Among those executives summoned were Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. In addition, as Michelle Malkin points out, these men stole the show.

But, of course, we ought to have expected, the people that actually do business know a whole lot more than they know those that do nothing but take money from American businesses and individuals to score political points, and create more entitlements. Of course, we are not supposed to see through today’s Senatorial grand standing are we.

Nope! We are, instead, supposed, to swoon at how the wonderful Senators on the Judiciary Committee care about us little people aren’t we. We are supposed to look wide-eyed at each other and say ” Oh my, see, they really like us and are protecting our interests!” Hogwash! Yes, my friends it is. These senators are following not our Founders guidelines, but those of Marx and Engels.

They care about expanding their power, and keeping us, as suckings at the national teat is paramount to that end isn’t it? Not only are the members of this committee trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes, but they are also proving just how clueless they are about basic economics. Of course, they are betting we will not examine their words and actions. They are betting that we will not think with our heads but rather with our emotions.

They are betting that we will be so angry about fuel prices that we will never look at reality. Instead they figure Americans will buy the “evil oil companies” lie. As long as it is fed to us enough times, we are bound to buy into it aren’t we? Surely!
So the question now is this, are they right? Will we think? Will we look at facts? Will we understand basic economics better that our would be masters? Alternatively, will we just accept their phony outrage and their political circus act? Will we wake up and demand the government do things to help? Will we demand they do what is right for America for a change?

As you read this report on the circus from Power Line Blog, ask yourself how these pinheads ever got out of grade school, much less rose to the rank of US Senator. Clearly, they have no grasp of the most fundamental laws of supply and demand.
Of course, this was about the Senate Democrats, and some Senate Republicans trying to score cheap political points by pretending to scold the evil oil barons for ripping off hard working Americans.

The fact is these Senators ought to be working on doing what they CAN do to ease the burden of high gas prices. How about allowing America to drill for AMERICA’S oil? Sure we know, it would not help for a period of years, but it WILL help sooner if we start sooner won’t it? IF we had started a decade ago, would we not be reaping the fruits of those efforts? Are we to buy into the brain-dead argument tat since it will only help in the future and not now, we should not pursue it?

The Senate COULD take actions that WOULD help, but they much prefer to sit there pretending they are fixing the problem when, in fact they ARE much of the problem!

Why is America NOT using nuclear energy? France certainly does, with great success. Are we not often told to be MORE like France? Why not in respect to nuclear power? With such concern and hand-wringing over cleaner sources of energy why not pursue the cleaner nuclear energy? Are we missing something?

Why are we not building new refineries? Why are we not using OUR own resources? We have oil in Anwar in Alaska, a place that was set aside in part for oil by the way. We have oil in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Pacific coast, in the Rockies (Shale Oil). Instead, they talk of windfall profit taxes. Those were disastrous when tried before. Are our Senators insane enough to think they would work today? Why is our government looking more seriously at ways to punish oil companies than at ways to free ourselves from foreign oil dependence?

I find it odd, nay; I find it despicable that our Senate calls oil companies to answer for something that is not their fault. They do not set international oil prices folks. Demand for oil from China and India are at record highs. When demand is very high, only greater supply will reduce prices. Windfall taxes will not do it; they will only serve to prevent oil companies from investing in new technologies and exploration. What do you think THAT will do to fuel prices? In addition, while our Senators bluster and present themselves as acting in our interest, they have in fact done every damned thing they could to stymie our energy production.
They have regulated, and OVER regulated the oil companies, they have blocked, and continue to block, nuclear energy, and other alternative energy sources. They have heaped regulations and taxes onto the oil companies at OUR expense.

They bitch and whine about our energy dependence, then turn around and do all they can to KEEP us dependent on foreign oil. They do not possess the willingness to look seriously at mending the problem. Instead, they can only look for ways to gouge oil companies, and in the process, us, of course, for all they can.

For those who are not aware of why Barack Obama felt compelled to give a major speech on race in America, a quick review. Obama and his family are members of a Black church in Chicago. The Trinity United Church of Christ has a few problems with its long-time, recently retired pastor, Jeremiah Wright. It seems that Reverend Wright is quick to throw around wild accusations and racist sermons.His more infamous rants include his accusing the United States of sponsoring terrorism around the world, and of giving drugs to Black Americans, and of lying about Pearl Harbor. He continually denigrates the USA for being a racist country, built on racism, calling America “The United States of KKKAmerica”! He has been caught bashing White people on video numerous times as well. His most despicable rant might have been the time he said America deserved 9-11. In this demented racist’s mind, we are no different from al Qaeda, and 9-11 was simply our chickens coming home to roost.

