Gas prices would go up, not down, under Democrats. Liberals still tend to blame President Bush for high gasoline prices. I remember being taught in fifth grade Social Studies class that a U.S. president does not have the power to force prices down. (Jimmy Carter was president at the time, inflation was out of control, and, yes, gas prices were high). Since then, my understanding of that has only gotten better. If a president had power to control consumer prices, he would have far too much power over people and businesses, and this would not be a free country. Limited government is what sets us apart from monarchies and dictatorships.

I recently was shopping in a hardware store, and I heard the man behind the counter (who was not a young man by any means) loudly telling another person that "Bush is an oil man, and that's why gas prices are so high!". You would think that someone in his position would have a better understanding of supply-and-demand economics. Maybe he does, and (like many liberals) he is simply willing to forget everything he knows for the sake of his ideology. It sounded to me like he was parroting Nancy Pelosi's claim that oil prices were high because "there are two oil men in the White House". Any objective person can tell that is simply election-year pandering, but liberals will believe what they want to believe.

A recent probe found no evidence of illegal price-gouging by oil companies, which Democrats have been accusing them of ever since Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. Of course, the liberal media is downplaying this finding -- or, should I say, lack of findings.

If Democrats regain power, their attempts to regulate the oil industry will only drive prices up further. Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY) has suggested taxing oil company profits. What will this accomplish? Companies will raise prices higher, so that they will continue to reap the same profits as they did before any new taxes were enacted. Businesses do not give up their profit margins. If they do, they are likely to go out of business, because profits are the reason that private-sector businesses exist. What will consumers do if the hated oil companies go under? Drill for their own oil? Build their own refineries?

For all their demagoguery on energy prices, Democrats have only stood in the way of any progress that might result in a decrease of those prices. They oppose new oil drilling and exploration, keeping us dependent on oil-rich countries that hate us. They pay lip service to conservation, but they oppose federal measures that would encourage it.

The RNC website features a "gas calculator", which supposedly computes how much Democrats' policies would increase your personal travel costs. The results can be taken with a grain of salt, but the point is well taken.

http://www.gop.com/GasCalculator/

Capitol Police visit Rick Santorum's Penn Hills home. A strange election-year story from a Pittsburgh news program:

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/9269616/detail.html

On Wednesday, Capitol Police agents dispatched from Washington spent nearly 90 minutes doing a security check on Sen. Rick Santorum's Penn Hill's house.

"Why would he call Capitol Police when we have Penn Hills police right here? If he's a resident of Penn Hills, why didn't he call the Penn Hills police? And for his kids to be in danger? That's a big joke because his kids are never in this house," Santorum critic Erin Vecchio said.

This is the latest twist in Santorum's long-running clash with a local Democratic couple that Santorum accuses of trespassing and peeking into windows in a bid to prove he doesn't really live there.

"The fact is, that we never stepped foot on that property. I put a challenge out to Rick, saying that I would take a lie detector test if he would take a lie detector test if he ever lived in that house," Vecchio said.

Vecchio is the Penn Hills Democratic chairwoman whose husband was quoted in news reports as saying Santorum's home was emptied of furniture and had no curtains until days ago.

The Santorum campaign launched radio ads describing the couple as operatives of his Democratic opponent Bob Casey, stalking the senator's home and children.

Vecchio was also the Penn Hills School Board member who tried to force Santorum to repay the district thousands of dollars it had to pay for his kids' cyber schooling.

"We never went on that property. His whole issue with me is pay back Penn Hills the money that you owe us and I'll go away," Vecchio said.

Santorum's staff said the Capitol Police visit was to ensure the safety and security of the Santorum family home. They said, "It is extremely disappointing that because of hardball politics, we have come to this."

The Casey campaign said Santorum's accusations lack any credibility and that he should repay Penn Hills taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars for not living in the district.

Channel 4 Action News heard neighbors take both sides of the fight.

Mark Hawkins, a family friend, said. "When Rick's in, not doing his job … this is where his family is. I mean, this is where he is."

Neighbor Don Gingery said, "The place has been empty for three or four months."

"Empty? How do you know?" asked Channel 4 Action News reporter Bob Mayo.

"I live right here," Gingery said.

Iraq swears in new government. It's a historic day for Iraq and the world. In the words of U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad:

"What happened in the assembly represents the end of Iraq's political transition that began in April 2003 from the American administration under occupation, to a democratically elected Iraqi government. We have a lot at stake in terms of Iraq's success. That's no secret."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14629228.htm

Of course, the violence continued. At least 22 people were killed in an explosion at a Baghdad gas station and at least 17 corpses were discovered around the city. This type of violence will not be quelled overnight. When America first declared its independence in the late 1700's, violence from British forces continued for many years. The road to democracy is difficult, but necessary.

