"Everything relating to what happened will never come to the surface. The world will never know the real facts of what happened and my motives. People who have such secretive motives and have so many reasons to ensure that they find themselves in this position will never real facts will be honestly presented to the world. Gentlemen, I want to tell you the truth, but I can't say it here. If you want to shake it out of me, you will have to take me to Washington. I tell you that I am going to come to power in the country completely new form form of government, and I know that I will not live to see you next time. "
Almost half a century later, these words continue to sound annoying in the United States and continue to raise questions. Were these only the vague thoughts of a heart-rending, wildly crazed man, or were these the words of a person who was ready to make a public exposure that he acted on orders and not on circumstances? His words, especially the remark about the “new form of government,” still sound somewhat divorced from reality. But if you really think about it and analyze other similar statements made from time to time, and look at American politicians and politicians, both international and domestic, carried out since then, you will notice that the testimony of Jack Ruby Warren Commission may have been not at all so "crazy". This may be a strong argument for the fact that he actually knew much more than trying to make us believe историяand what he sincerely tried to warn this country about what had just happened, and what this could mean for the nation in the future.
Were there any outstanding contemporaries at the end of 1950-x - the beginning of 1960-s in America, expressing something similar to what Jack Ruby told in his conversation with the Warren commission? Oddly enough, they were.
In 1960, President Dwight Eisenhower eloquently addressed the nation with a speech that included the following statement:
"Before the last world conflict, the United States had no defense industry. American manufacturers screamed over time, when the need arose, they made swords. But now we can no longer risk improvisation by national defense in emergency situations; we were forced to create a permanent military an industry of enormous proportions. In addition, three and a half million men and women are directly involved in the institutions of the Ministry of Defense. Every year we spend on military security Value is greater than the net gross income of all United States corporations. This is a combination of military institutions and a giant military defense industry to the American experience. Its total impact — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every government office, every federal office. governments. We recognize the urgent need for such a development. However, we must not be unaware of its detrimental effects. Our hard work, resources, means of livelihood are now involved, as is the structure of our society.
We must take measures against the acquisition of the unjustified influence of the military-industrial complex on the government, whether requested or unsolicited. The potential for a detrimental increase in the misuse of power exists and will continue.
We must never let the burden of this combination put our freedoms and democratic procedures at risk. We should not take anything for granted. Only a vigilant and informed population can achieve the correct adherence of the gigantic military-industrial defense mechanism with our peaceful methods and objectives. "
In April, 1961, President John F. Kennedy, in his address to the American Association of Newspaper Publishers:
“As we are confronted all over the world by a monolithic and merciless conspiracy, relying primarily on covert means of expanding our influence — on penetration instead of invasion, on subversive activity instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on night guerrillas instead of day army. extensive human and material resources to build a tightly bound, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political chesky functions.
Her preparations are hushed up, not publicized. Her mistakes are hidden, and not widely covered in print. Its dissidents are not praised, but silenced. No expenses are doubted, no rumors are published, no secrets are exposed. She accompanies the Cold War; in short, in wartime discipline, there is no hope or desire for any democracy. The word "secrecy" itself contradicts a free and open society; and we, as a people, are inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, secret oaths, and secret affairs. Once upon a time, we decided that the danger of excessive and unreasonable concealment of pertinent facts significantly outweighs the threats that justify them. Even today, there is little resistance to the threat of a closed society by imitating its oppressive prohibitions. Even today, there are minimal guarantees for the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive along with it. And there is a serious danger that those who seek to expand their relevance to the extremes of official censorship and concealment will seize on the stated need for increased security. So I'm not going to indulge this to the extent that is in my power. And not a single official of my administration, whatever rank he may be, civilian or military, should interpret my words spoken here today as an excuse for news censorship, suppression of dissent, concealment of our mistakes or suppression of facts that the press or the public should know. "
21 December 1963, former president Harry Truman, said in an interview with the Washington Post: “One time I was worried about how the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) was distracted from its original tasks. It began to function and over time turned into a tool of government policy. When I I created the CIA and I did not think that it would become a service for the cloak and dagger of peacetime. "
These are all very disturbing statements made by several guys who were more than “in the know” than the average John Citizens. Their statement is not as categorical as that of Jack Ruby, but by reading them, listening to them, and objectively interpreting them, one can understand that something was very wrong in Washington DC at the time. So questions remain. Have all these people tried to warn us and tell us something? Or, which is also possible, it was just four misinterpreted statements by four different people about four different things? Depending on who to ask - a wide range of answers can be obtained to these questions. Some even went so far as to think John Kennedy’s speeches, such as the one he said at Columbia University in 1963, as well as repeating his quote about “enslavement”  he allegedly uttered seven days before the murder in Dallas (state Texas), whatever, to back up your answers to these questions. (Sorry to disappoint all those who believe in the Illuminati, but John F. Kennedy just never said that.) The underlying reality is as follows:
1) Some tectonic changes occurred in the political structure of the United States after the Second World War;
2) Economic and external political decisions, as well as John Kennedy’s attitude towards the USSR, were unacceptable for some people;
3) After the Kennedy assassination, the United States dramatically changed its policy. In 2013, this is still obvious.
