*UPDATE 9/17/06 10:45PM - AllahPundit reports that the Bush Assassination movie has won a prize for revealing a "larger truth". AP has also taken note of Hillary's repudiation of the movie.*

(h/t Drudge)

I may not like anything else about Hillary, but at least she had the sense to say this about the ridiculous Bush assassination movie.

"I think it's despicable," Clinton said of "Death of a President," a fictional film that features a staged assassination of the president in 2007. "I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."

I almost hesitate to criticize her because I'm glad to see those comments, but this wouldn't be RightWinged.com if I didn't. This isn't Hillary bashing by any means, but I wonder why we're only hearing this reply now. Certainly she's been asked about her opinion of the film before this? This was almost becoming old news already.

The only other criticism isn't directed at her, but at the rest of the Democrats in Washington. Shouldn't they have the balls to make a statement on this? Is that their job? No. But they sure want to run their mouths about plenty of other things that aren't their jobs either, and they are all about demanding apologies, etc. Hell, just last week they threatened ABC and ABC caved and edited their film. Did they belong in that arena either? No. The point is, if they are going to come out talking about that movie and other pop culture topics, and Harry Reid is going to quote Olberman, couldn't they at least condemn the Bush assassination film?

Anyway, the Hillary love fest is over. Good job here Hillary, but don't expect me to be complimenting you again any time soon. I mean, me, someone who votes for the Congressional "Plantation" owners needn't compliment you, part of the "slave" party. "And you know what I'm talkin' about".

 

*UPDATE* - You know the legitimate outrage over the Bush assassination movie? Well the libs are trying to say that there was a Clinton assassination in "The Path to 9/11". Where you ask? Apparently they think terrorists angrily shooting at Clinton's image on a screen is equivalent to a movie based on the assassination of Bush, and a post-Bush world. Kos, not surprisingly, linked me to that ridiculousness. I would say they can't be serious, but sadly this is all too predictable from these loons

I haven't had an opportunity to post on the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11", and it would have been pointless trying to keep up with the coverage of the folks at HotAir. Even as we speak, AllahPundit has posted a reminder, but also notes that the documentary 9/11 will be airring on CBS. Not sure which one to watch live yet. After my comments I'll post links to all of HotAir's extensive coverage leading up to tonight's program.

By now you certainly know that the Clinton administration and Democrats in general have been freaking out over the ABC miniseries. They're upset about fictionalized scenes that essentially show Sandy Berger and the Clinton administration in general, dropping the ball on killing and/or capturing Bin Laden. The movie is labeled a docudrama, because it isn't supposed to be a documentary, which is why it has actors telling a story. I do understand their outrage, because the original scenes in question do make them look pretty bad.

It seems that the scenes that they're mad about are fictional events happening in Washington, centered around REAL events, like not giving the go to the CIA to kill Bin Laden when they had the chance, and then tipping off the Pakistanis who tipped off UBL before another strike. The problem is, these real "on the ground" events actually happened, but the Dems are ripped about the fictionalized Washington scenes built around them. So while I hate to borrow a term created during Rathergate, this is "fake but accurate". Only in this case, "fake but accurate" is true.

Before I link you to the scenes, that it seems have now been cut, I'd like to say that I actually kind of agree with the Dems, that this film should be pulled... but for different reasons. I think if we really want to examine Clinton's Bin Laden fighting record, ABC should start with a point by point analysis of the contents of the book Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror.

After we become fully aware of the facts and all claims made in that book, we should take a look at a speech given by Clinton in 2002 when he unwittingly admitted that he dropped the ball:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.

"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Seems pretty straight forward, right? Sudan offered him to Billy Jeff, but he turned them down. Dems will argue all day long that he didn't say "they offered Bin Laden", but that's just word games. Read where Clinton says "so I did not bring him..." He's saying that he had the opportunity to, or else he wouldn't have given a reason why he didn't. And then he says "I pleaded with the Saudis to take him...", again saying that it was his decision to do with UBL what he wished. There is nothing ambiguous about this and no way to spin it. If you have read this comment, and think you have another view about it, you're lying because there's no wiggle room.

Now if I wanted to get in to the Able Danger angle, we could be here all night. I almost hesitate to link to Wikipedia with that because I haven't read that entire article, but it's too broad of a topic to use anything else. If you aren't familiar, here's the gist - Jamie Gorelick, a senior justice department official under Clinton, may not have erected the wall between law enforcement and intelligence, but she made it the wall it became. She laid each and every brick making the wall much higher than it had ever been. This wall kept a secret intelligence group called Able Danger from passing along information about the 9/11 hijackers to the proper authorities. Specifically they identified ringleader Mohamed Atta, and 3 others.

Able Danger repeatedly tried to get this info to the proper authorities, but the Clinton justice Dept. wasn't having any of it. Then for some unknown reason, no one saw it a conflict of interest to make Gorelick commissioner of the 9/11 commission, and no one seems that curious about what documents Sandy Berger shoved down his pants and socks and later destroyed. For some reason even after he was criminally charged and convicted after denying then admitting his crime, everyone seems to have accepted the "oh, they were just copies" excuse. Why hide them in your pants and socks then sir?

It wouldn't take you more than 10 minutes of Googling to realiz that the real story is much more damning for Bill Clinton and his adminstration than anything ABC was going to show in this docudrama.

That all said, it seems like ABC resisted efforts to force them to pull the program, however it sounds like they've removed the scenes that got the left all in a tizzy. I sort of actually agree with pulling those scenes if they weren't exactly what happened, but I bet it will hurt the story a bit, and I think that there is no excuse for not including the real truth, which would actually be much worse for Slick Willy. If you would like to see the scenes that have been removed (according to British TV viewers who's seen the first half of the program (see HotAir)), you can see them, in 6 parts, at Save the Soldliers and Pointvlog. Again, these seem to just be dramatized scenes of things along the lines of what we can assume must have been going on behind closed doors. Fake but accurate.