President Bush said this in a statement:

"The United States and freedom-loving nations around the world will stand with Iraq as it takes its place among the world's democracies and as an ally in the war on terror."

In other abortion-related news:

Republican congressman Mark Souder (R-Ind.) convened a hearing this past Wednesday on the RU-486 abortion pill, which has been linked to deadly infections in at least eight women:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200605/CUL20060518b.html

Amnesty International is considering promoting abortion as a worldwide "right". This is the same "human rights" organization that complained for years about Saddam Hussein's atrocities, but opposed the U.S. campaign to remove him from power in Iraq.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200605/INT20060518a.html

And here is a story about an abortion center in Birmingham, Alabama which gave an RU-486 pill to a woman in her third trimester of pregnancy:

http://www.lifenews.com/state1659.html

Hillary Clinton blames right wingers for abortion. The Senator and former first lady is putting forth another "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory. She now claims that right-wing "ideologues" -- who generally oppose abortion -- are responsible for it. How? Here is the Newsmax article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/17/231039.shtml

2008 White House hopeful Hillary Clinton is blaming right wing "ideologues" for denying women access to contraceptives - leaving them no choice but to end their unwanted pregnancies with abortion.

The move to withhold contraceptives "was started by a small group of extreme ideologues who claim the right to impose their personal beliefs on the overwhelming majority of the American people," Clinton declared in an e-mail to supporters on Wednesday.

"They're waging this silent war on contraception by using the power of the White House and their right-wing allies in Congress," she complains, adding, "and so far, they're getting away with it."

So just how are these right wing ideologues driving up the abortion rate? Clinton explains:

"Low-income women, denied access to contraception, are having more unwanted pregnancies - four times as many as those for higher income women. And almost half of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortions."

The former first lady didn't explain, however, why - in places like New York City, where high school nurses' offices distribute candy-flavored condoms - the abortion rate continues to soar.

And I would love to hear her explanation for that! Hillary's e-mail reminds me of inane statements that were made by Joycelyn Elders, who was the first Surgeon General of the Clinton administration. Elders, who once proudly called herself the "condom queen", once claimed (with a straight face) that "condoms are not readily available" to the public. Excuse me? Has the woman ever set foot in a drugstore? How can liberals say that anyone is "denied access" to contraceptives? And as for the "low-income women" part of Hillary's message -- what exactly is she saying? That low-income women have an entitlement to receive free contraceptives paid for by taxpayers?

Anyway, getting back to the article:

The former first lady didn't explain, however, why - in places like New York City, where high school nurses' offices distribute candy-flavored condoms - the abortion rate continues to soar.

In January, for instance, the New York Daily News reported:

"For every 100 babies born in New York City, women had 74 abortions in 2004, according to newly released figures that reaffirm the city as the abortion capital of the country ... That means 40 out of 100 pregnancies in the city ended in a planned abortion - almost double the national average of 24 of 100 pregnancies in 2002."

Those numbers are sickening. Hillary's husband Bill once promised the country that abortion would be "safe, legal, and rare". Well, that's one out of three. Abortion is obviously still legal, but I would hardly describe it as "safe", certainly not for the baby being aborted, and arguably not for the would-be mother, either. Abortions (especially the partial-birth variety) involve numerous health hazards, including potential damage to the woman's birth canal.

And the figures reported above indicate that abortion is certainly not "rare". Even when you get beyond the shocking New York City numbers (40 out of 100 pregnancies?), the national average of 24 out of 100 pregnancies ending in abortions is truly devastating. That means that nearly one-fourth of America's future population is being brutally murdered before the fact.

France names street for cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. Here's more proof that we are probably better off without France's help in Iraq. My hometown paper The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a Paris suburb has named a street for a world-famous convicted cop-killer from my hometown. Here's the article:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14587429.htm

From the article:

As Philadelphians cope with another police slaying, news comes that a suburb of Paris has named a street for Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of the 1981 murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Hundreds of supporters of Abu-Jamal attended a ceremony on April 29 to dedicate the Rue Mumia-Abu Jamal in the city of St.-Denis.

"In France, they see him as a towering figure," said Suzanne Ross, cochair of the Free Mumia Coalition of New York City, who was part of the ceremony.

Ross said the street is in the town's Human Rights district, which includes Nelson Mandela Stadium.

Richard Costello, past president of the Philadelphia lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, said the street dedication was "deplorable" but "consistent with the offensive position the French have taken in this matter. They've made him into some type of hero."

Abu-Jamal, 53, was sentenced to death in 1982 for the shooting of Faulkner, who was 25. A memorial plaque honoring Faulkner has been installed at 13th and Locust Streets, where he was shot.

