GAS PRICES GOING UP

Look for Democrats to exploit the massive ignorance of the American people on this issue. Barbara Boxer is out there telling all of us how "very clear" it is that we have a government that is being run for the benefit of oil companies. Yup .. it was so "very very clear" that Moonbat Boxer didn't even take the time to explain it to us. Now if we were to press her to give us these "very very clear" reasons I have no doubt she would immediately point to oil company profits. At that point a good journalist would ask her: "Can you tell us what the profit margin, not the profit, but the profit margin was for Exxon Mobile during the last reported quarter?" Oh how I would love to see that question asked! But there's not a chance. They'll ask a Republican presidential candidate how much a gallon of milk costs. That's all part of the media game of showing us that Republicans are out of touch with the common man. But they damned sure won't ask a Democrat some basic business questions. After all, the last thing the MSM (mainstream media) wants to do is illustrate leftist ignorance when it comes to business.

Oh ... and let's get ready for the whining from the public too; spurred on, of course, by media scare stories and Democrats slamming the oil companies. Just as soon as gas goes over $3 a gallon the media will start screaming about record gas prices and the great unwashed will join right in.

How about a bit of math. Let's say you're going to drive a family of four to Walt Disney World. You live 700 miles away, so there's a 1400 mile round trip. You burn regular gasoline. As of last Friday (excuse me, but the numbers for today aren't out yet) your regular gas could have cost $3.03 per gallon. This time last year that gas would have cost you $2.92 per gallon. That's an eleven cents per gallon increase. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tells us that the average gas mileage for new vehicles sold in the United States in 1980 was 23.1 miles per gallon. It has increased since then to around 24.7 mpg, but we'll go with the 1980 figure on the assumption that the people whining the loudest about gas prices are the least likely to have a new car. See how fair I'm being here?

So ... with the 11 cents per gallon increase since last year, how much extra are you going to have to save for your trip to Disney World? You drive 1400 miles and get 23.1 miles per gallon. That means you burn 60.6 extra gallons of gas. At 11 cents per gallon that is going to increase your vacation driving cost by a whopping $6.66! (The HELL you say!)

Now .. let's imagine that gas goes up by one entire dollar from last year's prices! Oh my! Will the media be having a fun time then! Barbara Boxer would probably pass out while delivering the anti-big-oil diatribe for the ages! That means your vacation would cost you $60.60 more while you're paying $3.92 per gallon! Hint: If that $60 is going to break you, you have no business at all taking your family to Disney World. Get a Slip 'n Slide for the backyard and take the kids to DQ.

I could say some things here about drilling for oil in ANWR and building new refineries and ending all of these special blends that cause disruptions in the gas supply around this time every year. I could also say some things about supply and demand ... but that would just make me a neo-con, wingnut hate monger. So I'll just shut up now.

UNDERMINING IMMIGRATION LAW: YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

By Michelle Malkin

The Washington Times reports (hat tip: See-Dubya):

A Maryland-based immigrant-advocacy group is distributing guidebooks instructing those targeted by federal immigration agents during job-site raids not to cooperate with authorities if they are arrested or detained.

The eight-page, two-color illustrated book lists what rights "people who are not United States citizens" have if detained by immigration agents, details what to do if served with a warrant or charged with a crime, and urges them to remain silent if they are arrested.

The book also says they should refuse to provide authorities with any information about their immigration status.

Included in the book is a "Know Your Rights" card to be cut out and presented to arresting agents, showing that those detained choose to exercise their "right to remain silent, the right to refuse to answer your questions" and to "refuse to sign anything until I consult with my attorney."

The book, which features cartoonlike drawings of armed black and white police officers escorting Hispanic men in handcuffs and shows babies crying because their fathers are behind bars, is the product of CASA of Maryland Inc., working with other organizations.

CASA of Maryland receives tax subsidies from the cities of Baltimore and Takoma Park, Montgomery and Prince George's counties, the state of Maryland, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Just FYI...Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

REPUBLICAN DEBATE SPUN BY LIBERAL

by Michelle Oddis

Ten Republican presidential hopefuls stepped up to bat Thursday night during the first of several scheduled pre-convention debates, but with Chris Matthews on the mound Republicans wasted their swings on spit balls.

