Thompson: At Long Last A Conservative Statesman!!

It seems Republican presidential hopeful, Fred Thompson, has begun to get his campaign into higher gear. Perhaps it was part of a plan to wait out the other guys, to see who would be putting their collective feet into their mouths first. Or to see how the (formerly) loyal opposition was going to shake out as we near the first hurdle of the primary season.

And I haven't posted much on the political season so far precisely because of that. It's still early. But like the Thompson campaign, I feel now is the time to toss my two cents out there. So here goes.

Giuliani: Strong on defense, charismatic (to a point), based on his handling of NYC during 9/11 there seems to be some leadership ability, certainly the ability to handle things in a crisis mode. But his domestic policy is going to be nothing short of RINO-isque. If you want to see more of what has been happening under the current administration, only more to the left, then he is your man ... But not mine. Though I see him as being Thompson's biggest obstacle in getting the GOP nod.

McCain: Also strong on defense. But his disregard of the Constitution (McCain-Feingold), past ethics concerns (alleged ties with the mob in Az/the Savings-in-Loan scandal), and his image (to some of us) as sometimes coming across as flaky, Is gonna knock him out.

Romney: His liberal style track record while Governor of Massachusetts is going to be the albatross around his neck. And though he is trying to sell himself as being a centrist ... Assuming he got the nod from the GOP, the Dems will have a field day with him (the same holds true for Rudy/Mike/John/Ron).

Huckabee: Yet another Liberal/Moderate in Republican clothing. If you want another George Bush ... only more strident in his religious convictions (as in using it as a club against any and all nay sayers regardless of the topic), and as easily a flip-flopper as ol' Billy Clinton, then go for Mike. And he STILL hasn't a clue about foreign policy. Weak at home and abroad is NOT what we need right now.

Ron Paul: It had to happen sooner or later. The GOP finally got a conservative version of Kucinich! And this fella gets all the granola votes too (that's fruits, flakes, and nuts). He might have had at least an honest listening had his folks IMMEDIATELY gotten rid of the anti-semitic and white supremacists. Sadly, they still flock to Paul like moths to a flame. This one will burn out not soon enough.

Saving the best for last.

Fred Thompson: Strong on defense. Strong on a return to the original Republican platform of smaller (Federal) government, lower taxes, etc. Pro Israel/Life/Military. Doesn't really want the job (not lusting for power) but will not shirk his civic duty when called upon to do so. Think Winston Churchill, with a Tennessee accent. (Yes, I think he could rise to THAT level of statesmanship.)

You need to hear what Fred has to say? Then you need go no further then to the video goodness here.

I will cover the Democratic side of the house in another post. After seeing the video from Thompson, my hopes are rising in that we may, as Constitutional loving Americans, finally get the leadership we need. Go Fred Go!!!!

Let There Be Peace On Earth ...

... And let it begin (as it was and ever shall be) with this:

And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled. This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.

And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear.

And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:

For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying:

Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath shewed to us. And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger.

And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child. And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds.

But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart.

And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Luke 2 verses 1-20 Douay-Rheims American Edition Bible (1899)

From all of us here at "The Harbor", A Very Merry Christmas and the Happiest of New Years!!

The Scary GOP

December 15, 2007 7:43 PM

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson reports: Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic hopeful John Edwards, lamented with Iowa caucus goers about her fear of the Republican Party. Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic hopeful John Edwards, lamented with Iowa caucus goers about her fear of the Republican Party. "Republicans should scare us in a lot of ways," Edwards said as she was introducing her husband at a town hall in Dubuque, Iowa.

Sheesh ... You, or your husband, (or any of the other wanna-be potential presidents) may annoy me. Ya'll may even make me want to toss the nearest blunt object at hand towards the tv. Sadly, if it were not for the fact that so many in this country actually buy into what ya'll are saying, a bright future as comedians would be awaiting you all. But scare me, not even on your best day. So how is it that a number of the current crop of GOP presidential hopefuls, cause you to break out in a cold sweat? Did one of them hide her husbands curling iron? Or did another tell Elizabeth she doesn't look 10 pounds heavier on television ... she looks 25 pounds heavier???

Speaking about Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, who recently surged ahead in Iowa polls, Elizabeth noted, "He seems like a nice charming guy," before saying that Huckabee, "doesn’t believe in evolution and has some nutty views about what it is we should do about ending violence in our inner city — we should make sure all of our young people are armed. Republicans scare me."

