Executive Orders And The New American Sovyet

Dear Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell, et. al;

Our federal government is out of control.  It is not the role of the federal government to regulate the daily lives of the citizens.   It is not the role of the federal government to regulate domestic commerce.  It is not the role of the federal government to tell farmers what to grow, nor tell people what to eat.  It is not the role of the federal government to dictate the education of our children.  It is not the job of the federal government to trespass into state criminal investigations.

It is not the role of the federal government to control our rural or municipal affairs; yet, the President has now established federal councils for both rural affairs (Executive Order 13575—Establishment of the White House Rural Council June 9, 2011)and municipal affairs (Executive Order– Establishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities May 1, 2012).  Russia called these councils the “sovyet” and they are the final building blocks to communism.  It is not the role of the Federal government to be the people’s nanny.

It’s not the role of the Federal government to spend this nation into oblivion.  Pardon me if I do not get excited about your current budget debate.  That drama has outlived itself, and I say let the government shut down for a while; we might buy a few more days of life for our Constitution.   I am also not impressed by your resolution on foreign affairs, encouraging “democracies” in foreign nations, while our republic is being actively destroyed by its own government.

It is your role, Congress, to stop the Executive encroachment into the Legislature and it is your duty to stop the Federal encroachment upon individual Liberty.  Our founders took great care when creating a federal government that would be limited and always in submission to the states and the people.  WHEN is Congress going to take a real stand against the destruction of the rights and privileges of this people? Will you wait until it’s too late? Mere “outrage” doesn’t get the job done.  This Congress is pushing the nation to a point of turmoil it has not seen for 150 years.  And make no mistake; each and every one of you will be personally responsible for what will occur.  Are you prepared to live with that responsibility and those consequences?  It will not fall on the shoulders of the President alone and the blame game will not alleviate the suffering of our children when they are so grievously affected.  Yet, we can avoid repeating the mistakes of our history.  But we must act now. We must act decisively.  If not, we will regret our neglect.  We have the opportunity now, but have no guarantee it will be available much longer.

Does Congress truly understand WHY people fled communist nations to come to the greatest nation in the world?  Do you truly know the cost of such sacrifice and what you are supposed to be defending?  You are fooling yourselves if you think one more election is going to fix it.  You don’t have that kind of time.  The blocks are in place, and you have provided the mortar.  Take a stand now.  Not a political stand, but a stand that involves integrity, courage, and resolve.  No more petitions asking the president to stop stealing legislative power.  No more demands that Eric Holder resign.  YOU must do your job and YOU must defend this nation and it’s Constitution from these enemies, both foreign and domestic.   You must:

1. Put an end to the executive order madness.  Exercise your constitutionally given power, as provided through the checks and balances and separation of powers.  Show this nation that you understand that Legislative power is not to be shared and it is definitely NOT to be taken.
2. We are not subjects of the United Nations and never intend to be.  Get them out of our business.
3. If you are unwilling to impeach, defund any person appointed by the executive branch outside Congressional and Constitutional authority.  (i.e. all the Christmas appointments and Czars)
4. Pick up your Congressional oversight responsibility and shut down these executive regulatory agencies whose only purpose is to “harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
5. Get control of the immigration in this nation.  We don’t want to see GAO reports telling us that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department cannot agree on the degree of terrorist association a visa applicant must have to render the applicant ineligible.
6. It is time to indict Eric Holder for the criminal that he is. No more whining, no more demanding for resignations, INDICT him and then FIRE him.
7. Impeach Elena Kagan.  She is obviously incapable of using the appropriate professional ethic and judgment needed to be a Supreme Court Justice.  Learn from this mistake and actually involve yourselves in the confirmation process.  Your employers are sick to death of political games.
8. Repeal The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act.  Now. You are supposed to be protecting the rights of the people, not violating them.
9. End the 4^th amendment violations permitted in the Patriot Act.  Now.
10. Repeal sections 1021 & 1022 of NDAA 2012. It’s not only about habeas corpus, it’s about
    1.  unilateral power given to the president by congress to determine who is a terrorist and then detain them in secret with no probable cause;
    2. unilateral power given to the president by congress to invoke the laws of war during a “hostility”;
    3. unilateral power given to the president by congress to transfer the power under the laws of war to “domestic agencies fighting terrorists”
11. Get the IRS out of the passport business.
12. Don’t just read the Constitution, study it.  Not how you studied it in law school, that wasn’t the Constitution, that was Constitutional Law, there is a huge difference.  Those of you who went to Harvard, we understand if you don’t know what the Constitution is, it hasn’t been studied there in years.  May I suggest a course that I know will teach you the truth and is so simple a Congressman can understand it.  I happen to know the teacher personally and I am sure that she would come teach it at her own expense and sacrifice.  Interested? Click Here.

