Newt Gingrich stated, in an interview on Good Morning America, there is a "great possibility" he is going to run for president:

Newt Gingrich for president? It could happen.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America," the former Republican speaker of the House said there was a "great possibility" that he would run for president



I think he would make a good president. He would have a hard time winning in the general election. A lot of people don't trust the man. I like his stand on a lot of the issues.

Before I get started, let me just say, I think we have a very strong field of Republican candidates. Several of them could win, and become good presidents. All of them would be better than the best Democrat out there.

1) Sam Brownback - 57%
2) Jim Gilmore - 67%
3) Newt Gingrich - 70%
4) Rudy Giuliani - 71%
5) Mike Huckabee - 65%
6) Duncan Hunter - 87%
7) John McCain - 88%
8) George Pataki - 69%
9) Mitt Romney - 82%
10) Tom Tancredo - 72%
11) Fred Thompson - 95%
12) Tommy Thompson - 66%
Oh I almost forgot - 13) Ron Paul - 44%

This is nowhere close to a scientific thing. It is how the candidates line up with the 9 most important issues that I have. I went ahead and put the three Democrats most likely to be in the general election. Clinton - 0%, Obama - 3%, Edwards - 3%. Clinton got 0% because you cannot believe one word she says. The other two got three points for not being Clinton.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) wants to know what is going on with the FBI probe of William Jefferson. So would I:



In a Thursday morning session of a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) demanded answers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about what the lawmaker considers a lack of progress in the FBI probe of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).

Gonzales was expected to receive a grilling from Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee about last year’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys. But rather than focus on how the prosecutors were dismissed, lawmakers turned the session into a series of partisan arguments about the status of U.S. attorney investigations of two sitting congressmen.

“My constituents are asking me when something is going to happen, whether an indictment is going to be returned or whether the Justice Department is going to make an announcement that there’s insufficient evidence to prosecute Representative Jefferson,” Sensenbrenner said. “When can the public expect some news one way or the other on this issue?”



Read it all at the link above. Its pretty good.

Read his latest, here:



Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high Court; but this means that we’re going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices. The New York Times has already fired the first broadside.

A few days ago, the Gray Lady published a fascinating account of the case — fascinating but fundamentally flawed. In it, the central argument about the Second Amendment is pretty accurately described. Specifically, it is between those who see it as an individual right versus those who see it as a collective states’ right having more to do with the National Guard than the people.

Unfortunately, the article falsely portrays the individual-right argument as some new interpretation held only by a few fringe theorists. The truth is very different, as civil-rights attorney and gun-law expert Don Kates has pointed out recently.

From the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 until the 20th century, no one seriously argued that the Second Amendment dealt with anything but an individual right — along with all other nine original amendments. Kates writes that not one court or commentator denied it was a right of individual gun owners until the last century. Judges and commentators in the 18th and 19th century routinely described the Second Amendment as a right of individuals. And they expressly compared it to the other rights such as speech, religion, and jury trial.



Read it all, it is worth it.
Or listen to it here.

Run, Fred, Run.

Another article from Fred:



Sarkozy’s victory over anti-American political forces was not just decisive; it was far more of a mandate than our own current congress claims. In his first post-election speech, he went out of his way to say, “I want to call out to our American friends to tell them that they can count on our friendship.”

So what’s happening here? Could it be that we’ve mistaken the French media for the French people? Might the same be true of Germany, where pro-American Angela Merkel beat a critic of the U.S. to become that nation’s leader?



Read the rest at the link. It's good.

Ace has a post up about the article:

Although it seems to me he's running -- he's delaying based on his own calculations of timing and stagecraft -- it really will be very bad for the Republican party should he ultimately not run. And that remains a possibility of course.

He's sucking an awful lot of oxygen out of the room, and preventing many Republicans from giving more serious thought to supporting other serious, strong-but-flawed candidates, like Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and of course, Ron "The Gold Standard" Paul.

I think he will win the primary, as well as the general election, should he decide to run. I believe he is going to run. At least I hope he is. If not, I will support one of the other Republicans. I am not sure which one. They all have their strengths, as well as their weaknesses. One thing is for sure, they are all better than the Democrats that are running.

Run, Fred, Run.

Mohammed Fadhil, a dentist in Baghdad, explains why we are in Iraq:



I will call for fighting this war just as powerfully as the bad guys do - because I must show them that I'm stronger than they are. The people of America need to understand this: the enemies of a stable Iraq are America's enemies, and they simply do not understand the language of civilization and reason.

They understand only power. It is with power they took over their countries and held their peoples hostage. Everything they accomplished was through absolute control over the assets of their nations through murder, torture, repression and intimidation.

Those who prefer to bury their heads in the dirt today, and withdraw from this difficult fight, will be cursed forever for abandoning their duty when they were most capable. I don't understand why someone who has all the tools for victory would refuse to fight an enemy that reminds us every day that it is evil - with all the daily beheadings, torture and violations of all humane laws and values.

With America's help - and only with its help - the decent people of Iraq can still prevail.

Read the whole thing at the post above.