President Franklin Roosevelt, or as many modern-day conservatives like to call him, Satan himself, has done some very good deeds besides leading our country throughout the Second World War. The New Deal  was a series of government-funded programs designed not only to prevent the Great Depression from returning, but also to establish social programs in the US, such as the Social Security Act and the Federal Independent Agency Act, to help build a middle class.
As part of the New Deal, the Glass-Stigalla Law  (a term often applied to the 1933 Banking Act), depository banks were prohibited from merging or acting like securities banks (separating players from the rest of the world). The combination of the New Deal with the actual destruction of industrial competition around the world (Germany and Japan in ruins) after World War II allowed the United States to create the greatest unprecedented global economy that remained in the next six decades. President Kennedy even began printing money that was not based on debt obligations, removing the Federal Reserve from the chain. When was the last time we saw money with the signature "US Treasury Ticket" on the front side, and not "Federal Reserve Banknote"? Answer: in the 1963 year.
Going backwards in the agreements and relations between Roosevelt and Stalin at the end of the Second World War, President Truman unnecessarily aggravated what would later be called the Cold War. President Eisenhower followed the same path in his time after Stalin’s death in 1953, when Nikita Khrushchev came to power in the Soviet Union. Peaceful relations and mutual understanding between Kennedy and Khrushchev at the beginning of 1960 began to rectify the course after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Both of these people understood the similarities of the positions of each of the countries in the world and began a dialogue aimed at cooperation in the field of exploring outer space, curtailing production, and locating nuclear weapons. Both understood what it means to coexist within their own ideologies and flourish with a sense of their own security. John Kennedy recognized the enormous sacrifices suffered by the Soviet Union for the defeat of the Nazi regime in Germany.
The Soviet Union did bear the brunt and disproportionately large human losses during the Second World War. John Kennedy said that "the war will exist until that distant day when a person who refuses military service for ideological reasons will enjoy the same reputation and respect that the military today use."
So did the United States change after 1963, as predicted by Jack Ruby? Has anything changed at all? Both of these questions could be answered "yes." The post-war Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union has escalated because of NATO (North Atlantic Military Organization). NATO was created in 1949 year as an intergovernmental military alliance with which the collective security system began, whose members agreed to mutual protection in response to a military attack by a non-member state. The Soviet Union was primarily interested in protecting its western borders from the rest of Europe. The United States repeatedly tried to expand the number of countries in the bloc in Europe, especially in the East, with the addition of Greece, Turkey and West Germany. The Soviet Union viewed this as a threat to its western borders and was worried about their security. The deployment of American nuclear weapons in Turkey led to Soviet retaliation, in the form of deploying nuclear weapons in Cuba, which culminated in the Cuban missile crisis in 1950, when the world was closest to a nuclear war. (The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962, when American spy planes flying over Cuba photographed Soviet offensive nuclear weapons 1962 miles from US territory). Kennedy and Khrushchev, although they did not trust each other on 90%, from that time began to communicate and try to work together. The American conservatives viewed this as condoning the communists from John Kennedy and showing signs of surrender and weakness. In addition, at the beginning of 100, the US began to deploy more and more troops in South Vietnam (also known as French Indochina) to help the French, because the fear of communism was spreading in this region. Kennedy exacerbated public fears about his communist sympathies by offering 1960 in October (just a month before his death) a plan for the gradual and complete withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam, known as the National Security Law Memorandum No. XXUMX (NSAM1963) of October 263 of the year (order of the President on the withdrawal of 263 by American soldiers until the end of 1963 of the year, and the complete withdrawal of all troops to 1000). In complete contradiction with President Kennedy's order, 1963 on November 1965 of the year (the day after the funeral of John F. Kennedy), President Lyndon Johnson canceled NSAM 26. Instead of leaving Viet Nam, the American presence increased. The incident in the Gulf of Tonkin , a falsified attack that did not actually occur, served as an impetus for President Johnson to launch the American declaration on the start of the war with North Vietnam under the auspices of Congress. (To be fair, such great achievements as the Civil Rights Act and medical insurance were also the result of his presidency).
