June 28, 2008

Explanation And Apology

I’m dreadfully sorry about my lengthy absence over the last couple of weeks — I would have liked to post several times, but I’ve been quagmired in logistical/preparation/staffing issues for a rather complex offshore project, and coupled with searching for some permanent “digs” here in Manhattan, my time and my mind have been focused on the above.

In a few minutes, I’ll be headed for the airport and thence out of the country for several days, and where I’ll be for the most part there will not likely be Internet access.

Once I’ve returned, I expect that I’ll be able to insert myself into a more regular posting mode (I love blogging, and when circumstances keep me from it, I am not a happy camper).

I thank you, friends, for your indulgence in this and look forward collossally to getting the current work project completed and posting again.

– Seth

by @ 5:24 am. Filed under Absence

June 11, 2008

A 2008 Democrat Presidential Win. Why Not? Because…

…the majority on the Hill, as we well know, and therefore “leadership” of Congress, belongs to the Democrats.

Thirty two years ago was less than four years before I became a Republican (thank Jimmy Carter for that change in my personal political views!), but even if I had been a Republican at the time I wouldn’t have been nearly as concerned as I am now about a Democrat majority in Washington, D.C. The folks on the left side of the aisle still, for the most part, were either conservative Democrats or at least maintained a semblance of responsibility to the Constitution, the document that had, since the beginnings of the United States of America, defined their jobs in the House and the Senate among many other things. There was only so far they might have gone.

Since then, particularly since the Clinton years, the latter has changed.

Today’s Democrats have sold out completely to the far left, to the hardcore socialists and America haters, the multiculturalists and the mongers of political correctness who have no use not only for the Constitution, but for our nation’s moral and religious values, the laws that protect our sovereignty and our liberty, our market-based economy or our role as a global peacekeeper and protector of the freedom of other, weaker countries under attack by predatory neighbors intent on crushing them under the boot of oppressive governance.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans, born and raised in this greatest of nations, so easily support those politicians who, dancing to the music of their portside masters, advocate agendas whose fruition would run counter to every principle that has made America what it is.

Are these people simply naïve, or do they truly want to lose the liberties they’ve been able to take for granted since they were very young? Do they really want to pay thousands of extra dollars in taxes a year so that ever-expanding federal bureaucracies can inefficiently manage their health care long before it becomes a serious issue for them, along with numerous other aspects of their lives? Do they really want big government to have the authority to micromanage their more important personal affairs, or to be able to rule on issues that run contrary to the beliefs of their own communities?

I was approached on the street by a poll taker of some sort the other day who wanted to know my opinion on homosexual rights.

I replied truthfully that like abortion, medical marijuana and other issues that don’t effect the running of our country as the Constitution specifies, I believe that same sex relationship agendas belong under the heading of States’ Rights and should not be made a federal issue.

She appeared neither happy with nor understanding of my reply, but that’s the way it is. She received an honest answer, which, by the way, I didn’t see her record on the clipboard she was carrying. Oh, well, must’ve been one o’ them thar one-way polls.

But…the reason for this post is actually to do with what is probably the prime reason for not electing a Democrat, any Democrat, let alone a serious left-winger like Obama, to the White House this time out.

As I noted above, the current crop of Democrats in Congress are more marionettes for the extreme left than they are statesmen (or stateswomen) of any kind. They espouse a number of agendas, including those I mentioned earlier in this post, as well as amnesty for criminal aliens, adoption of U.N. and E.U. policies that challenge our own sovereignty and form of government; destructive regulation of the marketplace; adherence to accords, based on the anthropogenic global warming myth, that would deal a crippling blow to our economy; bombardments of new taxation that would not only create hardships for the average American family, but would also target corporations whose only practical responses would be massive layoffs and curtailment of expansion; Unrestrained pork barrel waste of our taxes…I could probably go on and on, but I think I’ve made my point thus far.


