THE BULB BUBBLE SET TO BURST POCKETBOOKS

CALL IT GREENING RUN AMOK. Or, more likely, poor planning combined with petty penny pinching by a large corporation.

FirstEnergy, an Ohio utility, sent two $3.50 energy-saving compact florescent light-bulbs (CFLs) to customers, and then charged them $21 for the bulbs—whether they wanted them or not. According to news reports, the remaining $14 was to pay the utility back for the electricity customers would not be using because they had the new bulbs. But if customers don’t use the bulbs, or if they already have their own, they still have to pay the fee.

The scam program, which was set to begin October 12 but has been “postponed,” was FirstEnergy’s response to the state’s new energy law, which requires investor-owned electric utilities to reduce consumption by 22.2 percent by 2025. The bulb distribution was supposed to help FirstEnergy’s customers meet the new requirements.

FirstEnergy, which was a little startled by the outcry, pointed out that customers would save $60 over the life of the bulb. It was unclear if this figure was before or after the $21 fee. This isn’t the first such maneuver by a utility: about two years ago, Allegheny Power sent energy-efficient bulbs to its 220,000 Maryland customers without letting them know they would be footing the bill.

Bulb brohahas may become more frequent, as states require utilities to reduce consumption and/or use more renewable energy sources, which are typically more expensive. Critics have argued that such sweeping initiatives will raise costs and/or lower profits for utilities, who will then turn to their customers to make up the difference—some more gracefully than others. But if demand is reduced, should utilities really be repaid for the lost profits? Or should reduced consumption be seen as merely the cost of doing business in a more energy-conscious country? The issue is akin to Saudi Arabia’s demand that it be repaid for lost revenues, should oil consumption drop. In this country it’s called decoupling, and it’s a hotly debated topic. We at the TFQ call it madness, pure and simple.

FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, OH, is the nation’s fifth largest investor-owned electric system with 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If the company sounds familiar, it might be because FirstEnergy was fingered in a massive East coast blackout in 2003. Failure by the company to adequately maintain transmission lines led to a cascade of outages that left millions without power for days.

These hidden fees are taxes by theft, and amount to grand larcency, and should be stopped! This is not capitalism, OR American pride, This is madness, pur and simple.

DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ON THE WALL

LET US ENGAGE IN A SIMPLE thought experiment (an adaptation):

A young man erupts in rampage, shooting over 100 rounds into a crowded reception center on a military base, killing over a dozen and wounding many more. Afterwards, it is learned that the shooter was a soldier himself, a fairly high ranking officer in fact. It is also discovered that he has long held Nazi sympathies, and has posted on Neo-Nazi websites. Journalists uncover evidence that he had been distributing Nazi leaflets and copies of "Mein Kampf" on the morning of the attack. When the press finally gets around to interviewing survivors of the incident, they confrim that the shooter shouted "Heil Hitler" as he opened fire.

Given this forensic data would there be any question about whether or not the shooter's actions were ideologically driven?

Would the reportage weave a narrative of his supposed victimization, or would it raise alarms at the presence of avowed Neo-Nazis in our miltary ranks?

Would we be warned "not to jump to conclusions" by our political leaders, or would we be told to fear the threat of an oncoming wave of similar attackers spawned by right-wing radio?

Would his neighbors and superiors have been more likely to report his rantings to the authorities?

More than the attack of one lone jihadi, the answers to the above questions are the bullets that truly scare me...

Aside from the fact that when Muslims kill in the name of their religion and the first thing Muslims en masse (plus those useful idiots like Geraldo Rivera) then do is worry what sort of blowback will happen to them, while going "postal" to my knowledge has never been done in the name of Jesus, Yahweh, etc. These secular tragedies are not motivated by religious sentiments as are killings committed by Muslims the world over in the name of Islam. It's apples and oranges here.

As I've often opined, when the day comes again that Presbyterians, Lutherans, Buddhists, Jews or just about any group of believers but Muslims start committing heinous crimes in the name of their religion, I'll rethink matters on the ground. Until then, I observe only one religion out there that inspires people to kill in its name. You know which one. I know which one. Even many of the PC folks out there on the nip tuck know but won't even admit it to themselves. Stupid world.

NO TRANSPARENCY, NO SURRENDER

Remember when the Left howled to know name for name who was being snuck into the White House for discussions on energy policy? Remember the rolling outcry when the Bush administration refused to reveal its guest list, presumably comprised mostly of Big Dirty Badass Oil reps?

Now, try to recall "Gentleman Jim" candidate Barack Obama's lofty but obviously bogus declaration of new White House transparency if he came to live there. Finally, let's return to Groundhog Day Reality in this Washington Times report...

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS TOLD Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress—a decision senators said goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the administration's actions.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress.

Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama.

"I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, Carol Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the negotiations she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars.