False terrorist attacks were used to achieve political goals throughout history, from the time of ancient Rome (Emperor Nero burned down the city to roast Christians), ending with Nazi Germany (set fire to the Reichstag to launch Hitler into power) and the United States of America (Tonkin incident which led to the official declaration of the war in Vietnam).
Disagreement among the American population with the Vietnam War was unprecedented. Public figures, rocking the boat and / or disrupting the work of the "political machine" were killed under an accidental set of circumstances. In 1968, Robert Francis Kennedy, a presidential candidate, a determined opponent of the Vietnam War, was killed in very specific circumstances at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles (California) during his election campaign. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader, human rights activist and peace activist, was killed in Memphis, Tenn., Under even stranger circumstances (the behind-the-scenes mechanisms of these events are a separate story for a separate article). If there were evidence for these cases, except for circumstantial evidence and mysterious coincidences, they could play an important role in supporting the story of Jack Ruby. However, without reliable data and material evidence concerning these two murders, as well as the alleged killers (Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray), it would be unfair to categorize these two events as something other than the examples of the level of humanity during the most extreme socio-political the shocks of the end of 1960's, and the greatest loss for the world of these two men.
Contrary to popular belief, the presidency of Richard M. Nixon did not become a millennium disaster. Along with Vietnam, which has grown to a "crazy" size, health care has become one of the main problems. A universal health plan has been proposed and rejected. Passed less complete orders of voters, which included instructions for medical insurance for employers and the federal insurance program for the poor and dependent children (sounds familiar, is not it?) Nixon also broke through this barrier in order to establish relations with China. This event alone exerted the strongest pressure on the Soviet Union, forcing it to continue the path to peace with the United States. The pressure came from fear of an alliance between the United States and China and culminated in the conclusion of the 1972 missile defense treaty of the year, limiting the use of anti-missile defense systems by defending parties against launch vehicles for nuclear weapons. (The United States withdrew from this treaty in 2002 for its own security concerns after 9 / 11).
Nixon played dirty political games, although he achieved a lot. In light of the radicalization of the Republican party over the past 15 years, Richard Nixon can be viewed as the leftmost wing relative to the current standards of the Conservatives. His retirement, which was the only possible solution, if he did not want to protect his tape recordings made in the White House (including 18-minute silence  after discussing the invasion of the Bay of Pigs in 1961 under President Kennedy) federal government.
Shocked Nixon backed out. Of the nine tapes requested by the investigation, he provided, however, only seven, on one of them the conversation unexpectedly stopped for as many 18 minutes. Rose President’s dedicated secretary Marie Woods said she unintentionally erased this part of the recording. Other pauses that occurred on the films, in many cases, experts were able to recover.
The presidencies of Nixon, Ford and Carter are not very similar to what Jack Ruby was talking about. It did not appear that a new form of government replaced the coup d'état. It was more like a young country coping with its position as the newly elected superpower in the post-war world.
Only starting with 1980-x, with a massive accumulation of weapons, dismantling the New Deal and the manipulation of foreign governments with murder, support for the rebels and just a specie, can we begin to confidently talk about the shift towards "new forms of government" that Jack Ruby spoke about in 1964 year. That was before the 1980's, it was just harder to notice. The Bowling for Columbine film 2002 of the Year outlined the US involvement in the management of the world after World War II:
1953: US overthrows Iranian Prime Minister Mossade and establishes the Shah's dictatorship.
1954: The US is overthrowing the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, while killing 200 000 people.
