The Light Bulb.......

What is the world coming to?

It seems it is perfectly legal to kill unborn babies for any reason or no reason at all. But soon it will be strictly against federal law to buy, sell or traffic in incandescent light bulbs.

This is a problem.

Tens of millions of American children have been murdered since 1973 have been justified on the basis of choice. Activists for abortion say they don't really justify the moral decision to kill unwanted, unborn children, but they believe every mother has a right to make that choice. They say they are not for abortion, they say. They are for choice. Well then I should have the choice of shooting someone without going to jail because it was my choice. Women who don't want children should do everything in their power to avoid pregnancy including becoming abstinent.

In addition to raising auto fuel efficiency standards 40 percent, an energy bill passed by Congress in December that bans the incandescent light bulb by 2014.

President Bush signed the 822-page measure into law after it was sent up Pennsylvania Avenue in a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. The House passed the bill by a 314-100 vote after approval by the Senate.

The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt. All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today. Australia was the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010. critics of Thomas Edison's invention argue it uses more energy to produce light than the compact fluorescent, or CFL, bulb. While standard light bulbs cost about 50 cents, the spiral CFL sells for about $3. Advocates argue, however, the CFL lasts five years longer and uses about 75 percent less energy.

But the presence of small amounts of highly toxic mercury in CFLs poses problems for consumers when breakage occurs and for disposal when bulbs eventually burn out. The potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great and recycling experts say the solutions are at least five years away.

The Department of Energy, nevertheless, is encouraging citizens to pledge to replace at least one incandescent bulb with a CFL.

This issue is bigger than light bulbs. It's about freedom, It's about choice. It's about the Constitution. It's about America and everything that makes this country unique and special in the world.

I hope you see why this issue is important of this issue. If the federal government can take away your incandescent light bulbs, what else can the federal government take away from us?

Clinton, Obama clash over NAFTA, Iraq

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama clashed over trade, health care and the war in Iraq Tuesday night in a crackling debate at close quarters one week before a pivotal group of primaries.

Charges of negative campaign tactics were high on the program, too.

Clinton said Obama's campaign had recently sent out mass mailings with false information about her health care proposal, adding, "it is almost as though the health insurance companies and the Republicans wrote it."

When it was his turn to speak, Obama said Clinton's campaign has "constantly sent out negative attacks on us ... We haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns."

The tone was polite yet pointed, increasingly so as the 90-minute session wore on, a reflection of the stakes in a race in which Obama has won 11 straight primaries and caucuses and Clinton is in desperate need of a comeback.

Clinton also said as far as she knew her campaign had nothing to do with circulating a photograph of Obama wearing a white turban and a wraparound white robe presented to him by elders in Wajir, in northeastern Kenya.

"I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo," Obama said.

In one curious moment, Clinton said, "In the last several debates I seem to get the first question all the time. I don't mind. I'll be happy to field it. I just find it curious if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."

In its episode last Saturday, the comedy show ran a feature portraying the news media as going easy on Obama, and a questioner asking at one point if he was comfortable and needed another pillow.

The two rivals, the only survivors of a grueling primary season, sat about a foot apart at a table on stage at Cleveland State University. It was the 20th debate of the campaign, 10 months to the day after the first.

The race was far different in April 2007, Clinton the front-runner by far. Now Obama holds that place, both in terms of contests and delegates won. The two square off next Tuesday in primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, with 370 delegates at stake.

Both Obama and Clinton were on the receiving end of pointed questions from Tim Russert of NBC News, one of two moderators for the event.

Asked whether he was waffling on his pledge of agreeing to take federal funds for the fall campaign, Obama said he was still contesting the primaries.

"If I am the nominee I will sit down with John McCain and make sure we come up with a system that is fair to both sides," he said. Obama could presumably raise far more money than the federal system provides, but accepting government money precludes that.

The equivalent question to Clinton concerned the income tax returns that she and her husband, former President Clinton, file jointly.

"I will release my tax returns," Clinton said, if she becomes the Democratic nominee. She then added she might do so "even earlier," but not before Tuesday's primary.

The two rivals also debated NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that is wildly unpopular with blue-collar workers whose votes are critical in any Democratic primary in Ohio.