The agenda of MSNBC -- personified by Chris Matthews -- tainted the debate by working hard to demean the candidates. Republican contenders were on the defensive with Matthews telling them to “look into my eyes” while answering questions. The role of moderator is to keep order in a debate and maintain a friendly discourse. Matthews (a political commentator who has previously worked for four Democratic politicians) was no impartial ump.

Core issues like immigration, education, Israel, the Palestinians, and social security were not addressed. This debate’s sponsors presented questions that were design to reflect negatively on conservatives and the current administration.

Even questions from online users at Politico.com seemed irrelevant and at times unfair. Lined up execution style Republican candidates took these shots from Matthews and the others:

"What do you dislike the most about America?"

"Should Bill Clinton be back in the White House?"

“Do you believe in evolution?”

“Has the increased influence of Christian Conservatives in your party been good for it?”

“Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham in prison for bribes, just last month FBI raids of two Republican members of congress – what’s with your party and all this corruption?”

“Using a letter grade, how would you rate the Bush Administrations handling of the Iraq War A-F?”

“Did you watch Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth?”

“Would you hire Karl Rove?”

Despite the media’s efforts to damage Republicans, the candidate’s stats remain mostly unchanged. Mitt Romney and John McCain will stay star players, although Rudy Giuliani may have to backtrack a-bit. Giuliani failed to appease anti-abortion voters when Matthews asked each runner this question:

“Would the day that Roe vs. Wade is appealed be a good day for Americans?”

Nine candidates chimed in with responses like “a great day,” “a glorious day of human liberty,” and “most certainly.”

Giuliani said “It would be OK.” “It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent.” This answer distinguished his performance as problematic for staunch social conservatives.

Giuliani’s response makes it easy to see why Romney has become so adamantly pro-life. Romney used this opportunity to set straight some of the criticism of his flip flops on abortion rights.

“I’ve always been personally pro-life, but for me there was a great question about whether or not government should intrude on that decision…”

Romney said that two years ago when he was studying cloning in Massachusetts he changed his mind “I took the same course that Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and Henry Hyde took and I said I was wrong, and changed my mind and said I am pro-life, and I am proud of that and I don’t want to apologize to anyone for becoming pro-life.”

The War in Iraq -- predictably -- was another dominating issue, one that fired up Sen. John McCain more than other candidates. McCain from start to finish spoke with conviction, but did he go overboard?

McCain at times seemed over prepared -- as if several of his lines had been planned. He delivered these lines whether or not they pertained to the questions being asked.

McCain lectured about recent statements made by Sen. Harry Reid; “when the Majority Leader of the United States Senate says we have lost the war -- the men and women serving in Iraq reject that notion… when on the floor of the House of Representatives they cheer when they pass a withdraw motion for a certain date for surrender -- what were they cheering for, surrender, defeat?” While discussing Osama bin Laden McCain told Americans that he will “track him [bin Laden] down and follow him to the gates of hell!”

Although former Gov. Tommy Thompson’s answers were calculated and presented a plan, his lack of personality and stage presence left him without star status. With candidates as passionate as John McCain, or as suave as Romney and Giuliani -- Thompson needs a make over.

Sam Brownback scored points with his sense of humor. When asked if he would support changing the Constitution to allow Austrian-born California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president Brownback said "I love the Governator, but no."

Anti-war candidate Ron Paul didn’t get very much face time, all though Pat Buchanan named Paul the most conservative candidate during Keith Olbermann's pre-debate coverage.

Ronald Reagan’s “trademarks,” “principals” and “visions” were frequently tacked on to each response, while the current administration’s principals and techniques were carefully sidelined.

Long-shot candidate, former Gov. of Arknasas Mike Huckabee was in tune, and articulate. "Clearly there was a real error in judgment, and that primarily had to do with listening to a lot of folks who were civilians in suits and silk ties and not listening enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots" said Huckabee when asked about the current administrations handling of the War in Iraq. This response had the “heart” other lower tier candidates like Tommy Thompson lacked. Huckabee came out on top of the lesser known candidates.

Who is the winner? There are no winners in a glorified press conference -- especially when you’re a Republican candidate at a liberal themed debate. But if anyone had the most opportunity to backtrack and re-issue their platform it was Romney by getting the chance to address his faith and his flip flop.

