For whatever reason, the YouTube user who uploaded this CNN video isn't allowing embedding, so you'll have to watch it at YouTube.

Blitzer excerpts Soros's book, noting where he compares President Bush to Nazis. It didn't take a genius to make Soros look like an idiot over this comparison, so Wolf "So poor, and so black" Blitzer was up to the task. While Soros started out defending his iditotic comparison, he later admits to maybe going "too far". Which is a bad enough excuse when you "misspoke", but come on, this is a book you would certainly have thought about before you had it printed up. Then he later says maybe he should have kept it to himself. No, if that's what you think, by all means say it, but expect to be called an idiot... idiot.

Anyway, big deal, Soros compared Bush to Nazis... what Democrat hasn't, right? I agree, it's not that big of a deal. What I find interesting, is that he bases his conclusion on the old "politics of fear" talking point. You know "Bush is playing the politics of fear", meaning he's trying to make us feel unsafe so that we vote GOP because they traditionally get the national security vote. My question to you is this: Who's really playing the politics of fear?

I can't count the times, over the past few days, weeks, months and years that I've heard Democrats say "We are less safe" because of Iraq, or any number of the President's other policies. "We are less safe" is to 2006 what "Bush misled us" was to 2004. But saying "We are less safe" is the picture of politics of fear is it not? Please tell me where I'm going wrong if you think I am, though I have a feeling this is just par for the liberal hypocrisy course.

The best defense I can see someone offering is "but they are speaking the truth, because we are less safe". But the fact is, that is a matter of opinion. I would, and the president would, argue that what he's saying is true and necessary too. But regardless of basis in reality, saying "we are less safe" is about as political as you can get. Go ahead, check out this news search, I'm not exaggerating at how big of a DNC talking point this has become.

 

This clown never ceases to amaze me:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Down with divisiveness was the message Wednesday delivered by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean as he told a group of Florida business leaders that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing American apart.

Dean called President Bush "the most divisive president probably in our history."

I'm sorry, but aren't you the same DNC chairman who just last week said that if Democrats were in power, the current Middle East crisis wouldn't be happening, shortly before your party's last presidential candidate, John Kerry, said it wouldn't have happened if he were president?

Are you not the same Howard Dean who has said the following:

"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people,"

"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote?" he asked.

"Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

To name a few... Read more Deanisms here, but even that is just a small sampling.

Anyway, such inclusive rhetoric, huh? Pay particularly close attention to that last one. He's not talking about politicians, he's talking about you and me. I don't even want to turn this in to a study of what political party most trust fund babies associate themselves with, so I'll just let you make what you will of that glimpse in to the brain of Mr. Uniter.

Dean decided to take his newfound uniting abilities further today:

"He's always talking about those people. It's always somebody else's fault. It's the gays' fault. It's the immigrants' fault. It's the liberals' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. It's Hollywood people," Dean said. "Americans are sick of that. Even if you win elections doing that, you drag down our country."

First of all, come up with a plan and stop whining about the President, but more importantly, please explain what the hell you're talking about!? When does President Bush ever stand around blaming people? When has he said or even hinted that "It" (whatever that means) is the fault of "gays, immigrants, or Hollywood"? Of course Bush has criticized opponents for their stance and votes on particular things. Like if the Dems filibuster, then "it" is their fault. But I'm just stunned, once again, at what an idiot Dean is. Please give us one example of Bush blaming gays, immigrants, and Hollywood for something.. I'm begging you!

"For too long, we have allowed the Republican Party to give the message about what the Democratic Party is about to the voters," he said to thunderous applause. "That is over with."

How many times are you and other memberes of your party going to keep us on the edge of our seats waiting for you to define yourselves. Spill the beans already. The Democratic plans and positions on any issue are more illusive than Saddam's WMDs. At least we've found some of them.

He said party supporters would contract two million people across the country on Saturday to ask them for their votes.

"We're going door-to-door. We're going to picnics," Dean said. "Television ads are not enough. You need to knock on doors. You need to knock on every door. You need to personally deliver the message."

