Biden administration to proceed with light bulb ban, advancing 'climate goals'



Americans can no longer rely upon the warm glow patented by Thomas Edison, deemed inefficient and outmoded by the state. Instead, they will now have to use LED light bulbs.

The Biden administration is set to enforce its ban on incandescent light bulbs in August.

Last April, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it would impose two new rules upon the American people as a means of advancing "President Biden's climate goals."

The first coercive measure redefines "general service lamps," and the second implements the minimum standard of 45 lumens per watt for light bulbs that satisfy the revised definition. Together, these rules will prevent retailers from selling incandescent and similar halogen light bulbs.

The new bans announced last year were resultant of President Joe Biden's January 2021 executive order requiring the DOE to make "major revisions" to Trump-era appliance regulation standards, reported Fox News Digital.

Under the Trump administration, Americans were free to choose whatever light bulbs they desired. The Hill reported that the Trump administration was also of the mind that such phase-outs constituted an unnecessary burden on businesses.

Biden's Energy Department suggested that this coercive measure would accelerate the apparent transition already under way.
"The lighting industry is already embracing more energy efficient products, and this measure will accelerate progress to deliver the best products to American consumers and build a better and brighter future," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's latest residential energy consumption survey, 75.2 million American households (~60%) reported having at least one incandescent or halogen bulb in their homes; 8.5 million indicated all of their bulbs were of the verboten variety; 10.19 million indicated most of their light bulbs were incandescent; and another 9.1 million said about half were.

Nearly 50 million of 123.53 million households have reportedly already made the shift approved by the federal government. Wealth is a partial determining factor behind adoption. Households with incomes over $100,000 are more likely to use LEDs than poor households, where LEDs are used only by a minority.

Just the News indicated why this may be the case: The average cost of an LED light bulb is roughly double that of an incandescent light bulb.

Ian Haworth, writing for the Washington Examiner, suggested that the paltry financial benefits promised by the Biden administration are no good if American families can't afford the bulbs to begin with.

Granholm said in another statement that the DOE has worked for over forty years, at the direction of Congress, "to promote innovation, improve consumers' options, and raise efficiency standards for household appliances without sacrificing the reliability and performances that Americans have come to expect."

Concerning the enforcement of the ban, the DOE indicated that it "believes the maximum penalty is both appropriate and necessary."

"This is overregulation on steroids," Ben Lieberman, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital at the time the ban was first announced.

"By using climate as a kind of finger on the scale in favor of tougher standards, I think that's all the more reason to be suspicious that this is going to be a bad deal from a consumer standpoint," he added.

The DOE claimed that the exclusive use of LED light bulbs in conjunction with other regulations will help cut carbon emissions by 222 million metric tons.

Lieberman and a coalition of free market consumer groups penned a letter to the DOE last year, stating that they "believe that further regulatory interference in the marketplace is unwarranted given that more energy efficient lighting choices, namely light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs, are already available for those consumers who prefer them over incandescent bulbs."

The letter claimed that there is a "lack of evidence to support the agency's claims that the Proposed Rule would have any measurable impact on the climate" and that estimates "of the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions are very speculative, assumption-driven, and prone to bias in the hands of agencies with a regulatory agenda."

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) underscored how this ban is just one among many advanced by the Biden administration: "First, the Biden Admin went after gas stoves. Then, the Biden Admin went after washing machines. Now, the Biden Admin is going after light bulbs. Is there anything they won't try to ban?"

\u201cFirst, the Biden Admin went after gas stoves.\n\nThen, the Biden Admin went after washing machines.\n\nNow, the Biden Admin is going after light bulbs. \n\nIs there anything they won't try to ban?\u201d
— Lance Gooden (@Lance Gooden) 1680463239

Americans have until August 1 to purchase and stockpile incandescent light bulbs and will be within their rights to use them well after the Biden administration's ban on lighting choice goes into effect.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Look, I've had a bad month': Democrat megadonor Sam Bankman-Fried says he didn't 'try to commit fraud' and isn't losing too much sleep over FTX collapse



Disgraced Democrat megadonor Sam Bankman-Fried, the former FTX CEO who ran his company into the ground and has been accused of substantial wrongdoing, testified on Wednesday night — not before a jury of his peers in court, but in a paid appearance at the New York Times' DealBook Summit.