The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to have advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to fear being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be able to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the president advice.

At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created since he took office. Of those, she says 10—the White House says eight—are in the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests or requests for testimony.

Read it all.

Washington continues to beg a single question.

After candidate George W. Bush's promise never to commit American fighting forces to foreign nation building tasks back during the 2000 campaign run against sitting Vice-President Al Gore, coupled with his adminsistration's own penchant for high secrecy even when hosting important but non-life-threatening strategy sessions such as the notorious energy policy sessions. The question:

Will Americans ever again elect an honest administration to help turn this great nation back from the brink once we have truly articulated an intelligent posture on what kind of nation we seek to be?

That's considerably too much to ask of a nation in constant change, I realize. The two myths of America are greater than the sums of its parts, but the reality of both is unfortunately far less than all that, quoth the raven.

First of all, we might consider ourselves fortunate in getting a good start and setting a good example by simply electing leadership that practices what it preaches. That sounds promising and of good faith, but don't we hear this same "I'm more honest than my opponent" speech in every jurisdictional race around the country from dogcatcher to POTUS every two to four years?

Are American voters as foolish as they seem, or does the system itself, the system as we know it, the sprawling scrawling now choking system made complex beyond a single candidate's or voter's comprehension some 230 years after its founding, encourage, and in fact DEMAND, the Big Lie?

That's a scary thought, but it seems to be increasingly true. Most other more colorful, more tainted types of candidates for high office are marginalized as fringe or unelectable, even though they may very well carry within them the attributes of a capable and even admirable leader. But we reject them as less than perfect, less than diligent, less than honorable. Is this because we imagine that our leaders must meet a higher standard than that to which we hold ourselves?

However, if we are to be diligently honest with ourselves as plain citizens and immaculate voters beckoned to the audacious booth from innumerable pathways to the present case, we might begin to realize that there might possibly be many more candidates who should meet our criteria to help dilute our own hypocrisies about our own elected bodies. Because is it not true that we voters, in unbelievable proportions, would only make fringe and unelectable candidates ourselves, the great unwashed tainted beyond all doubt with our own peculiar sins and pursuits and responsibilities ?

That's why we hide in the shadows of the voting booth. Or flounder in civil apathy, tending to avoid most of the issues facing us as a people, as a good neighbor, as an American patriot, only picking one or two hot button issues in our community lives to inform ourselves enough to stake a claim in its resolution. And it is at this point we voice our opinions. It is at this point we feel our opinion trumps those of those with whom we disagree, for whom we may have cast a vote. Suddenly we become the candidate of honesty, of truth, of passion, of resolve, of leadership. No matter that we beat the dog. No matter that we cheat on our taxes, or overcharge for our services. No matter that we had a adulterous love affair last year. Our hypocrisy, just like the hypocrisy that sits in an elected office, knows no bounds. Suddenly we are charmed enough by what we deem as critical circumstances to feel our vote and our voice count for something. After all, we pay their salaries, dammit. Hell, we pay for everything that's ever been done, and we want our money's worth...

But of course, it has long been detected that the backroom behavior of these dutifully elected officials is not much better, and often much worse than the moral turpitude we exercise in our own lives. Values? In flux, dear, always in flux. But that's okay we say as we admonish ourselves once the initial firestorm has passed, and wasn't enough to drive them from office already. We forgive them after a good public spanking since they are so learned, handsome maybe, most assuredly rich. It is for these reasons they deserve our support, not because they are any better at doing there jobs as we are at our own, or as we could be in doing theirs.

So while we feel obliged to judge others who actually may or may not meet our moral standards to any greater degree than we might meet or fail them ourselves, we are in effect judging those seasoned politicians who obviously have more information at their disposal than we part-time patriots do. Isn't that their job? We always want it both ways.

But if they can't explain their job to us without lying, why are they in that position in the first place?

How stupid and irrational is this behavior? But the pattern never changes. We continue to vote the same earmarked scoundrels back into office, even after their lofty lies, outright hoaxes, and squandered opportunities have been revealed. We continue to decide elections often based on frivolous distinctions of honor and honesty, only to have those distinctions smeared into oblivion within a few tracks of the first term. We like to pride ourselves on thinking outside the box in our many endeavors, yet we continue to refuse relative newcomers who wander onto the political scene from any other mold than the ones we have been trained to respect.

I think something needs to change in this country, and it has nothing to do with a candidate's penchant for stretching the truth into an outright lie. My patriotism is not silly putty.

Oh yes, the two myths of America I mentioned above.

That's the Good America of Christopher Columbus, George Washington, The Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, The Greatest Generation, MLK, and Barack Hussein Obama, and then there's the Bad America of pretty much the same elements, just flipped in their moral perspective. It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, I have always and will continue to subscribe to the Good America meme.

