fox files

YOU ALL DO KNOW THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE MEDIA IS ONLY TO STIR UP THE POT, RIGHT?

GUN CONTROL IS EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION FOR ADVOCATES OF IT. REMEMBER THAT!

WHILE GUN OWNERS SIMPLY WISH TO BE LEFT ALONE, PROHIBITIONISTS AREN’T SO INCLINED.

START TAKING LESSONS FROM THE GUN CONTROL CROWD.

THEY NEVER STOP AND THEY NEVER GIVE UP. THEY CONTINUE TO PUSH AND KEEP PUSHING THEIR ‘AGENDAS’.

IT’S NO LONGER ENOUGH TO JUST POST PRO 2ND AMENDMENT SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS OR DONATE A CAUSAL $5 TO THE NRA OR OTHER GROUP(S) OF CHOICE AND THEN SIT BACK AND THUMP YOUR CHEST AND THINK YOU’VE NOW ‘DONE YOUR PART’.

THE FACTS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP AND THE DEMOCRATIC RUSH TO IMPEACH HIM FOR RUSSIAN COLLUSION

With all the stories out there today regarding these ever-present words, ‘Trump’, ‘Russia’, ‘Collusion’, ‘Mueller’, here are some background details you are very likely not aware of, but I am.

This is insider knowledge.

The news is full of commentary and analysis on the Mueller Report.

One of the fundamental and most critical aspects of this unprecedented “investigation” is of the origins of law enforcement and intelligence agencies “spying” on Donald Trump, members of his campaign and family members.

The entire investigation was founded on intelligence collected through the process of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). A Warrant Application that was clearly fraudulent and blatantly treasonous. An application that could only have been presented to the FISC with the illicit support and criminal coordination of America’s top law enforcement departments.

The talking heads on TV (cable and the internet included) have never had their boots on the ground in one of these operations.
Neither has 99% of the US Intelligence operatives or DOJ agents.

There are very clear safety measures and procedures in place to prevent exactly what ‘they’ did to candidate and president-elect Donald Trump and his associates and organizations.

I think the most effective way to reveal how bad, evil, corrupt and conspired the government sanctioned spying on Donald Trump was is to explain exactly how it is supposed to work and exactly what safeguards were built into the process to protect and prevent this very crime. Safeguards designed and demanded upon by both Houses of Congress before they authorized the FISA.

The FISA process has one and only one purpose…

The FISC issues a FISA Warrant for legal espionage efforts against a U.S. person or persons after a preponderance of evidence has been developed by federal law enforcement officers that an American Citizen is a witting or unwitting agent of a foreign power engaged at some level of espionage against America.

The laws of this nation prohibit spies from spying on any American in the US – for virtually any reason. The only exception is if during the course of an approved and proper investigation by a federal law enforcement agency, it is discovered that an American citizen is conducting espionage.

The FBI has an incredible array of powers and tools to legally investigate suspected criminal activities. However, in the course of their investigations, agents have to follow stringent rules that are in place to protect citizen rights, with focus especially on the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

Federal law enforcement agents must develop cases based on evidence and then preserve the chain of evidence. Their powers of investigation and invasion are properly limited while allowing them to build and present a case for public trial.

Spies have no such restrictions. They can use all of their expertise, training, resources, technology and every source and method in their repertoire without being concerned about following the rules of evidence collection.

Why? Because their mission is not to build a legal case in a criminal investigation to submit to a prosecutor who will then present the case to a judge. Their mission is to ruthlessly and aggressively protect American national security through spying on adversaries and preventing them from spying on us. None of what they do ever gets into the court system, as all of their sources and methods are deemed classified and remain classified.

Before a FISA warrant is issued to any intelligence operative, the DOJ has to submit verified, corroborated and authenticated evidence to the FISC. And the application for that warrant has to unquestionably describe the activities of an American citizen here in the US engaged in an act of espionage against the US.

Then, the secret panel of judges (their identities are concealed to protect them from threats, blackmail, bribery and even hostile espionage) reviews the submitted application for the Warrant.

Their role is to protect the civil liberties and ensure due process of any American listed on the application.

By the very nature of the separation of powers, the judges of the FISC must rely on the veracity of the information contained in the application for a FISA Warrant submitted to them by the DOJ.

Once satisfied that the DOJ, through proper legal criminal investigative procedures, has produced sufficient evidence that an American is involved in spying on America, they issue the FISA warrant to the Intelligence Community.

It is then incumbent on the specially trained operatives of America’s international espionage network to engage in a no-holds-barred domestic espionage operation.

So, has this legal and authorized procedure been adhered to since its inception in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?

Nope. Most definitely not.

In 2002, the court revealed that the FBI Director (Freeh) and the AG/DOJ had “supplied erroneous information to the court” in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps.

