America on the brink, can we bring it back?

I have seen this before, and it is something that needs to be said, again and again. Like a friend of mine said when he posted it to the yahoo group that I have said. Read it, and re-read it again if you do not get the message. This is imperative:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” —Patrick Henry

Now isn’t this the truth. The Liberal left has been trying for years now to enslave the American people with bigger and bigger government, and more and more programs to control what the citizenry of the United States does. Just the opposite of what the founding fathers had in mind.

So the question I have to ask, is this. We are on the brink of destroying what the founding fathers had foreseen for this country. Is it too late to bring it back? I think not, but we have to stop the liberal left and the right who doesn’t have faith in the Constitution from continuing to sabotage and change our founding documents to suit what they feel this country has to change too.

And the reason that I believe this: This quote from Barack Obama a week or so ago when he said: “We live in the greatest nation that this world has ever seen. Why don’t you join me in trying to change it.” Now isn’t that a hoot. If they really thought that this country was so great, why are they so eager to change it? Just a thought from a thinker.

God Bless America,
God Bless our troops
God bless my readers here, my listeners on Blog Talk Radio and my viewers on my update videos


Why are we so passive in such an aggressive time?

As the news goes today, from Iraq, on Easter, 57 were killed in Iraq today. And some in a green zone, the area where a suicide car bomber detonated his load in Shula, Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, March 23, 2008. At least seven died and 14 were wounded in the blast.

Now my question to you fine people out there is this. Why are we being such pacifists in this war, when the enemy isn’t anything but aggressive? Doing things like breaking Geneva rules of engagement, but expecting us to follow those same rules?

Why do we let our politicians…..Like John Murtha and John Kerry get away with calling our troops murderers, when they are fighting over there for their lives, and any hesitation in their actions could mean their deaths….but they are called to hesitate?

Why was it okay this last year for CNN to get film from an enemy combatant sniper, who was shooting at our troops, and it was okay to put it on the air? But when our troops fire in self defense and a civilian gets killed in the fire fight, our troops are at fault?

These questions bring forth the problems that America has, when it is fighting a war. Our troops are not only fighting the enemy who wants to exterminate them completely, and then us, but they are also fighting their own government.

Is this the right way to honor our troops here people? I say no it isn’t. We need to call on our representatives in Washington DC and pound into their skulls, that they had better start representing the United States here, or they will be out on the streets looking for a new job….and if that happens…..their new job will not come close to supporting the lifestyle that they have grown accustomed too. Now will it?

Right now we have William Russell running against John Murtha in the Pennsylvania congressional elections, and I hope that William Russell wins this one, though Murtha is using every dirty trick in the books to keep Mr. Russell off the ballots come election day…….and the trouble is people, we are allowing this to happen. I know that I won’t be so passive anymore. How about you?

God Bless America
God Bless Our Troops…..always
God Bless my Readers here, my listeners on Blog Talk Radio, and my viewers on my video updates…..

-Seane Anna-

I listened to Barack Obama’s speech today….and….

Okay, I was listening to the radio today, and was going to listen to the speech that Barack Obama was to give and the first thing I had come to me, after he was 30 minutes late in starting it, was that he was doing his best to figure out what to say to stop the mess that his pastor had gotten him into. And sure enough, he tried…but I think he didn’t succeed. He did a great job on pretty much avoiding the subject, saying that he would basically not condemn someone who is retiring.

He said that he could no more turn away from his pastor, as he could the fact that he was black. Okay, that being said, that means that he believes what his pastor says. After all, he has had twenty years of listening to this man, and if he didn’t agree with the things that he said, he would have left this church a long time ago. So that being said…..if he is still there, then he agrees with what the man said.

If a person chooses a church, there are two reasons that they choose the church. First and formost is the message. That is something that the pastor gives. Barack has gone to this church for 20 some years, and you can’t tell me that suddenly he has decided that he doesn’t like the message. He is only changing his tune because he sees that his stance on this is hurting his candidacy, and so he is changing and trying to convince us that he has changed. He hasn’t. If he gets elected, then he will change back to the way he has been the last 20 years. And we will be in trouble.

