Stop Paying Taxes Because We’re Being Replaced With Illegal Immigrants
“There’s a lot of people out there that agree with not paying their taxes this year. My strongest And there’s a lot of people that like to comment, you’re just gonna go to jail. Let’s see how that works out for you. The IRS is gonna come get you. That’s true.
You know, our government is breaking the law every day. Constitutional law exists just the same as political law. And as long as the government is taking our tax paying dollars, and they’re using it to give to illegal immigration, giving them the right to vote, giving them driver’s license, allowing them to buy land, allowing them to buy homes, uh, giving them prepaid credit cards for those who live in hotels in New York where veterans used to live in those hotels. Now they’ve kicked out the veterans and moved in the illegal immigrants. States like California and Illinois are allowing them to become police officers and carry a weapon while they’re on duty.
That’s illegal. And you’re not gonna use my tax paying dollars to pay for your criminal activity in this country. In order for this movement to work, everyone needs to get involved. Oh, well, they’ll arrest you. No.
They won’t because they won’t have the money to arrest you. They can’t come after all of us because we have the numbers. But when are the American people gonna stop being afraid? Stop being scared. Stop being controlled.
Stop being sheep. We have a right to exist in this country. And with Bidenomics kicking everybody, uh, while they’re down, making it almost impossible to survive, you need to keep your money to take care of your family. Put a roof over their head. Put food on the table.
Make sure you don’t lose your car. Keep your cell phones turned on, keep your internet, your cable. Be responsible, but don’t be reckless. Paying your taxes right now to this corrupt, treasonous government is reckless and illegal. And it can be proved in a court of law that what they’re doing goes against the constitutional law of this land.
You won’t get in as much trouble as you think you will. Stand up. Do the right thing. As for me and my family, we’ll lead the charge. We are not paying our taxes this year.
We are not giving into the government’s control. We will not be sheep. Because you are my And we will not stand by idle and let them tell us what to do For being in the land of the free. I will be free.”
The tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains shrouded in a web of mysteries and conspiracies in the annals of American history. One pivotal figure in this mystery is Jack Ruby, the man who, on live television, shot Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of JFK. What unfolded in that chaotic moment, as Ruby pulled the trigger, has since fueled speculations and theories, with some suggesting a deeper conspiracy involving then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ). Let’s look into the cryptic testimony of Jack Ruby, explore the shadows that hint at a connection between Ruby’s actions and a larger conspiracy involving LBJ, and unravel the mystery surrounding Ruby’s own demise.
The Man Behind the Trigger
Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner with connections in the Dallas underworld, became an unexpected protagonist in the aftermath of Kennedy’s assassination. On November 24, 1963, just days after JFK’s death, Ruby shot Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police Department. The public spectacle of this act, broadcasted on live television, marked a surreal twist in the already surreal narrative surrounding Kennedy’s murder.
Ruby’s motives for killing Oswald have been a subject of intense scrutiny. While the official explanation proposes that Ruby acted out of grief and a sense of justice, there are tantalizing hints that his actions might have been influenced by forces beyond a simple desire for retribution.
Unraveling Ruby’s Testimony
In the aftermath of the shooting, Jack Ruby faced legal proceedings that sought to uncover the motives behind his impulsive act. During the trial, Ruby’s testimony unfolded like a cryptic script, leaving breadcrumbs that hinted at a deeper narrative.
One notable moment occurred when Ruby was asked about his motivation for shooting Oswald. Instead of providing a straightforward answer, Ruby’s response hinted at a larger conspiracy. He alluded to being a pawn in a game orchestrated by powerful figures, suggesting that he was not acting alone.
The LBJ Connection
The most intriguing aspect of Ruby’s cryptic testimony revolves around his subtle references to Lyndon B. Johnson. While not explicitly implicating LBJ, Ruby’s words and demeanor during the trial raise questions about the extent of Johnson’s involvement in the events surrounding Kennedy’s assassination.
