Gas prices today

WBZ TV has a story noting that gas has dropped below $3.50 a gallon. Some folks would say "yahoo" but this actually reflects that the debate about gas prices is over and the middle class lost. The story states that last year, gas was at an average of $2.67 a gallon and I believe that our focus will not be on what it used to be but the discussion will move to either what gas was at its highest so far or how much other countries are paying.

My point is that once again, we are being fed a line of crap about how much gas has dropped (8 cents lower than last week) but we are still paying incredbily high prices that are do not support or sustain current lifestyles. We are supposed to be "happy" that gas is only $3.50 a gallon which is still alomst a dollar more than last year. Where will the extra $ come from from your or my budget?

Congress doesn't care. They probably write off their gas budgets or get driven around and don't have to write a check to pay these high fuel costs. We are supposed to bow down and thank them for doing nothing basically when they represent a disconnected segment of our society. Presidential candidates debate about giving a gas tax holiday when we have lost the debate already about our dependence on foreign oil. This is a real security crisis and one that hits the weakest and poorest among us.

So whopeee - we have low gas!! Actually we don't. We have turned the corner and will forget the days when $2.67 was expensive and we will all need to realign our budgets to address fuel costs that will never go back down again (global warming and all that), trade in our SUVs and buy Honda Civics (great cars by the way) and listen to stories that crow about how great we have it and be prepared to pay more and get less. While somewhere the Sierra Club is laughing as they have gotten their way - changing the culture and society of this country - without firing a shot (in a manner of speaking of course).

OS

Some sensibility coming out of Laredo

AP via Yahoo News has a story I have been following regarding a homeowner who shot and killed an intruder during a break in to his home. From the story:

It took the jury of eight men and four women three hours Friday to find Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, not guilty of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 when he and three friends broke into Gonzalez's trailer to rummage for snacks and soda one night in July 2007.

So let us start with a little correcting. Who cares why Anguiano and his friends broke into the trailer. Like it should be ok since they were just looking for 'snacks'. So what should Gonzalez have done - point them to the pantry and said "help yourselves to some Twinkies"? Anguiano was a thief and broke into Gonzalez's trailer to steal..isn't that all that needs to be known?

The story also states that "Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property". I better check the laws here in Massachusetts as I wonder why that is only a Texas law - that should be a US law...but I digress.

So the Attorney General (Uriel Druker) believed that this was a case of vigilantism. He is quoted in the story as stating "A 13-year-old boy was killed because a man was enraged." Again, this is actually not true. A 13-year old boy was killed because he decided to break into a private residence and steal. Cause and effect?

We should have the right to protect and defend private property. If we don't then it really isn't private and we are noy the country that the founders built.

OS

From National Review - "Why 9/11"

I didn't do a post on 9/11 but obviously it is never far from most minds. Having friends in NYC make it seem a little more real to me or maybe it is a little more personal but it still remains an open sore for this country [and I reject the phrase "tragedy" and don't use it as 9/11 was an attack and assault on our country that resulted in the deaths of 3000+ innocent Americans].

So I was over at National Review and just read a great article that was posted on 22 Sept 2008 written by Larry Franklin, a counter terrorism specialist and an Air Force colonel entitled Why 9/11?

Mr. Franklin lays out the historical significance of the 11 Sept date with facts I at least had not heard before. First off, he mentions a passage from the Quran (Surah 9, Part 11) that:

"is the only chapter of the 114 chapters in the Quran that does not open with the salutation “In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.” This is a purposeful elision, as there can be no mercy, no compassion for us infidels."

Mr. Franklin also notes that "9/11/1683 that the forces of militant Islam pressed their jihad critically close to achieving the continental conquest of Europe". These Islamic forces were defeated by armies led by the Polish King John Sobieski and German and Austrian forces under the Duke of Lorraine in Vienna and the flag of the victorious forces still fly over the site.

Other 11 Sept dates Mr. Franklin shares with us

• September 11, 1481, that Venetian sailors turned back the Ottoman Caliphate’s fleet off the shores of Otranto in southern Italy.
• 9/11/1990 was the date that President George H. W. Bush declared a “New World Order.” Franklin notes that "(in) the speech’s opening paragraphs, (President Bush) spoke of our troops arrayed in Arabia. This assertion was anathema to many Muslims — who remembered the Prophet’s admonition that no infidel troops should ever occupy any land on the Island of the Arabs (al-Jazirah al Arabiyah)"
• 9/11/1979, Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with the Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin at Camp David [under President Carter]. He was later assassinated. Interesting to note that the assassination had a religious opinion approving the act issued by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It was a great and insightful article were Mr. Franklin makes the case that Muslim fanatics know their history and the significant events that have transpired in the past and the defeats that their "global jihad" have experienced. In concluding the article Franklin states:

"It would be prudent for our policymakers and intelligence czars to become more sensitive to the Islamic radicals’ worldview and sense of history. They believe their hour has arrived. They remember the incredible defeat of two empires by Muslim armies in Islam’s first century."

Why wouldn't Allah help them with their attack against the West? Franklin continues:

"It is time for our political leaders and their national-security advisers to better educate themselves and our citizenry so that we can mobilize our population for what will prove to be our longest war, one that may determine whether the last best hope on earth will endure."

Great article and well worth reading.

OS

Thoughts on the debate

McCain and Obama are going at it in Mississippi and CNN HD is doing a great job with the coverage. Jim Lehrer seems to want to candidates to fight or at least bicker back and forth but my impression is that McCain is taking Obama to school. McCain seems reasoned and experienced and Obama seems like a petulant child. There is a distinct difference between the two.