TIME MAGAZINE....IS THERE ANY MORE DOUBT?

100 most influential people. Bush ignored. Kate Moss is there. Barack Obama is there. Rosie O'Donnell is there. George Bush is not. This is an intentional slap in the face of George Bush .. and the U.S. Presidency. I don't care who is in the Oval Office, by default U.S. presidents are influential .. wielding vast influence around the world. One word from the president in a press conference or speech can influence people to take actions in virtually any country in the world. The Democrats at this very moment are being forced to back off from their demands for immediate surrender in Iraq. The position they're adopting has been heavily influenced by the actions of George Bush. Here's we're talking about leaving or staying in Iraq ... and Time Magazine is telling us that the person who can influence this decision is less influential than Sasha Baron Cohen?

Actually ... this might be a blessing. Every once in a while we need a stark reminder of the bias of the mainstream media. I think this pretty much does it.

THE SILENCE OF GEORGE TENET

By Scot Lehigh

WHEN RICHARD NIXON ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor, Richardson didn't do the dirty deed.

Rather, he resigned in protest.

And when the same command came to Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, Ruckelshaus didn't go dutifully along.

He, too, refused the odious order, resigning even as the White House fired him.

"There wasn't any question in his mind or mine," Ruckelshaus said, recalling the decisions he and Richardson made back in October of 1973 to defy the president.

"What I was being asked to do by the president was fundamentally wrong," he told me. "I just couldn't do it."

When Peter Edelman, an assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, disagreed with Bill Clinton's decision to sign a welfare-reform bill because he felt it would hurt poor people, Edelman didn't put career ahead of conscience.

Instead, he resigned in protest.

"I just found in my gut that I couldn't stay there and be involved with the implementation of that policy," Edelman says. "It was as simple as that."

There's something deeply admirable about people high up in the pantheon of power and prestige willing to put principle ahead of position.

Now comes the sorry example of George Tenet, former director of Central Intelligence, who helped the Bush administration make and market its argument for war with Iraq.

A man who left office meekly, long after the war was a fait accompli, Tenet now tells us -- in a book that has earned him a multi million-dollar advance -- that privately he had qualms about the Bush administration's conduct, including its manipulation and misrepresentation of intelligence.

Having given Bush and Cheney cover as they built a fraudulent case for an ill-conceived invasion -- and then having accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom in what looked for all the world like a reward for his loyalty -- Tenet portrays himself as a man who struggled inside the government to counsel caution to ideologues intent on war.

Certainly the former CIA director doesn't bear primary responsibility for this foreign-policy fiasco. That distinction lies with Bush, Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz & Co.

Yet if the careerist Tenet had had courage and convictions, he might well have slowed, and perhaps even changed, the march to war.

Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty" and "The One Percent Doctrine," has offered some of the most perceptive accounts of the way this administration has operated, particularly post-9/11.

"If Tenet had stood up and said there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that when it comes to WMD, what we are relying on is supposition and not real evidence as traditionally defined, it would have made it extremely difficult for this administration to go forward based on the way American history had been written up to that point," Suskind said in an interview.

That, however, is not what Tenet did. Instead, by his own admission, he kept quiet, issuing no public alarms as the truth was twisted to build the case for war.

"No one had elected me to go out and make speeches about how and where I disagreed on thorny issues," he writes.

When a CIA analyst expressed concerns about working on the October 2002 intelligence estimate that would obviously be used to marshal support for war, Tenet told him: "Look, we don't make policy. Our job is to tell the people who do what we know and what we think. It's up to them to decide what to do about it."

But Tenet's many rationalizations notwithstanding, "If the Bush administration was misrepresenting the intelligence the CIA was expressing, he had an obligation to let us know that," says US Senator John Kerry.

That's exactly right.

And despite Tenet's anger at having Bush's team of world-class buck-passers point to his now-infamous "slam dunk" comment about WMD, his own account -- that his remark wasn't about the certainty that Iraq had WMD but rather about strengthening the marketing of that claim -- is long leagues short of exculpatory.

Pressed Wednesday on CNN about whether he should have spoken out or resigned before the war began, Tenet replied: "I know that we acquitted our responsibilities consistent with our values."