Look Doctor De.., can I call you Yogi? Look Yogi, we don't need you coming to our picnics we don't need you knocking on our doors, if you have something to say, virtually all of the media is in your pocket and waiting to give you free promotion.

I'm actually sad to see him still pushing this "knock on doors" campaign, because it is going to end his career as DNC chairman, and it's nice to have him around to hand elections to the GOP. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine dates George's childhood neighbor Lloyd Braun who happens to be an advisor to Mayor Dinkins (of NYC). Elaine says that she thinks everyone in the city should wear name tags to make it more friendly. Braun recommends this to Dinkins, they go public with the plan and it costs them the election. Braun was obviously fired and wound up in a mental hospital. I think we can agree that in reality Dean should probably take a shortcut to the looney bin right now, but as long as he's around it's only good news for the Republicans.

In keeping with his uniting and civility, Dean thought it would be a good idea to call Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an "Anti-Semite" (more at Expose the Left and Texas Rainmaker). And just in case we still didn't realize what a rational and civil guy he was, Dean put the nail in the coffin by comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin. (Expose the Left has the audio)

You know, whenever I post on crazy Dean statements, I have to pause and wonder if it's a joke. Seriously, I really sit here sometimes just wondering - "Could he really have said that?" Well, I guess if somehow Air America survives, Dean will have a job when the DNC dumps him for his pathetic job as party chair. The irresponsibility and hatred that come out of his mouth are run of the mill over there, and I can't see him fitting in better anywhere else.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

The liberal hate and indoctrination on high school and college campuses is no surprise, but I find it particularly disturbing when they try to ram the gay agenda down these kids' throats (no pun intended).

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Port Washington - Parents are angry and school leaders are promising action in response to a "Heterosexual Questionnaire," approved by two teachers, that asked students questions such as: "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?"

I don't think I really need to go beyond that, but I will...

Hundreds of Port Washington High School students were told to submit written answers and discuss the survey.

The questionnaire was distributed by a student organization, which then led a full class-period discussion. Two teachers approved distribution of the survey. The principal did not.

The teachers who Woelfel said are responsible for the survey - social studies teacher Sarah Olson and communications teacher Julie Grudzinski - could not be reached for comment.

Woelfel estimated that the survey was given to about 400 of the school's 930 students on April 25, the day before the national Day of Silence, an annual event co-sponsored by the New York City-based Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

According to the Day of Silence Web site, the event is a "student-led day of action" that attempts to eliminate harassment of non-heterosexual students.

Woelfel said that, in connection with the Day of Silence, the school's Students for Unity spent the day visiting classrooms. They distributed the surveys and led discussions, he said.

These are just excerpts of the important parts of course, and I was about to note that the principal is taking action and will hopefully discipline the teachers soon, until I reread and see that she seems to be in support of this, just against the fact that parents weren't notified. She's confused, because the issue is the fact that this doesn't belong in school at all. What if my family doesn't believe in homosexuality? Just because the media has mainstreamed it in recent years, we now have to be forced to accept it.

Some of the questions apparently were intended to make heterosexuals understand what it's like to be gay or lesbian. Those questions included: "What do you think caused your heterosexuality?" and "When did you decide you were heterosexual?"

Students in the group presenting the survey were trying to convey that "students who have an alternative lifestyle get asked these questions every day, so please be considerate. It was an exercise in compassion and understanding that did not work out real well," Woelfel said.

Woelfel said the survey violated school policy because parents were not notified in advance and given the opportunity to decide whether their children should participate.

Um, the problem is there is no evidence that anyone is born gay. I would be considered harassing a gay if I were to say:
"Don't you find it a little odd that you can't reproduce? Do you think it's a coincidence that we have two sexes, with two unique reproductive organs that are specifically designed (lol, whoops I mean evolved) to fit together for reproducing?"

Okay liberals, here's where you attack me and say:
"You don't have to except it, just let them live their lives... leave your fundamentalist Christianity out of it"

To which I respond:
"When did I say anything about Christianity? I just stated some common sense about the matter... as for leaving them alone, that would be fine if high school students weren't constantly being bombarded with the gay message."

Health/Sex Ed. class is bad enough, how about we just have classes teach what they're supposed to, not pass out tests with the agenda to legitimize gays.