Ruby’s insinuations about being a mere cog in a larger machine aligned with theories circulating at the time that LBJ might have had a motive to eliminate JFK. Some theorists argue that Johnson, eager to ascend to the presidency, had a hand in orchestrating Kennedy’s demise. Ruby’s cryptic testimony adds fuel to this speculative fire.
To understand the potential LBJ connection, we must examine the political climate of the era. Lyndon B. Johnson, a skilled political operator, had ambitions that reached beyond the vice presidency. Some theorists argue that Johnson, fearing exclusion from the political spotlight, may have sought to eliminate JFK to pave his way to the presidency.
Ruby’s cryptic remarks about being a pawn in a larger game align with the notion that powerful forces were at play behind the scenes. While these theories fall short of providing concrete evidence, they underscore the lingering doubts and suspicions surrounding the official narrative of Kennedy’s assassination.
Unanswered Questions
Decades after these events, questions surrounding Jack Ruby’s true motivations persist. The perplexity of his cryptic testimony, coupled with the persistent whispers of a larger conspiracy involving LBJ, leaves the door wide open for alternative narratives and theories.
The legacy of that fateful day in Dallas continues to be a tapestry of uncertainties and unexplored avenues. Jack Ruby’s role, once considered a mere footnote in the larger narrative, emerges as a pivotal piece in the puzzle that is the Kennedy assassination.
Ruby’s Mysterious Demise
Adding another layer of intrigue to the narrative is the mysterious death of Jack Ruby. While in prison awaiting a new trial, Ruby succumbed to a sudden and fatal illness on January 3, 1967. His death, just three years after the shooting of Oswald, fueled speculation that Ruby might have been silenced to prevent him from revealing more about the events surrounding Kennedy’s assassination.
Digging into the details of Ruby’s death, the official cause listed on the death certificate was pulmonary embolism, a condition where a blood clot lodges in the lungs, leading to respiratory failure. However, the circumstances of Ruby’s sudden illness and the rapid progression of his demise have sparked skepticism and fueled conspiracy theories.
Questions linger regarding the timing and nature of Ruby’s illness. Was it a mere coincidence, or did it serve a darker purpose? Some theorists suggest that Ruby’s death may have been orchestrated to silence a potential informant, raising doubts about the official narrative surrounding his demise.
Conclusion
In the dark corridors of history, the shadows of doubt and suspicion persist. Jack Ruby’s cryptic testimony, when viewed through the lens of a potential LBJ connection, adds layers of intrigue to an already complex narrative. While concrete evidence remains elusive, the echoes of that moment in the Dallas Police Department basement reverberate, inviting us to peer into the shadows and question the veracity of the official story. As we continue to unravel the mysteries of the past, the mystery of Jack Ruby’s actions, the potential involvement of Lyndon B. Johnson, and the mystery surrounding Ruby’s own demise remain as elusive and compelling as ever.
In the turbulent aftermath of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the divisive years that followed, politics often felt like a battlefield. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently stirred the pot by calling for the “formal deprogramming” of Trump supporters. Her choice of words raised eyebrows and sparked intense debate. This article explores the implications of such a statement and delves into the dark historical references associated with the idea of “deprogramming.”
Understanding the Call
Hillary Clinton’s call for “formal deprogramming” of Trump supporters understandably raised concerns among many, as it conjures up disturbing historical parallels. To comprehend the gravity of her statement, let’s first unpack the concept of “deprogramming.”
Deprogramming, in a political context, typically refers to the process of changing a person’s beliefs, typically through force or coercion, to align them with a particular ideology or viewpoint. It implies that individuals need to be “re-educated” to conform to a specific set of beliefs. The notion of deprogramming is not new and has been used by authoritarian regimes throughout history to control and manipulate their citizens.
Historical Examples of Deprogramming
To shed light on the dark inferences associated with the idea of “formal deprogramming,” let’s explore some historical examples of authoritarian governments subjecting their citizens to reeducation camps in a bid to mold their minds and control their actions.