Apparently, that puts me on the fringe. Don't worry, fellow Americans, I'll learn to live with it.

THE THIN VENEER

In his article—Confessions of a Cultural Drop-out—published by Pajamas Media, Victor Davis Hanson slays the huffing and puffing dragon of popular culture. His last few paragraphs begin with eerily the same language I just this past weekend used to describe my own general malaise which can also be summarily dismissed as simple aging by those who, in Kierkegaard's terms, simply refuse to make distinctions , so I start here...

A FINAL, ODD OBSERVATION. As I have dropped out of contemporary American culture and retreated inside some sort of 1950s time-warp, in a strange fashion of compensation for non-participation, I have tried to remain more engaged than ever in the country’s political and military crises, which are acute and growing. One’s distancing from the popular culture of movies, TV, newspapers, and establishment culture makes one perhaps wish to overcompensate in other directions, from the trivial to the important.

Lately more than ever I try to obey the speed limit, overpay my taxes, pay more estimates and withholding than I need, pay all the property taxes at once, pick up trash I see on the sidewalk, try to be overly polite to strangers in line, always stop on the freeway when I see an elderly person or single woman with a flat, leave 20% tips, let cars cut me off in the parking lot (not in my youth, not for a second), and patronize as many of Selma’s small businesses as I can (from the hardware store to insurance to cars). I don’t necessarily do that out of any sense of personal ethics, but rather because in these increasingly crass and lawless times, we all have to try something, even symbolically, to restore some common thread to the frayed veneer of American civilization, to balance the rips from a Letterman attack on Palin’s 14-year-old daughter or a Serena Williams’ threat to a line judge, or the President’s communication director’s praise of Mao, civilization’s most lethal mass murderer, or all of what I described above.

I don’t fathom the attraction of a Kanye West (I know that name after his outburst), a David Letterman, Van Jones, Michael Moore (all parasitic on the very culture they mock), or the New York Review of Books or People Magazine (they seem about the same in their world view). So goodbye to all that.

Horace called this reactionary nostalgia the delusion of a laudator temporis acti, the grouchy praiser of times past for the sake of being past. Perhaps. But I see the trend of many ignoring the old touchstones of popular entertainment and life as a rejection of establishment culture—a disbelief in, or utter unconcern with, what elites now offer as valuable on criteria that have nothing to do with merit or value. I was supposed to listen to Dan Rather because Murrow once worked for CBS? I am to go to the Cinema 16 because Hollywood once made Gone With the Wind or On the Waterfront?

I don’t particularly like the idea that I want little to do with contemporary culture. But I feel it nonetheless—and sense many of you do as well.

But don't neglect reading it all..

RETURN OF THE BIRTHERS

AFTER FIRST OBSERVING the notorious "birther" movement back in July, 2008, long before many in the nation had tuned into the election, even before the financial crisis finally broke, which I anticipated atop the formidable shoulders of others here and here and here, there is finally a break in the courts for the "eligibilty to serve" suit to get heard.

In what could prove to be a turning point in the legal challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a federal judge in California, also a former US Marine, has scheduled a hearing on the merits of a federal court case raising those questions.

While there have been dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen,” many of have summarily dismissed while others still languish in the lower courts.

The US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is candidate and President Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to several millions to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

It has been concluded that the “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in ANY way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate—which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician—is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” although, defying both official protocol and common logic, no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.

The birthers are considered fringe folks, crazed radicals, racists, and inconsequential, but here's a look at the latest fring controverst, this time on the left. First, let's go to Big Hollywood.

And now, let's take a peek at the firestorm created by a White House spokesman who said the "Internet Left fringe needs to grow up, and take off their pajamas so that this administration can get on with more important issues" here's that link. Or something like that. Here's another take.

SUNSTEIN SAYS AMERICANS TOO RACIST

BUT HEY WAIT, there's more, this Sunstein fellow says that Americans are too racist FOR SOCIALISM. And he defends communism and the welfare state but says that this nation's 'white majority' opposes programs aiding blacks and Hispanics. What about all those obese out of work white folks still clinging to guns and religion? Guess they don't even figure into the race-baiters wealth redistribution strategies.

Methinks, of course, we need a new deck. That race card is so frayed, we can see it coming, and it's ALWAYS coming, from the bottom of the deck, from the top of the deck, from somebody's cuff-linked sleeve, yes, it's always coming from somewhere, no matter how skewered the results...

Socialism? This despite the fact that nearly every former socialist nation, including those in western Europe, are warning the US that socialism isn't all it's cracked up to be, as even they are moving away from the organizing system that suffers from too much rampant idealism and not enough bootstrap periphery.