What's next? We constantly see studies where they find the "gene" that makes someone fat or lazy, or have a temper. Should the kid who gets in fights a lot have a group come to school and tell everyone that they have to accept the way he is, because he's born that way. Hell, at least science can prove the higher propensity for that type of behavior, but they can't prove homosexuality. I could sit here and list off a million parallels, but you get the point. This forced acceptance doesn't belong anywhere, certainly not in school. Why is there "separation of church and state" but not "separation of agenda driven groups"? I see those groups to be as offensive as any liberal might find Christianity. Do you think the school would entertain a pro-life speaker who spoke totally about science and not religion?

Sophomore Justin Perry said he didn't like being surveyed because he is against homosexuality - although he doesn't think it's something that people should be harassed about.

Perry said he did not understand the point of spending a class period on the survey. "I know it's a survey," he said, "but what is it trying to teach us?"

Freshman Jaime Reuter said the survey caused such a stir that, even though her class didn't take the survey, her social studies teacher made it part of a class discussion a couple of days later.

Reuter said she would have been offended if asked to take the survey. "I shouldn't have to answer that because it's private information," she said.

Right on, who's business is it, and what purpose does this serve? The people didn't want to collect information. They are there to push their agendas. Liberals know when to strike impressionable youths, which is why the liberal virus is so prevalent in schools. This should make everyone sick.

***UPDATE***
Sister Todjah has a post up about this now and she managed to dig up this graphic of the questions asked on the survey. Here's the text of those questions, and a couple more not included in the graphic (thanks Sister Toljah).

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and how did you decide that you were a heterosexual?

3. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexuality? How did they react?

4. Could it be that your heterosexuality is just a phase?

5. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of your same gender?

6. If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn’t perfer it? Isn’t it likely that you just haven’t met the right same-sex partner yet?

7. Heterosexuals have a history of failures in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned heterosexual out of fear of rejection?

8. Why do you flaunt your lifestyle with wedding rings, photos at work and talk of your heterosexual escapades?

9. Your heterosexuality doesn’t offend me as long as you leave me alone, but why do so many heterosexulal try to seduce others into their orientation?

10. Are cancer, earthquakes and floods God’s way of punishing heterosexuals?

11. Considering the battering, abuse and divorce rate associated with heterosexual coupling, why would you want to enter into that kind of relationship?

12. If you should choose to have childern, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

13. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusively heterosexual lifestyle and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?

14. And anyway, why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

As much as I'd like to tear apart each of these questions, it's only going to put me in a bad mood.. But I have to hit a couple of these quickly.

Look at #10.... Is that separation of church and state? Not that these people belonged there in the first place, and not that they have an ounce of sense, but is it appropriate to say that unprovoked to high school kids? It would be one thing if a kid said that to them about being gay, but they didn't... And again, this is just so out of place.

What is the deal with number 13. Obviously all of these question are supposed to "turn the tables", but when homosexuality is clearly just NOT NORMAL to anyone, with a shred of common sense. Again they bring God in to it. I always argue without invoking God because they always dismiss that out of hand anyway. So "normal" is heterosexuality for the reasons I explained earlier. It's not just a coincidence that we have two sexes, male and female, with specifically designed (sorry, "evolved") reproductive organs, allowing for reproduction only by man and woman. Not man and man, not woman and woman. This is what "normal" is. Another quick dig at the evolutionsist mindset... Gays better smarten up and go straight otherwise "evolution" will do them through the process of "natural selection" right? After all, it's all about the stronger and best apt to further the species, right?

Sticking with the "normal" thing for just another second... I have to ask again, why haven't scientists isolated a gene or something to prove that gays are born that way? They can find genes that show a likelyhood for all sorts of behavior, physical features, and just about anything you can imagine now. Why can't they find "what makes a person gay"?

As for 14... What's your point? For starters, "Homosexuality" (a phrase I hate using because I feel like it legitimizes it) refers specifically to sex. Anyway, this is ridiculous because they apparently are acting like putting so much focus on sex is just a stereotype we have about them, but the simple fact that they came in with this survey only proves it further!

Sick.