1963: The United States supports the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem, setting the stage for the killing of 4's millions of civilians in Southeast Asia from 1963 to 1975.
1973: The US is organizing a coup in Chile. The democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, is assassinated. As a dictator, Augusto Pinochet is introduced. 5000 Chileans killed.
1977: The United States supports the military rulers of El Salvador. 4 US litter killed 70 000 Salvadorans.
1980: The United States is training Osama Bin Laden and his people to go to war with the Soviets in Afghanistan, for these purposes the CIA allocates 3 billion dollars.
1981: The Reagan administration is training and funding the Contras (the Nicaraguan rebels). 30 000 Nicaraguans die.
1982: The United States gives Saddam Hussein billions of dollars to buy weapons for the war against Iran.
1983: The White House secretly funds Iran for the war against Iraq, which they also finance.
1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (part-time President of Panama) stops submitting to orders from Washington, which leads to a US invasion to eliminate it. More than 3000 civilian casualties in Panama.
1990: Iraq armed with weapons supplied from the United States invades Kuwait.
1991: The US is sending troops to Iraq, and President Bush is restoring the dictatorship of Kuwait.
1998: President Clinton orders the bombing of an alleged weapons factory in Sudan. As it turned out, the factory produced aspirin.
2000: US provides financial assistance in the amount of 245 million dollars under the rule of the Taliban Afghanistan
2001: Osama Bin Laden allegedly uses his CIA special training to kill 3000 American citizens on American soil.
Try to associate this with President Roosevelt’s secretly kept replacing the New Course with the internal rules of the financial sector: and you will be afraid. What happened to the financial sector after 1980's? Here is a summary in layman’s terms, not the language of Wall Street, who doesn’t want us to understand:
The Reagan administration has weakened the financial regulatory chains established after the Great Depression. It was an unprecedented "credit revolution" and the predatory provision of money for the emergence and growth of the middle class. Can't pay? Do not worry; just increase your credit card limit. Do you have a house and need money? Take a second mortgage loan. It is easy and fast.
It may be argued that 1980s witnessed the incredible economic upturn of Wall Street and the banking industry not because of Reaganomics and the economy of supply incentives, but this was only because there was a huge influx of middle-class Americans who bought things that were otherwise they could never afford to pay. Debt equals money.
The deregulation of financial services continued after the 1990-x under the Clinton administration. As previously mentioned, the Glass-Stigalla Act, adopted in 1933, separated securities banks from commercial banks in order to protect deposits from consumers. It was not a "foolproof". In 1998, the Federal Reserve proposed an alternative interpretation of the Glass-Stigall law that allowed securities banks and deposit banks to operate as one legal entity, thus allowing Citibank and Salomon Smith Barney to merge. As a result, we received one of the largest securities firms in America and the largest bank in one bottle. This is the same as providing a cash cash gamer to an avid gamer and running it to play at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. The Federal Reserve loophole allowed Clinton, in turn, that the Glass-Stihalla Act no longer has legal force. In 1999, the Gramma-Lich-Bliley Act repealed the Glass-Stigall Act, and an outbreak of bank mergers began. And if before the financial regulation was in the port, now the bankers received an invitation to the nudist colony.
While 2000-e changed 1990-e, and the Clinton presidency was replaced by the Bush presidency, the concept was further developed. In the 2003 year, "rules" were issued that simply exempted banks from state laws against predatory lending. All state laws relating to this were repealed, and banks received the freedom to attract. At 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) abolished a net capital rule requiring brokers to limit the proportion of debt to net worth as 12 to 1, which means that for every dollar they own, they could invest on 12 dollars . This cancellation gave little to small banks, which not only did not merge with investment banks, but also did not participate in gambling with their clients' money. However, there were 5 investment banks that were eligible to relax the recent restriction of 40 to 1; they were Bear Sturns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Later on, in 2007, the SEC abolished the upper limit of this rule, which made it difficult for speculators (gamers) to press down the price of ordinary shares in a reduction transaction. The elimination of the upper limit of the net capital rule gave green light to stock exchange fraud. Gordon Gekko would be proud of it.