These are some of the demands of your employers; we demand you do your job.  These are the requirements of our founders; they have entrusted us with the Liberty purchased with their lives.  These are the duties imposed upon you by the Constitution of the United States, and your obligations consistent with the oaths you took.  And, these are the times that try men’s souls. How will history remember us? The generation that participated in death of Liberty or the generation that gave our last breath to prosper it? I have made my choice. How will you choose?

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

 

No Merry Christmas Allowed in Congress

Well, here it is, your congress has been infected by the PC police:

Congressmen can’t say ‘Merry Christmas’ in mail | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/congressmen-cant-say-merry-christmas-mail/261466/blockquote>

Hopefully Not Coming Soon: Internet “Off” Switch…

Caught this in the Washington Post. Please write your senator or congressman and tell them to worry about the economy and quit infringing on the last bastion of free speech…or we won’t even be able to bring you these stories:

 

Overkill on Internet piracy

By Jennifer Rubin

Over the weekend, First Amendment impresario Floyd Abrams addressed two controversial Internet piracy bills, the Senate’s Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the House version, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). He argued that the bill, designed to stop Internet theft of intellectual property, has been denounced by critics for setting up “ ‘walled gardens patrolled by government censors.’ Or derided as imparting ‘major features’ of ‘China’s Great Firewall’ to America. And accused of being ‘potentially politically repressive.’ ” He contends, “This is not serious criticism. The proposition that efforts to enforce the Copyright Act on the Internet amount to some sort of censorship, let alone Chinese-level censorship, is not merely fanciful. It trivializes the pain inflicted by actual censorship that occurs in repressive states throughout the world. Chinese dissidents do not yearn for freedom in order to download pirated movies.”

I don’t quarrel with his assertion that it is hysterical to regard enforcement of libel and copyright infringement on the Internet as the beginning of a totalitarian state. But he misses the real point of sober-minded critics: The bill is unnecessarily overbroad and a formula for a host of undesirable and unintended consequences.

ABC News reported last month on the over broad nature of the remedies that would be available:

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, said the bills would overdo it — giving copyright holders and government the power to cut off Web sites unreasonably. They could be shut down, and search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo could be stopped from linking to them.

“The solutions are draconian,” Schmidt said Tuesday at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “There’s a bill that would require ISPs [Internet service providers] to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked.”

Harvard law professor and Supreme Court advocate Laurence Tribe (whom I don’t always agree with but who takes the Bill of Rights quite seriously and was instrumental in developing the jurisprudence that confirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right) has submitted a memo detailing the multiple ways in which SOPA runs afoul of the First Amendment. For example, “SOPA provides that a complaining party can file a notice alleging that it is harmed by the activities occurring on the site ‘or portion thereof .’ Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement. Such an approach would create severe practical problems for sites with substantial user-generated content, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and for blogs that allow users to post videos, photos, and other materials.”And likewise: “The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the ‘prior restraint’ doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website,merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being ‘dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ — even if no court has actually found any infringement. The immunity provisions in the bill create an overwhelming incentive for advertisers and payment processors to comply with such a request immediately upon receipt.”

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have introduced a competing bill, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (the “Open Act”), which seeks to address legitimate concerns about SOPA/PIPA and focus more specifically on the real problem without knocking down robust, protected speech in an indiscriminate fashion. Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Mozilla, Yahoo!, and Zynga have signed on to support this alternative to SOPA/PIPA.

