It wasn’t a day-late April Fool's joke when we reported on April 2 that the long-dreaded, already-market-damaging “ban” on the sale of incandescent light bulbs was mere months away.
Perhaps because the idea of constitutionality has, for some time now, seemingly been banned in America, the incandescent “ban” takes effect on August 1, though Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm’s Cheshire Cat Grin will continue beaming even as the lights go out.
Writes Sara Higdon, for The Post Millennial:
“The Biden administration's ban on incandescent light bulbs goes into effect on Tuesday, forcing everyone to purchase more expensive, energy-efficient bulbs such as LED and fluorescent. Critics of the plan say that the light generated by the new bulbs is not as good as the incandescents, which are more akin to sunlight.”
Indeed. People suffering from autoimmune syndromes such as Lupus are keenly aware that doctors often recommend they stay away from fluorescent light sources because the interleukin-immuno chain reacts to it, making them more ill.
Related: Harris: Kids We Terrified Over Climate Change Now Have 'Climate Anxiety,' 'Doomsday Fear'
Of course, the political powers that control us and contort us in increasingly bizarre and increasingly obvious ways do not care about that. They ostensibly care about something they claim is a terrible danger, that being their fictive threat of so-called “anthropogenic climate change,” something which, as I have been able to explore, is NOT a threat and about which politically-connected forces repeatedly have been shown to have lied, manipulated data, and even manipulated the collection of data.
“According to Life Hacker, incandescent light bulbs cost between $2 and $3 while LEDs run $5 to $7, but notes that they are a better investment when energy savings over time are factored in.
They claim with widespread usage it could lead to an annual power savings of 569 TWh, which is more than 92 1,000 MW power plants' annual output. While 47 percent of Americans already predominantly use LED bulbs as their choice, critics of the ban say that Americans should still have a choice in what light bulbs they use.
According to News Nation Now, at a house subcommittee last week discussing the ban Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) said sarcastically, ‘I’m happy the Department of Energy is out here, making sure that we can all save money because we’re too dumb to figure out how to do it ourselves.’”
But the personal differences of opinion regarding preferences, and the question of whether LEDs use less or more electricity or are a better or worse buy, over the long run, are not the only matters here.
Nor is the core of the matter the evident and insulting hypocrisy of Jennifer Granholm, who not only wants to force us to “save electricity” by dictating what bulbs we can use, even as she pushes electric vehicles, she also appears to want us to forget that some of those EVS are made by a corporation she helped to receive fed subsidies when she was Governor of Michigan, and which later she joined as a member of the board and potential stock holder.
The core of this is not even the obvious lack of any constitutional power for these busybodies and federal thugs to threaten manufacturers, retailers, and buyers over what kind of danged LIGHTBULB they like.
It’s the moral principle of it all – or, to be precise, the breach of moral principle.
Imagine if, somehow, the feds like Granholm and her Department of Energy commandos were able to get enough politicians, and, later, enough state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment allowing them to ban bulbs, the way foolish people decades ago passed an amendment to federally ban the sale and possession of booze…
Would that be moral?
Of course not. It would no more comport with the Natural Law than the Tea Act of the Revolutionary Era, which mandated that colonials only could buy and ingest tea supplied by the British East India Corporation.
All of it falls into the category of what St. Thomas Acquinas described as “Lex Malla, Lex Nulla,” meaning, “bad law” – or statute that does not comport with Natural Law – is NOT law.
Thomas Jefferson and others stressed that it is our responsibility to rebel against that kind of usurpation and attack on our rights.
And if we don’t stand against an attack on something as fundamental as the sale or purchase of a LIGHTBULB, against what WILL we stand?
Perhaps, just perhaps, some personal nullification is in order…
Perhaps this is a time for a BLACK market, in order for us to have LIGHT.