Osama bin Laden is dead! Late in the day on May 1st, 2011, it has been confirmed that the al Qaeda leader was killed in a U.S. military operation in Pakistan. At last, the headline we've waited ten years to see! What a great day for the world. God Bless America!

Voter intimidation in Philadelphia, and other PA election day scandals.

Two Black Panthers attempted to block voters from entering a Philadelphia polling place. One of them brandished a nightstick, and one reportedly told a poll watcher: "We're tired of white supremacy." Here is a YouTube video:



Here is a video of police confronting them:



Also, GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of at least half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status. Here is the Townhall.com article:

http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc

And Townhall.com points out a few other problems in the state of Pennsylvania:

1) State operatives are reporting that calls are being made to Republican voters in Lancaster County telling them their polling stations have been changed.

2) NBC News is reporting major "voting obstacles" at at least eight different polling stations in PA. Broken voting machines are listed as the main problem.

R.I.P. Tony Snow. The former White House press secretary and conservative pundit died today after a long battle with colon cancer. Here is the story from Fox News, where Snow worked as a TV anchor:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,381250,00.html

My fondest memories of Mr. Snow date back to the days when he was a sometime guest host on Rush Limbaugh's radio program. I remember him once saying that life is basically simple when you do what you are supposed to do. It's when you try to weasel your way out of doing the right thing that life becomes complicated. He used Bill Clinton as an example, recalling the times when Clinton tried to defend his actions by attempting to redefine such common words as "sex" and "alone" and "is", and by trying to find loopholes in the Ten Commandments. If you do what you are supposed to do in this world, Snow said, then there is no need to complicate things so much.

Those words have stayed with me for years, and I have often repeated them to people. Much to my surprise, people sometimes give me a puzzled-looking expression when I say it! I would think that people would basically agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many people have a tendency to try to weasel their way out of doing the right thing. And, personally, I live in a very liberal city where it almost seems to be the norm! The sad thing is that when people try to "get over", as the saying goes, they not only complicate their own lives, but they complicate things for the rest of us as well. It seems to me that liberalism in general tends to complicate things that are simple, because the simple truth about things often refutes what liberals want to believe.

I thank Mr. Snow for articulating that important life lesson which has helped to stiffen my moral spine over the years, and has helped me to better understand liberalism. May God rest his soul.

Media buries story about Saddam Hussein's WMD program. Which, of course, is what they have been doing for five years. Investor's Business Daily reports:

Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn't fit the media's neat story line that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003. It's a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel---thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region. This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a 'significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.' Seems to us this should be big news. After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush 'lied' about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S. This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon...Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff... That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush's decision to invade.

Iraqis lead final purge of al Qaeda. It would be nice to read this great article in an American publication, but it actually appears in the Times of London. I'm glad the Brits are still on our side, unlike the American left. Here is the article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece

Here is the first uplifting paragraph:

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

Yes! Did you hear that, American media? The Iraq war is the main front in the U.S. war on terror, and we have won one of its "most spectacular victories" in Iraq. Anyone who calls themselves "American" should be overjoyed. Here's more from the article:

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

I hope you are as proud as I am that we are winning this war that so many people said we could not win. Just remember: if Barack Obama becomes our next president, and he pulls U.S. troops out of Iraq prematurely (on whatever type of timetable he is talking about this week), all of these great gains could be lost.

Gas prices aren't that far out of line. That may be hard to believe, but it's the truth. Here is an article from MSN Money that puts things into perspective:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/Why4DollarAGallonGasIsABargain.aspx?GT1=33007

Here are some interesting points that the article makes:

1.

When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, a gallon of gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20% more than 86 years ago.

Given the ever-increasing global demand for oil products -- during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5% -- and the increasing costs associated with finding, producing and refining crude oil, it makes sense that today's motorists are paying more for their motor fuel than their grandparents and great-grandparents did.

2.

Gasoline is also a fairly minor expense when you consider the overall cost of car ownership. In 1975, gasoline made up 33.4% of the total cost of owning and operating a car. By 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, gasoline costs had declined to just 17.1% of the total cost of car ownership. Of course, fuel costs have risen by about $1 per gallon since 2006, but even with those increases, fuel continues to be a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership.