We are in trouble if you believe the speech that he gave today. He gave a few things in there trying to explain his supposed stance on this…..and the stance he said he has….completely goes against what he was saying. He says that he doesn’t believe what the pastor says…but he can’t turn away from the pastor because he likened it to his skin color as being something he can’t turn away from.

Here is part of what he said:

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk – to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. And yet, for 20 years, he has listened to the pastor who hates America.
It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

Now the speech is beautiful. He talks a good talk. But so did Hitler. Mr. Obama is only saying what he said today because he knows that his campaign is in trouble now because of his pastor, and he had to make this speech for political gain. That is all.

He even tried to blame Reagan and Talk Radio for the problems that he talked about, knowing full well, that the problems he is having, is because of choices that he and his wife have made over the last 20 years.

Now, there was more to his speech than just the first part that I posted here, but if you wish to read the whole thing, you can go to here
and read it for yourself.

Another thing that has been said over the last few weeks is his wife saying that this is the first time in her life that she has been proud of America. Now why, do we need to have people in the white house who are not proud of their country? I say we don’t. They are always talking about change, but not once has either of them talked about what change they have in store for America. The reason for that is, is because the change that they have in mind would not set well with the American public.

Before you vote, stop and think about what this country means to you. If it means a lot, then you cannot with a clear conscience vote for Barack Obama. And you cannot with a clear conscience vote for Hillary Clinton either. Both of these people want to get rid of the republic that we hold dear, and they want to replace it with socialism….or any other “ism” that they think they can get in place. And they have both talked about a lot of them. Raceism, wefareism, victimism,… get the picture. They want anything that will make government bigger, and our rights as citizens smaller. You want that…then by all means….vote for one of them. But I for one do not want to lose any of my freedoms. Because one of the first freedoms they will try to get rid of is our ability to write our blogs, or do our radio shows……because they know they can’t control that….so they want to get rid of them.

So, did I believe what Barack Obama said in his speech. NO. I did not. For all he was trying to do, was to pass off on us, his attempt to make us not believe what is really happening here. He has even succeeded in keeping most of us from even speaking his middle name. I feel that someone who doesn’t want his middle name spoken is hiding a lot. And I for one do not want to find out what he is hiding when he is residing in the White House.

God Bless America….always
God Bless our Troops….and their missions….
God Bless my readers here, my listeners on BTR and my viewers on my youtube video updates.

A friend, Douglas Gibbs, of Political Pistachio wrote….

Now I have seen a lot written about liberalism, and what they liberal stands for, but this is the best that I have seen in a long while. Douglas Gibbs, of the blog: Political Pistachio, and radio host on Blog Talk Radio with a show of the same name, has written this, on March 16th, 2008. And it is very well written:

The Liberal Plan

What Secular Humanism/Liberalism/Socialism has Wrought

Liberalism is socialism is communism. This is a popular belief among the inhabitants of the right side of the political spectrum. Those that reside on the left side of the political spectrum immediately argue that calling liberalism a form of socialism is arrogant of the right, and an irresponsible tactic. From a hair-splitting perspective, of course liberalism is not socialism, and socialism is not communism. There are a few differences. But, as a general overview, each of these political philosophies share a great number of similarities, and each of these political ideas require that the subject (oops, I mean citizen) place government at the top of their list of importance (hence, the need to eliminate any vestige of God, because an all-powerful body of government must be like a god to the people, and will not tolerate any allegiance to any other god).

The theory behind socialism is simple. Socialism is a system of collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production. Socialism means production to satisfy minimum human needs as opposed to “for sale and profit” like under the system of capitalism. Socialism places direct control and management of the industries and social services with the workers through a democratic process based on their nationwide economic organization. Under a socialistic ideal all authority originates from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. In each work environment the labor elects whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each smaller unit, be it a shop or office division of a plant, the people who perform the labor participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Everyone works together in harmony to ensure the products are produced in the most efficient manner possible, placing those that know the most, and can lead the best, into positions of power (oops, I mean supervision).