Then in 2011, the Obama administration reversed restrictions on the National Security Agency, (NSA) permitting the agency to deliberately search Americans’ communications.

This became possible due to a new provision, section 702, being included in the 2008 legislation on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. An Act passed during the Obummer Administration and the 110th. US Congress.

And without Congressional approval, the Obama Administration no longer required a warrant for each individual target. That change meant that the NSA could listen and record any communications of a U.S. Citizen without a court first determining that there is probable cause that the people they were talking to were terrorists, spies or “foreign powers”.

Note that this Executive Branch change to the FISA procedures and limits was accomplished by the Obummer Administration without public debate or any specific authority from Congress.

The purpose of the Warrant is to transfer the actionable intelligence out of law enforcement and over to the Intelligence Community.

Understand, the FBI has fully trained and qualified counter-intelligence agents who can develop a case and arrest criminals engaged in espionage. But they are limited to legal and authorized methods to procure and collect evidence. Spies have no such limitations or restrictions.

Understanding this process helps you understand that the FBI needed the services of the American intelligence agencies in order to ‘uncover’ the proprietary activities of Donald Trump, his family, associates and campaign for U.S. President.

The FBI simply does not have the expertise or resources to conduct full blown espionage, so they brought on members of the intelligence community to conspire with them to circumvent the law and founding principles of the Constitution and the rights it guarantees to its sovereign citizens.

That’s the background.
And here is what happened to our President…

Beginning no later than 2015 and I suspect as early as 2013, the party in control of the White House leveraged its powers over the CIA, NSA, DNI, DHS, DOJ and especially the FBI Director and the senior leadership of the FBI to develop a falsified FISA application.

The White House instructed the various players to coordinate with the Hillary Clinton campaign and enlist the aid of its politically/monetarily motivated allies at CNN, MSNBC, ET EL, etc. to cast an international plume portraying the ‘evidentially’ proven tale of a U.S. Presidential candidate who was conspiring with Russia to bring America to its knees.

The FBI and others colluded and repeated the same false story until the claims appeared to have veracity.

Meanwhile, the FBI/DOJ used the “wide-spread” knowledge of this Russian collusion to trick the FISC into issuing a FISA Warrant.

How much domestic espionage did the FBI and other secret government intelligence gathering organizations (including many that you have never heard of; Q Group, SCS, F9, etc.) conduct against Trump and his efforts to win the White House? I do not know for sure. But what I do know is that this is the most massive, treasonous criminal coupe attempt in America’s history.

In the past, we have seen many waves of abuse of the police and intelligence gathering powers of the federal government, but to my knowledge, this is the first orchestrated effort to include the illicit collusion of all of the highest law enforcement and espionage agencies in the executive branch.

We have also seen plenty of openly biased news and media outlets, but this is the first time that they have openly worked with top level authorities in the federal government in order to affect/alter an election, challenge the efficacy of an election and then attempt a conspired coupe to overthrow and replace a duly elected president.

Was there a conspiracy to collude with Russia for the purposes of overthrowing the U.S. Government and instituting socialism (Liberalism) in America?

Hell yes! And the Democrats almost got away with it.

LEVI STRAUSS CEO CHIP BERGH is all fired up and he seems unwilling to rest until he’s single-handedly alienated every freedom-loving customer the company ever had.

Bergh has been in the news for some time now sounding off and piping in about his absolute hatred, distaste and contempt for the 2nd. Amendment and has just recently outlined the three ways that he plans to use his company name recognition and money to bolster his anti-gun, anti-2nd. Amendment agenda.

For ignoring the nationwide success of permitless carry, also known as Constitutional Carry, the Kentucky State Journal newspaper deserves the latest raspberries award.

In an editorial written for when Kentucky Governor signed the bill to make it the nation’s 16th. permitless carry state, this good for nuthin’ news organization, and I use those words very loosely, and its editorial board wrote the following:

THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS ‘GUN’ VIOLENCE!

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 happens near you.

Yes you, because YOU are YOUR OWN FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE and YOU are responsible for your own safety and the safety of family, friends and others dependent up such circumstances.

You do NOT wait minutes for the police to arrive when seconds count. PERIOD! GOT THAT.

AMERICA IS BEING SILENCED ONE FB AND ONE TWITTER POST AT A TIME!

That all stems from humans being indoctrinated from birth onward that government is a necessary babysitter for humanity because, as the indoctrination continues to preach, mankind is not intelligent enough to govern himself. And of the people, by and for the people is NOT how it is working out even though it is stated that way. BAM!