3.

Significant declines in U.S. oil consumption have occurred only after prolonged periods of high prices. Over the last two decades, U.S. consumers have been spoiled by low fuel prices. And those lower prices led to a buying binge that put millions of giant SUVs, pickups and other gas guzzlers on our roads.

4.

A gallon of gasoline in the U.S. is also dirt-cheap compared with gas in other countries. British motorists are paying about $8.38 per gallon for gasoline. In Norway, a major oil exporter, drivers are paying $8.73. In 2007, out of the 32 industrialized countries surveyed by the International Energy Agency, only one (Mexico) had cheaper gasoline than the United States.

Last year, drivers in Turkey were paying three times as much for their gasoline as Americans were. The IEA data also show that in India -- where the per-capita gross domestic product is about $2,700 (about 6% of the per-capita GDP in the United States) -- drivers have been paying more for their diesel fuel and gasoline than their American counterparts.

(Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.)

That last quote is a great point. A gallon of gas is still cheaper than a gallon of milk, at least in my town. And I recently bought two bottles of Heineken in a bar for $4.50 each. Those two bottles, which cost a total of nine dollars, certainly did not equal one gallon! Examples are endless. If you do the math, you'll find that many of the things that you purchase would cost well over $4 for a full gallon. Of course, we generally do not use as many gallons of these things as we use gallons of gas. That is where laws of supply and demand and profit margins come into play.

My advice to my fellow consumers is to get used to high gas prices. The lifestyle changes that we make in order to afford these prices are likely to be long-term, if not permanent. Gas prices will go higher before they go lower, and when they do go lower, they are not likely to go down as much as we would like. We will need to make adjustments accordingly.

Another bit of advice: don't fall prey to the constant media negativity about the situation. Just as the media has been constantly focused on the negative aspects of the economy (which is still growing, albeit slowly, with low unemployment) and the Iraq war (in which we have made great gains), so will the media constantly try to demoralize us about inflation. Don't let them get you down.

Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, but Hillary won't quit. Pundits are declaring victory for Barack Obama's campaign and defeat for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Although it seems almost impossible for Hillary to win the nomination at this point, she is apparently hoping for the possibility that superdelegates may hand her a victory, or that courts may declare that her victories in the Florida and Michigan primaries will no longer be disqualified from the delegate count.

But there is another school of thought that says that Hillary wants to destroy Obama's chances at the presidency even if she knows she can't win. One possible reason she would do this is to keep her options open for the 2012 race. Some people think she will be too old for a presidential run by then. But she will be younger then than John McCain is now. And if McCain defeats Obama in this year's general election, McCain may not run for a second term four years from now, when he will be 75 years old. So Hillary may be eyeing that long-term prize.

Another possible reason that Hillary may want to destroy Obama's candidacy is revenge. It seems like only yesterday that Hillary was thought to be the inevitable Democratic nominee -- and, by some, the inevitable next president. Knowing Hillary (as well as her hubby Bill), she probably thought she was entitled to be the next president. She probably sees Obama as an insolent young punk who came out of nowhere and stole her rightful prize. Five years ago, few people outside of Illinois knew who Obama was. How dare he stand in the way of the Clintons!

Many Democrats are now asking Hillary to step aside so that Obama and the DNC can officially begin the fight against McCain. But Her Highness apparently intends to stay in the race, possibly all the way to the convention.

Personally, I hope she does. I've been taking pleasure in watching the two Democratic candidates beat each other up. It's usually rare to see a Democrat feud with another Democrat, or a liberal to attack another liberal. But that's exactly what has been happening these past months. It has also been fun to watch the Clinton attack machine directed at another Democrat for a change. The Clintons excel at the politics of division; they deeply divided their country during their eight years in the White House. It's been a pleasure to see them divide their own party this time.