Perhaps more frightening than the consistently racist, bitter, and anti-American rhetoric spewing from Rev. Wright’s mouth are the responses the videos of his sermon’s show from church members. Hooping, hollering, raucous applause, and cheers follow his hate-filled rants. Particularly appealing to his flock was Wright’s claim that God should not bless America, but damn America for its “racism“. Its members, those that have been interviewed have tried to excuse Wright and his comments, “It is just being Black in America” said one church member on an ABC News video clip. Another just said Wright was just telling the truth in his sermons.

Therein lies the REAL problem with Barack Obama’s membership in this church. It is not so much that one church member says these things, but the long-time reverend says them. Worse yet, the members seem not only to tolerate the bigotry; they seem to revel in it! Therefore, the question, or at least the most pressing question for Obama is why he is a member of such a church. I mean, why would a man who has said he wants to be president of not Black America or White America, but all of America tolerate such teaching?

Obama, in his speech, offered up this “I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.”

Hmmm, condemnation does not seem to fit the bill here does it? After all, Obama has lied about being present when the radical Reverend Wright went on his tirades. Further, if Obama is so offended, why did he not walk out of that church the first time he heard Wright’s racist sermons and the exuberant support for them among the parishioners? Honestly, folks, would you stay in that church? Would you allow THAT preacher to not only marry you and your wife, but also baptize your kids? Would you, as a parent allow your children to be victimized by that racist environment? I cannot imagine too many of us sitting still while our church honored David Duke or some other White supremist. Yet Barack’s pastor honored Louis Farrakhan last year. Where was Obama’s outrage then? He certainly showed far more outrage at Don Imus over his remarks, which funny or not, WERE intended as a joke, about the Rutgers basketball team.

Obama offered up excuses for not leaving the church, and for not repudiating Reverend Wright in his speech today. Both, he said have done many good deeds and should not be reduced to sound bites. Hmmm, let me go back to Obama’s stance on Don Imus and his remarks for a second. Imus has done a great deal, and raised millions for charities, including ones that specifically help Black children. I guess Obama did not consider Imus’s good deeds when he condemned him.

Yet Obama excused his hateful pastor and his church that cheers the hatefulness. “The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS“.

Obama, continued, doing his best to sugar coat the church, its former pastor and his involvement with it. “Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes-bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.”

Ah, we see Barack, those people, and their bitterness, and your pastor’s racist heart, and his anti-Americanism, and your fellow parishioners roaring approval of it, are part of you. I am not sure what you were trying to tell us today Barack, but I think we got the message loud and clear. Either you secretly approve of the hate at your church, or you are too much a damned coward to really stand against it. Either way, it speaks no good of you sir!

Now of course, this is a hot button issue, and it has so far been filled with the same anti-gun rhetoric proponents of self-defense and the Second Amendment have heard for decades now.

The original effort to allow Americans to exercise their God-given, constitutionally protected rights began with a proposed bill by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. The bill would allow the application of state laws concerning the carrying of firearms to citizens visiting national parks. Seems like common sense doesn’t it? Why should a law-abiding citizen be expected to cede their rights to protect themselves in a national park? Frankly, the answer is very simple. They should not.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced his desire for a review and possible overhaul of federal regulations of carrying firearms in national parks. The National Rifle Association, to their credit, supports Coburn’s legislation, and I would argue that all Americans who see the benefit of concealed carry laws and the ultimate right of self-defense would also be supportive of this change. Americans ought never be asked, or forced to choose between being able to defend themselves and breaking laws that only benefit those intent on committing evil acts.

Ah, but, my friends, the Liberals who neither respect the Constitution nor subscribe to common sense, are, pardon the pun, up in arms over this! Yes, they are in the process of pulling out every tired, false prediction of death and doom if Americans are allowed their rightful liberties. You have heard the rhetoric before, surely you have. There will be blood in the parks, danger at every turn, wildlife will be butchered, and disputes over campsites will turn bloody, and so on. These are the same types of inane arguments used in every state that now rightly allows law-abiding Americans to carry firearms under concealed carry laws.

