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.


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.


SHOCKER: Eliot Spitzer’s Party Affiliation Ignored

Yesterday morning, the governor of New York and former Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, confessed to inappropriate behavior relating to a prostitution ring. Of course, one can only imagine what kind of behavior we are referring to. The irony drips heavily from this story as Spitzer is known for his arrogant demeanor and overly aggressive tactics at prosecuting all sorts of moral crimes on Wall Street. Spitzer had prosecuted prostitution rings/organized crime in the past and was elected as Governor on a platform of integrity and bringing morality to the Governor’s office. Oh, the irony!

But I’m not here to catalog this ongoing scandal. If you’re interested, you can always watch the news. What I am here to do is point out how Eliot Spitzer’s party affiliation is rarely mentioned in the news. When the Larry Craig bathroom sex scandal broke, you heard “Republican” just as often as you heard Craig’s own name. It’s amazing to note how Spitzer’s close ties to Hillary Clinton haven’t made news yet or the fact that Spitzer is New York’s most prominent state Democrat.

USA Today’s print edition report of the story this morning started like this:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was the brash Wall Street corruption buster who made ethics his trademark. He was on many lists of future presidential contenders. On Monday, he apologized after he was accused of meeting a high-priced prostitute in a Washington, D.C., hotel last month.

What’s the big deal right? There’s no mention that he’s a Democrat. Later in the story, this is how it refers to the Republicans involved in scandals.

Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, is serving out his term despite being arrested on an accusation of soliciting gay sex in an airport men’s room. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. In a more direct parallel, Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, was identified last year as a client of a D.C. madam. He is still in office. “It’s hard for Republicans to argue that Spitzer should go when Vitter is still in,” Sabato says.

On top of that, on the TODAY show this morning, somehow the “amazing journalist” Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira managed to go an entire FOUR HOURS without mentioning that Spitzer was a Democrat. During that four hours there were eleven segments on Spitzer! Shocking? Maybe, but if you’ve followed the media bias in this country you can’t actually be shocked by this.

If you don’t think there is distinct media bias in this country for the Democratic party then you’re either not watching the news or you’re not watching the news closely enough. Conservatives should take heed not to rely on headlines for our news…there is always more to a story than what news sources such as USA Today and the TODAY Show tell you.

Good for them: NY Republicans Threaten to Impeach Spitzer

The Year of the Underdog

It is really an interesting phenomenon that I’ve been observing for a while now. It started last fall with the most unusual of college football seasons because of all the upsets. Then it extended to the NFL where the New York Giants pulled one of the biggest upsets of Super Bowl history. How big was that upset? Vegas lost $40 million on that game alone.

It didn’t stop at football though–it extended into politics. Six months ago both Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were the inevitable candidates for the parties. We all know what happened to Rudy—he won a whole zero delegates before dropping out. Just las summer, John McCain was seen getting on a Southwest flight to a campaign rally by himself with no staff, no rally, and no supporters. He was out of money and his campaign was written off by the media, the other candidates, and just about anyone except McCain himself. Now of course, he’s going to be the Republican nominee. The Democratic primaries were supposed to be a coronation for Hillary Clinton, but now she’s in the battle for her political life.


It seems that whenever a candidate is considered unbeatable, it is just at that precise moment that the candidate is quickly knocked back to earth. Just this week we noticed the same phenomenon happened to Barack Obama. Obamamania has been dominating the left. I haven’t seen this kind of bandwagon fanaticism since the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004. But right when Obama won twelve straight contests, Hillary comes back and wins three of four in one day! This underdog phenomenon continues to go on and is hard to explain.

Whoever the Democratic nominee is will be considered inevitable by most to win the election in November. I also think that this presidential election is likely a win for the Democrats, but if there is anything that this year has taught us about the inevitable winners, nothing is a lock. As soon as anyone is considered inevitable is just the time when they are the most vulnerable.

McCain is likely going to fly under the radar for the next few months and will have the luxury of sitting back and enjoying watching Hillary and Obama lob political grenades at each other. The country is obsessed with the Democratic race and both candidates will be receiving intense media scrutiny for at least the next three months. McCain will largely be ignored until convention time when the attacks will expeditiously increase. This may lead to a certain amount of public sympathy for him as the underdog against an inevitable opponent, and there is a good chance we’re going to observe another colossal upset that has become so commonplace in the “Year of the Underdog”.