(mid-post break PROGRAM ABOUT TO START)

(Program ended)

Okay, I have to say that the movie is really well put together. One of the few things I've seen in recent time that is captivating (for lack of a better word). I missed a good chunk when my brother showed up to check out the bite I got from my neighbor's dog today, but I DVRed it so I can see what I missed later. I do know, from reading the HotAir thread, that part of what I missed was the section where ABC caved in and removed scenes to appease the Clinstapo. AllahPundit has posted two videos as well, one of the unedited (not shown) and one of the edited (shown) versions of that part of the film, whicih I'll be checking out shortly.

Now, much of that was all my rant and take on this whole situation, but as I said others, especially HotAir have blogged the hell out of this thing over the past week. From reporting the insane calls for editing and pulling of the movie, to Thug Democrats threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license, etc. etc. It would be pointless for me to try to catch up on blogging all of this information, but I think it's important to digest all of what went on this week and consider what it may all mean.

I honestly think that the Lewinsky issue being brought back to the forefront, as a possible Clinton distraction, is a huge part of what we saw go down this week. Yes he doesn't want the world to see him asleep at the wheel on UBL, but I think the entire Clinton organization is afraid of the political implications of seeing him asleep with the humidor (yeah, I went there).

Anyway, without further ado, here's the HotAir coverage. Read/watch all of it:

Report: ABC agrees to edit “Path to 9/11" after phone call from Clinton

Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11" Update: Stolen Honor redux?

Miserable failure: More Clinton counterterror catastrophes

Video flashback: U.S. drone had Osama onscreen — in 2000

ABC cancels “Path to 9/11" web ads? Update: Lefties squat on “Path” domain name

Video: Clinton takes strong, principled stand against lying

Meltdown: Dean, Berger, Albright, lefty historians demand “Path” be edited cancelled (Update: Clinton’s lawyers, too)

Video: Red State obtains preview copy of “Path to 9/11"

For now I'm on the edge of my seat for the conclusion tomorrow. So far it's been very interesting and well done.

FEATURED BOOK

 

Obviously I haven't been too excited about the possibility of Hillary Clinton becoming POTUS (although in reality, I'm not concerned because I believe she's unelectable), but now that a woman known for her super bowl booby show political prowess has backed her, I think I've seen the light. I mean if Janet Jackson is backing Hillary Clinton, then clearly Hillary must be our girl.

Okay okay, obviously I'm mocking Janet, but I think what's most important here is that this gave me an excuse to create this photoshop for your enjoyement.

A bit from the AFP article... First the obligatory "elect her because she's a woman, not because she is qualified or would make a good president" line:

"Hillary Clinton as president -- that would be great," Jackson said in an interview with German press agency DPA Monday. "Then she could show all those people who wouldn't trust a woman with such a job."

Then she really teaches us a history lesson:

Jackson, who is currently promoting her new album "20 Y.O.", declined to criticise US President George W. Bush directly, saying only: "I am not satisfied with the situation in this world. I hate war."

You know, because the rest of us love it. By her logic, if the entire world erupted in nuclear war, we should sit out so that she can be "satisfied" with the world because she "hates war". Good call. Perhaps there's something to all this "fire Rummy" talk. I think we've found our new SecDef.

Seriously Janet, if you can pull any strings to get Michael to come out and show his support for Hillary as well, that would be (insert word(s) that mean "icing on the cake" but... BIGGER).

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

A Drudge Exclusive to good/weird not to pass on in it's entirety:

HILLARY CLINTON, MCCAIN HELD VODKA-DRINKING CONTEST Fri Jul 28 2006 19:19:50 ET

On a congressional trip to Estonia, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton astonished her traveling companions by suggesting the group do what one does in the Baltics: hold a vodka-drinking contest!

Delighted, the leader of the overseas delegation, Sen. John McCain, quickly agreed, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday.

The after-dinner game went so well -- memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much. McCain later told people how unexpectedly fun he found Hillary to be.

TIMES reporter Anne Kornblut has filed a story on the curious relationship between Hillary and John McCain, newsrooms sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"One of the guys," is the way McCain describes her.

NYT TIMES editors plan a front page placement of Kornblut's report.

Clinton and McCain have developed an amiable relationship.

They worked together, both on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the issue of global warming. But as the 2008 presidential campaign begins to take shape, with McCain and Clinton at the top of the polls for their parties' nominations, they are increasingly doing things that underscore their differences.

"But the interplay between the two senators -- both celebrities, both self-styled centrists, both with compelling personal narratives and a knack for infuriating their own parties' bases -- remains intriguing as they navigate the early phase of a presidential race with an eye toward conceivably running against one another."

Developing...

I think I'll wait until the full story rolls in before I comment much on this, but what are these two thinking? First of all, why are two rather likely opponents in the 2008 presidential election partying together? Second, since when does Hillary being "one of the guys" become a breaking news story? Isn't that just stating the obvious (rimshot please for my lame cheapshot "Hillary is a lesbian" joke)?!

Again, I'd like to wait until the full story comes out before I say a whole lot about this, but I have to assume Hillary isn't to pleased by McCain's comments, in a week she's trying to "feel like a woman" after some whacked out lib sculpted a "presidential" bust of her (h/t Expose the Left). (see more via Michelle Malkin and HotAir).

Note to artist: Generally a "presidential" bust would imply that the bust is of a president or former president, or I'd even stretch to say a likely future president, but as we know, Hillary is unelectable. Sure, she may get the Dem nomination, and I'm praying she will, but she won't be the POTUS is 2008 or ever.

***UPDATE***
Drudge is now linking to this NY Times article which explains that this Estonia trip actually took place 2 years ago. It's inclusion is just a drop in the bucket of this "buddy" tale of Hillary and McCain. There are much grosser parts:

It was during their joint trip to Iraq in late February 2005 that Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton appeared via satellite on “Meet the Press,” an appearance that put their civility on display. When Mr. Russert asked Mr. McCain at the end of the interview whether he thought Mrs. Clinton would make a good president, Mrs. Clinton came to his rescue, saying: “Oh, we can’t hear you, Tim!”