These arguments have proven to be wrong time and time again. States that do allow concealed carry, and that is 34 states as of 2008, have NOT seen increased violence, or Wild West shootouts or the predicted “blood in the streets”. Instead, those states have consistently shown that these laws usually decrease violent crimes. The reason for this is very simple really. Criminals do not respect laws. Surely the asinine notion that creating “gun-free zones” will make us safer has been disproved with the various school shootings.
The evil people who committed these murderous acts did not see a deterrent in gun free zones. Instead, they saw easy prey. Folks, the bad guys are not hindered by feel-good, intellectually bankrupt ideals. They are, instead aided by them. The fact is the law-abiding are victimized more easily by those who do not obey laws when the law strips away the sacred right of self-defense. The Founding Fathers knew this, and any person who thinks, rather than feels about this issue knows it as well.

The fact proven by concealed carry laws is this. These laws make all of us safer, not less safe. Those opposed to this proposed legislation can whine about keeping our national parks “family-friendly” sanctuaries all day long. The fact is the presence of firearms in the hands of concealed carry permit holders does not threaten families, rather, evidence shows it PROTECTS families. The left can throw all their false stats and their emotionalistic talking points around all they want.

They can, and do with regularity, argue that very few gun owners use their guns to stop crimes. That is false and they damned well know it! They gladly quote stats showing that most gun deaths are not attributed to cases of self-defense. OK, but they exclude the fact that well over 90% of defensive gun uses do not involve the law-abiding citizen shooting anyone. Simply brandishing the weapon ends the threat. No one dies; no trigger-happy gun nut goes on a killing spree. Instead, a prepared and armed American defends themselves, or their loved ones or property, not by shooting the bad guy, but rather by showing that they are not a helpless victim. Predatory criminals, like all predators, prefer easy targets.

I speak not just from statistics or news stories on this. In 1998, as I left the restaurant I managed in downtown Dallas, I was confronted by an armed robber. There was no police, no touchy-feely gun control advocate; there was just the bad guy and me in a very dark alley. If not for my being armed with a Colt .45 I would have been robbed, and who knows what else? However, because I was armed and prepared, it was the bad guy, the criminal, that was forced to choose between retreating, which he did, and being harmed.

I can also speak from the perspective of a person who has hiked many miles in national parks. I have never been threatened, or harmed, but I have come across some individuals that made me uncomfortable. Perhaps, I had nothing to fear from these few individuals. Perhaps, my considerable size, and confident, prepared style prevented them from trying anything. However, what if I was a woman, hiking alone? What IF I was obeying the laws and was not armed? What IF one of those people who made me uneasy WAS a predator? Tell me, do you really think THEY would not try to harm me? Do you really think a law would stop them? No, indeed not. However, an armed woman, hiking alone? That would be much more likely to stop them.

So, how did this happen my friends? How is it that the two least Conservative candidates are still running while two candidates that are more conservative and one other less-than-Conservative flamed out? Well there is plenty of blame to pass around. First, there is the process we have allowed to be foisted upon us. This current media-driven way of choosing a nominee stinks frankly. It is not about ideals, issues, principles and it damn sure is not about substance.

Instead, it is about 30-second answers, quips in debates, and reducing candidates to raising their hands to questions as if they are third-graders! It is all about style, a popularity contest if you will. Consider the success of Barak Obama for example. He gives eloquent speeches, filled with talk of change, change, and more change. Of course, he is completely devoid of anything even remotely resembling plans for how to implement his changes. Ah, but the media loves this stuff, and they just fawn over Obama.

The media’s obsession with style does not fully explain the GOP situation though; there are other factors, some of them the fault of no one but failed campaigns. Rudy Giuliani, for example, saw his strategy to ignore the early primary states destroy his candidacy. Sure, he led big in Florida, California, New York, and other key states early, but other candidates, won Iowa, and New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and Giuliani, was forgotten frankly. His leads in later states evaporated, and he was doomed.

Then there is the Mike Huckabee factor to weigh. Huckabee was a non-factor early, but his strategy of courting Evangelicals by promising to do everything they wanted to hear sapped support from Fred Thompson early. One of the keys to Fred’s failure was Huckabee’s surge, which, the media, who despised Thompson, and did all it could to destroy him, made sure was front and center. Later, in Florida and especially on Super Tuesday, Huckabee really damaged Romneyy’s chances. Huckabee, who should have dropped out after Florida, and Romney split Conservative voters while McCain, who bombed among Conservative voters, cleaned up on moderates and independents. In my estimation, Huckabee is, and has been playing for a VP slot on the ticket, he knew he could not win, but he also knew he could derail Romney.

