Tom Seeman's "Social Views"

More musings from Tom Seeman:

"My beliefs have not changed that much over the years. If anything, perhaps I have become more libertarian. As I have grown more as a Christian, I have been less impressed by the "religious right"; something of a paradox, perhaps. I then grew up as a dedicated Cold Warrior...I therefore see our current war against the Islamofascists as in the same mold as the great twentieth-century struggles against Nazism and Communism."

Tom Seeman also reveals in his writings that he is a "Virgo", is of the Zodiac Year of the "Rat" and is 45 years old. His favorite music is listed as "Christian Rock".

Jane Seeman is a regular contributor to her son's idiotic ramblings. We assume she supports all of his race baiting and hate.

Tom Seeman also appears to be a volunteer for big DC events. Here he describes the January 2005 Ball:

"The Redhunter all decked out. Here I am, all decked out in a tux at the Hilton, getting ready for the Constitution Ball...My job most of the night was to stand at one of the entrance doors and say "coat check to the right, ball room to the left" When I heard a roar downstairs I knew the President had arrived. I rushed downstairs and got this view of him and his family. What a thrill!"

As to be expected, Tom Seeman has a view on the Holocaust as well:

"The story about London mayor Ken Livingstone was the genesis for this post and is what got me thinking. I saw it the other day on one of my favorite blogs, and almost could not believe what I was reading. How do you "suspend" an elected official over something he said, no matter how offensive or stupid it was? In the comments section I asked just this, but haven't received a satisfactory answer. It is simply inconceivable in the United States for an elected official to be removed by some board. My understanding is that in most all jurisdictions elected officials can only be forced to resign if they are convicted of a crime, and usually a felony at that. Obviously the details will vary from place to place, but I think I have it right as a general rule. Further, the concept that someone could be charged with a crime for denying the holocaust is also inconceivable. But I understand that this is the case in several European countries. What else is it against the law to say over there? Here freedom of speech is pretty absolute (exceptions of course are libel, slander, shouting "fire" when there is none, but those things are different)."

Thanks, Tom! Who else is there left to rail on?

Tagged by Landry Fan

I'm it. Landry Fan has tagged me. It's a list of fours, and here are mine (none of the answers are necessarily in order)

1. Jobs I Have Held In My Life

1. Sales
2. Public School Teacheer
3. Corporate Trainer
4. Consumer Electronics data classification

2. Places I Have Lived:

1. Virginia
2. Missouri
3. Virginia again
4. Kansas

3. TV Shows I Love To Watch:

1. Whatever is on the History Channel
2. Whatever is on any of the Discovery Channels
3. Whatever is on Fox News
4. Uh...whatever else looks interesting when I channel scan. My TV watching can be measured in minutes per week, actually.

4. Places I Have Been On Vacation:

1. Orlando
2. Ireland
3. Greece
4. Russia

5. Websites I Visit Daily:

1. Free Republic
2. Strategy Page
3. Belmont Club
4. National Review

6. Favorite Foods:

1. Fruit
2. Vegetables
3. Cheeze and crackers
4. dunno....granola bars?

Ok! OK! I admit it, I'm one of those fitness and health nuts.

7. Places I Would Rather Be Right Now:

1. Home works for me
2. Walter Reed
3. Counter-protesting lefties anywhere
4. Vacation in Europe or some exotic location

More from Tom Seeman on "blacks":

"Let's just start with these observations [about slavery and reparations]. The people who did wrong and evil things are dead, so there is nobody left to apologize. The people who suffered are dead, so there is nobody left to apologize too. The idea that blacks today are hurt significantly by slavery over a hundred years ago is ridiculous, given the massive federal and local spending on their behalf since then, to say nothing of quota programs, which now go under the guise of "diversity". So people who didn't do anything wrong are apologizing to people who weren't hurt. How modern. Scholarships based on race are racist. They should be based on economic need, not sex or race or some other such artificial factor. The whole thing is nothing more than a "get rich quick" scheme. All of this is bad, but in itself it's not the end of the world. The real crime is that the NAACP has become absolutely irrelevant to the needs of black people in the United States. Rather than concern itself with genuine problems, such as illegimacy, drug use, the infuence of gangster rap, or bad attitudes towards education that plague inner-city youth, they're off on this reparations kick."

The fact that as a woman in Africa Maathai could achieve what she did is completely inspiring. Tom, be very, very ashamed. Not all Nobel Peace Prize winners are going to be white, male Christian Americans. Your dismissal of her as the winner shows your fear of women and blacks.