The event — where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shot down a peace proposal, script-reader Ben Affleck humble-bragged about his fame, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his company's forays into the so-called metaverse — provided Bankman-Fried with an opportunity to complain about his recent misfortune and to displace blame about the role he played in the scandalous collapse of his crypto exchange, FTX.

What are the details?

Bankman-Fried telecommuted from the Bahamas, where he, his parents, and other FTX executives reportedly own at least $121 million in real estate, to field questions posed by New York Times columnist Andrew Sorkin.

Throughout the interview, SBF alternated between assuming and shunting responsibility for FTX's downfall.

In one instance, SBF indicated that FTX's implosion was resultant of "a massive failure of oversight on my part."

"Whatever happened, why it happened, I had a duty to our stakeholders, our customers, our investors, the regulators of the world, to do right by them," said SBF. "Clearly I didn’t do a good job of that."

Despite this admission, SBF went onto distance himself from his trading firm, Alameda Research, linked to FTX and its demise.

SBF said regarding the relationship between FTX and Alameda Research that he "wasn't running Alameda, I don't know exactly what was going on."

“I didn’t knowingly commingle funds,” SBF added.

Some, including Alex Berenson, find that hard to believe, particularly since SBF owned the lion's share of Alameda.

\u201cYou are crazy.\n\nThe bankruptcy filing shows @sbf owned 90 percent of Alameda. It had lent Sam Bankman-Fried - not a corporate entity he controlled, HIM - $1 billion.\n\nThe idea he is now trying out - that he didn't control it and he didn't know what it was doing - is bizarre.\u201d
— Alex Berenson (@Alex Berenson) 1669902506

Decrypt reported that the blockchain data suggests the funds were commingled. Billions of dollars' worth of customer funds had reportedly been loaned out to Alameda to pay down the firm's trading losses while SBF was running the show.

SBF also claimed that he "didn’t ever try to commit fraud on anyone."

Bloomberg noted that, notwithstanding SBF's claims on Wednesday, there are outstanding questions about how FTX ended up with an $8 billion gap in its balance sheets.

When Sorkin asked about criminal liability, SBF squirmed uncontrollably and said, "There’s a time and a place for me to think about myself and my own future. ... I don't think this is it."

Without admitting to a crime, SBF did however underscore that he "screwed up."

The New York Times suggested that throughout the discussion, SBF sought to characterize the situation as an unintentional mistake, "perhaps hoping to set up lack of intent for (criminal) liability purposes."

Tough luck and good sleep for the 'next Warren Buffett'

In an apparent effort to drum up sympathy, SBF — who managed to lose approximately 94% of his estimated $15.6 billion on Election Day — told Sorkin, "Look, I've had a bad month."

SBF, once touted as the "next Warren Buffett," told Sorkin that he now has "close to nothing" and had been reduced to only having one working credit card.

Despite his bad month, SBF said, "You would’ve thought that I’d be getting no sleep right now, and instead I’m getting some."

An alleged FTX user who likely isn't getting much sleep had his message relayed to SBF by Sorkin.

In an email with "Sam Bankman-Fried stole $2 million from me" in the subject line, the user wrote, "Andrew, can you please ask SBF why he decided to steal my life savings and the $10 billion more from customers to give to his hedge fund, Alameda?"

Noting that several other letters like this had been sent in, Sorkin asked SBF, "What do you tell this man?"

SBF, down to only one credit card, said that he was "deeply sorry about what happened."

The New York Times reported that among the demonstrators gathered outside the event to protest SBF's appearance was a man who identified himself as Anthony Canelo of New York, who claimed to have lost over $10,000 investing in FTX's token, FTT.

