Obama versus the Dow

The Dow Jones Industrial Average after passage of the stimulus bill

The Dow Jones Industrial Average after passage of the "stimulus" bill

Here’s a shocker.  Mr. Hopenchange (Barack Obama himself) has now presided over the fastest and most significant drop of the Dow Jones Industrial Average for a new president in at least the last 90 years according to Bloomberg.

I honestly don’t worry that much about me and my immediate family as much as I do about my parents and my in-laws.  I’m only 30 and I have a lifetime of income in front of my.  However, my parents and others in their 60’s and 70’s do not.  They’ve just watched 30-50% of their saved income vanish.

This Obama administration is going to do their best to pass the buck to George W. Bush.  You’re supposed to forget the fact that all of this has happened under a Democratic-led congress (in power since 2006 in case you Obama voters didn’t know).  Blaming Bush will only go so far…perhaps until August.   Sure, the previous administration made some errors, such as spending too much.  Democrats are doing their best to justify outrageous spending by confronting us with the outrageous spending under the Bush White House.  You don’t fix the problems arising from excessive spending by more excessive spending.

What’s the Obama Adminstration’s response to all this?  They’re not going to make policy based on what the Dow does.  Yeah, it’s pretty obvious they don’t care about the life savings of the majority of Americans.

In large part, this is a crisis of confidence.  There won’t be a recovery until the leader of the free world decides to stop stoking fear in the heart of American investors and businesses.

Obama’s favorite words lately seem to be “crisis” and “catastrophe”.  That’s really a shame.  A man as gifted a communicator as Obama (at least while he’s on a teleprompter) could really inspire Americans to believe in themselves and thus help us get out of this recession.  But that won’t happen.  Obama believes in government, and more government is what you’re going to get.

Or maybe more food stamps is their idea of compassion.

HT: FoxNews.com

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen faster under President Obama than under any new president in at least 90 years, according to a review conducted by Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reports that since Inauguration Day, the Dow has fallen 20 percent, leading at least one investor to dub this the “Obama bear market.” The Dow has also dropped 31 percent since Election Day.

Despite a string of government bailout offers and Obama’s advice earlier this week that Americans should be buying stock while shares are low, the Dow has continued to freefall.

Bloomberg reported that Obama is at risk of breaking a historical trend — in which the Dow soars an average of close to 10 percent in the first year after a Democrat wins the presidency.

Plus: Obama’s radicalism is killing the Dow

Weather Channel Founder Attacks Global Warming

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, has been one of the loudest opponents of the concept of man-made global warming. He recently gave a very powerful speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in which he outlined the real motives of the global warming crowd–to wean the United States off fossil fuels at any means possible.

The full text of his speech is below. Warning: If you’re on the fence about man-made global warming, you may not be after reading this.

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

South Dakota To Build First New Oil Refinery in 32 years

South Dakota residents should be proud of themselves. In a time when Washington, D.C. offers no solutions and double-talking politicians complain about gas prices while blocking any effort to drill domestically, South Dakota comes through with a solution. Build a big new refinery and force more domestic drilling!

Drill

Now, nothing has happened yet and the enviro-wackos have yet to swoop in and conveniently find some endangered field mouse in Union County, but 3,292 acres have been rezoned to build the nation’s first new oil refinery since 1976. That’s right. The environmental movement has been successful in blocking any new domestic refineries for that long.

Can anyone say high gas prices?

The same people that complain that we need to wean this country off foreign oil are the same ones that block any effort to drill. Just where are we supposed to get our oil from? NOWHERE! That is the million dollar answer. We aren’t supposed to get oil….we’re supposed to slink back to the days of cart and buggy and the wild west. People who oppose domestic drilling (i.e Democrats) aren’t interested in real solutions and block any effort to fix our problems.

What would drilling for domestic oil do? It would have an immediate impact in that it would send a message to OPEC nations that we are tired of the prices and we can get our own oil. Right now, we’re completely at the mercy of them. If we start drilling, those same nations aren’t going to want to lose our business. Prices will fall, while great companies like General Motors and Ford will continue to develop technologies that will utilize gas better than it is now. However, these things take time and there is clear public support for new types of energy.

So, congratulations to South Dakota for coming up with a solution to high gas prices, rather than playing politics and just complaining about the problem.

If you’re interested in sending a message to Washington to start drilling now, Newt Gingrich has championed an effort to get them to start. Click here if you’re interested.

Bush Administration Falls for Polar Bear Gimmick

As originally reported on TownHall.com, the Bush administration took a page from Al Gore’s playbook and named the polar bear to the “threatened species” list because of anticipated losses of the polar bear due to global warming. Computer models show that loss of polar ice caps may degrade the polar bear population down to endangered species levels in approximately 45 years. So by adding the polar bear to the threatened species list, it might slow a population decline if global warming is true.