One hopes her husband isn't as muddled in his thought process as she is. Looking for "Mike Huckabee kids with guns" on Google came up with a goose-egg. The best one can find on Huclabee's stance on guns and the second amendment is here. Regarding his feelings for (or against) evolution, he answers quite nicely here Decided not to even bother with the "ending violence in our inner-city" (Her inner-city?? She owns it?? And if so, why isn't she and her hubby taking care of the problem ... if it's their inner city and all.) As for the blockquote in toto: It may be a wild guess on my part but I bet if I found a complete audio file of the above, there might be a very good chance things about Huckabee where taken out of context.

She went on to warn about the larger party, saying, "Karl Rove may not be working in the White House anymore but you can pretty much be sure he’s going back in the presidential race... I believe he’s going to be back and he’s going be doing that same kind of Rovian politics that we’ve seen before — the kind of attacks that we saw against Sen. McCain in South Carolina we can expect to see against our nominee, 'swift boating,' all of that kind of stuff again."

Wow, the Dems sure have a fixation of ol' Karl Rove. She seems more afraid of him then Ebanezer Scrooge was of Jacob Marly and his chains. Perhaps if they came up with honest to god solutions to the problems and concerns this country (and to a greater or lesser extent, the world) is facing, the Mr. Rove wouldn't be a concern. Oh, but that's right, all the Dems perport to be interested in are "feelings" and not realistic, concrete solutions. Get over Rove...that is sooooo 2004. (And for that matter, get over Bush as well.)

John Edwards has been spending the last week campaigning in Iowa. Elizabeth joined him recently and has been making her presence felt by speaking at various moments throughout town hall meetings. Actor and supporter Kevin Bacon joined Edwards on Saturday, surprising audiences with a performance from the Bacon Brothers Band, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that this bus tour is being headlined by Elizabeth.

And yet another democrat contender is found to be not only using his wife as a major mouthpiece for his campaign ... in his (Edwards) case he is not hiding behind her skirt, he is hiding underneath it.

Pleading her husband’s case, she told caucus goers that Edwards could survive the Republican attack machine: "We have to have a candidate who stands up, can take the punches and give it back to them."

Boy am I confused. First Mrs. Edwards says her hubby can "survive the Republican attack machine", then in the next breath she states "We have to have a candidate who stands up, can take the punches and give it back to them.". So which is it Mrs. Edwards? You either support your husband with your fist sentence, or you are still looking for a candidate as evidenced by your second sentence.

Ah well, guess when you are constantly living in fear of the "Scary GOP" ™ , you can't be expected to separate fact from fiction. Especially when you have the friendly folks from the media being enablers of your phobia and all.

Now you want to hear something really scary? If I happened to hear of an accounting of Mr Edwards monthly hair care expenses ....now that would be scary!

Did Franklin Have This Problem When He Started???

It would seem WE are a threat to that paragon of virtue, the stalwart guardian of our country's political pulse, and last but not least, the tabloid truth tellers and media marvels ....yes, I am talking about the professional journalist ™ . Specifically, a column written by Professor By DAVID HAZINSKI, published on 12/13/07 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

It ranges from the CNN YouTube debates to political blogs to cellphone video of that sniper who opened fire at an Omaha Mall. These are all examples of so called "citizen journalism," the hot new extension of the news business where the audience becomes the reporter. ... Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

Well, there they go again. The nerve of all of us "citizen journalists" ™ . Why we were only the ones who held CBS's feet to the fire when Dan Rather decided to run with a story about some documents which implied our current Commander in Chief was less then forthright about his military service, but forgot to check his facts. And were we not the ones who brought to light some shenanigans going on with the political process of our friends north of the border? Oh, and what about a certain wanna-be writer for the New Republic? Amazing tales of service members gone wild!! You remember, authored by Scott Thomas ... err Beauchamp (yeah, we wouldn't want to err by not giving out his full name). There have been countless instances of the print and mass medias being "called to task". These are but a few of the more notable ones.