The 2008 economic disaster of the year was so overly complex that most Americans still cannot understand what happened. It was, in fact, like too high stakes in a game of chance that has gone too far. The following excerpt from Aaron Sorkin’s book, Too Big to Break,  describes this well:
"Wall Street began to pack housing loans, mortgage-backed securities into packages, and sell fragments of these packages to investors. They made a lot of money, so they began to put pressure on lenders, saying: let's go, we need even more borrowing. By this time lenders gave loans to those who had a good credit history, but needed more. Then they started feeding the lower classes. Before buying a house, you needed an 620 credit rating and an initial payment of 20%. Now they were ready to settle the matter with the 500 rating For the down payment. An ordinary buyer of a house from the street assumes that the experts know what they are doing. If the bank is ready to lend him money, it means that he is able to afford it. Thus, he will reach the American dream and buy himself that house. time, the banks knew that the guarantees based on these crappy bonds were risky. Therefore, in order to manage these risks, the banks started to buy insurance. So in case of inability to pay mortgage loans, they are paid by the insurance company (this is called etsya pumping of non-payment, or credit default swapping). Banks insure their potential losses so as to completely remove the risks from their portfolios in order to continue to invest and get even more profit. One insurance company was ready to take on an incredible amount of risk - American International Group (AIG). Why? Fees. Hundreds of millions of fees alone. AIG thinks the housing market will continue to grow, but suddenly something happens. House prices are suddenly falling. Low interest repayment rate (the one that is offered to borrowers in the initial term) on Johnny Domostroev's mortgage expires, and he stops paying. Mortgage securities collapse, and AIG must pay swaps. One and all. All over the world. At the same time. AIG cannot pay and goes bankrupt. Every bank that they should have insured incurs massive losses on the same day. Then they all go broke. Everything collapses. "
What does all of this mean? Yes, the United States made some bad financial and foreign policy decisions from the end of the 1950's to the beginning of the 1960's. Still not got rid of the feeling that we still have the same government, is not it? We have a Congress, a Senate, a President, and a Supreme Court. You know yourself, the same system of checks and balances that guys like Washington, Adams and Jefferson put together. We are still a democracy, aren't we? We still have a free market driven by capitalism, right? If so, what has changed? What did Jack Ruby warn you about? Let's take a closer look. Look at the characteristics of our government and its policies, from the year 1960, to this day. Compare these characteristic features with the fourteen defining signs of fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt (compiled by Franco after studying Nazi Germany, Italy, Mussolini and Spain) and answer this question. Here they are:
1. Mighty, lasting nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to use nationalistic slogans, slogans, symbols, songs and paraphernalia. Everywhere you can see flags, both on clothes and in public places.
2. Neglect of the recognition of human rights “Because of the fear of enemies and the need for security, the people under the fascist regime are convinced that in some cases human rights can be ignored“ as necessary. ” People tend to look at torture, lynching, murder, prolonged imprisonment, etc. through your fingers or even approve of them.
3. Search for enemies / scapegoats as a unifying base. People are united in a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate the perceived common threat or enemy: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals, communists, socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Privileged position of the military - even if there is a wide range of internal problems in the country, the armed forces receive a disproportionately large budget funding, and internal problems are ignored. Soldiers and soldiers praised.
5. Unbridled Gender Discrimination - The governments of the fascist nations are prone to almost exclusively male dominance. Under the fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are even more unshakable. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed, and the state is represented as the main advocate of the family institution.
6. Media Control - Sometimes the media is controlled directly by the government, but in some cases they are indirectly controlled by government regulations or with the help of sympathetic representatives and media leaders. Censorship - especially during the war - is widespread.
7. National security obsession - fear is used by the government as a tool for motivating the masses.
8. The merger of power and religion - the governments of fascist nations tend to use the most common religions in the country as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology are generally accepted among government leaders, even when the basic tenets of religion are diametrically opposed to government policies and actions.
9. Corporate Security - industrial and business aristocracy in the fascist states are often those who brought the government to power, creating mutually beneficial business relations between both business and government and the ruling elite.
10. Union suppression - since the trade unions represent the organizing force of the working class — the only real threat to the fascist governments, they are either completely absent or cruelly suppressed.
11. Contempt for the intelligentsia and art - The population of fascist states is inclined to encourage and tolerate open hostility towards higher education and scholars. Often, professors and other scientists are censored and even arrested. Free self-expression in art and literature is attacked openly.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - under the fascist regimes, the police officer is given virtually unlimited powers to enforce the laws. People often prefer not to notice police abuses in the name of patriotism. In the fascist states, the police are often formed by national composition and have virtually unlimited power.