That statement, pregnant with unintended irony, is all too obviously accurate.

It is both the truth and the tragedy of George Tenet.

WHAT PART OF 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION' IS CONFUSING?

by Brian Bilbray

“Lawlessness is lawlessness. Anarchy is anarchy is anarchy. Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.”

-- Thurgood Marshall, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

Around the world, an unacceptable number of families and children live in the most abject and hopeless poverty any of us could imagine. No one can fault any of these people from trying to escape these gut-wrenching conditions and pursuing a better way of life. Certainly we can all agree that more must be done to lift-up countries that are drowning in a sea of their own population unable to attain economic stability. As Congress looks to adopt a new illegal immigration policy, we must not forget that the root of the problem lays within countries that lack the economic and political resources needed to support a fully developed nation.

Two days ago, hundreds of thousands of immigrant-rights supporters marched the streets of major cities throughout the country demanding rights such as citizenship for the more than 12 million illegal immigrants who are currently in our country. The illegal immigration issue has always elicited strong emotions from many people but there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of rewarding those who have broken our laws with something as precious as citizenship.

The outrage and indignation displayed by yesterday’s marchers would be justified if it were directed at the right government. The United States is not responsible for the conditions millions of would-be immigrants are fleeing from -- yet many activist groups expect us to be held accountable for a third-world environment overrun with corruption and poverty we did not create. We could grant a mass amnesty right now and it still would not change any of the social, political and economic conditions that are driving people away from their home countries.

When examining illegal immigration reform in America, I have said numerous times that the key to addressing illegal immigration is removing the economic incentive that attracts so many people to our country. Fundamentally, the reason why the United States is such an attractive destination for immigrants is because of the jobs that we have to offer. Combine that with an illegal immigration enforcement policy that has never been truly enforced and it is easy to see why we have more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in our country hoping to fill the jobs that supposedly Americans won’t do. Or, is it that they won’t do these jobs for what employers are willing to pay illegal immigrants?

Candidly, the 12 million illegal immigrants and the millions more looking to come to America are not at fault for the issues we face with illegal immigration. For far too long businesses in this country have been willing participants in an effort to import cheap labor to fill low-skill jobs. The result has been a depressed market for American low-skill workers and a significant financial burden being placed on the backs of middle-class Americans who must now pay for the health care, education and social costs of this new class of illegal workers.

The Federal Government can no longer be a willing accomplice to the circumvention of our federal immigration laws. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to enforce the law and the only way we can address illegal immigration in America is to hold employers and big business accountable as well. This requires the implementation of a employer verification program so we can distinguish between employers who hire illegal immigrants because they don’t know the difference and those who hire illegal immigrants because they want cheap labor. Once an employer verification system is in place, we can crackdown on the employers who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Solving illegal immigration begins with giving employers the tools they need to verify employment eligibility. This has become increasingly difficult for employers as document fraud has become a widespread problem as employers are ill-equipped to detect and authenticate workers’ identification documents. A universal, non-discriminatory and tamper-resistant Social Security card would be a practical solution to this growing problem. Currently, there are more than 30 types of identification employers can use to verify employment eligibility. By limiting the burden of documentation to just one, uniform card, employers will finally have the tools they need to comply with the law. We need to separate those who are egregiously violating the law and those who do not have the means to enforce and comply with the law.

Once the employment incentive is eliminated, immigrants worldwide will have to look elsewhere for job opportunities and the flood of illegal immigrants coming into our country will subside. Now there is chorus of people in Washington D.C. who do not believe enforcement first will work, but considering that the federal government has never enforced our laws, it is impossible to know what effect real enforcement will have on stemming the illegal immigration tide.

The only thing Congress could do to make the problem worse is offer another incentive for people to leave their home countries and come to the United States. Call it a comprehensive plan, call it a temporary worker program or a pathway to citizenship, call it amnesty -- the results will still be the same. You cannot address our failures in illegal immigration policy by repeating the failed policies of the past. Amnesty hasn’t worked. Neither has ignoring the problem. Why not try the one thing we haven’t done yet? By enforcing our laws, securing our borders and holding employers accountable, we can avoid repeating our mistakes and live up to our country’s promise of being a nation governed by the rule of law.