“Yeah, you’re breaking up,” Mr. McCain added, laughing. But then he said: “I happen to be a Republican and would support, obviously, a Republican nominee, but I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president.”

Asked the same question about him, Mrs. Clinton replied without skipping a beat: “Absolutely.”

What is going on here?

Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said: “They are colleagues who have worked and traveled together on issues of interest to both, such as support for our military and global warming, and they agree to disagree on issues such as requiring greater scrutiny of foreign government ownership of our ports.”

But Mr. Reines said Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had not noticed any recent changes in her relationship with Mr. McCain, and he declined to elaborate on the rounds of vodka.

“What happens in Estonia stays in Estonia,” Mr. Reines said.

What is this, a friggin' frat house?! What person in real life really says that? And what person finds that to be a good enough subject changer when we're talking about elected officials?

On the other hand, I might be happier that they not tell us what went on, because I'm sick to my stomach enough simply based on what that statement implies.

 

So News Corp./Fox News/Rupert Murdoch are all part of the "vast rightwing conspiracy" huh?

Drudge:

MURDOCH TO HOST FUNDRAISER FOR HILLARY CLINTON Mon May 08 2006 18:25:16 ET

Rupert Murdoch has agreed to host a political fundraiser for Hillary Clinton this summer!

Murdoch's surprise decision to raise money for Clinton in July, on behalf of NEWS CORP., parent company of FOXNEWS and the NEW YORK POST, underlines a dramatic turn of relations between Murdoch and Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband.

The move by Murdoch is believed to reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate in 2008.

Last week, Clinton surprised Washington and media watchers by attending a FOX NEWS anniversary party, where she toasted Murdoch.

Political powerbroker and studio head Harvey Weinstein is said to have convinced Hillary that Murdoch could be a friend, not a foe, in her ongoing political maneuvers.

Developing...

What is going on here!? One can only hope that this is part of a "vast rightwing conspiracy" and Murdoch is hoping to get on the inside to get the dirtiest of dirt to filter down to Fox News Channel. Though if we're talking about Hillary for president, I suppose that won't be necessary, considering polls continute to show us just how unelectable she is anyway. I don't think Murdoch could do anything about that.

What's weird is this isn't new to some people. I mean, we all brushed off Hillary's little appearance at the Fox News Sunday anniversary party a couple weeks ago, but NewsMax was noticing these two getting cozy almost a year ago, and they weren't the only ones.

I see now that the Financial Times is on top of this story as well. I think the author of this piece also reveals her obvious liberal bias, unless she's a columnist that I'm just not familiar with. But as I read this story, it comes off as reporting of hard news, despite it's obvious bias:

Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton’s initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign.

The decision underlines an incongruous thawing of relations between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband, such as Fox News, the conservative cable channel owned by Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mr Murdoch will host the fundraiser, due to be held by July, on behalf of News Corp.

One person involved in the event said it reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate. “They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”

The decision reflects an assiduous courtship by Mrs Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. Last month Mrs Clinton surprised Washington by attending the “Fox News Sunday” 10th anniversary party, where she chatted with Mr Murdoch.

Mr Clinton has encouraged Mr Murdoch’s involvement with his Global Initiative and has invited him to speak again at the second forum in September. The former president will also address News Corp’s summer conference.

The fundraiser for Ms Clinton’s re-election is in stark contrast to the brutal coverage from the New York Post of her first Senate campaign.

The partisan tabloid ran unflattering pictures, and frontpage headlines pleading: “DON’T RUN”. A poll from the Post’s website during the campaign identified her as the sixth “most evil” person of the millennium, ahead of Benito Mussolini and Vlad the Impaler. Her husband ranked second.

One media lobbyist said: “Murdoch will be for the Republicans but he is also smart enough to know that the Republicans might not win. At some level, whether nationally or in New York, Hillary is the future and what savvy businessman would not want to put a line of interest in someone who will be the future?”

Mrs Clinton’s campaign office declined to comment.

I put the obvious biased portion in bold, and incase ya missed it, they called Fox News a "conservative cable channel". Setting aside the obvious fact that they call it a "cable channel" rather than "cable news outlet" or "cable news channel" or "cable news network", no just a "channel"... No, my problem is with her calling it a "conservative" channel. Of course liberals will want to go point-counterpoint on this, but that's not the issue in this case. The issue is whether or not someone should be writing (again what appears to me) a hard news piece, with obvious opinion added to it. Someone please correct me if this is a Caroline Daniel "column" rather than a news story, and I'll accept that. But as far as I can tell, Caroline Daniel is a news reporter for FT, not a columnist.

Others:
Early Spin Blog, Right Voices

***UPDATE***
Exclusive photo of Hillary steppin' With Rupert Murdoch, a.k.a R-Mur.

 

A hat tip to Michelle Malkin for finding this story, and like her I don't have much to add, because the Washington Post (for once) struck back at Democrats with a little truth.

What the Dems are trying to say:

President Bush's crop of political appointees includes fewer women and minorities than did President Bill Clinton's at comparable points in their presidencies, according to a new report by House Democrats.

Women made up about 37 percent of the 2,786 political appointees in the Bush administration in 2005, compared with about 47 percent in the Clinton administration in 1997, according to the report and supplemental data released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. Similarly, about 13 percent of Bush administration appointees last year were racial minorities, compared with 24 percent in the fifth year of Clinton's presidency, the report found.

The 13-page report, compiled using data from the Office of Personnel Management, says the number of women and minority appointees increased during the first five years after Clinton took office and has declined during Bush's tenure.

And the reality:

What the report does not mention, however, is that Bush has established a record of diversity in his Cabinet. Bush's Cabinet, which includes the vice president and the heads of 15 executive departments, currently has two Hispanics, two African Americans and two Asian Americans. Three departments -- State, Education and Labor -- are headed by women, and a fourth, Interior, has an acting secretary who is a woman.