13. Unbridled nepotism and corruption - Fascist regimes are almost always governed by groups of friends and partners who assign each other to government posts and use power to protect their friends from liability. For the fascist regimes, it is usually the assignment and theft of national resources, and even the treasury by government leadership.
14. Fraudulent election - sometimes elections in fascist states turn into real falsification. In other cases, elections are governed by smear campaigns and even the killing of opposition candidates, using legislation to control the number of voters, county boundaries and media manipulation. It is also typical for fascist states to use the judicial system to manipulate or control elections.
Looking at these 14 signs of fascism, can we look back at ourselves in America and see some of them with us. I will mention just a few examples, the Law on Combating Terrorism (the loss of the 4 amendment), the “potato of freedom” , “Either you are with us or you are with terrorists”, the astronomical expenses for military needs are so large that half this amount would be enough to create the most outstanding army the world has ever seen, the base in Guantanamo Bay, "corporations are people" , disdain for science and facts, defeat trade unions, "liberal" Hollywood, recount 2000 election results year, the largest number of prisoners in the world in terms of per capita Lenia, control over women's bodies , controlled by large corporations and entrepreneurs media, nepotism, a foreign policy based on the will of God, rather than rational thought, etc. The list of examples can be listed several days.
Have we become in America so that the older generations gave up their lives during the Second World War? Or is the behavioral description of our nations in terms of politics and economics a mere coincidence? There is no 100% opportunity to find out if the course of our nation was changed inadvertently to ensure national security or the course of our nation was changed to “the coming to power of a new form of government,” as Jack Ruby said almost half a century ago.
Some questions will never be answered. Was Jack Ruby a man who knew about the plan to quietly overthrow the United States government and disguise it for the assassination attempt of a lonely Marxist from Texas who was such a good shooter because he served in the Marine Corps? Or was Jack Ruby, who was in prison in 1964, trying to tell National Television anything to cover his ass because he killed a man? Only Jack Ruby could answer these questions. Whether it is a coincidence or not, what he said has weight to this day. If he told the truth - then who pulls the strings? Banks, corporations, Bildeberg club, Mickey Mouse? If Ruby told the truth, one thing is clear. The President of the United States does not make decisions. This is only an appearance.
Currently, the application of the Jack Ruby script to any political or social discussion gives an interesting result. Social media is given to America in order to express its opinion, no matter how uneducated and ignorant it can be. If what Jack Ruby said is true, all the discussions that we listen to every day, whether on weapons, drugs, sexual orientation, war, political ideology, gender equality, the state budget, economic issues, or the media themselves have absolutely no no value. All of these discussions should use the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the cornerstone of the basic rights and privileges of US citizenship. However, what if the United States in the form in which we understand them (and in which they are understood by the Constitution) were overthrown through the coup of 1963 of the year? In this case, everything that so much time is spent on discussing what every day, and discussing things before losing the pulse, before revolutionary thoughts, is a question that is pointless to argue about.
Everyone is protesting against the wrong government and the wrong rules of the game. If we approach daily occurrences with the understanding that many years ago the “new form of government” prevailed, then gradually comes an understanding of why the US government does certain things and does not show proper respect for the documents and values on which the country was built. Political parties can serve as a means of diverting the attention and camouflage that this shadow government needs so that people can have fun and not think about what is happening behind the scenes. We have no way of knowing if this is true. See how excited Americans coped with choices that are essentially futile in the long run with regard to contemporary US politics. The sole purpose of the election (and candidates) is the submission and the statement that they send to the citizens and peoples of the rest of the world.
Despite the fact that the United States, without any doubt, is showing every feature of a fascist state, there is something else that other fascist states did not have in the past. Americans There is a possibility that American exclusivity is indeed a mental disorder (just remember the guy with the Romney tattoo on his face in 2012). American exclusivity is something else. Our nation was created by the hard work of those who could and the works of those who were told that they could not. This is the very spirit within everyone that makes the US an experiment of freedom, hope, and opportunity that scholars will learn thousands of years after us. It is a spark of awareness that we can do better and be better than before, feeding the people of our nation. The United States did not always do everything right the first time, but they always found a previously lost path. This is what makes this country special. This is what makes us, as Americans, special: the ability to do just that. As John Kennedy said, "the problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics, whose horizons are limited by obvious realities. We need people who can dream of something that has never happened."