The third factor to weigh is the media’s coverage of the campaigns. The media did its level best to eliminate Thompson, and they were successful. They built Fred up to standards he could never attain. They beat the “Fred waited too long” drum, then they beat the “Fred has no fire in the belly drum”. Then they beat the “when is Fred dropping out” drums. They reported nothing but negative news about his campaign, even when they had to spin like tops to do it. When Fred was doing well in national polls the media told us that those polls did not matter, yet when other candidates did well in those polls, the media fawned over them. The media spun their line and too many voters bought it. Thompson was a candidate of substance, and too many Americans have been conditioned to look at style, not substance.

Romney suffered from media bias as well. When he was leading in delegates, he was never called the front-runner was he? Yet McCain received far better treatment didn’t he? Once Fred was gone, Romney was the next most Conservative candidate, and the media turned their spin machine on him. The media had great influence on voters with their spin on Romney, just as they did with Thompson. Those voters who do not take time to study candidates, or their campaigns can be swayed easily. They glance at headlines or polls, and they see McCain doing well, labeled the front-runner, even when he really was not, and they jump on the bandwagon, or at the very least, they give up on other candidates.

There is one more key factor in McCain’s looming coronation. The early states do not favor Conservative candidates. New Hampshire is an open primary, as is South Carolina. McCain cleaned up in the Granite State not because Conservatives came out for him, not at all. It was independents, and moderates that gave him a win. The same in South Carolina is true. An open primary favors less conservative candidates. McCain won those while more Conservatives candidates spilt up the Conservative votes. Had the early States been closed, and held in Conservative states, McCain likely would have been eliminated
.
So, add up all the factors. The media campaigning against Thompson, then against Romney. Huckabee taking votes away from Thompson early and really hamstringing Romney on Super Tuesday. Giluiani imploding, allowing McCain to garner all the moderate and independent votes. Add it all together, and you know why Conservatives are left with the lesser of two evils option yet again.

So now what? Do you stay home? Hold your nose? Frankly, I doubt it matters; McCain will lose enough of the base to be run over in November. Get ready for four years of a Liberal administration. God help us!

There are literally a hundred opinions, some even coming from reliable sources, directing us to vote for this candidate, or NOT vote for that candidate. It is quite a challenge to vote the right way, and not be unduly influenced by all of these forces of bloviation and spin.

Therefore, as a sort of public service, I am going to offer some hints to all voters, especially first-timers, undecided voters, and Americans who intend to vote but who do not spend tons of time studying issues, and candidates. I have come up with Doug’s Rules of Intelligent Voting in Elections, or DRIVE and everyone who follows these will benefit from it. Yes, I made sure to do the politically cool thing and insure that a word was formed from the letters of my rules! Take that MADD, and NOW!

Now, I am sure most who go to my site, GatorSense, know whom I am fully endorsing for President, but I will not even mention Fred Thompson’s name during this column. Instead, I will offer my best advice on how to choose your candidate, and let your choice be, well yours, not the media’s choice, or some blogger’s choice, or a talk host’s choice , but YOUR choice!

So, let us begin this crash course in what to do, and what not to do, this political season.

First, understand that almost every source you get information from is biased in one way or another. For instance, if you visit my site understand that I am committed to one particular candidate. It is no different with most other columnists, bloggers, pundits, or talk hosts. Listen to their takes, read their pieces, but verify on your own. Take a little time to use YOUR mind to determine if their endorsement ought to become yours.

Second, ignore much of what the “unbiased” media feeds you. There are many examples of various networks, papers, and blogs painting candidates they do not favor in a negative light. For example, as a Thompson supporter, I have been amazed at how easily a speech or campaign stop can be portrayed in a false light. Do not get suckered into taking one opinion of a candidate and writing them off over that. Likewise, do not jump on a bandwagon based on one or two opinions. This is far too crucial to make snap judgments.