 

Since my last update on the NSA calling records story, there have been a few developments...

It's unlikely you heard this reported on most other channels and shows, but as Brit Hume pointed out on Special Report in the Political Grapevine segment, the NSA program doesn't involve phone customers' names, addresses or any other personal information. Expose the Left has the video, and the whacked out liberal commenters went wild as usual. One challenged Humes credibility, while ignoring the fact that Hume was quoting the original USA Today story, but a sidebar burried on the fifth page of the story.

Hume:

Not until page five, however, does the paper report the following: “Phone customers’ names, addresses and other personal information are not being collected as part of this program.”

Scroll to the bottom of this post for links to my extensive previous posts on "Phonegate", in which I've been saying this all along. I also discussed how much more data mining businesses are doing for marketing purposes, beyond anything the NSA is doing, and of course mention out the ACLU is even obtain all kinds of personal information for fundraising purposes, while being the most outspoken about the NSA!

Here's the real deal, as I understand it, about what the NSA is doing here.... How many phone calls are made in the United States every day? I was unable to turn up a figure but I would guess it's got to be at least 500 million and could easily be over a billion, agreed? Even if you wanted to ridiculously low ball it, you'd be talking in the tens of millions. Again, that's every day. Start adding up per week, month, year and you've got even more of an insanely large pile of records. No group of people could ever sift through these. Bush and Cheney aren't sitting in a back room cross checking lists of people who made calls to DNC HQ with calls they made to their friends and sending out secret police.

What seems to be really happening, as discussed in previous posts, is that these billions and billions of all records are going in to a supercomputer that has the capabilities to search for patterns. If the complex programs find a repeated pattern of this guy calling that guy and that guy calling a cave in Afghanistan, and then another guy gets calls from that cave calls a known radicall mosque, that also makes calls to the first two guys who live in different parts of the country, it might set off a buzzer to let the NSA take a look at it. But if you are stupid enough to think that we have the time, money, people, or resources to be sitting around spying on regular Americans, I can't help you. And again, there is no dropping of eaves here, just computers filtering through call records.

I heard someone raise an interesting point about this on some debate on FNC the other day... They complained of the ineffectiveness of such a program, which is a legitimate matter for debate, but said that the NSA should be focusing on suspected terrorists, not 300 million Americans. The other person in the debate left them with their mouth hanging open when they said "how do you identify suspects?" I hadn't really thought of it that way before, but that is exactly why this program is necessary.

Another interesting fact, as I've mentioned, was that this was just a rehash of a NY Times story from December being pulled out for no other reason than to railroad the nomination of General Hayden (former NSA head) to head the CIA. Not to mention the media has to create some bogus scandal at least once every week or two to hurt the President. Well many have been saying, not only was it an old story from December, but 60 Minutes did a story on it in 2000, under Clinton, and obviously before 9/11.

The 2000 story wasn't about this exactly, but it was about something for more "intrusive" and something that the privacy pimps could actually have been concerned about. It was about a vast spy program implimented under President Clinton that apparently monitored all electronic communications:

(Dec. 18, 2005 NewsMax article)

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

Knock Knock!
Who's There?
The ACLU?
Oh crap, really?!
Nah man, you're Democrats, carry on as you were

Need more? How about Clinton's vast spying programs, targeting political enemies? Front Page Magazine has the story in this article dated February 22, 2006. A few excerpts below:

In 1994, Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno launched infiltrators, wiretaps, mail monitoring, and a wide range of other spying activities in a massive coordinated effort that included the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Postal inspectors; the U.S. Marshalls Service; and other Federal and local law enforcement agencies.President Bill Clinton had acted decisively to fight what he and First Lady Hillary Clinton deemed the most dangerous terrorist threat facing America: conservative Christians.

This huge Clinton surveillance scheme was VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force. According to the U.S. Justice Department, VAAPCON “was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against reproductive health care providers.” The more than 900 targets of all this surveillance included the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Women’s Coalition for Life, Feminists for Life, Americans United for Life, the 600,000-member Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, the American Life League, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and even then-Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor.

Read the rest of this very important and lengthy article here.