The Nobel Peace Prize 2004

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2004 to Wangari Maathai for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace. Peace on earth depends on our ability to secure our living environment. Maathai stands at the front of the fight to promote ecologically viable social, economic and cultural development in Kenya and in Africa. She has taken a holistic approach to sustainable development that embraces democracy, human rights and women's rights in particular. She thinks globally and acts locally. Maathai stood up courageously against the former oppressive regime in Kenya. Her unique forms of action have contributed to drawing attention to political oppression - nationally and internationally. She has served as inspiration for many in the fight for democratic rights and has especially encouraged women to better their situation. Maathai combines science, social commitment and active politics. More than simply protecting the existing environment, her strategy is to secure and strengthen the very basis for ecologically sustainable development. She founded the Green Belt Movement where, for nearly thirty years, she has mobilized poor women to plant 30 million trees. Her methods have been adopted by other countries as well. We are all witness to how deforestation and forest loss have led to desertification in Africa and threatened many other regions of the world - in Europe too. Protecting forests against desertification is a vital factor in the struggle to strengthen the living environment of our common Earth. Through education, family planning, nutrition and the fight against corruption, the Green Belt Movement has paved the way for development at grass-root level. We believe that Maathai is a strong voice speaking for the best forces in Africa to promote peace and good living conditions on that continent. Wangari Maathai will be the first woman from Africa to be honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize. She will also be the first African from the vast area between South Africa and Egypt to be awarded the prize. She represents an example and a source of inspiration for everyone in Africa fighting for sustainable development, democracy and peace.
Oslo, 8 October 2004.

After reading the last couple of posts, it is necessary for someone to cut through the malarkey and point out the significance of all this is.

At first glance, most people would probably ask what difference does all this make with our choice in Mayor for Vienna? Furthermore, they might be inclined to think that all these words are designed merely to embarrass the Mayor and her family, and that private words posted on websites having nothing to do with Vienna politics or Vienna policy.

Is this important? If, so why? Are we just saying it's important to add sensational interest to the Town of Vienna regarding our Mayor, or is this information important since the Mayor, her council, and her hand-picked appointed members make serious and long-standing decisions regarding Vienna's growth, schools, safety, and freedoms? And all citizens should be free from prejudices and racial bias in any way shape or form.

For example, you can find about 91,000 blog related posts if you google "Ron Reagan" and blog. When you visit these sites, you might see something like this:

"Unlike his late father, Ron Reagan has always been a political liberal, although he has never considered a political career. Asked in a June 2004 New York Times interview if he would like to be President of the United States, he responded, "I would be unelectable. I'm an atheist. As we all know, that is something people won't accept."

Now, although this is very telling about the late President Ronald Reagan's son, it has absolutely no bearing on the moral or ethical sensibilities of the late President Ronald Reagan. Unless you are just interested in learning what Ron had to say about his father, it offers no substance to the real issues we face when we define the responsibilities and directives of the late President Ronald Reagan. Obviously President Ronald Reagan, even if he were alive today, has no responsibility or reason to care what his son thinks in the political arena, simply because his son has the right to say anything he chooses (within reason) because of the doctrine of freedom or press or speech.

So, why then do we need to look at Tom Seeman's site any differently? The answer here has nothing to do with free speech; indeed, Tom Seeman has every right to voice his opinion on any blog or website, and on face value, this should have nothing to do with how Mayor Seeman is viewed and what her political and moral responsibilities are, except for one simple, but very, very grave difference between what we see with the Reagan blogs, and what we learn from the Seeman blogs.

The difference is clear: Mayor Seeman has actually visited her son's blog sites and posted her words. She condones her son's writings. This is where Mayor Seeman has to take responsibility for her actions as a Mayor. She agrees with her son and unless you think she was lying when she wrote her words of commendation, she has to realize that she has now placed herself at the center of any public scrutiny. She has placed her own words of approval to her son's rantings and prejudices, and that my friends places her in the same circle of disgrace.

If she had not wanted herself in any way shape or form firmly entrenched in her son's ill-advised statements, she should never have posted there. They only way she could save herself the scrutiny of her posting, is when she posted, she should have stipulated that she did not agree with his posts.

She will now have a tremendous amount of spinning or back-peddling to perform if in fact she wants us to think she doesn't agree with her son, but in reality, she does. If she chooses, she can also release a public announcement that she doesn't agree with her son, but we now know that this will not be truthful.

If she did NOT wish to be associated with her son's philosophy and prejudices, she should never, ever have placed her words of approval or commendation on his site. NEVER.

So, folks, she will undoubtedly now try to spin this as an innocent remark quaintly placed on her son's very strong worded and one-sided blog site and she didn't know any better. I say, now, now, Jane, even a high school kid knows better and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

How a person thinks about racial prejudices, rights, freedoms, and ethnicity really is very telling about how decisions are made as a Mayor and we need to know that our leaders are above such prejudicial and hateful biases.

Ignorance is no excuse. She is what she seems and her son is no different. Vienna deserves better.

Isn't it convenient that Tom Seeman is:

• not from the North,
  
• not a Democrat,
  
• not African American,
  
• not Hispanic,
  
• not a woman,
  
• not gay and/or married,
  
• not a communist,
  
• not a union member,
  
• not a judge,
  
• not a Presbyterian,
  
• not a Jew,
  
• not a holocaust victim,
  
• not a leftist,
  
• not poor nor disenfranchised,
  
• not living his life in a third-world, war-torn country,
  
• and has not done anything more difficult in his life than euthanize his dying cat, "it was one of the toughest things I've had to do" - Tom Seeman.
  
• and more...