In "The Second Bill of Rights," WND reported, the self-professed communist Obama aide Cass Sunstein proposed a new "bill of rights" in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. Among his mandates:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

The Obama czar's controversial comments were made in his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," which was obtained and reviewed by WND. On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments." WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

That's rich. Notice how Sunstein in his first amendment says that everyone should have the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation. He didn't mention that everyone has the "right" to a publishing contract, or a paying gig in the arts, a cush talking head job, or a gravy train in politics.

Rather, he intends his own brand of segregation touting a system that demands that everyone participate in this new slavery, the new feudalism, enunciated and controlled by the prestigious oligarchy of beautiful and bright, hand-picked elites who know to toe the party line, and are amply rewarded with entry into the gated communities of government from on high.

Notice also, the usage of the word "decent" when describing certain guarantees this new world order claims to represent. Who gets to decide what is decent or just shy of Shantyville? Who tells me that what I choose to attain or acquire or inherit is too extravagant, and what in all this decision-making is based on criteria other than the equalitarian limits of the open marketplace? We've all seen this movie before. From the September 29 issue of New York Times, itself a bastion of liberal pretentions:

"Even in the midst of one of the greatest challenges to capitalism in 75 years, involving a breakdown of the financial system due to “irrational exuberance,” greed and the weakness of regulatory systems, European Socialist parties and their left-wing cousins have not found a compelling response, let alone taken advantage of the right’s failures.

German voters clobbered the Social Democratic Party on Sunday, giving it only 23 percent of the vote, its worst performance since World War II. Voters also punished left-leaning candidates in the summer’s European Parliament elections and trounced French Socialists in 2007. Where the left holds power, as in Spain and Britain, it is under attack. Where it is out, as in France, Italy and now Germany, it is divided and listless."

No matter what methodologies these aggressive statists intend to use in cutting the materialistic pie, we are told that we will be guaranteed decent jobs, decent health care, decent wages, decent lives. Meanwhile why are these cut-throat millionaires doing all the talking, doing the deciding for us? As constitutional Americans we are already guaranteed an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, within the realms of moral responsibility. We are not guaranteed a bowl of soup, a box of rocks, a diamond ring, or a job, but we are at liberty to pursue any and all of these things.

But a totalitarian statism is like a skin disease which encompasses all and threatens to spread to every organ in the body, and I respond with a deliberately loud and progressive—NO THANK YOU!

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
—Norman Thomas, Socialist

As for me, I would rather fail completely while chasing a dream, embrace my aching inner hobo, and take my God-given liberty to my grave than to play with the scorching fires of committed communism. The founding fathers knew what they were talking about as they studied man's history in dealing with other men. We were warned. And now, perhaps, the greatest threat to America as a freedom-seeking nation since the Civil War is upon us.

That peculiar stealth threat is already upon our shores. While Mister Obama signs away our rights of freedom of speech to the OIC-dominated United Nations, we must ponder how quickly and where the enemy may pounce next.

CONSIDERING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

As breaking news that an illegal gun ring has been snared in a sting by the Feds hits the media wires as I write this with the knowledge that the Supreme Court will soon address the right to bear arms issue again in a case from Chicago, it is more important than ever to remember why the Second Amendment is important, even precious to Americans who understand the consequences of ignoring the much maligned US Constitution.

We who appreciate the wisdom of our learned and conceptual founders have no choice but to oppose those in favor of touchy feely gun eradication laws, which leaves us helpless to defend ourselves and our families from intruders of every stripe, and worse, creating an environment where the rise of an oppressive fascist government intent on enslaving or abandoning its citizenry is inevitable.

Mari Thompson of Second Amendment Sisters offers a sterling remembrance.

A COMMON ERROR in Constitutional interpretation is the failure to examine the document in the context of its original meaning. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, suggesting to him that when examining and interpreting the Constitution, he should study the time in which the document was written, and “carry himself back to that time.”

This would seem to be good advice for today. The recent Heller vs. DC case might have gotten more votes in favor of Heller had the Supreme Court of today done just that.

We certainly know that during the time of the writing of the Constitution, every male citizen above the age of 16 was counted as a member of the militia. All males were assumed to own weapons (which most of them paid for), and be ready to muster when the call came. Of course, the first call for the militia was to fight the British in what has become known as the American Revolution.

Today, as during the early days of this country, the people are still the militia, in the usage of the word at the time of our founding. The actual purpose of having armed citizens was to guard against an overbearing government. In the inimitable words of our National Spokesperson, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, when speaking to Senator Chuck Schumer and other members of a Senate committee: “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect all of us (the people) from all of you (the politicians).”

We now live in a country that has been promised “Hope and Change” by our new president. Since we have no details of what “hope” and what “change” he was speaking about during the election, the Second Amendment is more important than ever. We must be ever more alert to signs of any government entity trying to erode the God-given and constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms and all other constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Mari Thompson is President of SAS, and is also one of its founding members.