Imagine where this far left Democrat majority, especially if they gain more seats this November, could take us with an even farther left (B. Hussein Obama, anyone?) Democrat in the Oval Office – no worries of the dreaded “veto pen” standing in their way as they spend our money, regulate our economy and tax us to death at their whim – a completely socialist America, down to the finest detail, within four years.

Meanwhile, there’s Obama’s ridiculously naïve foreign policy, complete with his intention to legitimize enemies of America whose only want, need and ambition is to see us dead by establishing “friendly” diplomatic ties with them, to think about…

by @ 10:36 am. Filed under Election 2008

June 10, 2008

Something To Consider

Everywhere I go on the conservative side of media, both pajama and otherwise, I read, view and hear of the evils of B. Hussein Obama and why electing him President would spell certain disaster for America.

I tend to agree (tend, hell, where agreement is concerned, I’m with those sentiments 100%!), but…

I wonder if all this mention of Obama versus much less reference to John McCain is in the best interests of conservatives.

My point?

The “name you know” philosophy.

I mean, we read OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!




Granted, there’s little else to refer to regarding the Arizona senator in the positive column than his support for the War on Terror and his commitment to homeland security. Well, there is his honesty, which is conspicuously absent in the Democrats’ offering and the undeniable fact that he speaks from the heart, and that his message doesn’t adjust itself constantly like the Illinois guy’s seems to.

Once the debating begins, McCain will outshine Obama in flying colors, partially because he is infinitely more experienced at the game of politics and partly because B. Hussein O. will not be able get around discussing issues in more detail with empty rejoinders to match his hitherto empty rhetoric.

McCain should be able to mop up the floor with Obama in any debate situation without having to resort to charactar defamation and the like.

This will not set well with the irresponsible, Land-of-the-Lotus-Eaters propagandists of the mainstream media, who will indubitably respond by attacking McCain’s charactar and every other chink in his armor, surreal or imagined, that they can come up with.

Even before Obama got the nomination, members of the media were attacking McCain’s age, “speculating” on whether, while serving as President, he might suddenly become a victim of Alzheimer’s or some other advanced age related disease. They were “speculating” upon what mental illnesses he might have developed as a result of his years as a POW, what with the tortures, the possibilities of Helsinki Syndrome and what have you, and how they might effect his performance as POTUS.

Undoubtedly, they were deeply concerned about his reaction to the dreaded 3:00 A.M. telephone call. Yeah, right.

When I was employed at a Nevada casino several years ago, the founding owner was a man in his eighties. Having outlived his partners, he was forced to deal with their young whippersnapper heirs over matters of casino policy and so forth. Since he believed in adhering to the old, surefire ways that had made the business a thriving success rather than change to meet their greedy, grab it-all-now, spoiled brat ambitions, they attempted to convince themselves that he was senile. Having had a number of lengthy conversations with him, I knew different.

That 80+ year old man not only wrote and published a book about his experiences in Nevada dating back to the 1930s, he was well known for driving his Land Rover through the roughest wilderness in the state for pure enjoyment. He was sharp and he was a man who could think on his feet.

And they call McCain old?


When the campaigning gets hot and heavy during late summer and early fall, we can expect a solid media onslaught of unfair, unjustified, uncivilized, unfounded, aggressive anti-McCain rhetoric intended to throw the voters off the by-then established reasons why Obama should not, for any reason, be elected President and why McCain, while a million miles short of the ideal man for the job, will be the best choice on the November ballot.

We will need to be prepared to answer those MSM attacks not with counter-rhetoric against Obama, but with solid defenses of McCain. To do otherwise would cause the conservative side of the equation to look as pre-adolescent as the Democrat side, and it has long been my own opinion that two things that separate the right side of U.S. politics from the left is the right’s realistic outlook and mature means of expressing the same.

In short, I believe we will need to think less anti-Obama and more pro-McCain.

by @ 11:24 am. Filed under Election 2008

June 6, 2008


Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama calls for “change”.