It does look like some democrats are coming to their senses.
Let's hope so.

Support the troops.

I listen to a local radio show in the mornings. It's called  "Thinking Out Loud" with Dave Hogan & Brian Bishop.

On their show this morning, they ask listeners to call with their opinions on the bill proposed, which would allow handgun permit holders to carry their firearm into most public places, including parks. The tally was 83.33% in favor.

But, the real reason for this post is a question that was brought up by one of the callers:

"How many crimes are committed by people who have their permit?"

I don't know the answer to that question. I would be willing to bet it is a low figure. Otherwise, the anti gun crowd would be screaming it out on a regular basis.

Dave Hogan replied, " I cannot think of any."
I can't either.

Hillbilly White Trash has a good take on why Fred is not running yet, officially:


I've been one of the voices crying for Fred to get in the race RIGHT NOW. I may have been wrong. It seems to me that he is running a good campaign right now and not having to spend one dime for airtime.

In fact they're paying him to do these commentaries.


Go to the link above to read Fred discuss George Tenet's interview with Tim Russert.

An excellent post on Redstate:

 

Thompson is playing it smart. Why bother getting in now? The vaccum on the right ensures that a very large constituency in the Republican Party will be ready to open their wallets and find time on the weekends to work for his election. So while McCain gets pounded on Iraq, Guiliani gets pounded on abortion, Romney gets pounded on flip-flopping, and all the others struggle to find their voice; Sen. Thompson gets to speak to the entire country on ABC Radio about real issues as relaxed as possible. The strange circumstances of this GOP field gives Thompson time, a precious commodity. If he gets in--gone are the lower tier candidates claiming the Reagan mandate (Gilmore, Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, T. Thompson, et al). That leaves the big three: Romney, McCain, and Rudy. Arguably, Thompson hurts Romney the most. Romney has spent the last 14 months proving how "conservative" he is, helped by the fact that Rudy and McCain suffer in one way or another from a lack on enthusiasm from the right. But if a candidate of the right, like Thompson, jumps in--Romney's 14 months of work get washed away. Thompson also gets a rub from McCain, who's campaign he co-chaired in 2000 and is friends with. Why chance McCain when Thompson can win conservative votes but supported McCain enough to win some "I"s? As for Rudy, if it comes down to Fred v. Rudy . . . come on.

So Fred Thompson can continue to sit on that front porch and talk away. Becasue right now, as just a citizen, he looks and sounds more presidential than any of the ten good men who were at the Reagan Library.

Read the whole post at the link above.

Go here to sign a petition asking Fred to run. I know you want to. Go for it.

Check out the website while you are there.

I would like to apologize to the people in Iraq that support us and want our help. It looks like it is just a matter of time before we pull out:

My assumption had been that Bush has until early 2008 to produce results in Iraq and win the war, but I am no longer sure that's the case.

What I've been hearing of late tracks with this article. In September/October, the Democrats are going to make another big push to lose the war and unless we've seen huge progress, a significant number of blue state Republicans may very well break towards them.

What does that mean? Well, it means that by later this year, there could be a filibuster proof majority in the Senate that favors making American troops surrender to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. If and when we get to that point, it'll only be a matter of time until the Democrats can hand the terrorists a big victory over America.

That's not a happy scenario, but it's where we may be headed...

Read this.

History is important. One part really stands out:




In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams even went to London to negotiate directly with the envoy from Tripoli.

Several historians and writers have reminded us recently of the ambassador’s nearly forgotten answer. Fortunately, Jefferson prepared a written report for the government and left other records of the incident. Here’s a description from The Atlantic Monthly in 1872:

  

Disguising their feelings as best they could, they ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.

         


These people are not going to change. They are not attacking us because big, bad Bush is attacking them. They are taught to attack anyone who is not like them. It doesn't matter to them that we want to get along. The Koran teaches them to do this.

Andrew Klavin has a good article up at  City Journal:

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.

This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.

This is no small thing. To rewrite the rules of courteous behavior is to wield enormous power. I see it in Southern California, in the bleeding heart of leftism, where I live. I’ve been banned from my monthly poker game, lost tennis partners, lost friends—not because I’m belligerent but because I’ve wondered aloud if the people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own abortion laws, say, or if the world might not be a better place without the UN.

How long can the liberal lies hold up? Eventually all lies fall through. I hope this day is soon.

Hillary wants to set Oct. 11 as the date to revoke authority for the war:

WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Later in the article, we get the real reason for this:



Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.



This sort of wraps it up:

The White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said the Clinton-Byrd proposal represented the same sort of artificial timeline that led Mr. Bush to veto the $124 billion spending bill on Tuesday.

“Here we go again,” she said. “The Senate is trying another way to put a surrender date on the calendar. Welcome to politics ’08-style.”

Read the whole thing at the link. I pray they quit this soon and fund the troops.

Fred Thompson wins the debate hands down. Why, because he will give you a straight forward answer. It is obvious the candidates last night were campaigning. We don't need "business as usual. If Fred keeps talking the way he has been he will win the primary hands down, and he will be President in 08.