The Hill recently reported on OPEN: “The draft proposal would instead authorize the International Trade Commission to investigate and issue cease-and-desist orders against foreign websites that provide pirated content or sell counterfeit goods. The ITC would have to find that the site is ‘primarily’ and ‘willfully’ engaged in copyright infringement to issue the order.” Rather than take down entire websites and potentially interfere with perfectly legitimate and protected speech OPEN, would, after a court order, “compel payment providers and online advertising services to cease providing services to the offending website. The approach comports with current copyright law and hews to the ‘follow the money’ approach favored by Google and other tech companies.”

In short, this is not a fight between protectors of copyrights and Internet anarchists. Rather, there is a legitimate policy dispute about how broad and how disruptive government enforcement powers should be when core First Amendment rights are at issue. No doubt the Motion Picture Association of America, headed by disgraced former Connecticut senator Chris Dodd, has spread plenty of money around Congress to try to give the government the bluntest, heaviest weapon to fight piracy. But that doesn’t make it good policy. And it sure doesn’t make for constitutional legislation.

Why People Don’t Trust Government

What’s in a poll? When the pollsters say that folks like/don’t like the President, Congress, candidates…you tend to look at where the poll comes from, the sample, the poller, etc. What I like to see is when the story makes it to the press on corruption. We see so much opinion, and most of the time it’s wrong…left or right. However, when true journalism hits, it’s hard to argue the point. All of it could be cured with term limits. I admit, I even agree with Rick Perry’s proposal of a part time congress somewhat. This is a story from the Washington Post and it explains exactly why people don’t trust the government:

By Dana Milbank, in the Washington Post

Almost exactly a year ago, members of Congress voted overwhelmingly to censure their colleague Rep. Charlie Rangel for bringing dishonor on the House. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi summoned the New York Democrat to the well and chastised him for his 11 ethics violations, which included improper fundraising.

This week, Rangel again brought the House into disrepute – but this time he had the full support of his colleagues.
“Last night marked a momentous evening in my campaign for re-election,” Rangel wrote in a letter to supporters on Thursday. “At a special event in Washington, Democratic leaders including Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, James Clyburn, Sandy Levin, John Conyers, Emmanuel Cleaver, and Steve Israel stood by my side and pledged their unwavering support on my behalf. I am so humbled and grateful for their involvement.”

As further evidence of how he had gone from opprobrium to affirmation, Rangel attached an article from Politico headlined “What Censure? Rangel’s Back.” The article included quotes from Rangel taunting the House ethics committee members and saying his censure was all for show.

It’s hard to quarrel with Rangel’s reasoning. The fete Wednesday night at the upscale Bistro Bis, near Union Station, was a way for House Democrats to demonstrate that their punishment of the defrocked Ways and Means committee chairman was insincere. By attending the up-to-$5,000-per-ticket soiree, they were proclaiming that all was forgiven.

The public is not nearly so forgiving. The Rangel party — where lobbyists and other influence seekers paid to gain access to, and favor among, party leaders — goes a long way toward explaining why Americans’ approval of Congress has dropped to 9 percent.

The speedy rehabilitation of the first member of the House to be censured in nearly three decades is a symptom of what has destroyed trust in government and the ability of that government to function. As Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, an ethics specialist, put it to me this week: “Who would ever trust such a system?” And “how can this government continue to behave like this?”

Lessig, who began his career as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but who now describes himself as a liberal, wrote the just-released book “Republic, Lost,” about how both parties in Washington engage in “a corruption practiced by decent people” that has discredited government.

“The great threat to our republic today comes not from the hidden bribery of the Gilded Age,” he writes, but from “the economy of influence now transparent to all, which has normalized a process that draws our democracy away from the will of the people. . . . We have created instead an engine of influence that seeks simply to make those most connected rich.”

There’s hardly the need for more evidence to support such an obvious thesis, but more presents itself each day. On Thursday, the day after Rangel’s romp at Bistro Bis, lawmakers spent the day grilling Energy Secretary Steven Chu on how the Obama administration allowed a politically well-connected company called Solyndra to squander half a billion of taxpayer dollars when the solar energy company went belly-up. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) quizzed Chu about George Kaiser, an Obama donor and an investor whose venture capital firm had a stake in Solyndra, who “was in and around the White House at least 16 times in the time period that the Solyndra loan program was being reviewed.”