SO MUCH FOR THE SO-CALLED ‘GUN-SAFETY’ ADVOCATES

I have a big problem with anti-gun groups adopting and utilizing the descriptor “gun-safety advocates.” It seems that their marketing and PR people are trying to spin their efforts in a new light. They don’t want to be seen as “anti-gun” or against the Second Amendment. They don’t want to be heard pushing for “gun control.” So they are now attempting to re-brand, if you will.

They’re trying to change the wording to create more positive connotations and good vibes about their intentions. I mean: Who doesn’t like gun safety? Anyone? Is there anyone out there trying to get people to be unsafe with guns?

Life asked death:

Why do people love me and  hate you?

Death replied:

Because you’re a beautiful lie and I am the painful truth.

Elected officials, who swore to uphold the Constitution, are using the power given them by voters to destroy their Second Amendment rights—by eliminating their First Amendment rights.

There exists a special place in ignominy extended the trust of their voters, turn upon a dime and attempt to undermine the protections of the constitutional order that put them in office. And, within that special place, there exists an even smaller place, reserved for those whose ambitions lead them to pile transgression atop transgression and strike at many roots at once.

It is bad enough when an elected official attempts to limit a core component of American liberty such as freedom of speech. But to attempt to limit freedom of speech in the pursuit of curbing another, equally important right? That compounds the iniquity beyond all measure. As Oscar Wilde might have said, to abridge one right may be regarded as a misjudgment; to abridge two looks like tyranny. And, in America, we’ve already had that debate.

But, alas, we have apparently not won that debate in perpetuity, for across the United States we are beginning to see a series of concerted efforts to sabotage the First Amendment in an attempt to curtail the Second. These efforts take many forms, but they all have one thing in common: Their authors understand that to control speech is to control people, and thus to control politics. Appearances to the contrary, the First Amendment was not inserted first into the Bill of Rights because it is the most important precaution in the document. And yet, if it had been, the framers would not have missed the mark.

The classic image of the censor is the man with a red pen and a razor who cuts out words and messages that contravene the party line. But he, thankfully, is extremely rare in these United States—a salutary fact that has led the would-be arbiters of our national conversation to work more creatively around the system, and to try instead to prevent those whose views they disdain from ever speaking in the first place.

At the federal level, the Democratic-led House of Representatives has just passed a bill that, among other things, places more restrictions on “lobbyists”—which, of course, is just another word for the people in our society who are paid by others to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” on their behalf. To put it simply, there is no way in which one can suppress or place conditions upon “lobbying” without suppressing or placing conditions on ideas—which, again, is not a bug of Nancy Pelosi’s regulatory agenda, but the primary feature. Tellingly, the Democrats made sure that this was the first bill they introduced (there is a ghastly symmetry between its marker, ‘H.R. 1’, and the First Amendment, which it guts), and even had the temerity to title it the ‘For The People Act:’ One must ask: Which people? And, given that politicians are not in the habit of limiting the influence that benefits them and their agenda, the answer seems rather obvious: YOU!

In California, New York and Illinois, the usual suspects are not even pretending anymore. In Los Angeles, a city lawmaker named Mitch O’Farrell has introduced a measure that would require staffers at City Hall to place onto a list any business or organization that enjoys a “formal relationship” with the National Rifle Association, and then, the Los Angeles Times reports, to “lay out options for boycotting them.” O’Farrell’s stated reason for action is that the NRA has a different conception than he does of what constitutes a “common-sense gun safety law” And so, he says, he wants to “send a message as a city with an annual budget approaching $9 billion.” That message? That political organizations that disagree with him should be punished for their dissent.

It is difficult to imagine a more flagrantly unconstitutional measure than O’Farrell’s. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear on multiple occasions that all governments within the United States are prohibited from punishing businesses and other outfits whose politics they dislike. The Court made this clear during the Civil Rights era in NAACP V. Alabama, when the state of Alabama tried to prevent the NAACP from doing business in the state, and then, having been restrained, tried to subpoena the organization’s membership lists. And the Court made this clear in 1972, when it reaffirmed the general rule against government retaliation on the basis of speech and extended it even to cases in which there existed no formal or pre-existing contract. Writing for the majority in Perry v. Sindermann, justice Potter Stewart observed that the state “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech.”

“If the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations,” Stewart continued, “his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited.”

Or, and this is just as pernicious, snuffed out in advance. In effect, O’Farrell is hoping to do one of two noxious things. The first is to destroy the livelihood of anybody who does not think as he does. The second is to ensure that anybody who- does not think as he does keeps quiet about it. If O’Farrell were to get his way—if, that is, the city of Los Angeles were to compile a list of organizations whose political opinions it deems unacceptable—the obvious result would be a decrease in the public expression of those opinions that the city has proscribed and an increase in the public expression of those opinions that the city has marked out as respectable. Or, put another way, the result would be a system in which private organizations that disagreed with the people in power were punished for their opposition to the status quo. Before long, that opposition would wither and die on the vine, which, of course, is the purpose of O’Farrell’s proposal in the first place.

