George Soros, billionaire gadfly and financial backer of radical left-wing websites like moveon.org has himself in a bit of a "situation" putting him at odds with the radical left he loves to throw money at. That’s not an unusual thing. Big money often appears on both sides of issues all the time … it’s just good old-fashioned business.

A case in point is the lead message from moveon’s website this week which states, "On August 19, we’re releasing reports around the country with new state-by-state data detailing what billions we give Big Oil in tax breaks could buy in the way of clean energy projects and job creation. We’ll tell John McCain and the Republicans: don’t use our tax-dollars for Big Oil giveaways – invest in a clean energy future instead."

But as moveon’s bleeding hearts were chasing the fantasy of imagined tax breaks and the fallacy of a clean energy future, Big George was buying an $811 million stake in Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company. Soros also bought a position in a Canadian oil and gas firm at the same time.

Soros has been busy increasing his mining and energy holdings while funding shrill groups that are working hard to see that those commodities are in short supply in America from Americans. Moveon’s group has been high on the drilling is not the answer while their sugar daddy seems convinced – to the tune of almost a billion dollars – that drilling is in fact the answer. And it is.

The investment in Petrobras is particularly revealing since Petrobras’ entire energy future is hinged to the Tupi field and other offshore drilling projects. Where does George’s minions tell us we shouldn’t drill? Offshore. Where’s George? Drilling offshore.

Meanwhile, according to Michelle Malkin writing in Investor’s Business Daily, the Democratic Party platform includes a brand new slush fund for Mr. Soros. Malkin writes, "Buried in the 94-page document is a noble-sounding proposal to create a ‘Social Investment Fund Network.’ The program would provide federal money to ‘social entrepreneurs and leading nonprofit organizations (that) are assisting schools, lifting families out of poverty, filling health care gaps and inspiring others to lead change in their own communities.’"

"The Democratic Party promises to ‘support these results-oriented innovators’ by creating an office to ‘coordinate government and nonprofit efforts" and then showering "a series of grants’ on the chosen groups ‘to replicate these programs nationwide."’

"This brainchild of Barack Obama would serve as a permanent, taxpayer-backed pipeline to Democratic partisan outfits masquerading as public-interest do-gooders. This George Soros Slush Fund would be political payback in spades," she concludes.

You just can’t make this stuff up. But, back to moveon’s mission about big oil tax breaks. Just exactly what are they talking about? You can’t make this up either.

It took some digging but I finally found an itemized list of the "tax breaks" they claim big oil receives. They are:

—Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free

—Research-and-development programs at low or no cost

—Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead

—Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions

—Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire

—Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods

—Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)

—The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

—Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system

—Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost?

As you can see this is a list that has little if anything to do with actual subsidies to the oil business. Interstate highways, strategic reserves, foreign aid and others in the list are obscure and apart from the industry itself. The sales tax issue is bogus since gasoline taxes are by the gallon, not the price. So is the "legal risks" issue since that is where royalties for private landowners come from.

It is more than obvious that these far-left liberals have shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that nothing they say can be believed.