While the bankruptcy filing drawn up by FTX indicated that the company has over 100,000 creditors, CNBC reported that there could be more than one million creditors.

Backlash

Although some critical of SBF's appearance appeared to protest outside the venue, many instead took to social media to express their disdain.

American Fox Business Network financial journalist Charles Payne found it troubling that SBF should be applauded in and out of a high-profile paid speaking gig after his company's collapse left creditors facing losses exceeding billions of dollars. Payne tweeted, "The 'elites' protect their own even under a microscope."

\u201cCancel Culture has wiped out a lot of people yet the @WSJ and @nytimes still trying to rehab and protect the imagine of Sam Bankman-Fried. So many young people looking to make their way in life have been wiped out. \n\nThe "elites" protect their own even under a microscope.\u201d
— Charles V Payne (@Charles V Payne) 1669305523

Republican Rep. Lance Gooden (Texas) suggested that the left appears more outraged by Elon Musk spending billions to restore free speech on Twitter than by SBF's erasure of billions.

\u201cElon Musk: Spent $44 billion to bring back free speech\n\nSam Bankman-Fried: Scammed people of billions\n\nGuess which one Democrats are more outraged by?\u201d
— Lance Gooden (@Lance Gooden) 1669173746

Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk noted that had SBF been "the 2nd biggest donor to conservative candidates in the midterms he would be indicted by now."

\u201cIf Sam Bankman-Fried was the 2nd biggest donor to conservative candidates in the midterms he would be indicted by now.\u201d
— Charlie Kirk (@Charlie Kirk) 1669878771

The whole New York Times interview with the Democrat megadonor can be seen here:

Sam Bankman-Fried Interviewed Live About the Collapse of FTX youtu.be

Texas mother goes viral for video showing her leveling suspected peeping Tom with brutal form tackle



A Lake Jackson, Texas mother has gone viral after video of her leveling a suspect she accused of trying to peep in her teenage daughter's window awed the internet on Thursday.

Mother Phyllis Pena's story was first covered on Monday by KPRC-TV, who reported that Pena had returned home at around 7:00am on January 31st to find a man who was in her yard and allegedly attempting to peek into her teenage daughter's window. Thankfully, her daughter was not in the room at the time.

When the suspect noticed Pena, he took off, and Pena reportedly called the police. Police found the suspect, who has been identified as 19-year-old Zane Hawkins, hiding nearby. When they attempted to apprehend him, Hawkins fled, right into Pena's path. What happened next was caught by the patrol cruiser's dash cam, and would soon become the hottest topic on social media.


Mom tackles man suspected of peeking in daughter's window www.youtube.com

In the video, the suspect enters the video from the right side of the frame, only to be brutally tackled and taken to the ground by Pena, whose tackling form was soon the subject of widespread admiration from sports analysts - most of it tongue-in-cheek.

NFL.com draft analyst Lance Zierlien, for instance, rated her tackling form very highly:


Feisty. Quick to step downhill and cut off the angle. Plays with controlled energy and good patience. Adequate late… https://t.co/04ZKWpKXNa
— Lance Zierlein (@Lance Zierlein)1613051516.0


She turned into a middle linebacker real quick. https://t.co/7KCW3SdJuu
— Jeff Eisenband (@Jeff Eisenband)1613061431.0

Videos of Pena were among the most shared and retweeted on Twitter on Tuesday. Pena, for her part, said that she was just trying to make sure that the suspect couldn't go any further, and that she merely hoped to either trip him up or slow him down. Jokingly, she recognized that her efforts were considerably more successful, quipping, "The cop fist bumped me and said, 'Hey, I heard the Texans are looking for a new linebacker.'"

According to KPRC, Hawkins has been charged with possession of a controlled substance, evading arrest, and resisting arrest, and may face other charges in the future. The Lake Jackson police of chief has asked to meet with the mother to commend her, and told KPRC that he may even give her a job application.

