WORLD VIEWS

Guest Column

       by  Nadezhda Alexeeva

     In late 2012, The New York Times published a long article where it called on citizens to prepare for a major collapse. It turns out that Barack Obama is prepared to prevent a civil war and the manifestations of totalitarianism. However, the measures were the most striking manifestation of totalitarianism from which the American public has to be rescued. The main job of the Department of Homeland Security is total surveillance over the population of the country. This organization was created after 9/11, and is endowed with nearly unlimited power. Its employees have the right to arrest, physically eliminate, carry a total surveillance of anyone who the U.S. government announces an "enemy of the people" or a terrorist. The Department has numerous informants scattered in all layers of the American society and is allocated enormous funding from the federal budget.

     There are also numerous rumors about special exercises conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies dedicated to suppression of hypothetical popular uprisings. Various situations are modeled. For example, in 1984, the U.S. conducted exercises under the code-name Rex- 84 that worked out the course of action in the event of a political crisis. In response, the Constitution would be suspended, and the absolute power would be transferred to the president, followed by the military suppression of the population.

      This army is mentally ready to start a war against its own population. It was trained for this more than once. There have been numerous exercises on the participation of the armed forces in rebellions suppression. The so-called Zombie Apocalyspe is a meer training session for the military to supress it's citizens.

     We can assume that these are just rumors, but, as the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. It seems that the news of this kind produces a very negative impression on ordinary Americans, including the growing distrust in the institution of the government.

    Why is this active, vibrant nation that has managed to build cities, factories and a huge empire on the bare, uncharted land, the nation that gave the world so many great artists, writers, and prominent political figures in such a lamentable state? 

     Americans as a nation are going through a difficult period. Their traditional values have been abandoned. The U.S. is likely facing a serious social upheaval due to the Socialization of their school systems. They are the basis for the planned, phased elimination of those rights and freedoms stipulated by the U.S. Constitution and crammed into the consciousness of the American public. If the pace of taking away rights does not keep up with the pace of reformatting(brain-washing) the consciousness of the American population, the crisis in the American. society will worsen.

The End of the US was in 2007

Forward by

     M. Richard Maxson

This blog always promises the TRUTH whatever that may be. many people believe that the old USA is dead (1776-2006). and that we are now living in the Democratic Socialist States of America. They may not be that far off.


This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.
Don' t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and
let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
 
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS
of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
 
They added to this crisis by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 trillion dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the third highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush.

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

The Shutdown is a Constitutional Responsibility

Guest Column

           by G. Sontag 

     

       Re·spon·si·ble : able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required : involving important duties, decisions, etc., that you are trusted to do. There are some in Congress who, perhaps by being "educated" by our national school system, forgot the meaning of this word. It is, after all, their reason for being in Washington in the first place.

      James Madison, the 39 other men who signed the Constitution in 1787, wisely provided for separation of powers among the three branches of government. The president would faithfully execute the laws and be commander in chief of the military, but both houses of Congress would have to approve of every penny the government could spend. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity. A right under the Constitution to with hold money from ANY program the choose.

     Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact. You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

      Government shutdown is not exactly a new thing. We have had 17 government shutdowns since the late 1970s. Almost all involved legislative-executive disagreement. So when we hear from Harry Reid or Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply another one of their lies.