Neither one said they were ready to withdraw from the agreement, although both said they would use the threat of withdrawal to pressure Mexico to make changes.

"I have said I would renegotiate NAFTA," said Clinton. "I will say to Mexico that we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it."

Obama said Clinton has tried to have it both ways, touting the trade deal in farm states where it's popular while finding fault with it in places like Ohio.

"This is something I have been consistent about," said Obama, who said he went to the American Farm Bureau Federation to tout his opposition and used it as an issue in his 2004 Senate campaign.

"That conversation I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all," said Obama.

On the war, both candidates denounced President Bush's record on Iraq, then restated long-held disagreements over which of them was more opposed.

Clinton said she and Obama had virtually identical voting records on the war since he came to the Senate in 2005.

The former first lady voted in 2002 to authorize the war, at a time when Obama was not yet in Congress. Asked whether she'd like to have the vote back, she said, "Absolutely. I've said that many times."

Obama tried to use the issue to rebut charges that he is ill-prepared to become commander in chief.

"The fact is that Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but, in fact, she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue," Obama said.

Clinton also stumbled at one point as she tried to pronounce the name of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's first deputy prime minister, who is expected to win an election to succeed President Vladimir Putin on Sunday. "Whatever," she said after several attempts to demonstrate she knew his name.

Obama also sought to distance himself from an endorsement from Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan, the controversial Chicago-based minister who has made numerous anti-Semitic comments in the past.

Obama said he hadn't sought the endorsement, and that he had denounced the remarks.

Clinton interjected at one point, saying that in her initial Senate campaign in New York in 2000, she was supported by a group with virulent anti-Semitic views.

"I rejected it, and said it would not be anything I would be comfortable with," she said. Clinton said rejecting support was different from denouncing it, an obvious jab at Obama.

He responded by saying he didn't see the difference, since Farrakhan hadn't done anything except declare his support. But given Clinton's comments, he said, "I happily concede the point and I would reject and denounce."

The audience applauded at that. - The Conservative Voice

I tuned into the this debate last night and I loved it! It is great to finally see the demise of Hillary Clinton who will do anything to get into the white house. I think she is in shock and dumb founded that a young, well spoken, nice black man is beating her to the pulp and wiping her with the floor in the primary's. Yes you may ask why are you wanting Obama to beat her when you have been slamming Obama in past posts? Its simple. I rather have a conservative in the white house but If a Dem. is going to win the white house I rather it be Obama over Clinton any day. Most liberals seem on the attack mode but Obama isn't. He is calm and nice in the debates and over all I think he has better plans for the country than she does. If The Conservatives lose the election I will be upset but I will get over it. I will just have more to talk about on this blog lol! But If I were to chose a liberal president, I mean IF! I was going to choose one! Remember if! It would be Obama. As Rush Limbaugh says, "Vote her out! End all doubt!" It would be a nightmare getting up every morning knowing that another Clinton is the president of a free world.

Well I cant wait till the Ohio Primary's! I get to vote for the first time in a primary! And I will be voting for Huckabee. Yes I know he has a slim chance or none of winning. But what if! What if! He wins Ohio and Texas then you have a broken convention then its anyones game. If any of you live in Texas or Ohio and you like Huckabee but are thinking about voting for McCain because you think its over and that he has already won! Then I would say to you Vote for Huckabee. Lets show the drive by media and the country that Huckabee is not dead and that we want him for president not McCain. Don't get me wrong if McCain wins the nomination I will vote for him due to the fact that I stand behind most of his beliefs on the way this country should go, it's just I prefer Huckabee. We can at least send a message if Huckabee doesn't get the nomination a message that McCain should pick Huckabee to be VP!

I found this picture below on Rush Limbaugh's website

The Office

Spring Training Part: 2

This is what my brother has to say about Baseball.

Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-Gun Stance

As she clawed for survival against Barack Obama in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary this past weekend, Hillary Clinton lamely asserted her Second Amendment bona fides over that of her rival by claiming that she once shot a duck in Arkansas.

As pathetic a pander as that tale was, it did serve to point out one gaping weakness in the armor of the Illinois senator, a man who must rely on blue-collar white voters if he hopes to prevail first in the Democratic primaries, and later in the general election.