Chu denied this had anything to do with the decision. Maybe so, but in this pay-to-play system, who’s going to believe it?

It’s not as if Republicans are in a solid position to challenge the Democrats’ influence peddling. The Solyndra hearing came just after reports emerged that Newt Gingrich, this week’s surprise front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, had received at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac. He took the money even as Republicans were trying to abolish the mortgage giant and even though he criticized President Obama for accepting campaign contributions from its executives.

But when it comes to hypocrisy, you have to raise a glass to the Democratic leaders who went for cocktails with Rangel donors paying $500 for individual access and $5,000 to be Political Action Committee “chairs.” “No corporate checks, please,” one solicitation reminded, under Rangel’s name.

The early solicitations promised access to “special guests” such as Hoyer, before the “great news” came out that Pelosi would attend. For lobbyists too busy to join, the campaign “would be willing to set up your own event” with Rangel.

For a man who just 11 months ago was censured for ethics violations, it was particularly brazen. What’s truly scandalous is how routine it was.

The Video They Don’t Want You To See

This was posted on Drudge Today, at the top of the Left Side column…(Matt considered it THAT important…)

 

 

The United Nations: the new decider on US Wars

Remember when Bush said he was the “decider”? Well now it appears the UN is the ‘decider’.

Daily Caller:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same — giving the Bronx cheer to her former colleagues in the Senate, saying, “We think it’s important that the United Nations make this decision, not the United States.” Joint Chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen explained it this way: “We’re very focused on the limited objectives that the president has given us and actually the international coalition has given us.”

And what is it that we are fighting for in Libya? The president explained that without the U.S. military’s involvement, “the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.” Translation: we’re fighting for the credibility of the United Nations. Obama felt like going in to Libya and he cherry-picked his authority for doing so as the U.N.

If Congress allows Mr. Obama to bypass them on the most important decision facing a nation – going to war — then he will have no reason to stop unilaterally nationalizing industry, socializing medicine, racking up trillions of dollars in debt, and ignoring the will of the people.

Thomas P. Kilgannon is the President of Freedom Alliance and the author of Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair With the United Nations.

2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

Well here we have a 32 page explanation as to why Obama didn’t need Congressional authority to go to war, use kenetic action against Libya. Bologna, just talking out of both sides of his mouth, like a politician or ‘community organizer’ would do….because it’s plain as the nose on your face and the Constitution or War  Powers Act he DOES need Congressional authority whether he like it or not. Mr. Obama’s excuse was it was necessary for the U.S. and UN’s credibility….come on now is that excuse Constitutional?  Now we hear two of his Top lawyers disagreed with him and what did he do? Overrode them, which is very rare…..that’s because he’s trying to please the UN, not the United States citizens.

President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and theJustice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

Entire article at New York Times

OBAMA TO BYPASS CONGRESS TO SIGN DISCLOSE ACT INTO LAW

Here are the executive branch’s powers as defined in the Constitution:(1) execute the [constitutional] laws which Congress makes, (2) negotiate treaties on those FEW objects authorized by the Constitution, and (3) act as commander in chief… AFTER Congress has declared war. Each of the 3 branches has its narrowly defined part to play. What’s happening now is that obama is usurping powers of Congress and of the federal courts. Obama recently did the same thing with Cap & Trade he couldn’t get passed thru Congress, so he’s letting the EPA enforce it anyway, even tho he’s been told that’s not legal either….This is what a dictator does as well…..

Last month, the DISCLOSE Act failed to pass in the Congress. Today, the Washington Examiner learned that the President plans to circumvent the legislative branch and to pass the DISCLOSE Act by fiat with the signing of an executive order.(Which I might add, the Constitution doesn’t give him the authority to do so)

[T]he order would require all companies that sign contracts with the federal government to report on the personal political activities of their officers and directors.

The White House claims the EO would make the federal government more transparent. But a quick look at who Obama chose to exempt from the EO shows this is false: unions that sign collective bargaining contracts with the federal government would be exempt from the “disclosure” requirements. The clear intent of this bill is to suppress speech and punish Obama’s enemies.

According to a Congressional Research Service review of Executive Orders over the last 40 years, no White House has ever issued an EO dealing with campaign finance. Signing the DISCLOSE Act EO would be an unprecedented power grab by Obama. Quote Via: The Washington Examiner.

This effectively means that if your company, that has gov’t contracts and gives money to the opposing party, could have their gov’t contracts pulled for not donating to the party in power. This executive order is no way to enact “change” by the stroke of a pen with NO legislative representation. This bill failed, so move onto deficit reform, creating jobs, and energy independence.

Gill Report

lawyer drafts Obama impeachment

This article from Politico says GOP lawyer, but later in the article admits he’s a Libertarian lawyer (and a good one according to Ron Paul) I might add. Of course this won’t go anywhere with a Democratic controlled Senate. This is a long article so I’m only going to post a portion of it with a link to read it all, there is a lot of good historical info in the lawsuit on the Politico website.

The law provides the president with the authority to use military force absent prior Congressional authorization only to repel sudden or imminent attack. There was no threat of sudden or imminent attack to the United States from Libya. President Obama himself recognized the constitutional limitations imposed on any U.S. president when, in an October 2008 interview, he stated that “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

In the sophistry of the Office of Legal Counsel’s memo, the Obama administration fails to justify what cannot be justified. While the president has argued that the credibility of the United Nations (U.N.) was at stake if members of the Security Council did not act, it is actually the credibility of his administration and of our own democracy that is at stake. Preserving the credibility of the U.N. has never been a reason to go to war. A plain reading of the U.S. Constitution explicitly places war powers in the hands of Congress.

Leaksource.wordpress.com

GOP lawyer drafts Obama impeachment

A prominent libertarian constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian has drafted an article of impeachment against President Obama over his attack on Libya, throwing down a legal gauntlet that could be picked up by some Congressional Republicans

Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama’s course that “Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

It comes as some Republicans on the Hill, led by Senator Rand Paul, object vociferously to Obama’s decision to strike targets in Libya without Congressional authorization.

“He’s been more bold than any other president,” said Fein, who said Obama has failed to secure congressional approval for his military action in a much more brazen way than previous administrations.

“If he can wipe out the war powers authorization, why can’t he wipe out Congress’s authority to spend?” asked Fein. ” If we’re going to be a government of laws, and not descend into empire, this is Caesar crossing the Rubicon.”

Fein said a number of Congressional offices have expressed interest in his proposal.

Fein’s articles of impeachment discuss the run-up to the Libya conflict and conclude, “In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

The article of impeachment and three subsections are at the link below:

Politico

Congress introduces bill to stop upcoming ban of incandescent light bulbs

I know Steve’ll just love this article. It’s on his favorite subject, the little curly Q light bulbs.

(NaturalNews) In 2007, the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act which contains a subsection that bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2012. But the new Congress recently unveiled the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, or H.R. 91, which would repeal this subsection and restore Americans’ freedom of choice to buy the light bulbs of their choice.

The idea to ban incandescent bulbs emerged from the false notion that compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) are better for the environment because they use less energy. But the truth of the matter is that CFLs are loaded with toxic mercury, which upon breakage or disposal pollutes the environment via seepage into groundwater, rivers and lakes, and threatens human health.

“CFLs are so toxic because of the mercury in the glass tubing that the cleanup procedure spelled out by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is downright scary,” wrote Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the Eagle Forum, in an editorial at WND. “The EPA warns that if we break a CFL, we must take the pieces to a recycling center and not launder ‘clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage’.”

Such a scenario hardly sounds “green”. And at the same time, incandescent bulbs contain no toxic chemicals at all. But none of this stopped the Bush Administration from signing the ban into effect that year.

“People don’t want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), one of the co-authors of the new bill. “Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable. Alternatives, including the most common replacement Compact Fluorescent Lights or CFLs, are more expensive and health hazards — so why force them on the American people?”

Natural News