 Jakob Leon Rubinstein is the owner of a nightclub in Dallas, widely known to have been shot dead by Lee Harvey Oswald at a police station in November 24, detained on suspicion of the murder of US President John F. Kennedy. He was sentenced to death. The verdict was contested. He died in 1963 from lung cancer in the same hospital where Oswald died and where President Kennedy was declared dead after his murder.
 The Presidential Kennedy Presidential Commission to Investigate, better known as the Warren Commission - on behalf of Commissioner Earl Warren - a special body created by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy. 24 September 1964, the commission submitted a final report on the 888 pages. According to the findings of the commission, the Kennedy assassination was the work of a lone sniper Lee Harvey Oswald.
 The full text of the controversial quotation: "In this country there is a plan for the enslavement of every man, woman and child. Before leaving this high and honorable position, I intend to expose the plan."
 "New Deal" (New Deal) is the name of the economic policy pursued by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration since 1933, in order to get out of the massive economic crisis (Great Depression) that swept the US in 1929 - 1933.
 The 1933 Banking Law of the Year, also referred to by the names of its initiators as the Glas-Stigalla Act, is a federal legislative act signed by the US President 16 on June 1933, and until the end of the 20th century, defined the American banking system, banning commercial banks from engaging in investment activities significantly limiting the right of banks to operations with securities and introducing compulsory insurance of bank deposits.
 The common name of two episodes that occurred in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964, with the participation of the US Navy and North Vietnam. The consequence of the incident was the adoption by the US Congress of the so-called Tonkin resolution, which provided President Lyndon Johnson with the legal basis for the direct use of the country's armed forces in the Vietnam War.
 When the Senate commission investigating the Watergate scandal in 1973, it became known that Nixon installed a tape recorder in the Oval Office of the White House, the commission requested all the records of the talks held there starting in the spring of 1971 of the year. The special prosecutor appointed by the Ministry of Justice , a Harvard law professor Archibald Cox, immediately contacted Judge Syrica and the Senate Commission, trying to get evidence recorded on a magnetic tape. Nixon, referring to the confidentiality of the president’s correspondence and conversations, refused to provide the required material. October 20 1973, the year Nixon gave the order to dislodge Cox. Attorney General Eliot Richardson himself chose to resign, and his deputy resigned after him. Although these actions were specifically timed so as to fall on the weekend, when public reaction was usually muted, they caused, according to the new chief of staff Nixon, General Alexander Haig, a “firestorm”. Shocked Nixon backed down. Of the nine tapes requested by the investigation, he provided, however, only seven, on one of them the conversation unexpectedly stopped for as many 18 minutes. Rose President's dedicated secretary Marie Woods said she unintentionally erased this part of the recording. Other pauses that occurred on the films, in many cases, the experts were able to recover. Thus, it was possible to clearly hear such an amount of compromising material that even one of Nixon's lawyers, after listening to the film for the first time, whispered: "Now it's over."
 Too big to fail is a colloquial term attributed to economist Hyman Minsky, denoting financial institutions that are so large and have so many economic connections that their bankruptcy will have disastrous consequences for the economy as a whole. This term served as the title for the book of the American journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin, published in Russian under the title “Too big to fail, how Wall-Street and Washington fought to save the financial system and themselves: a look from the inside.” In 2011, the same film was shot using this book.
 In 2003, when American troops invaded Iraq and France strongly condemned these actions, the campaign to boycott French goods led to the fact that in all the cafes of the US House of Representatives French fries were renamed Freedom Potatoes. ", and French toast (toast) in" Toasts of Freedom. " The same "changes" during an active campaign in the press occurred in many food establishments throughout America.
 "Corporations are people" is one of Romney's most odious reservations. During the admission of China to the World Trade Organization (WTO), American politicians talked a lot about “human rights”, but, in fact, insisted only on providing “intellectual property”, which also protects not so much intellectuals, as corporate incomes.
 A number of states operating in different states and proposed to introduce legislation designed to limit abortion are compared by various human rights organizations and feminists with "control over women's bodies."