Of course, these computer models probably aren’t aware that all of the allegedly lost polar ice has now frozen back. Or maybe they didn’t hear any of the latest research that continues to debunk the entire man-made global warming myth. Perhaps the computer just forgot to take into account that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently reports that polar bear populations are on the rise. There are currently between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears, which is up from the low of 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Now of course, we should expect the environmental lobby and the EPA to accept any computer model that furthers their agenda of man-made global warming. However, we should not accept the Bush administration recognizing the same kind of computer generated models without asking the hard questions and challenging the “facts” laid out by the environmental lobby. For this, the Bush administration should be ashamed. They have largely given the opponents of legitimate domestic energy production (i.e. Progressives and Democrats) another reason not to explore for any oil or natural gas in the entire state of Alaska. Can’t you just hear Chuck Schumer arguing that drilling in Alaska will threaten the population of polar bears 45 years from now?

Maybe if conservatives and Republicans are lucky, domestic energy production will be at the forefront of the Presidential campaign this year. It’s funny that the main people you hear railing against the U.S. purchasing oil from the Middle East are Democrats, yet Democrats are the main opponents of domestic energy production.

As reported by Gateway Pundit:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?– Democrat

We are in very grave danger of being completely dependent on foreign oil because of the Democrats in Washington, and yet the general public blames the Republicans for America’s dependence on foreign oil. Despite the fact that oil is at $127 a barrel, Democrats continue to demonize American oil companies and impede their ability to search for new oil reserves or tap the known reserves that would bring down the global price of oil.

But now, thanks to the pandering by the Bush administration and liberal “environmental friendly” Republicans like John McCain, we might very well see Alaska added to the “No Drilling” zone as well. And all because a computer owned by someone in the environmental lobby told us that there might be fewer polar bears in 2053. Unless this pandering by some on the right stops, the Republicans are heading for a monumental and embarrassing defeat in November.

While Hillary Tells Lies, Obama is a Lie

It has been fairly well established that Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a pattern of lying throughout her career. After all, it was just last week that she was called out by the media on the sniper fire in Bosnia incident in the 1990’s. However, with Hillary, what you see is what you get. She is one of the most divisive figures in American politics and she knows it. She is interested in winning at all costs. If there’s a President Hillary Clinton, you know there’s going to be much higher taxes, a move towards socialized medicine, and a continued move towards making the U.S. a universal welfare state. While she lies about various things (i.e. sniper fire, pick up basketball, Yankees fan, etc), we all know who she is and what she really stands for.

And then there’s Barack Obama. For the first 12 months of his campaign, the substance he offered to his supporters had less filling than a creme-filled donut. Phrases like “yes we can” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” as well as words like “hope” and “change” are all we heard from him. There was very little discussion of who Barack Obama actually is and what he believes in. How has he shown himself to be the bipartisan uniter that he claims to be? Can he prove that he knows enough as a rookie senator to aspire to the highest office in the land?

Of course, these are questions that we are asking now….and the Obama campaign doesn’t like it. They’re actually whining about getting roughed up by ABC in the debate. Gimme a break! If Obama can’t handle Charlie Gibson, how do we expect him to handle North Korea or Iran? I tip my hat to ABC and Gibson for finally asking some questions that hit at who Obama actually is, instead of allowing him to cruise to November with this illusion of being a moderate. Barack Obama is probably the most radical left candidate for President this nation has ever known.

Just in the past month or so, these are some of the damaging things the general public has discovered about him:

  • He attended a church for 20 years that regularly preached racism and expressed anti-American and anti-Israel sentiment from the pulpit. He has called Rev Jeremiah Wright his spiritual mentor, yet says that he was unaware that Wright held these beliefs. I don’t know which is worse…sitting under a racist pastor for 20 years and believing what he says or sitting there and not actually knowing what he’s saying. What does that say for the type of administration he’s going to run?
  • He has a friendly relationship with known terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon, the New York City Police Department, and the Capital in the 1970’s. As recent as 2001, Ayers said that he wasn’t sorry for the bombings and wished he had done more. Obama has described him as a friend and has appeared with him in public. They sat on a board together and Ayers threw an Obama campaign party at his house when Obama was running for Illinois state senate.
  • He had some possibly illegal dealings with slum lord Tony Rezko, who is currently awaiting trial. Reportedly, Rezko hooked Obama up with a very nice house at a very cheap price….too cheap. Possibly for some favors later for Mr. Rezko? We’ll see as this trial goes along.
  • Obama admitted to using various drugs in his teen years, including cocaine
  • Obama won’t talk to Fox News, but he is willing to talk to dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Mahmud Ahmadinejad
  • Obama attended the Million Man March led by Louis Farrakhan in 1995

Those just scratch the surface. His understanding of foreign policy and economics is not only naive, but dangerously naive. His comments about “bitter” American’s clinging to guns, racism, and the Bible are continuing to cause a fallout among the voting public. It really just reveals that he believes that conservative Americans are basically racists, bigots, and homophobes. Those of us who have studied Obama for months now have known this about him and it comes as no surprise. When Obama doesn’t have a teleprompter, he gets off message and tips us off as to who he really is…a radical left wing politician who believes in wealth redistribution, who has multiple ties to anti-American racists and known terrorists, and who clearly does not believe in American exceptionalism.