Before Bush took office, no minority had occupied any of the four highest-profile Cabinet positions -- attorney general and the secretaries of the Defense, State and Treasury departments. Now, Alberto R. Gonzales, a Hispanic, is attorney general. Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to be secretary of state; her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, was the first African American named to that post.

What a ridiculous way to attack. I thought these uncivilized obstructionists were confident that they'll be taking back at least one house, but obviously not if they have to really reach to try to attack on something so dishonestly spun and stupid. The fact is that this president has appointed more women and minorities to TOP positions than any other previous president. Like it or not, that's the reality. This whole idiotic thing had to focus on just one specific year of President Bush's administration to attack his appointments, and it's a flawed argument anyway. What are they mad about? That Bush isn't just throwing a bunch of minorities and women in lower positions to score political points by saying "look at my minority friendly appointments", but instead he appoints extremely qualified women and minorities to HIGH LEVEL positions, because they deserve to be there.

So again to make this clear, Democrats are mad that Bush hasn't filled as many low level positions with minorities in his 5th year as President, as Clinton did in his 5th year, but instead has filled high level positions with them? Okay, I think I got it now. Perhaps Cynthia McKinney should go slap President Bush around a bit to straighten him out.. oh wait he's not a cop. Nevermind.

 

It's too bad I'm moving out of Nashville on May 21, because I'll miss a big "Hillary for President" push on May 23. Wish I could have been their to photograph the lost souls for you all.

A movement to draft Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president aims to prove Democrats can win in Southern states, and that's why they're launching their national campaign in Nashville later this month.

The group, called Hillarynow.com, thinks she can appeal to the country-music and NASCAR-loving crowd associated with Southern towns such as Nashville, said Bob Kunst, the Miami Beach-based organizer.

Of course this is an insane dream, which is why Hillary isn't involved, and just a bunch of out of touch supporters think they're on to something. All I can say is that if they convince Hillary that this is an angle she needs to work, I would learn from DNC Chairman Dean's mistakes and steer clear of using lines like:

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,"

Not only with those Confederate flag wavers see through your pandering BS, but then you'll have to answer to the shakedown brothers and all their millions of followers when they call for a public apology for your racially insensitive remarks.

Also, if she's truly hoping to score some votes in the south, she might also choose a better line than the last Democratic Presidential Candidate (Kerry):

"I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA,"

"The whole point is to go where we're not expected," Kunst said.

The national kickoff will be a May 23 fundraiser for Hillarynow.com at a Germantown coffee shop, Enchanted Gingerbread. About 200 Tennesseans are expected to attend, Kunst said.

Hillarynow.com bills itself as the oldest and most active organization in support of her presidency. Another group, votehillary.org, is based in Chester, Va.

Hillarynow.com has raised about $35,000 and has between 10,000 and 15,000 people who have signed up online to support Clinton as the nation's first woman president, Kunst said.

These people ought to rethink where they want to invest their energy. Poll after poll shows that we don't want Hillary. Remember the Gallup poll that showed 51% definitely wouldn't vote for her, and only 16% definitely would? Rasmussen has an updated version that seems a little better (h/t GOP BLoggers), but still not great, and of course the questions are always asked differently from poll to poll. Add that to the fact that polls continue to show her getting destroyed by Republican hopefuls John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

And no article on Hillary's possible run for the presidency would be complete with out the obligatory "Commander in Chief" reference:

"I think we've started to condition ourselves to the idea of having a woman president," said O'Hanlon, who cited as one factor the television show "Commander in Chief," which stars Geena Davis as the nation's first female president. ABC this week yanked the drama from its May lineup.

Proving my point that this failure of a show was created for no other purpose than to "condition" us for a Hillary run. For more on the show's failure and how idiotic the "it's time for a woman" crowd is, see my earlier post.

If you didn't already think this whole southern Hillary draft was ridiculous, perhaps you'd like to know what sort of activities the organizer has been involved in recently:

Kunst, an activist on many issues, has shown up in Tennessee before, once to protest the United States' embargo against Cuba and another time to attend "Gay Day" in Rhea County. •

Read the rest of the Tennessean article here.

As always, I have to add that I hope Hill does get the nomination, because as far as we can tell at this point, she seems as unelectable as Dean.

 

Scroll down a ways if you want to skip my rant (PART I), and get to the current U.S. politics and hypocrisy stuff, including video (PART II). I didn't intend for this post to turn in to something this long, but since it did, I've separated it in to two sections, the second of which is most important to our current situation.

PART I: HISTORY, OIL THEORIES, MY THEORIES

It's no secret that oil prices have skyrocketed in recent years, and particularly recent weeks. We hear politicians, and commentators like Fox News' Bill O'Reilly screaming "gouging" day in and day out, but never provide a shred of evidence. The only thing these people have to support their reckless usage of "the g word" is record profits by the oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips. Now admittedly I'm not an economist and won't pretend to know how all of these things work, but from all the analysis I've heard from people who do know what they're talking about, there isn't a shred of evidence supporting "gouging", and that this "commodity market" is operating on the up and up.

If you read articles or watch news reports on the surging oil prices you generally hear that the cause is speculation on supply shortages due to a possible future conflict with Iran or that greater demand caused by booming economies in China and India is outpacing supply, thus the old "supply and demand" comes in to play, meaning the less there is of something the more people have to pay to get it. Sometimes you hear that both of these factors combined are driving the price, but you never hear any actual evidence that the oil companies are "gouging" or doing anything illegal in any way.