So, Davy ol' boy, (And I am being familiar because you seem to have the rare power of discerning who is and who is not capable of being a "professional journalist" ™ ... if you are able to read my inner most thoughts and critique my talents ... displayed publicly or not ... well, this level of intimacy demands I return the favor.) what place exactly should this old journalist (and one time assistant public affairs officer), be placed into? Forgive me and my old school mind, but I thought "journalists" (and we used to call em reporters ... as in reporting the facts) were supposed to answer "Who, What, Why, Where, and When", to the best of their ability. And to update the reading (or radio/tv) public as the facts dictated. Granted, if you were lucky enough to have a column you could pontificate on the news of the day (or whatever else floated your boat, as long as you kept your readers interest). There was also the editorial page for your readers to submit "letters to the editor" and editors (along with others blessed by the publisher of said paper) to expound their papers views. Oh, I'm sorry you are a professor of journalism, guess you know that already.

"and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse."

I have one response to this Davy .... The New York Times! Pot meet kettle.

The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

I guess the rarefied atmosphere up there in your ivory tower, must have thinned out the oxygen to your brain. Let's think about your last little bit of wisdom (And I am being generous at that ... for it is a microscopically small bit of wisdom.). Would you be as strong an advocate of having all the traditional media outlets (print/radio/television) subject to the same scrutiny and repercussions? And who, or what, would regulate things?

The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that.

Are you implying that so called "professional journalists" are above us "regular people"?? And I see you are a farmer as well as a professor ... you must be, for all the straw needed for the citizen surgeon/lawyer remark. Last time I checked a college degree was not required to write/speak/broadcast (as in being an on air personality). But the state does task you to have meet licensing requirements, which entail getting some sort of graduate level degree, in order to become a doctor or a lawyer. Hope you like the smell of burning hay. Oh, and by the way, as you are not specifically talking about the military men and woman who handle their own media, technically, you and your ilk are "citizen journalists" as well. (Yes, I know it must be a challenge to use words and to know their correct meaning ... no one ever said a journalist's lot was an easy one.)

Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals.

I will grant you one needs to have a particular set of skills and talent to excel at writing. Be it as a journalist/columnist/novelist/broadcast personality. And to be fair, there are any number of people across the political spectrum who would meet this standard. But you lost me on the last part. The media (all branches) has consistently fallen short of being anywhere near "trusted" or "professional". Need a case in point?? CBS. (Because I already used the NY Times, but they fit here too.)

Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.

Dave, you wrote this with a straight face?? Or did one of your students get into your computer, whip out a column, using your name as a prank??? I hate to beat a dead (or quickly dying) horse, but this statement alone applies to The NYT, The LA Times, The Washington Post. The New Republic, CBS ... the list goes ever onward.

But unlike those other professions, journalism — at least in the United States — has never adopted uniform self-regulating standards. There are commonly accepted ethical principles — two source confirmation of controversial information or the balanced reporting of both sides of a story, for example, but adhering to the principles is voluntary.

And professor, this is precisely why we see the falling off of readership in print media. Why "The most trusted source in news" is a laughing stock. Your so called professional journalists are ... and have been dropping the ball for quite some time. Long before the internet, blogs and bloggers, or video media was ever a possibility, let alone a so called problem.

There is no licensing, testing, mandatory education or boards of review. Most other professions do a poor job of self-regulation, but at least they have mechanisms to regulate themselves. Journalists do not.

So, how about cleaning up your own house before sending the maid over in this direction.

So without any real standards, anyone has a right to declare himself or herself a journalist. Major media outlets also encourage it. Citizen journalism allows them to involve audiences, and it is a free source of information and video. But it is also ripe for abuse.

Does your statement, above, imply the so called "professional media" is going to abuse the "naive citizen journalist"? Or is it really a case of both sides having agendas, and both sides using each other in order to try and reach their respective goals. (This being the case for the so called professional side of the house, as the available evidence seems to indicate.)

CNN's last YouTube Republican debate included a question from a retired general who is on Hillary Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender steering committee. False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school became so widespread that CNN and other news agencies did stories debunking the rumors.

Good current examples. But for the fact it was Insight Magazine's article, along with FOX news's failure to properly fact check their information/sources which brought about the CNN (among others) stories debunking the Obama rumors. Failure to properly fact check is always going to bite you in the butt eventually. Once again, see my previous examples. The internet in and of itself did not produce the poor sources. And long before the internet; poor sources existed. Through thorough checking of same, reporters came to know who a trusted source was and which others to avoid. Sounds to me like more of the so called professionals are becoming lazy (We'll just use this internet info ... why *fill in the blank* is ALWAYS correct!). Yeah, blame the source, take the easy way out ... or you could do your job ... now there's a concept.

