I was just reading Essential Liberty by Mark Alexander in the Patriot Post. This is great reading and I encourage you to study it before you get into any more so called debates with a liberal.

He gives us a summary of the cycle of Democracy will see below.

The Cycle of Democracy has been summarized as:

• From bondage to spiritual faith;
• From spiritual faith to great courage;
• From courage to liberty (rule of law);
• From liberty to abundance;
• From abundance to complacency;
• From complacency to apathy;
• From apathy to dependence;
• From dependence back into bondage (rule of men).

I can see that I was born into the area of between “from courage to liberty” and “from liberty to abundance”. At least that is how I see it and now things have sped up and we are just about between the “from apathy to dependence” and from dependence back into bondage”.

I have seen for a long time that we have had it too easy every since WWII. This was very evident to me when I came home a few years ago from Asia and saw the attitude of our people and the waste of a people that have too much.

Please go to Essential Liberty and study it then lets get busy and defend our Constitution.

***************************************************************************

I like this guy already.

I don’t know about the validity of this and the stated source may be true. It really does not matter because what it says is quite an idea. I like the last part best, if all members of Congress had the same benefits as you and me they would fix it. If Congress had the same benefits as us we would not be in this mess now!

There recently was an article in the  St. Petersburg Fl. Times. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on:  “How Would You Fix the Economy?”

I think this guy nailed it!

_____

Dear Mr. President,

Please find below my suggestion for fixing America ’s economy.  Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can call it the “Patriotic Retirement Plan”:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force.  Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire.  Forty million job openings – Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new American CAR.  Forty million cars ordered – Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage – Housing Crisis fixed.

It can’t get any easier than that!!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes…

Mr. President, while you’re at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I’ll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

If you like this idea, please use the share button to share on your social networking sites and email your friends a copy.

I was not going to even comment on this video till I watched it the third time. After that I see even more how important it is to take back our government and get the socialist bums out of there or GOOOH – Get Out Of Our House – but we have to include the Senate in there and the President also.

Bob

Tell your friends about this message.

I don’t get MSNBC so have never seen this guy but if this is any indication of what you get on MSNBC then it is not the kind of network you should want to patronize. Take a look at what this guy does to guest.

If Ratigan is a typical democrat then we are really in trouble but wait, we are in trouble. With the MSM (main stream media) spreading junk like this and a big percentage of the citizens and illegals being sheeples and want to be taken care of, well?

I did a search on this guy Dylan Ratigan and listened to some of his views, wow!

******************************************************************

This article in Reuters says the United States reversed policy on arms sales. I say the United States did not say that. Barack Obama/Soetero said that and he does not speak for the people or the Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice the name of the person who wrote the article, another muslim?

Bob

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”

“Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,” Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration’s decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

“The shift in position by the world’s biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers,” Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”

“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of “dictators and terrorists” to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

(Editing by Eric Beech)