Now, I believe that probably both of the commonly used explanations for rising prices are playing a part, but I'm also certain it's tied in to the common belief in "peak oil". If you aren't familiar, "peak oil" is basically the theory that the planet has a limited amount of oil that is running out and that we are going to, or may have already passed the "peak" and are now using up the leftovers of Earth's oil. This theory is based on the belief that oil is a "fossil fuel", and essentially created by dead organisms buried underground under intense pressure for millions of years. Of course this is the belief of the establishment science community that also pushes "evolution" and "global warming". I think we can all agree these too are ridiculous, but that's for another day. I mention them for a couple reasons though. Do you ever notice how these are treated like Gods of the scientific/materialist communities. We've barely learned to walk before they start ramming this crap down our throats, and there are a lot of theories what drives all of this, but again that's for another day.

Back to "fossil fuels"... As long as people try to tell us that oil comes from dead ancient organisms, and push evolution as a fact we're lead to believe that it takes millions of years to create more oil and that we're using up all the dead dinosaurs right now. In turn oil becomes the most valuable and sacred thing to human kind. Like global warming, this gives the wannabe New World Order UN more ground for their agenda to govern the planet by telling us that daddy knows best.

The problem with "fossil fuels" is that evidence continues to roll in showing that oil may not be from "fossils" at all, but a resource that the planet constantly creates on it's own. I feel, and hope, that the idea of abiotic oil gains popularity and is eventually proven, despite the fact that the mainstrea media all but completely ignores it. Note also that proponents of "global warming" hate the idea of abiotic oil, because they blame the use of oil for their bogus theory, and if there is an unending supply.... well, you can connect the dots here I think.

Another factor commonly believed to be a contributor is the fact that we haven't built an oil refinery in 30 years in this country. Like the other two believed main factors I mentioned earlier, this probably does play a role, but even if we were able to overcome all three of these components, they can always still tell us "we're running out". Don't you think that if we had an unending supply it would be dirt cheap? Why aren't we exploring the possibility that this is the case, considering the evidence that seems to support it? Can you imagine how things would change if we could be confident that we don't have to worry about running out of oil?

Here's a little from the Citizen-Times on previous misconceptions about the planet's supply of oil, that sound remarkably similar to what we continue to hear today:

• 1885; U.S. Geologic Survey — “Little or no chance of oil in California.”

• 1991; U.S. Geologic Survey — Same prophesy for Kansas and Texas.

• 1914; U.S. Bureau of Mines — Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil; at most a 10-year supply remaining.

• 1939; Dept. of Interior — Oil reserves in the United States exhausted in 13 years.

• 1951; Oil and Gas Division — Oil reserves to be exhausted in 13 years.

• 2005; Energy Information Administration — proven worldwide reserves of oil at 1.28 trillion barrels.

Consider some good indicators. Russia’s giant Samotlor Field reached peak production in 1983. After BP spent 18 billion on “hydraulic fracturing,” production went from 30 tons per day per well in 2000, to 117 tons in 2004.

Brazilian oil giant Petrobras has seen surprising results by drilling ultra-deep offshore wells in Brazil’s Barracuda and Caratingua oil fields. Brazil’s oil production has grown at 9 percent per year since 1980.

Saudi Oil Minister Al-Naimi told a conference in Washington, D.C., that Saudi oil reserves have been drastically underestimated. Energy Information Administration estimated them at 262 billion barrels in 2004 — only 20 percent of Al-Naimi’s estimate. Ghawar oil has been dated with Precambrian rock produced 570 million years ago, but dinosaurs did not roam the earth until 250 million years ago.

Pemex’s Cantarell field formed 65 million years ago when the Chicxulub meteor impacted the Gulf of Mexico. Abiotic proponents argue that the deep fracturing of bedrock by the meteor’s impact was responsible for oil formed in the mantle to seep into the sedimentary rock.

Thunder Horse, 125 miles southeast of New Orleans, promises to produce 1 million barrels per day by next year. Thunder Horse is truly an ultra-deep project, and only part of BP’s 2.5 billion barrels of proven reserves in the Gulf. From the floor, BP has drilled down another six miles to hit oil.

There is no evidence that any ancient dinosaur walked on land that is now eight miles down. Thunder Horse illuminates the current technology that makes it possible to tap into reserves thought inaccessible.

A study by Integrated Geophysics Corp. emphasizes that almost 90 percent of the Gulf’s discovery prospects lie in 3,000-5,000 foot of water. However, radical environmentalists are currently blocking oil production almost globally. In actuality, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would require 5,000-7,000 acres, or about 0.004 percent of Alaska’s total land mass. Even with Prudhoe Bay, the total area represents the size of a postage stamp on a football field.

Even a limited area for ANWR drilling would offer the option of producing 40 percent of the oil consumed in America from Alaska. But now, with oil at $60 per barrel, we are sending overseas nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars each year.

more...

This is not meant to be any type of smoking gun, but I'm certain it's totally new information for most of you. There is plenty more on this and abiotic oil out there, I suggest doing your own research on it if you are interested, as I admittedly didn't link to a lot as I just sort of rattled off that little rant without stopping. Do check out the wikipedia article on abiotic oil though. You may also want to take a look at this article on natural gas being abiotic, research Eugene Island a bit, and just do some googling on things like "peak oil myth".

I'm sorry to say that of all people to agree with, 9/11 conspirator and probably the most famed conspiracy theorist nut, Alex Jones shares the same view as I do on much of this. Of course I think Jones is a nut when it comes to most of his paranoid conspiracy theories, but you can't be wrong all of the time, and this happens to be something that has growing scientific support and not just a conspiracy theory. Don't get me wrong, many people truly believe in the whole "fossil fuel" thing and aren't involved in some plot, but that ties in again with old Earth/evolution brainwashing. So while this may just be another conspiracy theory notch on the belt of Alex Jones, it is certainly more than that. Obviously I hate to agree with such a disgusting human being, but I can't disagree simply because he agrees, and I should mention that on this issue he places a villain label on a lot of people I don't believe deserve it. Of course he also believes that everyone in the U.S. government are "illuminati" who are involved in all sorts of satanic rituals.