I have this to say to liberals who are angry over Hillary's antics: the Clintons are a monster that you helped to create. You elected Hillary's lying, cheating husband to two terms as president. You defended the Clintons through countless scandals and illegal activities, sending them the message that they can do whatever they please, right or wrong. To all you Democrats who stood behind the Clintons no matter what they did: you have brought this current election-year mess on yourselves and your party.

I would enjoy watching the Democratic Party's civil war even more if the Republican party had nominated a good conservative candidate to benefit from it. Unfortunately, the Republican nominee is John McCain.

An ex-Gitmo prisoner committed a suicide attack in Iraq. The U.S. military has confirmed that a man named Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi took part in a suicide attack in Mosul last week, and that al-Ajmi was a former detainee at the U.S.-run detention center at Guantanamo. Here is the MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24504862

This should serve as a wake-up call to those (including Republican presidential nominee John McCain) who want to close down the prison at Gitmo. What, I ask you, will we do with the detainees after the prison is closed? The prisoners at Gitmo are not purse snatchers, nor are they what libertarians like to call "non-violent drug offenders". They are terrorists. T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. If they are set free, they will commit more acts of terror.

The Myanmar government is refusing international aid. A cyclone has killed over 22,000 people in the Southeast Asian country which is also known as Burma. The U.N. estimates that about 1 million people are now homeless in Myanmar, and that its entire lower delta region is basically underwater. Obviously, this is a major disaster which will require much help from around the world. Here is a related article:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080507/D90GR35G2.html

So, why is Myanmar's government blocking relief efforts? Because it is an isolated dictatorship. A dictatorship requires its people to be completely dependent on its government so that its regime can maintain power. If the people of Myanmar receive help from other countries and outside organizations, it may make them less dependent on their government. Even if the difference in dependency is miniscule and short-lived, the government will still see it as a threat. Of course, Myanmar's government is probably incapable of providing sufficient relief for its people, and probably wouldn't provide it even if they could.

As this disturbing drama plays out on the world stage, I think that American leftists ought to learn a lesson from it. This is what can happen in a totalitarian regime, and if America becomes a socialist country (as liberals apparently want it to), totalitarianism may be the only way to enforce the socialism.

I especially want to point this situation out to so-called "multiculturalists", who claim that America is evil and other cultures are better. "Multiculturalism" is really just a euphemism for anti-Americanism. People who subscribe to this philosophy actually tend to know suprisingly little about other world cultures, even though they claim to be experts on the subject. For the past seven years, I have been stunned at how little leftists tend to know about the cultures of Muslim countries, even after everything that has happened since 9/11. It also amazes me how little leftists seem to know about the ways of life in Communist countries. When the controversy over Elian Gonzalez erupted in 2000, I was shocked by how many liberals failed to understand that Cuba is vastly different than the United States. When I tried to explain to my liberal friends that Gonzalez escaped from an oppressive country, and that he would be placed under the control of Castro's government after the Clinton administration forced the boy's return to that country, they refused to believe me. After all the years of the Cold War, how can people be so ignorant about the ways of a Communist country that sits less than a hundred miles south of the Florida keys? As usual, liberals took the side of America's enemy.

The cultures of Third World dictatorships are another thing that so-called multiculturalists often seem clueless about. When liberals hear about the difficult lives that people live in such countries, they often find ways to somehow blame America. (That's what multiculturalism always boils down to).

So...this Myanmar situation is an opportunity for liberals to learn about what really goes on in some cultures. In a dictatorship, nothing is more important to the government than maintaining control over its people. In many cases, such regimes murder thousands, if not millions, of people in order to exert and maintain power. In the case of Myanmar, the government is willing to let its people continue to suffer, and perhaps die, rather than risk the possibility of those people becoming less dependent on the regime.

Meanwhile, America (the country which multiculturalists hate) is one of many countries around the world that seeks to help the people of Myanmar, but so far the Myanmar government is refusing to allow it.