If you read that article, you'll certainly be shocked at all of the anti-free speech activities overseen by Clinton. What is particularly shocking is that what we read in this article sounds exactly like what the ACLU and Democrats scream is their big concerns over Bush administration policies, though they never cite any example of the NSA's data collection being used for political reasons. Here we have what Clinton did all laid out, but where's the MSM and where were they at the time? That is the outrage here. They don't report the actually shady things that Clinton was doing, while they blow up, misreport, spin and speculate about everything that President Bush is doing to protect us in the post 9/11 world. It's times like these I'm just infuriated at the state of the media in our country. It's almost physically sickening.

We have one other revelation today as well. You know how the original USA Today article that set this whole storm in motion said that Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth were all handing over call records to the NSA for this program? Well BellSouth is totally denying that now... I don't know what will come of this, but I suspect we'll hear more in the next couple days:

BellSouth said in a statement that it doesn't contract with the National Security Agency to supply customer calling information.

"As a result of media reports that BellSouth provided massive amounts of customer calling information under a contract with the NSA," it said Monday, "the company conducted an internal review to determine the facts. Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA."

Asked to define "bulk customer calling records," Battcher said: "We are not providing any information to the NSA, period." He said he did not know whether BellSouth had a contract with the Department of Defense, which oversees the NSA.

read on here...

That's odd... So are we to believe that the NSA has obtained these somehow on their own? Or is this just some sort of clever wording, but BellSouth is actually providing the records through some other method? Or could it be that USA Today used Dan Rather's unimpeachable sources for the story? Or better yet, maybe they used Jason Leopold's sources.

Previous:
USA Today NSA Story A Rehash Of December 2005 NY Times Story
ACLU Data Collection! Selective Lefty Outrage At NSA?
Today's Bogus/Manufactured NSA Anti-Civil Rights Story

 

I'm a little confused about this story, because I was told that Republicans are all a bunch of racist rich white guys. You know Democrats are shameless panderers the party for "the black man" who's goal it is to get votes by making promise after promise, but keeping minorities poor so they can continue the promises to score votes in the next election help out the little guy, so this Newsday story couldn't possibly be true, could it?

With a record of calling minorities inferior by lowering standards and pushing affirmative action leveling the playing field and throwing oreos and racial epithets, as well as creating racist photoshops welcoming the debate from black Republicans and through the leadership of people like former Ku Klux Klan member civil rights activist Robert Byrd, how could anyone believe that there are any Democrat racists, especially when we know that only Republicans are racists. I demand a retraction Newsday!

Okay, now that I've run out of sarcasm, here's the deal... A Democratic candidate for Alabama attorney general is denying the holocaust and prancing around the country, speaking for racist organizations. And here's the real shocker..... He's an atheist!!!

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A Democratic candidate for Alabama attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend in New Jersey to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.

Give us a history lesson Mr. Darby

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to typhus.

Historians say about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

Darby said he will speak Saturday near Newark, N.J., at a meeting of National Vanguard, which bills itself as an advocate for the white race. Some of his campaign materials are posted on the group's Internet site.

"It's time to stop pushing down the white man. We've been discriminated against too long," Darby said in the interview.

You know, I don't like programs that discriminate against whites by "level the playing field" and the fact that there are racial quotas to be met in many workplaces. All of these kinds of activities are racist (not "reverse" racism), against whites. Racism, is racism. Further, they're racist againts the blacks and minorities they claim to be on the side of. Democrats are in favor of lowering education standards to help minorities get through school. They're all about giving them an edge for getting in to college (quit often for free) when more qualified whites are getting bumped. These and related platforms are racist in that they tell minorities "you're to dumb or incapable to make things happen for yourself, so we're going to hand everything to you... Vot fore me!"

While I believe all of what I just said, I don't think anyone is "pushing down the white man" as this Democrat says. He's clearly an off the wall racist. My view that I share with many conservatives, is a difference of policy opinion. We think you should work hard to achieve goals, not have the government hold your hand and tell you that you need them. But that's hardly the same as essentially shouting "white power" like this guy.

Let's learn a little more about Darby. You know, what really makes him tick:

Darby, founder of the Atheist Law Center and a longtime supporter of separation of church and state, said he has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches.