That is one purpose, too, of a pair of extraordinary proposals that have popped up in the states of New York and Illinois. In New York, a Brooklyn-based lawmaker named Kevin Parker has introduced a proposal that would require any resident of the state who hopes to buy a handgun to hand over his social media passwords and search-engine history to the police for evaluation. Under Parker’s rules, the state police would be permitted to comb through three years’ worth of an applicant’s history on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, and one year’s worth of an applicant’s history on Google, Bing or Yahoo. The police would then be given carte blanche to decide whether the applicant is a suitable candidate for handgun ownership. In Illinois, a similar idea has been put to paper by Democrat state Rep. Daniel Didech. Before long, one assumes, the idea will spread.

Once again, it is difficult to know where to start. Both Parker and Didech’s approaches represent a flagrant violation of both the First and Fourth Amendments, and seek to gut the Second Amendment by relegating it to a privilege for which one is obliged to ask permission rather than a fundamental constitutional right that is presumptively enjoyed by all.

Irrespective of the matter at hand, free people do not permit the exercise of their essential liberties to be rendered contingent upon the subjective opinion of the local police. That both Parker and Didech seem not to understand that is a significant problem in and of itself. But there are implications for free speech that are perhaps the most dramatic here. Under Parker’s measure, the police in New York would be empowered to determine who is and who is not acceptable as a gun owner—a flatly impossible task that would inevitably call upon the evaluating officer to make a series of judgment calls. What, one wonders, would count as unsuitable? Profanity? A dark sense of humor? Quoting rap lyrics? Strongly held religious beliefs? Vigorous political argument? Opposition to abortion or to gay marriage or to the banning of so-called “assault weapons”—all opposition that the governor of New York has deemed “unwelcome” in his state? And what would stop the program adopting the position that disturbed individuals must be barred from owning handguns, and that wanting to own a handgun is itself a sign of a disturbed mind?

Advocates of such measures will presumably insist that such questions represent little more than fearmongering. I disagree, and I present the history of government encroachment as my witness. But even if they are right—and even if the proposal could indeed be tightly restrained—there would remain a risk that nobody could avoid. This risk is that applicants would end up preemptively censoring themselves lest they ever need to apply for a handgun permit and, thereby, end up seeking to please the local authorities. In fact, the consequences in a state such as Illinois or New York would presumably look rather like the consequences that would attach to O’Farrell’s bill in Los Angeles: Those who are out of step with the prevailing views of their elected officials would end up staying quiet about their disagreements, while those who acquiesce would end up making that as clear as possible. There’s a word for that in America—corruption. And it must be kept far, far away from the Bill of Rights.

There is a common trait that marks out those who would undermine freedom of speech, and that trait is cowardice. The man who is confident in his positions—and, by extension, in his ability to argue on their behalf and to recruit others to his side—sees no need to resort to the censorship of others, nor any reason to encourage those who disagree with him to stay quiet. By contrast, the man who suspects that his position is weak—and who, in consequence, has no faith whatsoever in the appeal of his ideas—knows instinctively that he can improve his position by removing the voices of opposition.

It is cowardice, not confidence, that lies beneath the ongoing attempts to make sure that speakers who dissent from the prevailing opinion of the faculty are kept off of college campuses. It is cowardice, not confidence, that explains the House of Representatives’ attempt to make it more difficult for “lobbyists” to make arguments that they dislike. And it is cowardice, not confidence, that has led to the ongoing attempt within the gun control movement to boycott any organization that has a relationship with the NRA. As has always been the case, the men who would police our language are fearful rather than brave, and they cannot prevail without putting their fingers on the scale.

The good news for the rest of us is that they cannot prevail without help, and that it is relatively easy to deny them that help. It is notable that, while advocates of the Second Amendment have kept the same definitions, language and agenda for decades, the gun control movement has been engaged in an endless attempt to recast its intentions and to replace its clearer language with euphemisms. It is by this process that “gun control” has been laundered into “gun safety”; that pretty much every modern firearm has been deemed an “assault weapon”; and that magazines that hold more than just a few rounds have been labeled “high capacity.” There is no reason for those who are interested in the truth to indulge this propaganda, and they should actively resist doing so.

More important still, they should resist any law that would, directly or indirectly, prefer one viewpoint over another—or, worse, make the free exercise of a constitutional right dependent upon the content of a person’s speech. The opening passages within the Bill of Rights serve as an overture of sorts, and they are full of stark and precise language. “Shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” are not only comprehensible to all, they are adjacent within the text and act as dual bulwarks against the destruction of human freedom. That there are men among us who would use one as a skeleton key to open the other is regrettable. But the door can be easily locked.