Hillary-Care is back! Our former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her quest to become our next president, has introduced a new health care plan as part of her campaign. Here is an AP article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6

The article tells us that Hillary wants to make it mandatory for all Americans to purchase health insurance, but says there will be no punitive measures to force people into the system. Is it me, or is this an obvious contradiction? How can something be mandated by the government but have no legal consequences? She wants to make it so that "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination." Hmmm...business owners might love this idea, but can it possibly work? Many people have health benefits through their employers. Is this type of policy really going to result in more people having health coverage? Elsewhere, the article says that Hillary intends to build on the current employer-based system. But wait -- isn't this another glaring contradiction? If we'll need proof of health insurance to get a job in the first place, then why will we need an employer-based system?

Here is the scary part of the article:

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the ad.

That's a huge thing to gloss over! In case you don't remember the health care plan that Hillary and her husband Bill tried to push through during the first two years of Bill's presidency, I'll remind you of some "mandates" which were hidden in that massive big-government plan, the published form of which ran over 1,300 pages:

1. Under the original version of Hillary-Care, all Americans would have been assigned to mandatory health alliances. Each person would have been required to only use the health alliance they were assigned to. If any American dared to choose their own doctor, the penalty would have been a mandatory 15-year prison sentence. The plan would have also created other outrageous new laws too numerous to mention.

2. Also, many new taxes were involved in the plan, including a whomping 12% national sales tax, as well as major tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol. (At the time, the latter ideas were called "sin taxes". Liberalism truly is a secular religion.).

Hillary is obviously trying to portray her new plan as being very different and less restrictive than her original disastrous plan was. Don't believe it. The Clintons (yes, both of them) will try to portray this new health care plan as all things to everyone in order to get it passed through Congress. Once they achieve that goal, Hillary's true socialist and totalitarian nature will rear its ugly head, and the American health care system (which, despite its problems, is the best health care system in the world) will be put under government control. As one commentator once put it, health care will be handled with all the efficiency of the postal service -- and with all the compassion of the I.R.S.

MTV continues its mission to pollute the minds of American youth. The cable channel formerly known as Music Television could become more effective than al Qaeda in bringing about the demise of Western Civilization. It will soon be airing a bisexual dating show called A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila. Who is Tila Tequila, you ask? She is a blond Vietnamese bisexual who has made a name for herself for being some kind of "queen" of MySpace...you know, that other thing that is helping to pollute the minds of our youth. Here is the TV Week article:

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/09/mtv_greenlights_tila_tequila_d.php

When I first read this article, I wondered if the apocalypse was near. But when I read the TrackBack comments below the article, I was relieved to see that there is much moral outrage over the show's concept, and that many people see it (and MTV) for the repulsive sleaze that it is.

I don't know if this represents a new low for the supposed music channel, which is now mainly a purveyor of trashy reality shows. It seems that MTV has been pandering to the lowest common denominator and pushing leftist values on our youth for many years now. People who are 25 and under have been exposed to a constant barrage of sexual imagery throughout their lives. So, how does MTV generate controversy in an anything-goes era? They make the sexual content more deviant.

If this trend continues, the future of America will be sad. If future generations continue to be dumbed down and taught that sexual perversion is the norm, our society will inevitably collapse. If too many youngsters continue to be exposed to a steady diet of such mindless filth, America will become a nation of Beavises and Buttheads, and it will be unable to sustain itself.

The conventional wisdom is that parents are responsible for supervising what their children watch, and this is basically true. However, parents cannot watch their children 24-7. The media is guilty of continually degrading the culture, possibly to the point of no return. Some will say that it is simply a matter of supply and demand, and that the media is simply giving people what they want. But the almighty dollar is really not the main reason that a show such as A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila finds its way on the air. It has more to do with the liberal media's contempt for traditional values, against which it has waged a war for decades.

So, if any parents are still unaware of what children are watching on MTV, or on the internet, or on just about any other pop cultural medium, this should serve as a wake-up call.

Here's my advice for the young: do not look up to the people that MTV parades before you in their reality shows, or in any music videos that may still occasionally pop up on the channel. MTV may make them look cool, or glamourous, but they are not. Most of them are losers. And if you follow their example, or if you even spend too much of your time watching them make fools of themselves, you will grow to be losers as well. MTV and other media outlets may help such people achieve fame and riches, but you will not find similar rewards if you emulate them. Instead, you will end up living lives of poverty and misery.