Third, do not get caught up in the hype. Take the media’s coverage of the race so far. One primary does NOT a nominee make, but the media still likes to dramatize every primary, and poll, like it is November already. So far, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Barak Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, and Mike Huckabee all have been declared inevitable and dead on arrival, depending on the latest poll, or the four primaries we have had. Relax folks, walk away, and do not buy into the media’s hyperbole. Examine the polls carefully; they can be as misleading and biased as any talking head can. Deciding the nominees will take a bit of time; no matter how badly some want to hit the fast forward button.

Look for substance. This is so very crucial. Sound bites are nice, and can be funny, but we are electing a leader, a president, not a standup comic here my friends. In this age of YouTube, and blogs, and on-demand video, there are numerous opportunities to listen to the candidates on the issues facing America. Listen to what they say if they promise to solve this problem, or fix that problem listen for substance. Do they actually have a plan? Are they just spewing hot air? Visit their websites; see who has plans, and who does not.

Examine those plans. Are they feasible? CAN they be implemented? Is the candidate just saying what they think voters want to hear? Promising is one thing, having a workable plan is quite another. Examine the candidates’ records. Have they changed their positions AFTER announcing their candidacy? Are they consistent? If they have changed, does their record indicate it? Are they just talking the talk, or are they walking the walk too? Remember consistency is crucial. We want someone with principles and a record of standing by those principles.

Next, do not be an identity voter. If you are a Mormon, do not vote for Romney because he too is Mormon. Support him on his record and vision, not on the common religion you both share. Same with Fred Thompson do not vote for him based on his accent. Sure, we Southerners love that sweet Southern accent, but examine Thompson’s record and stance on issues, THEN decide if he is your guy. Rudy Giuliani might get your vote, but vote on issues, not because he was mayor of New York, and you are from New York. Apply this rule to all the candidates. Vote issues, not gender, support principles, not skin color.

There you are my friends, the very best advice I can give. I have used this process ever since I voted for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter in 1976. OK, I was only 11, but I did help Ford carry Mrs. Donahue’s 7th grade class so there! Seriously, though, this is too important to vote on hunches or media spin. We owe this great nation our best effort to elect the best to the highest office. We must not settle for less in our candidates, or, my friends, from ourselves.

Another criticism of Thompson has been that he has offered no specifics on any of his ideas. Well, we can lay that fallacy to rest now my friends. This past week Fred Thompson laid out his plans for securing the border. This is clearly one of the most important issues facing America and its next president. A look now, at the Thompson plan for getting illegal immigration under control.
The first point addressed in the Thompson plan is amnesty, or as, Thompson says, NO AMNESTY! Thompson nails the essence of why we should not even consider amnesty.

Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States.

There you go, simple and accurate, no baloney, no dancing around with verbal gymnastics or political correctness. This is the essence of Conservatism my friends. Amnesty is wrong; therefore, we must not consider it.

The second major point of Thompson’s plan is attrition through enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home.

Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty.

Again, Thompson goes straight to the most essential point of the debate. Enforcing laws works, it is the quickest way to begin to face up to our illegal immigration crisis. Illegal immigrants are drawn here by jobs. If we work seriously to remove that attraction, the problem will, in part, begin to correct itself. Instead of falling into the tired old rhetoric of choosing mass deportations or blanket amnesty Thompson chooses to lead on this issue. Moreover, he does so with simple, common sense approaches. That is what America needs common sense leadership, not talking points.

To help with the attrition through enforcement approach, Thompson lays out plans to give our country the tools to achieve that goal.

Doubling ICE agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.

Adding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons.

Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. These gangs have brought unusual levels of violence to more than 30 U.S. states and have also become very active in drug smuggling, gun smuggling, and alien smuggling.

Once again, my friends we do not see rhetoric here, we see a clear vision on how to fix the problem with an eye to protecting America first. Thompson is looking at our interests first instead of paying lip service to it. In this plan, Thompson illustrates his faith in America, and in the nation’s ability to address the problem. As he has said, it is not a matter of “can” it is a matter of “will”.
Now on to perhaps the most promising portion of Thompson’s plan. Addressing “Sanctuary Cities”, those cities which refuse to follow federal laws regarding illegal immigration.

End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.

Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).

Can I get an amen? This is exactly the correct approach in dealing with cities that thumb their noses at our federal laws and our national sovereignty! Ultimately, the immigration debate comes down to one crucial question. Are we to be a sovereign nation or not? Clearly, Fred Thompson grasps this point. Instead of trying to appease the race mongers and cheap labor addicts Thompson is, again, looking at what is best for this nation.