The weakness? Barack Obama’s utter disdain of firearms (especially handguns) and a refusal to recognize the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the most common and relied-upon types of firearms.

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.

That same year, Obama bravely voted “present” on a law that would require teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. Obama also proposed the idea of banning businesses that sell firearms from operating within five miles of a park or school — restrictions that would treat gun shops worse than “adult” businesses trafficking in pornography.

From 1998-2001, Obama sat on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, a left-wing group which today funds grants to anti-gun organizations such as the Violence Policy Center (which advocates total handgun prohibition, reinstatement of the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban, and the ban of other firearms), the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (which favors the registration of all handguns, seeks to overturn Ohio’s “concealed carry” law, ban standard capacity magazines, and ban economical handguns along with many semi-automatic firearms based upon their appearance), and Handgun Free America (which advocates a complete ban on civilian handgun ownership).

All of these organizations seek to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is the idea of “change” that they share with Barack Obama.

On the federal stage, Obama’s brief U.S. Senate career has already seen him vote against a bill (S.397) to protect the firearms industry from those who seek to sue manufacturers, distributors, and importers for the criminal misuse of firearms by criminals, an idea akin to suing car manufacturers for damages caused by drunk drivers.

Tellingly, Obama’s presidential campaign has sought to hide his history of trying to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Buried deep in the “Issues” section of Obama’s web site under “Additional Issues” is a PDF document that can only be described as an attempt to talk around Obama’s real position on firearm ownership. In a section where the campaign claims to “respect” the Second Amendment, the document states:

Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target, and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.

Tellingly, Obama’s campaign only addresses the gun rights of hunters and specific shotgun-only shooting sports, and only then in vague terms.

At no point does Obama recognize an individual right to own handguns, or explicitly recognize a right for Americans to use a firearm to defend themselves or others. The site explicitly states that Barack Obama recognizes civilian gun ownership for two just purposes, “hunting and target shooting.”

Hillary Clinton, almost as liberal as Obama on the issue of gun control, could not take advantage of Obama’s radical, out-of-the-mainstream position on firearm ownership because she, too, holds many of the same liberal ideas.

As America moves toward the general election, however, John McCain will have no such problems in discussing Obama’s distrust of his fellow Americans on this issue.

McCain is hardly the poster boy for the National Rifle Association, but McCain claims to strongly support gun rights, stating, “Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal,” a position diametrically opposed to the record of Obama, who favors outright prohibition of many common civilian firearms.

In August 2007, writing at the liberal blog Daily Kos, “BlueDotRedField” shared his lament on Obama’s gun control history coming back to haunt him in the diary entry “Obama gunning to lose in 2008”:

The clear implication of this statement is that Obama believes that Chicago’s violent crimes are to be solved at a national level — since Chicago & IL already have VERY tough gun control laws that have not stopped their crime problems, and to be solved by gun control legislation specifically mentioning the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” and blaming Bush for that ban’s lack of renewal.

This statement is very important for those of us lifetime Democrats who not only are more libertarian leaning (especially after 8 years under the imperial presidency of George Bush), are more rural, and who own firearms or have family/friends who do. This statement is also the battle cry that figures on the right have been waiting for from Obama just in case he could actually beat out Hillary.

[…]

Common political wisdom has been that gun control legislation, and specifically the AWB, was [the] key handing the Congress to the right in 1994. Additionally, it played a strong part in the election and re-election of George Bush. Only recently, as we have run more centrist and rural understanding Democrats, were we able to retake Congress and have any chance at countering Bush & Co. in any way.

And we stand at a precipice where we can hand it all right back to them.

There seems little chance that Barack Obama can hide his real record and views of gun ownership from the American public though November’s presidential elections.

Once his prohibitive views of firearms ownership become known to America’s millions of gun owners, they may well decide that a gun-grabbing Barack Obama promises the kind of “change” that they can’t believe in. - pajamasmedia.com

The only thing I have to say about this is, what ever happened to the Second Amendment? Apparently to many liberals forgot to keep a copy of the Constitution with them........um wait hold on I found a copy right here on my desk, hmmm I should send a copy to Obama and have him fax it to some of his friends in Washington.

NY Times

More Perspectives.......