PART II: CURRENT OIL NEWS, POLITICS, AND WASHINGTON HYPOCRISY

What have you heard from Washington about oil in the past few weeks? I've heard President Bush, as I have for a number of months now, speaking about alternative fuels, America needing to lose it's addiction to oil, and reducing our foreign dependence. Of course a lot of this is just talk, but getting things done in Washington is a group effort and getting these discussions going is a necessary start.

What else have you heard? I've heard every Democrat who could find a microphone and/or a video camera rant and rave about how this is all the President's fault, and how he won't do anything because he's in bed with "big oil". They've used gas stations for these perfect photo ops, knowing that these are the clips that we'll see on the evening news, not President Bush's lengthy speeches on developing more energy efficient vehicles, alternative fuels, where new technology is at and where it's going. We won't see much about the President's speeches, but shouting and pointing fingers will get your face on the evening news for a few seconds.

But through all of the whining, I didn't hear the Democrats say what they proposed we do about the problem, did you? I heard a number of calls for "investigations" (you know how Democrats love those, instead of actually getting anything done) in to gouging, even though we've seen no evidence of it. I can't recall hearing any other ideas though. Big surprise.

In addition, I've heard a handful of Republicans call for opening ANWR for drilling ASAP. Of course we know it would probably take 10 years for this to make a difference, but if Democrats hadn't been blocking it for so long, and Clinton hadn't vetoed a 1995 bill allowing it, we'd already be reaping the benefits. What good will it do to continue to put it off, along with other domestic exploration opportunities?

As with every issue in America, the Democrats do nothing but point fingers at Senate and House Republicans and the President, whine and never put forth a single idea of their own. Liberals we debate with on the internet are in denial about this, no matter how many times we prove it, but this oil situation provides us another perfect example of the "no plan" Democrats. This time it's such a clear cut example that it's infuriating beyond all comprehension. I don't think anything short of tossing the Democratic leadership out of office is good enough here.

You may think that me saying that we should toss these Dems out of office is hypocritical because we Republicans accuse those of you who want to impeach the President of wanting to simply because you disagree with his policies, but it's not. Your basis for impeachment is based on opposition to administration policies, my basis for getting rid of these Senators and Representatives is the fact that they aren't doing anything. It would be one thing if they were proposing stupid ideas that I disagreed with, but they are just doing nothing but obstructing and complaining and we're paying for it!!! We're paying for our government to be stalled on issue after issue, and instead of getting any results on anything, we just listen to bickering.

In case you wish to challenge what I'm saying about the no plan Democrats by saying that the Republicans don't have a plan either, let's take a look. Bill Frist and the Senate Republicans have laid out a 10 point plan called the The Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006. This isn't meant to be final solution by any means, but it is decisive action. Despite the fact that all you'll hear from the media is "$100 rebate, so what?", it's much more than that:

Gas Tax Holiday Rebate for Consumers Gives $100 gas tax holiday rebate check to taxpayers to help ease the burden of high gasoline costs. Consumer Anti-Price Gouging Protection Gives the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the Justice Department and state attorneys general, the authority to bring enforcement actions against any supplier unlawfully inflating the price of gas to protect consumers from abuse. Tax Incentives Repeals tax incentives for oil companies while expanding tax incentives to promote the use of hybrid vehicles and increase refinery capacity to secure our gasoline supply. Fuel Economy Standards Gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to issue a rule governing fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles. Authorizes Advanced Energy Initiative Encourages research and development into alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles to diversify our domestic energy supply and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Urges the Administration to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months to make more oil available for consumer use. Expanding Domestic Supply in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Opens a portion of the Coastal Plain of ANWR to environmentally sensitive oil exploration to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If President Clinton had not vetoed ANWR legislation a decade ago, it would now be producing 1 million barrels of oil a day, which would mean lower gas prices. Refinery Capacity Includes incentives to encourage additional refinery capacity to enhance our energy infrastructure and lower prices at the pump.

Thank you for doing SOMETHING. We shouldn't have to thank you though, because taking action on these issues is your job, but we've gotten so used to the behavior of the Democrats it looks like you're really steppin' up here.

As for the Democrats, do you need proof that they aren't offering a plan? Let's see what the leadership and top Dems are up to, shall we?

Barbara Boxer
Boxer has no plan. Oh wait, she wants to improve fuel economy standards for federal vehicles. What the hell is that going to do!? I don't know how many vehicles constitute the "federal fleet", but it's obviously not even a fraction of a percent of the vehicles on the road, and this would have NO impact. Boxer's plan is to "lead by example". What an idiot.

Chuck Schumer
Schumer has no plan. Oh wait, he wants to baselessly whine about gouging and call for investigations. The other day Michelle Malkin noted that Neil Cavuto blasted Schumer on this, wondering why Schumer didn't also want an investigation in to "tax gouging" at the pump.

Harry Reid
Press releases on Reid's site are more of the same whining about gouging and blaming Republicans. He does want to repeal tax incentives for the oil companies, but that's already in the Frist plan, and I believe the President supports this as well.

Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi's plan: Complain about Republicans.

Even when these wastes of space have "plans" it's more like a goal rather than the means to achieve it. Remember their "plan" a few months ago: We promise to get Bin Laden!

Probably the most important thing I've learned out of all of this is the fact that if anyone is gouging, it's the government. All this ranting and raving about record profits during this oil crisis fails to mention that the oil companies are making about $0.09 (that's right, nine cents) profit on a gallon of gas, while the government is making about $0.40-$0.50 (forty to fifty cents) on each gallon. In some states the amount is closer to $0.60. Again, not being an economist or expert I had no idea, and I wish I had the ability to take a poll because my gut tells me that 90-95% of the public has no idea that this is going on. The public has simply heard the soundbytes, bought in to the emotionally appealing rhetoric, and has directed their anger on the oil companies.

Neil Cavuto raises this issue in a segment that turns in to one of the most sickening displays by do nothing Democrat Dick Durbin who only knows how to appeal to the uninformed masses. Check out the video of this Your World segment captured by Expose the Left, and have your barf bag ready a.