This issue is not racial; it is about law, order, and America’s sovereignty. Conservatives see this, and by golly all those Conservatives who have been looking for a leader that also understands better look at Fred Thompson. There is a lot more to Thompson’s plan and it is all very promising. Anyone questioning my endorsement of Thompson should check out the entire plan at Thompson’s campaign site. http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx

While the specific issues already cited separate the two sides, there is, I believe, one major difference that coves all these issues. The difference is in the thinking of the two sides. What they think, is best explained in how they think. In short, the left thinks collectively, while the right thinks individually.

The left talks about charity and giving for example. They talk about it constantly. They talk about it so much you might think they invented charitable giving. Their talk, though, and their walk, are quite different. Several studies of charitable giving have shown that those on the right give significantly more than those on the left do. Studies also have shown that those Americans in red states, states that tend to vote Republican, are more giving than those in the blue states. How can this be? Perhaps it is best explained by how each side sees charity and generosity.

The right thinks as individuals. We see a tragedy somewhere and we give OUR money. We do not expect the government to take our money and then give it. In fact, we would rather the government take much less of our money. The left tends to call us greedy because we want lower taxes. Yet, the record of the right on charitable giving is better than that of the left. Therefore, really, it is surely not greed that drives Conservatives is it. If we were greedy, we would keep our money and not support the Red Cross or Salvation Army, or other charities wouldn’t we?

The left, however, sees true charity as national giving, collective giving. Recall the Tsunami at the end of 2004. Americans gave billions and billions of dollars to the relief organizations after that tragic disaster. Yet, those on the left bashed America as greedy. How can that be? Well it was the amount our government gave they focused on. Ignoring the billions individual Americans gave, the left instead saw only what the US government gave. Again, collectivism raises its head.

To the ideological left it is only the collective giving that counts. They see America as a government, not as a nation of free people. To them, the giving of individuals, who CHOOSE to give is worth less than when government chooses for them what charity to give to and how much to give to it. Only when a government takes our money then gives it is it truly charitable and worthwhile to the left. This is not to say no one on the left gives of their own money, it is to point out the value the left grants to individual giving as compared to the worth they attach to collective giving.

As stated earlier, I believe every issue the two ideologies differ on is summed up best in terms of collectivism vs. individualism. Consider a recent campaign speech by Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Edwards. In the speech, Sen. Edwards laid out his plan for raising taxes on the “wealthy”. “It’s time for us to put America’s economy back in line with our values. It’s time for us to put an end to George Bush’s war on work. It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven completely out of whack by the lobbyists in Washington, by the powerful interests in Washington and by those who value the few above the interests of many.”

In Sen. Edwards’s words, we see a classic illustration of collectivist thinking. Besides playing the tired income card, which Democrats always do, Edwards speaks of a “fair” tax code that values the “many” rather than the “few”. That is classic Karl Marx ideology there my friends. Again, Edwards sees individuals keeping more of their money as bad for the common good. Never mind of course, that the wealthy use their money to create jobs, which positively affect the common good. To Edwards, and those who think collectively, it is unfair and bad that some make lots of money. They prefer the Marxist strategy of redistribution of wealth. It should also be pointed out that Sen. Edwards, or Sen. Haircut, as I like to call him, is filthy rich. He may think collectively when he thinks of us, but he clearly thinks he ought to live by different standards. Maybe I ought to call him Sen. Hypocrite!

Then there is another speech, delivered by another Democrat seeking the White House. Hillary Clinton has said she would, if elected, establish a national academy to train public servants. “I’m going to be asking a new generation to serve,” she said. “I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position.” Again, to heck with encouraging individualism, Sen. Clinton prefers the government to train young Americans how to serve their country.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with serving others or your country, nothing at all. Allowing individuals to choose to serve, however, does not appeal to Sen. Clinton. She is not thinking of individuals, she is thinking collectively, just like the Leftist she is. Also, when weighing the statement by Sen. Clinton, consider the tone. Is she, as it seems to me, talking of mandatory service? Talk about the ultimate collectivist ideal. She is certainly thinking of making every American pay for such a venture. Again, the government taking your money and deciding what it should be spent on.

Liberal vs. Conservative. Collectivism vs. individualism.

