT THIS WAY. ALL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S ARE CAREER ASPIRING, NOT TO MENTION COMPLETE SCUMBAGS, SO THE ASSHOLES WILL USE EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO RAISE THEIR STATUS, EVEN AT THE COST OF YOUR LIFE.