Abu-Jamal, a former Philadelphia journalist, Black Panther member, and critic of police brutality, has maintained his innocence.

Here is something that troubles me:

Last year, a federal appeals court agreed to consider Abu-Jamal's appeal of his conviction. The court said it would consider Abu-Jamal's allegation of racial bias in jury selection, as well as claims that the prosecutor gave an improper summation and that a judge in a previous appeal was biased.

I do not trust the court to reach a verdict based on evidence. It will more likely be based on politics. Many leftists -- be they in France, Hollywood, or Philadelphia -- have been convinced of Mumia's innocence (regardless of evidence to the contrary) and portray him as both a hero and a victim. I fear that the court may overturn his conviction based on political correctness.

Here is what the victim's widow had to say:

When notified of the French dedication, Maureen Faulkner, widow of the victim, called it "disgusting."

"This is so unnerving for me to get this news," Faulkner said from Los Angeles, where she lives. "It's insulting to the police officers of Philadelphia that they are naming a street after a murderer."

The campaign to free Abu-Jamal has generated international attention, particularly among anti-death-penalty activists in France. At the dedication ceremony, Julia Wright, a translator in Paris and daughter of the late African American author Richard Wright, called Abu-Jamal "our Mandela."

Maureen Faulkner, on the other hand, urged Americans to boycott Paris.

"The people of Philadelphia should think if they have any trips to Paris this summer, to cancel those trips," Faulkner said.

Of the French support of Abu-Jamal, she added: "These are the people who sheltered Ira Einhorn" - a fugitive who was finally returned to Philadelphia and convicted of killing his girlfriend, Holly Maddux.

Sexual-orientation questions cause stir at high school. Here is another story, this one from Wisconsin, that ought to serve as a wake-up call for society at large. At a Wisconsin high school, a student organization designed a "heterosexual questionnaire", approved by two teachers. Students were asked such questions as: "If you have never slept with someone of your same gender, then how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?" and "Considering the battering, abuse, and divorce rate associated with heterosexual coupling, why would you want to enter into that type of relationship?"

Hundreds of students at the school were told to submit written answers, and a full class period was used to discuss the survey. Here is an article:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=424003

From the article:

Parent Lisa Krier on Monday called for the two teachers to be disciplined, saying the survey was a form of sexual harassment by teachers against students.

"If somebody doesn't call them on it, it will continue," she said.

Both Principal Duane Woelfel and Patty Ruth, president of the Port Washington-Saukville School Board, said the survey was inappropriate and that proper authorization was not given before it was brought into classrooms.

"The message that really needs to go out at this point is that this administration will ensure that this type of survey will never go out again," Ruth said.

Woelfel said he has received complaints from about two dozen parents and community members regarding the survey. The principal said he was not aware of the survey until a parent gave him a copy a day after it was distributed.

"We were extremely concerned when we found out about it, and we're going to make sure that it doesn't happen again," Woelfel said.

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.

More:

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.

Supposedly, the survey was part of an effort to reduce harassment against "non-heterosexuals". How? By harassing heterosexuals?

One question reads: "Is it likely that you have (sic) just haven't met the right same gender partner yet?". Questions such as that and the two I mentioned earlier suggest that the designers of the survey want to encourage experimentation with homosexuality. But wait -- I thought that people didn't choose it! The prevailing conventional wisdom is that being gay is not a matter of choice. Why, people say, would anyone choose such a life full of torment?

Whether or not people choose to have feelings of homosexuality is debatable. But people definitely do choose to engage in homosexual behavior. That is a matter of free will, just as heterosexual activity is. Liberals spin it a different way, insinuating (if not saying outright) that it is impossible not to act on sexual feelings.

Nonsense. Liberals might do whatever they please, but not all people do. Contrary to popular belief, there are still people with morals. The aim of gay activists is to remove all social taboos on homosexual behavior, so that the activity in which they choose (yes, choose) to engage will be considered right and natural. But it is not.

The survey actually did contain one good question. The final question was "Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?".

The answer is: because of liberalism. Ever since the sexual revolution of the '60's and '70's, liberals have placed an emphasis on sex as if it is the most important thing about our lives and our identities. The effects have been, to say the least, destructive. Sexual imagery now dominates our popular culture. Society now projects the idea that anyone who does not engage in casual sex is not normal.

I can tell you from past (and present) experience that it is not impossible to avoid sexual encounters. I am heterosexual, and I am celibate. I am not married, and I do not fool around. I am exposed to the same images and temptations that many others are. I have experienced peer pressure, in youth and in adulthood. Abstinence from sex is not always easy in the short run, but in the long run it makes life much easier. In the city of Philadelphia where I live, the consequences of sexual immorality are on display everywhere, and they are ugly.

What is the best way to counteract society's constant endorsement of casual sex?