There is little doubt this nation is in desperate need of real conservative leadership, frankly, we all know no Democrat running can provide that leadership. All they seem to have is defeatism, despair, and their same old neo-Marxist ideals that have never worked and can never work. Frankly speaking, a Democrat in the White House would be a disaster for America in every way. We, as Conservatives know this
.
Last night, while updating my website, I came across a column by a man named Richard Viguerie. In that column, Mr. Viguerie expressed little faith that Thompson is even a Conservative at all. Willing to listen to any challenges to Thompson’s credentials, and with an open mind, I read the column, and frankly, it looked far more like a Michael Moore hit piece than anything written by a reasonable man with genuine concerns. In short, it was pathetic.

Let us look at some of the objections raised by Mr. Viguerie to Fred Thompson’s conservatism shall we?

First off, Viguerie plays the “Fred is lazy” card. “Rumors circulated that Thompson was lazy, uninterested in the daily grind that comes with being a Senator—and one can understand that Capitol Hill is a lot more tedious and less glamorous than a Hollywood movie lot. More important were Thompson’s failures of will and his lack of leadership on any legislation that would promote the conservative cause. Instead what little leadership we got from Thompson advanced the liberal Establishment agenda.”

Hmmm, well I fail to see any Liberal agenda items Thompson advanced. Viguerie certainly fails to list any, except to express his dissatisfaction with the results of Thompson’s investigation into Bill Clinton’s fundraising scandal. Yes, I wish Clinton had been brought to account for this too. However, blaming Thompson for this is flat wrong.

Another problem Viguerie has with Thompson is his failure to be critical enough of the expansion of the federal government by President Bush. Apparently, Mr. Viguerie has been too busy trying to sell his new book to watch or listen to the numerous clips of Thompson talking repeatedly about fixing Washington. Hearing the disapproval Fred Thompson holds for the big spending ways of Washington is pretty easy to do. One can listen to many examples on my site at the Fred Thompson 2008 page. Now, Thompson has not gone around pounding lecterns and ranting like a lunatic about how the government is spending far too much. He has, though, expressed his views on lowering taxes, reforming the tax code, and of course reducing the size and spending of the government, in a very thoughtful and eloquent fashion. Mr. Viguerie should pay closer attention.

Yet another complaint about Thompson according to Viguerie is that he does not have enough “long-time conservative activists” surrounding him. Hmmm, I know there are hundreds of bloggers who are championing Fred Thompson as the man for 2008. I know of many columnists, like JB Williams, Edward Daley, many others, and myself who are solidly behind Thompson. I know many Conservatives who will be very happy when Fred enters the race. Do we not count? Are we not Conservatives? Is our lack of name recognition enough for Mr. Viguerie? Well Mr. Viguerie allow me to introduce us, we are the Conservatives of the United States of America. You might try listening to us.

Next up, let us look at the most asinine criticism Mr. Viguerie offers up. Apparently, we should reject Fred Thompson because he knows Howard Baker! Moreover, it turns out, Thompson also knows Lamar Alexander! Well, hell, get out the tar and feathers! Come on, what is this an 8th grade class? We cannot support Thompson because he is friends with Howard Baker. Thompson knows many people; he ought to be judged on HIS ideals, not theirs. What dastardly secrets will Mr. Viguerie reveal about Thompson next? Perhaps he shook hands with a Democrat or two while he served in the Senate? Or maybe he actually spoke with Democrats! Oh, the horror!

Finally, Mr. Viguerie attempts to deceive us on Senator Thompson’s voting record. In his column, Viguerie claims Thompson voted against impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Well, no, sorry, Mr. Viguerie, but, while Thompson did vote against one article he voted FOR the others. A fact Mr. Viguerie conveniently forgot to include it seems.

Throughout his column/please buy my book/I hate Fred Thompson piece Mr. Viguerie references the American Conservative Union’s ratings of US Senators as proof that Fred Thompson is no Conservative. Well I looked at his ratings, and they were overwhelmingly positive.

You can check them out as well www.acuratings.org. You can also read the entire column by Mr. Viguerie here and please stop by my Fred Thompson page at http://www.gatorsense.com/id15.html. See or yourself my friends.

I do not know exactly why the Richard Viguerie dislikes Thompson, perhaps it is some personal issue, and perhaps he is genuine in his concern. All I know is that he offers very little reason not to support Fred Thompson in 2008.