If you aren't familiar with appearances by Democrats on Fox News channel, this segment is a perfect example of what has become the norm. A Democrat, clearly used to going on CNN, MSNBC, etc. and getting to give stump speeches instead of answering real questions, gets confused and annoyed when the host insists that they just answer the questions. Durbin does that throughout this entire segment, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Durbin dodges question after question and tries to go in to long winded Bush blaming rants, and Cavuto continually has to cut him off and bring it back to the actual discussion. Durbin bashes the idea of drilling in ANWR because it would take 10 years to be operational. Well we'd already be online if you guys hadn't blocked it in the 90s!!! Then Durbin complains about "why we aren't talking about" alternative energies, increasing fuel efficiency when asked specifically about ANWR. I guess Durbin hasn't been paying attention, because the President has constantly talked about all of these things.

The best part (or worst, depending on how you look at it) is after Durbin gets done one of his rants about "big oil's" record profits, when Cavuto slaps him with the facts on "tax gouging" costing us a lot more than oil profits. Durbin is clearly unprepared for such a line of questioning, looks rather scared, and seemingly regrets having gone on Fox News instead of the friendly (to Democrats) networks. In desperation Durbin begins to repeat himself and rant about oil profits. Cavuto gives him the facts, that show that tax revenue is roughly 5 times that of oil profit per gallon, and Durbin just keeps saying "how do you explain the oil profits then?" The explanation is that a lot of oil was bought, now answer Neil's question about your misplaced outrage Senator! Or are you too busy coming up with a new way to call our troops Nazis?

Needless to say, the interview accomplishes nothing, unless you count revealing to anyone who watched it, what a shameful party the Democrats have become. Yes Durbin is just one man, but he's basically reciting the same talking points we've been hearing from all of them. Did you come away with any idea what Durbin or the Dems plan to do other than call for investigations and bash oil companies, Republicans, and the President?

Now we come to the hypocrisy part of our program. You'd have to have been living in a cave to be unaware that in today's Democratic party, hypocrisy is a way of life, but they really wanted to show it during "hate oil week".

This Washington Post article gives us the dirt on who's driving what on Capitol Hill, and neither party comes out smelling like roses. But the big difference is that the Democrats are doing nothing but playing the blame game and saying that the President is opposed to more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative fuels (even though he's been consistently talking about them). The Republicans are calling for much of what the President is calling for, while the Democrats can't form a sentence without it containing something negative including the words "this president". So they all jumped in to their huge luxury vehicles and SUVs, but hey, it's a long drive..... ACROSS THE STREET! And again, the Dems are worse villains here, because they also drove the one block back from their photo op by the gas price signs at a nearby gas station! Just think about how insane that is.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. "Get tough on big oil!" he demanded of the Bush administration.

These Democrats go a block down the road to point fingers at the President and stand in front of a gas price sign, and then drive the block back to their offices!? This is just disgusting, there's no other way to put it.

Brit Hume and Tucker Carlson each did brief reports on this same story, Expose the Left has the video. Carlson really nails it.

In conclusion, let's just actually get something done, shall we folks? I'm really tired of the Democrats sitting around whining, pointing fingers, and obstructing. Technology is working towards alternative fuels and better fuel efficiency, so let's give them more tax incentives and push them harder but in the mean time we need oil. Lets fastrack the building of refineries. At least there is one plan to expand a working refinery and make it the largest in the country. Let's push for domestic drilling. Let's do all of these things we're talking about, instead of just saying they need to be done, and assuming that making a little speech will get you off the hook with your constituents and put it all on the President.

In the mean time, see my earlier post with details on using the internet to locate the cheapest gas in your area. You may also want to try this revolutionary product that can vastly increase your fuel efficiency. (click "store" link on main page)

I think I'm about done, but I've kind of lost my train of thought as I've almost fallen asleep a few times now.

 

But it was where the subject of the chit chat between Henneberg and the Fox & Friends gang went, that should have made headlines. Henneberg repeated a number of times that Bill O'Reilly and Hillary Clinton were acting all buddy buddy at the event. WHAT!?

Now, one can look at this a couple different ways. Either Bill was nicing up to her, hoping for an interview, and in turn a record setting ratings night. We already know Bill is set to do a Kerry interview that was cancelled just a few nights ago. Kerry was too afraid to do an interview during the election, because he would have been forced to take a side on an issue. But right now Hillary=Ratings, and she is certainly the most sought after guest in Washington. So was this just Billy playing nice in hopes of getting an interview, despite the years of practically begging having gone unanswered?

I suppose some might say it's the rich and powerful rubbing elbows behind the scenes, but pretend it never happened publicly. I didn't catch O'Reilly earlier, but I haven't heard him mention it. Let me know if I just missed it. Of course one could say that he doesn't want to ruin his shot at the interview, etc.

My guess is that it's partly the interview thing, and partly just being in relatively close quarters and as professionals, not turning it in to an episode Jerry Springer.

Now, I haven't seen photos of the two of them, but MediaBistro does have a handful of photos from the event, including some of the two of them separately.

Partial guest list via MediaBistro:

Hillary Clinton, Mike Wallace, Vernon Jordan, Mike Allen, Paul Bedard, Shepard Smith, Sen. Bill Frist, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Josh Bolten, Ben Nelson, Bill O'Reilly, John McCain, Terry McAuliffe, Elaine Chao, Karen Feld, Bill Hemmer, Gen. Richard Myers, Andrea Mitchell, Lindsey Graham, Greta van Susteren, Betsy Rothstein, Ana Marie Cox, Major Garrett, Tony Snow, Anne Schroeder, Newt Gingrich, Karen Finney, Howard Fineman and Jack Valenti.