Soviet Union’s Gulags (1920s-1950s): The Soviet Union established a vast network of forced labor camps, known as the Gulags, where political dissidents, intellectuals, and perceived enemies of the state were sent. These camps aimed at “reforming” inmates through harsh labor, indoctrination, and isolation.
Mao Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-1976): During this period in China, Mao Zedong unleashed a massive campaign aimed at purging “counter-revolutionaries” and “bourgeois elements” from society. This led to the creation of reeducation camps, where individuals were subjected to brutal physical and psychological abuse to force them to conform to the Communist Party’s ideology.
Cultural Revolution in Albania (1967-1985): Under the leadership of Enver Hoxha, Albania underwent a radical transformation through a series of purges and forced reeducation. Intellectuals, religious figures, and perceived enemies of the state were subjected to indoctrination and forced labor.
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (1975-1979): Under the Khmer Rouge regime, led by Pol Pot, Cambodians were subjected to forced labor, mass executions, and “reeducation” camps. Those suspected of being intellectuals or having foreign ties were sent to these camps to be “re-educated” through torture and indoctrination.
Vietnam’s Reeducation Camps (1975-1986): After the fall of Saigon, the communist government of North Vietnam established reeducation camps for former South Vietnamese military personnel, civil servants, and intellectuals. Inmates were subjected to forced labor and ideological indoctrination.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq operated a system of prisons and detention centers where political opponents and perceived threats were subjected to torture and reeducation efforts to ensure loyalty to the Ba’ath Party.
Cultural Revolution in Ethiopia (1974-1991): The Ethiopian Red Terror and Derg regime subjected individuals suspected of opposing the government to brutal reeducation programs, often resulting in torture and death.
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1990s): During the Bosnian War, both sides of the conflict operated detention camps where prisoners were subjected to physical and psychological abuse, as well as attempts to change their political or ethnic allegiances.
North Korea’s Prison Camps: North Korea has a long history of forced labor camps, where citizens deemed disloyal to the state are subjected to harsh conditions and ideological reprogramming. These camps are infamous for their brutality and the suppression of dissent.
The Dark Inferences
When Hillary Clinton called for “formal deprogramming” of Trump supporters, it triggered concerns that this could lead to government-sponsored attempts to change the political beliefs of a significant portion of the American population. The historical examples of reeducation camps and forced ideological conformity serve as cautionary tales, emphasizing the potential dangers of such an approach.
In a Republic like the United States, open and respectful dialogue should be the cornerstone of resolving political differences. Encouraging dialogue and understanding among citizens is a far cry from advocating for “formal deprogramming,” which carries the implicit threat of coercive measures.
The Slippery Slope
The use of the term “deprogramming” in a political context raises valid concerns about the potential for government overreach and infringement on personal freedoms. In a society that values individual liberty and freedom of thought, any proposal to forcibly change people’s beliefs should be met with resistance.
Moreover, the idea of “formal deprogramming” can be a slippery slope. What starts as an attempt to change one group’s beliefs may eventually expand to target other groups, setting a dangerous precedent for government intervention in matters of personal belief and ideology.
The Role of Empathy and Understanding
Instead of resorting to divisive language and authoritarian-sounding proposals, it is crucial for political leaders to foster empathy and understanding among citizens with differing viewpoints. A call for unity and dialogue, rather than “deprogramming,” can pave the way for healing and reconciliation in a deeply polarized society.
Closing Thoughts
Hillary Clinton’s call for the “formal deprogramming” of Trump supporters has ignited a firestorm of debate, casting a foreboding shadow over the future. As we explore the unsettling historical parallels of reeducation camps and ideological manipulation, it becomes evident that the implications of such a proposal are far from benign. In a society where individual freedoms are cherished, we must remain vigilant against any encroachment on personal beliefs. The specter of authoritarianism looms large when words like “deprogramming” are casually thrown into the political arena. In these uncertain times, the path we choose may lead us either towards unity through dialogue or down a treacherous road where the darkness of coercion and conformity could engulf us all.