We Conservatives did not let that get us down; instead, we were emboldened by these asinine attacks. We called, and wrote, and emailed or political leaders. And, thankfully, we killed the immigration/amnesty bill! Good for us! Of course, it is alive again and very soon, it will be front and center again. Oddly enough, many of our congressmen and senators do not understand why America is so outraged over them trying to fix our immigration policies.

As for me, I am all for them fixing it, I bet most of us are in favor of that. After all, who does not want this lingering crisis mended? The problem is not with fixing the problems with illegal immigrants and lax borders. The problem is one of trust. See, America largely has learned not too trust our government to address and remedy the border. Why you ask? Well, because our government has failed, repeatedly, to do the one thing it has to do if it really wants to get serious about fixing the border and illegal immigration. Frankly, it has failed to enforce immigration laws.

This failure, which has often equaled a failure to even try, has taught Americans a lesson. That lesson is not to trust politicians to keep their promises on border security. So, please excuse our reluctance to swoon over new immigration laws. Perhaps if our current laws were being enforced we would be more wiling to go along with new laws. Heck, if the government started enforcing the current laws, and actually proved their willingness to do so we would perk right up. See, we would have a reason to have some trust then.

See, it is like this, we have seen Washington not enforce current laws for decades. What Washington is loathe to see is that trust once lost is not easily regained. They lost us and we lost our faith in them. Now, if they want that trust back, let them earn it. Surely, our government can grasp this can’t it?

If, for some strange reason they cannot get it straight in their minds, allow me to set it up for them. Here then, are some very simple steps for our Senate, House, and yes, especially for you Mr. President to take on the road to regain our trust.
First and foremost, get that fence y’all approved on the border built! No, not a “virtual” fence, I mean a real fence, designed to make it as difficult as possible for those seeking to cross our border illegally to do so. Get that fence up, or at least start aggressively building it and America will take note.

Secondly, and this is a big one here, stop punishing border agents who do their job! If border agents shoot a drug smuggler in his arse, then do not prosecute them. No, give them medals! Allow them to do their jobs. In addition, while you are at it, hire more agents! Imagine this, more agents allowed to do their jobs+ a border fence= fewer illegal aliens and more faith in you by us.
Thirdly, crack down on these city councils and mayors who seem to think they can ignore federal immigration laws. Withhold federal money until they end these inane sanctuary city policies. In short, no American city should be able to order their police officers NOT to ask about the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens. Police must do their jobs, and that job involves arresting those who break laws. This issue needs to be dealt with now. Doing so will make a big impression on us, trust me on this.

Fourthly, take companies who knowingly hire illegal aliens to the proverbial woodshed. They have an obligation to follow the law. If they choose not to, then let the penalty they face force them to reevaluate their hiring policies. This capitalist nation affords these companies a path to prosperity, the least they can do is play by the rules.

Fifthly, Americans would jump for joy if y’all went after those here illegally who have outstanding warrants. These are not folks seeking better lives. They are criminals, drug dealers, gang members, etc. Go find them, and boot them out of this country. Again, an act like this will do wonders to better your image in our eyes!

Lastly, stop insulting our intelligence. We are a tad fed up with the whole “We cannot deport 12 million people” line frankly. Yes, we get that. Moreover, I do not know of anyone who has demanded 12 million illegal aliens be deported. I am pretty sure we are aware that this problem has been ignored for so long that mass deportations are not an option.

Another line we are tired of is the “these people are just doing jobs Americans just will not do”. If I hear that once more, my head will explode! It is not a good idea to insult Americans and their work ethic. So please, knock it off already!

Do these things, starting now, and you will be surprised how eager America is to listen to ideas about how to deal with the 12 million folks here illegally. Again, we recognize this is a huge problem, and we recognize that there are no easy solutions, we really do. Frankly, we understand there is no magic cure all. We do, however, need to know that the solutions y’all come up with will at least be enforced.

There is that word enforced yet again. Why does that keep popping up? Well, because no law will ever succeed unless it is enforced. Therefore, there is your key to regaining our trust. Enforce the laws we have, prove you are capable of that. THEN, and only then, will America trust you to deal with those here illegally. Because all we hear now are the same folks who have yet to enforce immigration laws telling us how they will enforce these new laws. Sorry, America is not buying!