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain calls for “right change”.

A need for change is not actually an issue, it is merely the espousement of political rhetoric that is the specialty of the politician seeking election or reelection, and in the present case, election to the highest office in the land; given the military might/economic power pecking order among countries, in this instance the world.

The “change” has already occurred: Our elected leaders, from the Executive Branch to the Legislative to the Judicial, even to extent the Supreme Court and most definitely the lower courts, have completely turned their backs on the very document that defines the United States: The U.S. Constitution. That has been the “change”.

Under the auspices of the Constitution, a young country grew, in less than two centuries, to the pinnacle of historic success as a nation, far outstripping so-called great countries that had been around for many more centuries. People flocked here from all over the world for the opportunity to become Americans, many risking their lives in escaping more oppressive countries of origin to get here.

And then, somewhere in the last three decades or so, our politicians realized that more votes could be bought, more campaign money brought in from special interest groups and more problems solved cosmetically, via temporary fix, by the simple expedient of “thinking outside the box”, the “box” in this instance being the Constitution.

Today, that awesome document is not only ignored, it is viewed almost with disgust or as a mere sound byte by all too many Americans.

Mention the Constitution in a debate with a liberal today, you’ll get a shrug in reply. The Constitution, how passé! Mention the Constitution to most Republican politicians these days, you’ll get a lot of long-winded, sanctimonious ho-humming on its importance that doesn’t correspond with the bills they themselves propose or the way they vote on those proposed by colleagues.

We threw out the British a little over two hundred thirty years ago in a bloody revolution whose purpose was to shrug off the chains of their heavy taxation without representation and their encroachment on our liberties.

Now, our government has become exactly what the British government was before we fought our way out from under the auspices of that repressive former global empire. We’ve become that from which we once broke away, and worse. It is reflected every day in the micromanaging laws that are passed, the pork barrel spending of our taxes on projects and programs that represent the interests of grossly limited numbers of taxpayers, most of which are nothing more than vote-buying measures by politicians within their own districts, using our hard-earned money for their own local campaign financing.

It is, indeed, the responsibility of the American voter to stay on top of our politicians, to keep an eye on what they are doing with the money they take from our pay checks and the power we invest in them to govern our country, and on rare occasions such as that of the amnesty bill a couple of years ago, Americans do indeed rise up and browbeat those politicians back into the realm of the will of The People.

But that was a high-profile situation that even the powerful liberal mainstream media couldn’t obscure.

What about all the day-to-day, rank and file legislation that passes right under our noses that we are simply too busy to keep track of? Yes, too busy: So many bills run through Congress every day they are in session that it would take someone with his eyes and ears glued to both C-Span channels all day long, free of all other concerns including going to the bathroom and answering the telephone, to keep up with it all.

Rest assured, however, that “it all” would prove to be a good 95% outside the authority granted Congress by the Constitution.

So let’s quit all this ridiculous talk of “change”.

The change has already occurred, it needs only to be undone via the simple expedient of restoring the Constitution to its former status as the guiding light of our national prosperity, our laws, our liberty and our collective pride in our identity as citizens of the United States of America.

by @ 9:20 am. Filed under The U.S. Constitution

June 1, 2008

In Response To Statements Made…

…by folks who have not yet had the pleasure of visiting Gotham but believe rumors they’ve heard, I have searched New York City diligently for evidence that it is indeed a “concrete jungle”.

What I found instead is a long, wide green rectangle that dominates the map between Fifth Avenue and Central Park West, 59th Street and 110th Street called Central Park.
The Great Lawn


Strolling Further

Some WaterHmmm, no sign of a concrete jungle above, but…but wait! I did see some water! Maybe that’s what they use to mix the concrete!
Agua mas


More WalkingThen again, maybe not…

No, it looks to me like where flora and fauna are concerned, New York pretty much has its ducks in a row.Getting Those Ducks In A Row

by @ 6:58 pm. Filed under New York