Religion.

White guilt in a time of war? An interesting opinion piece from Shelby Steele appeared in the Wall Street Journal this past Tuesday. It is even more relevant three days later, now that Zacarias Moussaoui has escaped the death penalty.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318

Polls, polls, polls. Which ones are we to believe?

A new AP Ipsos poll says that Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low of 33%, and that conservatives are unhappy with the president and the Republican Congress. Here are details:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/5/92432.shtml?s=icp

At one point, this article says that 31% of conservatives want Republicans out of power. Really? Nearly one-third of conservatives would rather have Democrats in power? With Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House? I'm having a tough time believing that.

On the other hand, a new Fox News poll claims that Bush's ratings have risen slightly to 38%, up five points from two weeks ago:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194278,00.html

Rasmussen Reports, which is usually more trustworthy than most other polls, says his approval rating is 43%, which is also an increase over recent numbers.

California bill would ban "mom" and "dad" from textbooks, and mandate pro-homosexual lessons. Just when I thought the left coast couldn't go any further off the deep end: a bill is advancing in the California legislature that would ban traditional sex-specific terms from school texts, and require students to learn "gay history". Here is the article:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50044

Here are some details:

Having already been approved by the state's Senate Judiciary Committee, SB 1437, which would mandate grades 1-12 buy books "accurately" portraying "the sexual diversity of our society," got the nod yesterday of the Senate Education Committee.

The bill also requires students hear history lessons on "the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America."

"This bill is the most extreme effort thus far to transform our public schools into institutions of indoctrination that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "SB 1437 seeks to eliminate all 'stereotypes' of the traditional family so that young children are brainwashed into believing that families with moms and dads are irrelevant."

Here's more:

England says the measure amounts to unneeded social experimentation.

"SB 1437 disregards the religious and moral convictions of parents and students and will result in reverse discrimination," she said.

Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sheila Kuehl – a lesbian actress best known for playing Zelda in "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" in the 1960s – the legislation would add "gender" (actual or perceived) and "sexual orientation" to the law that prohibits California public schools from having textbooks, teaching materials, instruction or "school-sponsored activities" that reflect adversely upon people based on characteristics like race, creed and handicap.

It doesn't surprise me that Californians would elect someone like Kuehl as a representative, or that Kuehl would sponsor such legislation. But I am amazed that this bill is receiving any type of support. If this bill actually becomes California law, other states could follow suit. Let this be a wake-up call for all concerned.

Economy carries momentum into the 2nd quarter. More good economic news, after last week's announcement that the economy grew at a strong rate of 4.8% in the first quarter. Strong economic activity has continued into the current quarter. Numbers for the month of April show that manufacturing activity is up, construction spending is at a record high, and consumer spending increased despite high energy prices. Inflation is a concern, but it is far less severe than some have predicted it would be. Here is the AP story:

http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?section=news&feed=ap&src=601&news_id=ap-d8hb74c81&date=20060501

Need I say it again? This is boom time, folks, and don't let liberals tell you otherwise.

Rush Limbaugh's legal battle is over at last. On Friday afternoon, the conservative radio talker surrendered to authorities on a single drug charge, to which he pleads "not guilty". He was released on $3,000 bail, and the charge of "doctor shopping" will be dropped after 18 months if Limbaugh continues to be treated by the same doctor who has treated him for two-and-a-half years. Here is a Newsweek article on the story that Limbaugh himself is pleased with:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12555181/site/newsweek/

Many others in the media are naturally reporting these events in a misleading way. Many of the initial headlines said Limbaugh was "arrested" -- which must have given false hope to his liberal foes who were hoping he would be jailed. Al Franken, for one, has said he hoped to see Limbaugh do a "perp walk". Franken must surely be disappointed. The media is also pointing out that Limbaugh must submit to random drug testing, but on his radio show today, Limbaugh said he has already been subject to such tests for two years, and that he has passed every time.

Some are insinuating that the deal that Limbaugh's attorney worked out indicates that Limbaugh is afraid of being convicted if the case had gone to trial. Who knows how that would have turned out? This case has been taking place in Palm Beach, Florida -- the home of dimpled chads. If that county's citizens are not able to vote properly, could jurors from that county be trusted to render a fair verdict?

Limbaugh has characterized the whole case as a "fishing expedition". In hindsight, it all now seems like much ado about almost nothing. A Drudge Report flashback points out that the prosecutors once claimed they had evidence that Limbaugh committed at least ten felonies, and that he had obtained up to 2,000 painkillers. But now it seems that only the "doctor shopping" charge could stick, and the single charge only alleges that Limbaugh illegally obtained about 40 pills. So that's what all the commotion has been about for 2 1/2 years?

Rush Limbaugh's official site:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com