Has Hillary ever appeared on any Fox News show? If not, and even if she has actually, why is she at this party? I think we have to look at the begging for an interview angle again, because I see no use for her there at all.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

Don't expect to see the same fake outrage from the left, as we've seen in "Plamegate", over this latest REAL leak. As we know, in the Plame situation, no one can seem to say she's covered under the "leak law" that everyone wants to bust a Bush official on (including the author of the law), and that attacking the credibility of Wilson was necessary when he was lying for his own political reasons. Oh by the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he a Kerry supporter too?

MSNBC

WASHINGTON - In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday.

The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Thursday and is now under investigation by the Justice Department, NBC has learned.

Intelligence sources tell NBC News the accused officer, Mary McCarthy, worked in the CIA's inspector general's office and had worked for the National Security Council under the Clinton and and George W. Bush administrations.

Well we've all heard the news over the past couple days: Senior CIA Officer Fired For Leaking to Press. What I hadn't heard, until pulling up the Drudge Report today, is that the leaker was appointed by Sandy "I've got a filing cabinet in my socks" Berger, under President Bill Clinton's administration (Berger background here). Need more? The leaker, Mary O. McCarthy was a Kerry supporter, not to mention has a name that sounds like she is a character from a childrens book. By the way, it's the NY Times revealing the Kerry support, and I'm willing to admit when they get something right. But I'm surprised it didn't take a blogger to dig it up, and the Times to ignore it.

NY Times

WASHINGTON, April 21 — The Central Intelligence Agency has dismissed a senior career officer for disclosing classified information to reporters, including material for Pulitzer Prize-winning articles in The Washington Post about the agency's secret overseas prisons for terror suspects, intelligence officials said Friday.

The C.I.A. would not identify the officer, but several government officials said it was Mary O. McCarthy, a veteran intelligence analyst who until 2001 was senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, where she served under President Bill Clinton and into the Bush administration.

Public records show that Ms. McCarthy contributed $2,000 in 2004 to the presidential campaign of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.

What does that all mean? Not much, other than a pat on the back to the CIA for weeding this woman out and kickin' her to the curb. The Democrat connections are only important because I'll be interested to see the screeching Senate Democrats and lefty blogs up in arms over this. Needless to say I won't be holding my breath, waiting for their outrage. Luckily for them, the liberal media won't be beating down their doors to ask them about the hypocrisy. Just like when they call the President a liar on WMDs, the media never demands they answer for all of their stronger WMD arguments. I also doubt we'll see Cynthia "mamma said knock you out" McKinney, offer up a closed-fist punch over the incident. (she reserves those for police officers doing their job)

Now, one could go in to how this woman revealed information to the press that served no purpose but hurting the war on terror and say "just another anti-American Democrat", but I'm not going to go that far. I think I'll wait until she has a book that launches some time this fall or next spring. It will be heavily publicized, she'll refuse to go on Fox News to plug it because the Fox & Friends folks, Hannity, and O'Reilly would ask her questions and demand answers rather than let her give an "I hate Bush" speech. To be clear, I have no knowledge of a book deal, but I think it's safe to say she'll be approached very quickly and this "revealing" book will be pumped heavily leading up to it's release. When it finally comes out, the left will treat it like a bible for a month or two, while anyone who actually looks at it will realize it is light on facts, and is just one big hardcover spin manual. In a way this is a gift to her and the left. Now not only will she make millions off of a book deal, it will serve as a political tool for the left to further undermine the war on terror.

Back to the serious point for a minute. This woman was actively working against the country's war on terror. But worse, she's a veteran intelligence analyst. How long has she been working against the country?! Again, I guess the good news is they investigated and got her out, but how many more are there like her? Also, why is this woman just losing her job and not being brought up on charges? It sounds like just "broke the rules" and got fired, but it seems to me like she did a lot worse than that.

***UPDATE***
Expose the Left is commenting on McCarthy's political contributions, and the lack of media coverage.

Ace of Spades, Michelle Malkin and others on wondering if there is a Joe Wilson connection here... This looks like it might be even dirtier than we first thought. Stay tuned...

***UPDATE***
Many other bloggers share the same feeling that I do, that if what this woman was fired for is true, then certainly she should be charged with crimes as well. Many have been so bold as to call her a traitor already. Others are slamming the NY Times' coverage of this. Besides the original article I cited, the Times has a few other pieces out on this story now, and many feel that they appear to be running defense for McCarthy. Great reading all around:

Stop the ACLU, Leaning Straight Up, Unalienable Right, Stuck on Stupid, Left Wing = Hate, Small Dead Animals, The Dragon and the Phoenix, Freedom for Some, Tac Jammer, Protein Wisdon, Captain's Quarters, Sister Toldjah, Mind in Qatar, Rightwing Nuthouse, Balance Sheet, Iowa Voice, Think Sink, Macsmind, A Blog For All, Hillbilly White Trash, GroupIntel, Small Town Veteran, Hooda Thunk?, The Jawa Report, Riehl World View, In the Bullpen, Wizbang, Atlas Shrugs, The Strata-Sphere, Big Lizards, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Michelle Malkin

***UPDATE***
Flopping Aces has returned, after being down due to a hack, with probably the best round-up you're going to find on this whole situation. Flopping Aces has dug deep to find all of McCarthy's odd connections and what circles she's been running in.

Another interesting angle about all of this is that the left predictably defending the indefensible (as always), and treating McCarthy like a hero for being the big whistleblower here. What's odd is that even the AP and the New York Times, citing a number of investigations, can't seem to find proof that these secret torture prisons exist.

So again, it's not just important that she was leaking classified information and was rightly fired. It's not just that she should, and we assume will be brought up on charges. It's that she made still unproven allegations that did nothing but hurt the war on terror. All it did was further strain relations with our European allies, embolden far left hate Bushers worldwide, and give violent Muslims a convenient excuse for more violence. Like the Danish cartoons, it's just a cop out for already violent Muslims to justify their behavior, but this time it was delivered without proof from a CIA (what's a less harsh word for traitor, because I don't know if I want to go out on that limb yet?).