Tyson said aside from his views on race and the Holocaust, Darby also has publicly advocated legalizing drugs and shooting all illegal immigrants.

Legalizing drugs has been a liberal platform for some time, but shooting illegals? Wow, again, aren't Republicans who want to secure the border the racists? I'm curious why none of the massive illegal immigrant protests haven't shown up at his door. Oh yeah, because he has a big blue "D" on his mailbox.

Anyway, I'm curious. Why aren't headlines reading "Duo Denies Holocaust Happened", in reference to this guy and Iranian President Ahmadinejad? That's a ridiculous suggestion, isn't it liberals? Well they did it when they spun Pat Robertson's words about Ariel Sharon's health to something that still didn't closely match Ahmadinejad's comments. Articles were all about this "duo" launching attacks on Sharon. See this post for all the background you need.

At the time the media was obsessed with comparing Pat Robertson to Ahmadinejad, I was curious why they didn't call Kerry and Bin Laden a "duo". Some of the comments from those two men have been almost identical, especially when compared with the ridiculous pairing of unrelated comments of Robertson and Ahmadinejad. Not to mention the fact that everytime a terrorist tape gets released, it's like they downloaded the DNC talking points right in to their teleprompter.

For more fun with "Democrats emulating terrorists" (or visa versa), check out this video (vie Expose the Left) of MSNBC's Scarborough and Carlson laying it all out for you. You could also play my (joke) match game "who said it", or watch "The Odd Couple".

We could get in to a whole historical thing about who's the real racists, who was, who still is, etc. But the main angle I wanted to go here was the media double standard. Why isn't this the same type of headline news? Robertson isn't even an elected official or running for office, this guy is! Where's his "duo" headlines?

***UPDATE***
I forgot to add this little point earlier. This guy is an atheist, right? Is it then safe to assume that he subscribes to the theory of evolution? Why then is he campainging for a job that deals with the law? Not get what I'm driving at? Our laws, like it or not, are loosely and originally based on the 10 commandments. Even if you somehow were to disagree, you'd have to agree that "law" is unique to human beings. But as an atheist and evolutionist (again that part is my assumption) you believe we are simply a more highly evolved animal. Why then do we have laws? Why can't we run around humping people's legs? Why can't we steal, kill people, or rape without repercussions? After all, we're just animals, and have no accountability to God, right?

It is clear that morals, and the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong is uniquely human, and clearly a gift from God. Either that or I missed the latest episode of "Judge Judy: Chimp Edition". The point is, why am I accountable to society (if we are to accept evolution)? I'm just an animal, I should be able to satisfy my primal urges, whatever they may be, and no one should get in my way, unless their own urge happens to be to kill or cause harm to me. Laws of the jungle, right?

The point is, how can we put people in a position that is based all around legal matters, when his own beliefs essentially tell him that there is no right and wrong. Yeah, he can claim to want to uphold the law. But why? What if I don't like that law? I'm an animal without morals who doesn't answer to some higher power, so why should any laws bind me?

 

(h/t Stop the ACLU)

Of course everyone is talking about the latest non"scandal" by the media, over the NSA obtaining data collection on phone calls (numbers seeking patterns, not content). I have an extensive post up about this from earlier, but I thought the latest development deserved it's own post. Before I get to the latest development, I have to point out again that there is really nothing that can be done with this information unless your records show you're constantly calling a cell phone that's located in a cave in Afghanistan.. then maybe you should be a little concerned. But even still, what makes you liberals think that the NSA has the time, money, or resources to pay attention to you?

Now you're not going to believe the latest. You know the "civil liberties" group the ACLU? You know, the creeps who come out to oppose anything traditional or right in the world, but instead support pedophile groups like NAMBLA, vicious people who protest at soldiers' funerals, the KKK, etc. etc. etc. This group is arguably more evil than the United Nations, but that's another story.

Anyway, as you probably are aware, the ACLU is one of these groups that cries foul any time President Bush takes action to protect us. Today was no exception, and they're "demanding" a Congressional Investigation. Read up at the ACLU's own page.