There are literally hundreds of Internet hoaxes and false reports passed off as true stories, tracked by sites such as snopes.com.

Having just anyone produce widely distributed stories without control can have the reverse effect from what advocates intend. It's just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere.

And whose fault would that be for allowing an unsubstantiated, or poorly checked story to appear in ANY media source? Oh, that's right ... not the media outlet/reporter ... it has to be the evil internet or the source period, regardless of where the source originated.

Journalism organizations should head that off. Citizen reports can be a valuable addition to news and information flow with some protections

• Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity.:

Silly me, and here I thought eye-witness reports were (and have been) used for quite some time now ... after they have/had been verified as being a credible/reliable source. This kind of professionalism stropped after the advent of the internet and bloggers??

Write of the Living Fred

It would appear the Thompson staff, or perhaps the man himself, are as quick with a pen as ever. I was less then happy with some of the early on campaign shuffling and what appeared as a less then active schedule of appearances by the good Senator. Happily, this seems to be changing. A strong showing at the last political gab fest (One hates to call them debates, regardless of what the media says, they are anything but.). And now even more spunkiness on his web site. Come on Fred, we need you now more then ever.

But what of the other rivals for the GOP *crown*? Well, Huckabee is a fool in conservative clothing. Ron Paul is the libertarian version of Ross Perot. Mitt Romney is a Massachusetts version of Bush (at best), while Giuliani is the same for NY. McCain should retire now while he can still save face.

The only other people who have any merit, Tancredo and Hunter, sadly have little or no traction. Perhaps either would or should look in to becoming Thompson's running mate? Both are young enough and would then make strong contenders for the oval office after Thompson vacates same. (Hey, ya gotta be optimistic.)

It Could Have Been Much Worse

"Gun Free Zones" ... "Guns Are Evil" ... "We Must Get Rid Of The Evil Assault/Automatic/Large Caliber Weapons" ... "It's To Protect LEO's" ... "It's To Protect THE CHILDREN" ... the list of excuses goes on and on. In the end there are only two real reasons why others want to limit or completely remove your right to bear arms. (And don't think for a moment once firearms are severely restricted or eliminated, that swords/knifes/crossbows/bows/various martial arts weaponry aren't going to be next, because they will be.)

1. It prevents those in power (doesn't matter which side of the aisle, though it is much stronger anti-arms on the socialist/statist side.) from freely exercising their total grab for power.over those who either disagree or are wanting the power for themselves.

2. Those whose mental/emotional make up is such that they would never (indeed, could never) use a weapon, much less a firearm, against another living being (notice I did not say human ... but you get my drift).

The first group should be removed from any positions of power and or authority/notoriety ... tried, found to be wanting, and removed with extreme prejudice, from society.

The second group are nothing more then sheep, and as such should be protected from the wolfs (of course) but also from themselves. Let them blather all they want, but no sane person in a position of power, should allow for their bleating to count for anything more then they would the incessant whining of a child. Perhaps, the words are heartfelt, and full of emotion, but of no practical value what so ever.

Why bring this up? Well, thanks to there being a sheepdog when needed a hundred or more of the New Life Church's congregation were not gunned down, by a nut job with a damaged outlook on life.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Jeanne Assam appeared before the news media for the first time Monday and said she "did not think for a minute to run away" when a gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.

Assam appeared before the media with applause and said "God guided me and protected me." ...

I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."

Assam had several years of experience in law enforcement and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

"I give credit to God," Assam said. "God was with me. I didn't think for a minute to run away." ...

He (New Life's Senior Pastor Brady Boyd -hm) called her "a real hero" because Murray "had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage."

Boyd said she was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The pastor credited the security plan and the extra security for preventing further bloodshed.

ABC Channel 7 News Denver ... Thomas Hendrick, News Editor

To the powers that be at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, good on ya. It may not be even close to what you would want your house of G-d to have to put up with, but you dealt with the reality of things and not the feel good emotional puff. And I would imagine Ms Assam did not take any pleasure in doing what was needed to be done. (Those of us who understand this ... don't need to have it said ... this was for you GFW's out there who think all we do is lust after any opportunity in which to lock and load .... when it could not be further from the truth.) But neither did she shirk her duty, to her employer, to her church, to her community. And because of that, though not spared a tragedy, a total bloodbath was averted. If only there were more sheepdogs ........