If the general public realizes who Barack Obama actually is and what he stands for, he will dig his own grave and be buried in it come November. The Democrats only chance to win with Obama is if the public literally knows nothing about him by election day. That, my friends, will be the toughest task of all.

Obama Calls For Talks With Iran

On Tuesday, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama called for the US to talk to Iran to help sort out the Iraq situation. Which, if you think about it, is pretty funny considering that Iranians are probably largely behind the majority of attacks on US troops in Iraq. What would talking to a clown like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accomplish? Likely nothing other than embarrassing the United States for negotiating with a communist nation and bowing to their desires. Iran has a vested interest in what happens in Iraq. Iran would like nothing more than to turn Iraq into a nation much like Iran. Iran does not want any kind of democracy in the Middle East and will be a major opposing force to any kind of democratic government for a very long time.

Sure, Iran could stop a lot of the violence in the region because they’re the cause of most of it. In case Obama hasn’t noticed, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran would gladly “help” us quell the violence and in exchange get to exert more influence on Iraq and dictate where oil profits go. Why don’t we just open up negotiations and unilateral talks with Al Qaeda?

Maybe we should “talk” to Iran about the 6000 new centrifuges that they are assembling for their nuclear program. I’m so sure Iran’s only interest in uranium is for nuclear power….does anyone actually believe that?

An Attempt to Save the Household Light Bulb

Recently, representative Michelle Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, has proposed a bill that would repeal the nationwide phase out of incandescent lightbulbs in 2012. The old-school bulbs are being replaced by the fluorescent energy efficient bulbs. Her bill is called the “Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act”. This bill is a second chance for Congress not to appear completely socialist.

bulb

Don’t get me wrong, I like fluorescent energy efficient bulbs for the money I save and the fact that I rarely change a light bulb anymore. I have them in nearly every lamp in my house and most of the ceiling lights. However, as I’m sure many of you know, fluorescent bulbs don’t really dim and they don’t have brightness settings. They are either completely off or completely on. There’s no in between. So with the banishment of the Edison-style light bulb, out goes the concept of a dimmer switch and things like a three-setting light bulb. Unless there is some new technology that I’m unaware of, these things will likely disappear along with the incandescent light bulb.

Why would Congress go to such lengths to eliminate something as harmless as the incandescent light bulb? You guessed it….global warming. By eliminating all of the extra energy use of these incandescent light bulbs, we will theoretically burn less fossil fuels to power them and thus we will release fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So instead of simply leaving it to consumers to figure out for themselves that they save money with the new bulbs, Congress passes a law (that Bush signed) that banishes the old light bulb. Socialism at work. I thought liberals were pro-choice….or is that just when we’re talking about human life? I guess it’s not okay to be pro-choice when it comes to light bulbs.

Fortunately, the Bachmann bill (if passed) would stop this nonsense.

“This is about freedom, this is about consumer rights,” she said.

Yes it is. Fluorescent bulbs pose their own risk with trace amounts of Mercury in them. So, the government effectively forces the elimination of Mercury thermometers from medical use but then turns around an mandates the use of Mercury-laced fluorescent bulbs in every household in the country. Legislative schizophrenia–all in the name of global warming.

“The least government can do if they are going to ban the household light bulb is provide evidence to back up their claims that there’s some long-term benefit,” she said. “Congress should not be in the business of promoting fads and Congress should always be in the business of watching out for the health, safety and budget bottom line of the American family.”

Global warming is just the latest fad, just like the coming Ice Age was back in the 1970’s. A very recent article published in The Australian gives evidence to the fact that carbon dioxide levels have been increasing over the last ten years, but temperatures globally have continued to fall. This debunks one of the main points in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” documentary. How very inconvenient for the global warming folks (or is it global climate change….oh, I can’t make up my mind).

The point is that the death of the incandescent light bulb is just one of the first casualties in this global warming hoax to control our lives. Next will be the government controlling your thermostat in your house, then controlling what kind of car you drive, then controlling how much you drive. If this is something you look forward to, please save the rest of us and move to Europe now. You’ll get more than your fill of 15% unemployment, 60% income tax rates, and free (lousy) healthcare for all.