What's interesting this time is that the ACLU is using shady data collection methods themselves, and they're doing it for fund-raising, not national security. (h/t Stop the ACLU)

From the San Francisco Gate

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Again this isn't even national security, it's fund-raising!... Should we expect outrage from the usual suspects? Don't count on it.

The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”

What's new about that? Everytime a far left group gets caught doing something stupid, they quickly run to change their web site. This is just how the dishonest left operates.

Read on...

Anyway, the main point is the selective outrage from the left and the media. Don't expect a huge front page USA Today story on this tomorrow, and of course it won't be a lead story on all the news programs. And don't expect the liberal blogs to hammer the ACLU either. They'll just turn their back and pretend they never heard about this, until the next time some child molester needs his "free speech" defending, and they'll once again call on the heroic ACLU.

 

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.

 

***If you're behind on the Pat Kennedy controversy, see my original Thursday post that includes many updates, details, and twists in this matter. So as I give you a quick update and link round-up with brief commentary, know that many things I'm referencing (that you may not be familiar with, from the MSM) can be found in that earlier post, so I won't need to be digging for all those same links again. On with it...

By now I'm sure most of you know that Pat Kennedy celebrated this Cinco De Mayo a little differently than we can assume he usually does. He's announced that he is (again) going to check himself in to the (Cinco De) Mayo Clinic, for addiction to pain pills, after having just been there at Christmas time.

In his statements today (video at Expose the Left), he has once again changed his story, now saying that he doesn't remember anything that happened that night (or morning of Quattro de Mayo):

"I simply do not remember getting out of bed, being pulled over by the police or being cited for three driving infractions," Kennedy said.

But wait a minute Congressman, didn't you just provide this written statement Thursday:

"Last Tuesday, the Attending Physician of the United States Congress treated me for Gastroenteritis. The Attending Physician prescribed Phenergan, an anti-nausea medication, which in addition to treating Gastroenteritis, I now know can cause drowsiness and sedation.

Following the last series of votes on Wednesday evening, I returned to my home on Capitol Hill and took the prescribed amount of Phenergan and Ambien, which was also prescribed by the Attending Physician some time ago and I occasionally take to fall asleep. Some time around 2:45am, I drove the few blocks to the Capitol Complex believing I needed to vote. Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication. At that time, I was involved in a one-car incident in which my car hit the security barrier at the corner of 1st and C St., SE. At no time before the incident did I consume any alcohol.

At the time of the accident, I was instructed to park my car and was driven home by the United States Capitol Police. At no time did I ask for any special consideration, I simply complied with what the officers asked me to do.

I have the utmost respect for the United States Capitol Police and the job they do to keep Members of Congress and the Capitol Complex safe. I have contacted the Chief of Capitol Police and offered to meet with police representatives at their earliest convenience as I intend to cooperate fully with any investigation they choose to undertake."

Sounds like you remembered quite a bit, just 24 hours earlier.

The rest of the press conference was whining and begging for sympathy for his "disease", which he claims is an addiction to pain medication, despite the fact that cops smelled alcohol on him, and he was seen at some bars he frequents just a few hours earlier. What's weird is in the intial statement, he says he took two different kinds of pills and immediately shifts to "Some time around 2:45am, I drove the few blocks to the Capitol Complex believing I needed to vote." Sounds like someone covering his ass, not wanting to get busted in a lie later on. What happened after you took those pills Patty? Did you lay down to go to sleep? Did you take them at 2:30 and hit the road? When did you take them, and what happened in that time gap?

Again, I think it's very obvious if he was to say "I took the pills and went to bed, then I woke up got in my car and headed for the completely normal 2:45 am vote", he'd be busted, considering the fact that people saw him at the bar. This way his cleverly written statement, while still full of lies, allows him that one "I didn't lie" loophole.

So let's get back to what we know.... First, this Philadelphia Inquirer piece has a paragraph of some underreported details of the actual accident:

In the Capitol Hill accident, police saw Kennedy's car, with no headlights on, swerve into the wrong lane and strike a curb. Kennedy nearly hit a police car, the report said, and did not respond to the officer's efforts to pull over. He continued at a slower speed before hitting a security barrier head-on, the report said.