After all, if looked at on the surface, socialism is truly a democratic way of running things. The workers elect their shop officers, elect representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service and to a central congress representing all the industries and services, and the all-industrial congress plans and coordinates production in all areas of the economy. All persons elected to any post in the socialist government, from the lowest to the highest level, will be directly accountable to the rank and file. They will be subject to removal at any time that a majority of those who elected them decide it is necessary.

Those that support such a system, and teach such a wonderful utopia in our American Universities, state that “Such a system would make possible the fullest democracy and freedom. It would be a society based on the most primary freedom: economic freedom.”

For some individuals, on paper, socialism seems like it would mean an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. Laborers would cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market. It would mean a chance to develop all individual capacities and potentials within a free community of free individuals.

Such a wonderful dream. Sounds like the perfect system. Now, all you have to do to implement such a system is make everyone work together in harmony, make people give up the dream of becoming wealthy, make people be willing to be controlled by a centralized democratic government, make people accept that if they don’t get elected to a supervisory position they will never have the opportunity to rise up unless a supervisor either dies or is unseated (and since people tend to form alliances of power in such a system, being voted out seems unlikely), and make people place the importance of such a system above all other things including their desire to improve themselves, above any desire to become more successful (often characterized by wealth and possessions), and above their faith in anything other than the system )such as an all-powerful God). Wow, that’s an aweful lot of things that they have to make people do.

Liberalism is a political philosophy that advocates greater public support, and greater regulation over the private sector. Liberals would like to enable a centralized democratic government to manage everything so that the average citizen can worry about their labor as a worker rather than petty little things like healthcare, housing, etc. In a liberal society as envisioned by the current leaders of the Democratic Party, people have evolved to the point that they understand that the wealthy must be taxed heavily so that those monies can be redistributed to the poor, hopefully eventually eliminating the classes, eventually allowing the “village” to work as a whole, and enabling the community to provide for its citizens everything they need be it housing (like government housing paid for by taxation), health care (government paid health care taken from taxation), food (like food stamps paid for by taxation), and eventually it would mean an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. Laborers would cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market. It would mean a chance to develop all individual capacities and potentials within a free community of free individuals. Hmmm, for some reason those last parts sound familiar.

Marxism is the philosophies and teachings of 19th century economist Karl Marx. Marx is credited with the idea of socialism and communism, and the vast majority of his writings were critiques of capitalism. However, he viewed the struggle of workers as a continuation of historical forces that would one day lead to communism. He believed that this “evolution” of humanity would occur in three stages. The first stage was capitalism, in which the workers are exploited by business owners (those capitalist pigs!). The second stage would be socialism, or a “dictatorship of the proletariat (workers).” Power to the people! Marx believed that the second stage would be brief. The third and final stage, communism, would produce a society that would become so classless and collectivist that the formal state would wither away, and society could spontaneously operate as a collective whole without government. A social and economic system would result in where all (or nearly all) property would be public, not private. That is, resources are shared by everyone. In the Marxist ideology, a true utopia would be achieved in the third and final stage of the worker’s struggles. Such a Utopian society would mean an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. Laborers would cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market. It would mean a chance to develop all individual capacities and potentials within a free community of free individuals.

Conservatism is in stark contrast to those three philosophies that, though not exactly the same, have many similarities, and the same goal in the end. Conservatism is much simpler. Conservatives desire to preserve the tradition of liberty and freedom that has worked so well thus far (we did not become the greatest nation on earth on accident), resist the change to a centralized system that masquerades as freedom for the workers and will end in bondage for all that are not a part of the elite in government, and Conservatism is a political philosophy that calls for reduced government and greater individual freedom in the private sector.

Conservatives do not believe that government is the ultimate solution. Conservatives do not believe that the worker should be dependent upon a centralized system, and that success should be punished and taken away “for the greater good.” Conservatives do not believe it takes a village. Conservatism has faith in the individual, and believes the individual should have the right to have faith in God, rather than a government that sets itself up in a manner to replace God and control the worker through lies and deceit. Conservatism does not support government or state ownership. Conservatism stands for freedom of the individual from an imposing and oppressive government system that taxes to pay for its entitlement programs, and “makes” the citizen follow mandates that curtails freedom, and stifles an individual’s growth as such individual pursues the American Dream of liberty, happiness, freedom, and wealth.