McCain’s Constitutional Eligibility for President in Question

For at least several weeks, discussions have been underway about McCain’s Constitutional eligibility for the presidency in certain circles. I was fortunate enough to listen to discussion on this topic for over an hour on local North Florida talk radio. Now, apparently the New York Times, who is obviously seeking to put an end to any hopes of a McCain presidency, is about to break a story on McCain’s Constitutional problem.McCain

The problem is this: McCain was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal zone to parents who are both American citizens. Naturally, by his birth to two citizens, he is a citizen at birth. However, the qualification for president states that the president must be a “natural born” Citizen, which is where the apparent problem arises. Through documents from the State Department, the Panama Canal zone in 1936 may not be considered soverign U.S. territory to the point of qualifying McCain as a “natural born” citizen.

If true, this could lead to a Constitutional debate and suit challenging McCain’s eligibility for the presidency. This suit could likely be brought by any political group, from the Democratic party to This Constitutional challenge, if brought sometime in the summer or late fall could tie up the McCain campaign in a battle that could go to the Supreme Court for a decision! Obviously, any battle of this sort would tie up the campaign so much that an effective run for the presidency would be nearly impossible.

Click here for part two (updated analysis).

What the Heck is Huckabee Doing?

I must admit, I was at one time a Mike Huckabee fan, but my ignorance only lasted for a few weeks until I found out where he really stands on policies. He is extremely well spoken and comfortable in front of the camera, which is something that has been lacking in the White House lately. This alone fooled many conservative voters who don’t keep up with presidential politics more than watching ten minutes of a debate before casting a vote. Huckabee articulates social conservative values better than anyone in the Republican field did this year. Many “values voters” supported him simply because of his social conservative values, but there remains a small contingent of people that voted for him because of his support of the Fair Tax. However, besides witty one-liners, the Fair Tax, and his staunch support of sanctity of life issues, there is little from his record to suggest that he would govern conservatively.

HuckbearSome Americans are “one issue voters”, whether it’s a stance on abortion, foreign policy, immigration, or taxes. Huckabee gained a lot of ground this year because he portrayed himself as only “Christian” candidate, while preaching the dangerous rhetoric of populism. This led many people to vote for him because of identity politics. Identity politics happens everywhere—blacks vote for Obama because he’s black, women vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, Christians vote for Huckabee because he’s a Christian. It’s a dangerous way to vote and it clearly exists.

While governor of Arkansas, Huckabee demonstrated throughout his governing that he is not a fiscal conservative by raising both government spending and taxes overall in the state. On foreign policy issues, Huckabee called the Bush administration’s foreign policy an “arrogant bunker mentality”. Much of his political speech closely mirrored John Edwards populist message. But all this is moot because he likely won’t be the nominee.

So back to my original question…what the heck is he doing? According to an article posted just yesterday by Jim Forsyth, Huckabee is shooting for a brokered convention. In other words, he’s hoping that John McCain doesn’t get the required number of delegates needed by September, leading to a debate and vote at the convention as to who wins the nomination. This same interesting scenario is also playing out among the Democrats between Hillary and Obama.

Others have speculated that Huckabee is shooting for a Vice Presidential spot, but it appears that won’t happen since he’s attempting to spoil McCain’s nomination process. But what definitely appears obvious is that Huckabee is building himself up for a run at the presidency in 2012. By hanging around and garnering more support now while he can, perhaps people will remember him in 4 years when either Hillary or Obama occupies the White House. But is his staying in the race now actually building up more support for him or is it just demonstrating the conservative distaste for John McCain? Huckabee is more of a social conservative than McCain, but it’s laughable when either claims to be carrying the banner of conservatism.

Huckabee’s mantra in this campaign of “I’m the candidate of miracles” is getting old. He has overstayed his welcome and has become annoyingly optimistic. Even though many conservatives don’t care for John McCain and probably never will, Huckabee drawing this out is just leaving everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. While his presence has contributed to an interesting and ultimately disappointing 2008 Republican nomination process, hopefully the Republicans can find a genuine conservative candidate in 2012.

Article: Is Huck Still Running for ’08 or ’12?

Shocker: Love affair between McCain and NYT is over!