So he was all over the road, not pulling over for cops, until he slams in to a barrier. Cops arrive, he staggers out smelling like alcohol. The Smoking Gun has the police report, including where the officer checked the box indicating Kennedy was under the influence.

Kennedy tells the police an obvious lie (or a delusion as he would later claim) that he's later for a vote.. AT 2:45 AM! Why? Some speculate he might have had this excuse prepared, because under the constitution (as we've discussed) Congresspeople can't be arrested on the way to work (except for under certain extreme circumstances). Instead of administering field sobriety tests (FSTs) on the obviously impaired (one way or another) Kennedy, the higher ups in the police department clear the scene of low level cops, and two of the higher ups drive the Congressman home! I'm curious why they didn't take him to the all important 2:45 vote though?!

All day Thursday we wait to see a screaming David Gregory from NBC demanding answers outside of Pat Kennedy's office. We're still waiting for that in fact. What we did get was a statement that no alcohol was involved. Later (after the Kennedy people got together to come up with the best possible lie, to stop the bleeding as Pat did even more damage to the family name) another statement was released blaming some pills that can make you drowsy, one that exists only for that purpose. In this statement Kennedy details his day, including taking the pills and then jumps straight in to the car ride (again, no mention of what happened in between, but of course we know this is because the "pills" thing is just a PR lie they came up with). On top of that, we get word that he was at hitting the bars Wednesday night, despite his prior denials.

As the most of America sleeps the Kennedy's come up with a new image for Pat.... Victim of a disease. Friday Pattycakes comes before the camera, a sad a broken man who has an addiction to pain pills and doesn't remember anything about Thursday morning... Blah blah, I have a disease like millions of Americans, I've always been honest (riiiiiight).. Blah blah, poor me, poor me I'm checking back in to rehab (but not steppin' down! I'm a Kennedy damnit!).

So now we have a media who's taken the story to the "poor troubled addict needs help" area, and forgotten all about the real outrage here, which is that this punk got special treatment. Not one of us could do what he did, and have high ranking cops clear out the regular cops, have us park our car and not administer FSTs, and then give us a ride home!!! And where is the left's outrage?! They hammered Limbaugh for months for his pain pill addiction that came after having surgery, and is not that uncommon. Yeah yeah, he was "doctor shopping" supposedly, but the main point is that he's not an elected official!!! He's an entertainer on the radio! You can only vote him out by not listening and giving him poor ratings. Kennedy has had one insane drama and crime after another and he gets away with all of it, why? Because he's a friggin' Kennedy.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe how he's turned himself in to this victim and sympathetic figure and the media will largely buy it and won't dwell the way they did with Rush. And sense he won't do the honorable thing and step down, he'll go away and come back saying "I'm all better", and we'll all have a party for the sober (chuckle) Kennedy.

I caught the late replay of Hannity & Colmes last night and they discussed many of these things (as much as Alan and the liberal guests didn't want to). Alan went so far as to call him a role model, and praise him for his honesty. What?! He's repeatdly changed his story, and isn't owning up to what actually happened, and is now claiming to be the victim of a disease! All this again after getting special treatment for being a Kennedy, rather than being arrested like a normal person.

Michelle Malkin has much more here and here, including a comment from a KOS kid who is actually in agreement that Kennedy, as well as William Jefferson, should resign. Expose the Left has video of CNN's Dana Bash playing right in to Poor Pat's hands.

Back to the point here. This guy basically got away with a crime, with the police actively assisting him! The cops who did this should be fired. Now, despite the obvious, Kennedy has gotten away with this and in all likelyhood can't be prosecuted because the police essentially disposed of the evidence! Fair?!

More:
Flopping Aces, Flap's Blog, The Pretend Pundit, Donkey Stomp, Assorted Babble, Leaning Straight Up, Stop the ACLU 1, Stop the ACLU 2, Right Voices, Wizbang, Superfun Powerhour, Iowa Voice, The Political Pit Bull, The Sandbox, California Conservative 1, California Conservative 2, Stuck on Stupid, Just Barking Mad, Left Wing = Hate, Maggie's Farm, PunditGuy, All Things Conservative, Sister Toldjah

 

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: