The new spending bill passed by Congress has a provision to defund enforcement of the incandescent light bulb ban until October 1, 2012. This is being hailed as a victory for the Republican party. As usual, I have some questions concerning this “victory”.
- Since the incandescent light bulb is still illegal as of January 1, 2012, who is going to sell them?
- Will there be repercussions for vendors who did sell them once funding is put into place?
- Since George Bush signed this legislation into law, how is this now a Republican victory?
- If this country’s success and security is based on the rule of law, is this not a victory for anarchy.
- And why is the government is encouraging us to break the law?
This logic falls in line with the administration’s policy for immigration: if we don’t support or fund it, it is not illegal to be an illegal alien. Just ask Sheriff Joe Arpaio what happens when you enforce existing laws.
The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (once Obama signs it) may have another purpose than protecting America from terrorists. Is it possible that Congress is enacting legislation to protect themselves from patriotic Americans who will be fighting in the streets to restore the Constitution? This line of thought was percolating in my mind after watching the following video:
Now Ron Paul has a tendency to bring out lively discussions but there are two facts that cannot be disputed. First, he has a 100% rating by the John Birch Society for voting according to the Constitution. Quite impressive considering the length of time he has been in the House of Representatives. The second fact is that he is a sitting Congressman. So when he tells the American people (at 3:00 minutes into this video) that fighting in the street against the overwhelming power of the state is “not good”, I have to believe that Congress is talking about civil unrest in America.
In a series of debates on Socialism in 1914, John Basil Barnhill (not Thomas Jefferson) stated,
“Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”
The passage of the NDAA may be the consequence of the government realizing that the American people will not give up Liberty without a fight. Throwing us a bone (or a light bulb) will not stop our fight to retain our natural laws. Let us hope that the “inevitable” scenario outlined by Ron Paul does not materialize. I want to ask the American people this final question: if the government feared the people, do you think the NDAA would have been passed?
David DeGerolamo
If he was as concerned about the NDAA as he says he is, why wasn’t he there to cast a vote? oh, nevermind, he has a losing campaign to run. (BTW, Michele Bachmann didn’t bother to make the vote, either, although I haven’t seen her make a big issue of this)
Ron Paul has the right message on a lot of things, but not all. He has extremely poor leadership skills. All one needs to do is look at the history of the the legislation he has sponsored. Not being able to get others to sponsor of co-sponsor his bills has shown him to be an incredibly ineffective leader….hundreds and hundreds of bills he submitted that he could get NO ONE to co-sponsor, much less get them passed. His one claim to fame is “Audit the Fed”. His next claim to fame will be the 2nd term of Obama and our descent into serfdom, when he realizes he can’t win the GOP nomination, and decides to go 3rd party (or independent), since I believe Gary Johnson is going to run as the Libertarian candidate (which is how Ron Paul should be running, if he were honest)
I agree. The intent of the article is to focus on the NDAA and whether we have the rule of law in this country. Based on the actions of the DOJ, DHS, Congress and the president, I would say that the law is what our “leaders” want it to be.
When we count a short respite from purchasing fluorescent light bulbs as a victory for freedom, it is time to check our premises.
yep -- just another diversion