Watchwoman on the Wall

Will new oil policy ease gas prices?

By Mark Trumbull

President Obama used his weekly address to announce steps designed to promote greater domestic oil production and reduce the burden of high gas prices on American consumers.

Continue Reading Click Here





Do you think Obama means it?

Is it just rhetoric without substance?

Why the change in Obama’s policy?

Is this the final sunset on green energy policies that brought the USA to it’s knees at the pump (praying for big buck$ just to fill up)?

What will his hard-core green constituency environmentalists think, say and do?

Will this help him get re-elected?

Or will Obama’s hard-core greenie supporters throw him to the sharks?

Who has the real power?  Obama or the greenie-wienies?  Who will come out the winner?

Last month Obama said he wouldn’t allow drilling?  Is he just a king of flip-floppers?

How many times can you flip before you flop?

Update: CLICK HERE – To see the proof I promised a comment I left at 9:46 PM 5/17/2011 (see below).


Click here too – You also might want to see how GE did not pay any income tax in 2010 on $14 billion in profits.


Excerpt from Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund:

Dear Friend of Free Enterprise:

I want it to be my choice, not forced on me by DC bureaucrats!

Four years ago—in 2007, the newly-installed Pelosi-Reid Democratic majority in Congress began implementing what is a global agenda to rid the world of the incandescent light. The 110th Congress’ environmental agenda began with one piece of legislation that suggested the world’s worst environmental polluter might have been a guy named Thomas Edison whose invention, the electric light–they claimed–causes global warming.

By outlawing incandescent lights in favor of compact fluorescent lighting, the environmentalists said the country would reduce energy consumption by $18 billion a year, or save consumers between $80 to $180 on their electric bills per year. The plus for the globalists? They said it would reduce global warming because one of the causes of global warming is…you guessed it…the old fashioned Tom Edison light bulb

Barack Obama wants to physically change the way you live—including the type of light bulbs that you use in your home. NEXT YEAR your light bulbs will be obsolete. You will be mandated by federal law to get rid of your existing light bulbs—all for the sake of the preventing, or minimizing global warming (even though scientists today are telling us we are entering into a solar cooling phase that will drop the average temperatures on Earth for the next 30 to 80 years).



The Capitol


I do not appreciate the over-zealous environmentalists who are trying to change the way I have lived successfully for many years. The 100W light bulbs in my living room don’t cause global warming.

The “sky-is-falling” federal bureaucracy does not have any business in dictating and demanding what light bulb I use in the privacy of my own home – particularly when the replacement to the incandescent light bulb has proven to be hazardous to the health of our families while the traditional incandescent light bulb has proven to be both safe and reliable for about 120 years.

I urge you — no, I actually insist – that you vote to REPEAL the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficient Act of 2007 as a bad law that borders on rank “sky-is-falling” stupidity.

Please support S.395 and H.R. 6411.

Help put an end to too much governmental interference in my life.

Thank you for your time and your vote.




Please contact your Member of our U.S. Congress in the U. S. House of Representatives to urge them to vote for the BULB Act and H.R. 6411, and U. S. Senators to support S.395 so our lives do not have to be run by federal bureaucrats or environmentalists in the privacy of our own homes. This is a fight that must be fought to save the free enterprise system from the “green energy” advocates who don’t care if “green energy” costs a lot more “green” than cost-efficient, and safe lighting.



Ron Arnold
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund


WATCHWOMAN HINTSHere’s three (3) things to help you take action.

  1. Find your U. S. House of Representative Member – Click Here!
  2. Click here to Find your two U. S.  Senators that Represent Your State in Washington, D.C.
  3. I found these 3 spots where we can Fax Free from our own computers. No LD charges either. Click or type into your browser – (or) (or)

▬ Donna Calvin

Excerpt From: WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – When Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claimed Social Security payments were threatened by a refusal by Congress to raise the debt limit, he was “flat-out lying,” says the organizer of a campaign to freeze the nation’s borrowing at $14.3 trillion.

In a letter to Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., disclosed over the weekend, Geithner claimed freezing the debt limit would result in less revenue for Social Security, according to the letter.

“If the United States were forced to stop, limit, or delay payment on obligations to which the nation has already committed – such as military salaries, Social Security andMedicare… there would be a massive and abrupt reduction in federal outlays and aggregate demand,” the letter said.

Joseph Farah, the force behind the“No More Red Ink” campaign,an online, grass-roots lobbying effort to persuadeHouseRepublicans to freeze the debt limit, says Geithner’s claim is “provably wrong” and suggests he should resign as treasury secretary if he doesn’t understand why.

“Whether you like Social Security or not, it’s an established fact that it does not operate on borrowedmoney, it does not contribute a dime to the deficit and the fund has a surplus,” said Farah. “This is sheer political mau-mauing by Geithner – the guy who had trouble filling out his own tax return.”

Read more:Geithner ‘flat out lying’ about debt-limit debate