Obama and Clinton are both advancing economic ideas that are essentially Marxist in their nature. They both have proposed radical new levels of taxation for Americans whom they believe possess “too much” wealth, and unprecedented new levels of governmental intervention and regulation with American enterprise so as to “fix” our nation’s problems with healthcare, energy, and the environment.

It is human nature to desire success, wealth and power. A system envisioned by the “progressives” of the liberal Democratic Party in which the classes are eliminated, and wealth is re-distributed, makes about as much sense as my daughter giving up her A’s in school so that her points may be re-distributed to the kids getting F’s. This does not place them all on the same playing field again. It penalizes success, and rewards failure. But the liberal left is so busy reaching for a utopia that cannot be reached, and feeling apologetic to those that have not reached prosperity, that they are willing to mandate Marxism in America.

Now this is an insightful piece that needs to be read and re read until you understand. This tells it like it is.

God Bless America…always
God Bless our Troops….and their missions
God Bless my readers here, my listeners on Blog Talk Radio, and my viewers on my video updates….

-Seane Anna-

Political Pistachio

Another post, follow up of the last one….this on video.

The last post, was about the International Global Warming Convention, in New York City, but the media didn’t come out to cover it. Here is my video which covers the same thing as my last post here:

God Bless America…always
God Bless our Troops….and their mission
God Bless my readers here on my blog, listeners on BlogTalkRadio, and viewers on my updates

-Seane Anna-

Global Warning again…..the International Global Warming Convention….but will the media cover it?

Today was another Global Warming Convention and I betted that this one would NOT be covered by the Liberally Biased media, because this time, it will not fit their agenda of mankind destroying our environment. And you know what? It wasn’t people!

A lot of the information that I am getting for this, I get from the site called Surface stations They have on this site, the specifications required of the official temperature readings stations, and how most do NOT comply with the standards set up for the building of these stations. Here is some of what I have found people. And a lot of this information will make Al Gore’s assumptions on Global Warming stupidly and outrageously wrong.

The specifications for setting up one of these temperature reading stations is that they should not be build on or near anything that can cause changes in temperatures. No asphalt near the sensors. No vehicles near the sensors. No air conditioner exhaust near the sensors. Get the idea here? They are to be built away from anything that can give a false reading, like the asphalt around or near the building. Having vehicles too close to the reading sensors. There are photos, which I have included some of here, that show asphalt around the sensor stations. Automobiles parked with radiators close to the sensor units. One is even built on top of a roof. And you know how roofs give off higher temperatures.
US Weather temperature taking station in Roseburg, Oregon
Another thing that I found on the site were sensors that were close to big electrical units, that give off heat. Near asphalt, and cars….both of which will give off heat in the right circumstances. Imagine, if these stations are the ones that we are getting our temperatures from, how can they really be accurate? Especially the one on the roof in Roseburg, Oregon.

Another station, in GunnisonAnother station, in Gunnisonanother, in Salisbury, NC

Now, because this Convention on Global Warming goes totally against the arguments of Al Gore and the Global Warming crowd, we will never hear of this in the mainstream media. Like I said above, it doesn’t fit their agenda. They fight the scientists who are against Global Warming, not because the scientists may be right, but because they threaten their agenda to make the citizenry pay for the things that will more help to destroy what mankind has done, than help the earth. They keep saying that we have to save the world, but there is no discussion, only their ideas. They do not want the other side of the story told. Next time you see someone talking about how global warming is destroying our planet and mankind is at the forefront of this, give them this argument, and they will try to shut you down instead of letting you make your point, then argue their point. To them, you don’t have a point……just another way to be a part of the human race, who wants to destroy this world. And we are insane if we listen to them. Also, if you wish to see bigger photos of the ones I posted above, click on them and they will appear larger. The last one has words on it to explain what is wrong with where the sensor is placed.

God Bless America….always
God Bless our Troops….and their mission
God Bless my readers here on my blog, my listeners on my blog talk radio show, and my viewers on my video updates.