I like how Obama when asked about his spending he noted that "he" was going to pay for it. Yeah right - we will be paying for his spending plan.

One thing that irks me is the way Obama keeps referring to McCain as "John" and I haven't heard McCain once call Obama "Barack". Obama is trying to marginalize McCain and it is not working.

This is good TV.

Thank God for Health Officials

On the front page of Boston.com today is a story that trans fats are now verboten in Boston thanks to state health authorities in Massachusetts. What is even more interesting is the story states that the (the afore mentioned health authorities) are looking into a statewide ban of trans fats.

"Instead, a spokesman for the state's public health commissioner said a review of the agency's powers suggested that only the Legislature can impose a statewide prohibition on trans fat, long a staple of french fries, doughnuts, and other food sold in restaurants and corner stores."

So to ensure all the restaurants in Boston are complying there will be a slew of investigators checking Boston's 5000+ restaurants for compliance:

"City inspectors will check for evidence of trans fat during their routine visits to restaurants, and while health authorities said they do not intend for the regulations to be punitive, violators can be fined as much as $1,000."

So with everything else this state is dealing with, this is what our tax dollars are going toward? Don't the state health officials have something better to do than play "daddy" to restaurants that are frying up french fries in non approved oil?

What is next (yep - here comes the slippery slope argument)? If the motivation is "everything to do with health" according to Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, think about what sort of things fall under that very general statement? Why not mandatory physical training? Why not state inspectors to ensure all menus on the 5000+ restaurants conform to the Government Recommended Daily Allowance of specific food groups? Why not ban sugar? This reminds me of the abuse under the "general welfare" clause that Washington has used to basically throw a big Government solution to all of this country's aliments.

Be warned folks. This country has already changed dramatically towards a socialist like direction. No longer are there really two distinct views between the two major political parties, instead there is a diluted servitude and indenturement against a political philosophy that wants to impose it "now". The argument for rugged individualism has been abandoned. For those of us who are looking at the current national political climate, what we see in Boston is what we are seeing in the nation. Government can not guarantee a paycheck, no crime, no war, economic prosperity, and decent, family friendly shows on TV so why should it be in the business of trying to guarantee everyone makes the healthiest choice when eating out? We do not need nor should we have Government run lives. We are a better people than that, and a better country.

At least that is my opinion.

OS

McCain choice for VP is a "conservative"

Fun times are being had at the NY Times, Boston Globe and other entrenched leftist outfits with the choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President on the Republican Ticket. My thoughts on the Palin choice I will hold for another post but if anything it is a politically brilliant move by McCain. But here is the thing...Palin is a conservative. She is pro-NRA, pro-life and religious...uh oh. The media are having a field day with this...

Brent Bozell's newest column on this subject states (in part):

When Palin was picked, the (Washington) Post couldn’t stop pounding away on her conservatism. The lead story underlined: "The self-described 'hockey mom' brings a blue-collar conservatism and strong antiabortion views to the ticket." Another story on the front-page called her "the pro-gun, antiabortion governor of Alaska." The caption under her picture noted Palin was "a conservative with strong antiabortion views."

Palin is also taking flack for seeking such a demanding position (VP) with a baby with Down's syndrome (yeah - why didn't she just have an abortion...what sort of role model is she?) and other disturbing accusations (yes I know her 17 year old daughter is pregnant). But did you know Gov. Palin was a conservative?

Rush Limbaugh recounts a story in one of his books about when he got famous. He noted that he gained additional names - no longer was he "Rush Limbaugh" but "conservative Rush Limbaugh" or "right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh" as if the media that was writing about him had to qualify their description of him with that amplifying information. As he notes...no one ever introduced Larry King as the "liberal talk show host Larry King".

So with the Palin stories, her conservatism is put in the forefront of stories about her. Fair you say? Ok - but how was Joe Biden introduced?

Boston Globe Online, in their story "Foreign policy got Biden the VP nod" reported some glowing praise for Biden (some quotes were from Obama introducing Biden):

"Biden could also attract former supporters of Hillary Clinton, who yesterday praised Obama's choice of Biden, calling him "an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant.""

"After weeks of speculation, Obama settled on Biden because of a combination of personal chemistry with the Delaware senator (and) Biden's foreign policy résumé"

""For decades, he has brought change to Washington, but Washington hasn't changed him."

"He's an expert on foreign policy whose heart and values are firmly rooted in the middle class."

"He has stared down dictators and spoken out for America's cops and firefighters."

"He is uniquely suited to be my partner as we work to put our country back on track."

But the National Journal Online reports that "His composite liberal score of 94.2 placed him as the 3rd most-liberal senator in 2007, two ticks behind Barack Obama, who was the most liberal senator last year with a score of 95.5." The Boston Globe didn't think to mention that?

A similar story in the online Boston Globe from 2 Sept 2008 entitled "Palin provides a striking alternative" mentions Palin hunts, fishes, opposes abortion and a lifetime member of the NRA. Ok, just so we are clear, Palin is not "one of us" the Globe seems to be saying. Or as Maureen Dowd so snottingly put it recently, she hasn't even been on Meet the Press - what is this country coming to?

Stories on Palin and her 'conservative ideals' will be plastered all over the place as an attempt to discredit her and those that may "swing" to support John McCain rather than Obama. The media don't want people voting for the "woman", they want people voting for the Democrats. How silly...What you are getting with Obama and Biden is the most liberal ticket so far and the media are so worried about this Governor from Alaska that they are throwing their objectivity out the window...I know - "what objectivity".

Say it with me folks - "there is no media bias"....yeah right.

OS