Literally only weeks after the New York Times “endorses” John McCain for president on the Republican side (Hillary was the Times Democratic pick), they publish an article this morning that alleges ethical misconduct by McCain throughout his career. Along with inappropriate ties to lobbyists, the Times article leaves you with the distinct impression that McCain had a secret affair with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman who is 31 years his junior. The Times sources? They conveniently don’t have one. The parts of the story about Ms. Iseman are surprisingly devoid of substance other than a few McCain campaign workers apparently felt Ms. Iseman was hanging around too much back in 1999. All parties affiliated with this “alleged affair” deny that there was an affair. John McCain denies it, Ms. Iseman denies it, and all of McCain’s staff during the time period deny it. So, how does this story have any legs? Answer: It doesn’t other than for tabloid-quality amusement.



The most interesting thing about this story isn’t that McCain might have had an affair nine years ago, but it’s that the New York Times knew about this story when they endorsed McCain. This story was on the Drudge Report around three weeks ago and these rumors about McCain have been around since McCain last ran for president in 2000. Why would the Times endorse McCain as the Republican nominee? More than likely because they knew they could torpedo his campaign early. Or maybe because either way the election goes, they get a liberal in the White House. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had more in their bag of scandals saved for later. However, the real truth to this is that the New York Time’s threshold for breaking stories is closer to the National Enquirer than it is to a legitimate news source. Their front page exposé on McCain is largely an empty rumor.


Fabricating stories isn’t anything new for the Times. Remember Jayson Blair in 2003? In case you don’t, Jayson Blair was a national reporter for the Times that covered a number of stories, including the Iraq war, and ended up resigning after it was discovered that nearly half of what he was writing was either plagiarism or pure fabrication (36 of 73 articles to be exact).


There are plenty of other allegations of misreporting and wrong-doing by the Times. Chris Hedges, who is a reporter for the Times, gave a rambling commencement speech at Rockford College in Illinois that was profoundly anti-Bush and anti-war. Maureen Dowd was investigated for misrepresenting a George W. Bush quote in an article to suit her own political agenda. While there is no problem with people giving speeches and expressing their opinions about politics, they shouldn’t do it under the guise of “unbiased reporting”. People this partisan shouldn’t be allowed to report the news under the pretext of being non-partisan. The Times leans distinctly left and has been for years, yet somehow maintains the illusion of legitimacy. It should be no surprise that the Times threw McCain under the bus this early. Is anyone actually shocked by this? Come September, the Times will endorse the Democratic nominee whomever it is. When was the last time they endorsed a Republican over a Democrat for president? Not in my lifetime.


This should be a lesson to you Republicans who voted for McCain over Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson because of his electability. McCain has been cozy with the liberal media for years, but do you think for a second that they will cozy up to him when it’s real election time? If you really think so, you’re out of your mind. This should be the last time you let the media pick our candidate. McCain is likely to get beaten like a drum in November and primarily because he doesn’t represent the base of the Republican party. You don’t beat the Democrats by picking a candidate just like them. But that’s a topic for another day.

Exxon Mobil: Pays more tax than 50% of Americans combined

From many of the politicians in Washington, you hear over and over about how BIG OIL is the enemy. Barack Obama actually said several weeks ago that America needs to free itself from the “tyranny of oil”. Similar rhetoric is common throughout the left. Maybe someone on the democratic side of things should explain to us how oil companies are tyrannical. Oil companies provide a needed resource that every American regularly uses. Without oil, we’d be cold in the winter and we wouldn’t be able to drive our cars. And now as it turns out, if BIG OIL (particularly Exxon Mobil) weren’t around and profitable, the treasury would be about $27 billion dollars smaller every year. Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion in taxes annually over the last 3 years.

These are simply amazing statistics that were published at Seeking Alpha by Mark J. Perry, Ph.D. The most recent IRS data to compare the U.S. individual taxpayer’s tax burden to Exxon Mobil’s tax burden is from 2004.

  • Total number of tax returns: 130 million
  • Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million
  • Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion
  • Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

So, the bottom 50% of individual taxpayers (65 million total) in this country paid a total tax rate of 3% in 2004 ($27.4 billion/$922 billion). Compare that to Exxon Mobil in 2006, which posted taxable income of $67.4 billion and paid $27.9 billion in taxes for a total tax rate of 41%. Unbelievable.

The big spenders in Washington should be singing the praises of the big oil companies, since it seems that one company funds more of the federal budget than 65 million taxpayers. Maybe Exxon Mobil should receive a fat tax rebate check come May of this year. I’m not going to hold my breath on that one. After all, Exxon Mobil doesn’t have 65 million votes and the ability to sway an election.

Here’s the full article if you’re interested in reading more.