Demands intensify for Joe Rogan to host next presidential debate following Chris Wallace's performance



Much of social media called on comedian and podcaster Joe Rogan to moderate the next presidential debate after Fox News' Chris Wallace's heavily criticized performance during Tuesday night's first presidential debate.

Social media criticized Wallace during — and after — the debate, saying that he was largely useless in actually moderating a the debate between President Donald Trump and former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

What did people say about Wallace?

Journalist Soledad O'Brien tweeted, "Hellllo Chris Wallace??? Looking for a moderator here. Jesus Christ what a fricken mess."

Former GOP strategist Steve Schmidt added, "Chris Wallace has completely lost control of this debate."

Chris Wallace has completely lost control of this debate.
— Steve Schmidt (@Steve Schmidt)1601428763.0

CNN's Oliver Darcy said Tuesday night, "[Wallace] lost control of the debate early, and failed to ever regain order. It appeared as if Wallace were pleading with Trump to respect the forum like a parent would plead an out-of-control child to behave."

Comedy Central host Trevor Noah chimed in, "Chris Wallace's debate performance tonight is a great reminder that kindergarten teachers are underpaid."

Chris Wallace's debate performance tonight is a great reminder that kindergarten teachers are underpaid. #Debates2020
— The Daily Show (@The Daily Show)1601429490.0

Commentator and former CNN, Fox News, and NBC anchor Greta Van Susteren added, "This is why Chris Wallace lost control of the debate — his first question was not about what either would do for the country going forward but designed to create a fight. Once you lose control of a debate, you can't regain..."

Van Susteren shared Wallace's first question in a screenshot, which read, "My first question to both of you tonight, why are you right in the argument you make and your opponent wrong? And where do you think a Justice Barrett would take the court? President Trump, in this first segment, you go first. Two minutes."

This is why Chris Wallace lost control of the debate-his first question was not about what either would do for the… https://t.co/dpy0CMP4PJ
— Greta Van Susteren (@Greta Van Susteren)1601478045.0

Jeremy Boreing, the Daily Wire's co-founder and co-CEO, wrote, "How does Chris Wallace keep his job? I understand the defense of his treatment of Trump during interviews and largely agree, but this was a presidential debate. His performance was as bad as we've ever seen. Disgraceful."

How does Chris Wallace keep his job? I understand the defense of his treatment of Trump during interviews and large… https://t.co/JonPcpSrh7
— Jeremy Boreing (@Jeremy Boreing)1601479575.0

Legions of other social media users issued the same sentiment: that Wallace failed in his duties to maintain a semblance of order or decorum during the first 2020 presidential debate.

What did people say about Rogan?

Rogan himself recently offered to moderate one of the 2020 presidential debates.

During a recent episode of his podcast, "The Joe Rogan Experience," Rogan set forth his ideal conditions.

"First of all, I want no one else in the room, just the three of us," he said. "And you'd have to stream it live so no one can edit it, and I would want them in there for hours. ... If they wanted to do that — they both wanted to come here in Austin [Texas], sit down and have a debate — I would 100 percent do it."

The president himself heard word of Rogan's early September remarks and signed off on the proposal, writing "I do!" to a Twitter user who shared the news and wrote, "[W]ho wants this [to happen]?"

Cyclist Lance Armstrong tweeted, "What happened to this idea that @joerogan ought to host a presidential debate?! Time to restart that conversation."

What happened to this idea that @joerogan ought to host a presidential debate?! Time to restart that conversation.
— Lance Armstrong (@Lance Armstrong)1601439221.0

He wasn't the only one — by far.

MMA fighter Tara LaRosa added, "Joe Rogan should have run this debate #Debates2020."

Joe Rogan should have run this debate #Debates2020
— Tara LaRosa (@Tara LaRosa)1601431325.0

Journalist Tim Pool chimed in, tweeting, "I feel bad for Chris Wallace[.] Stop bringing in these old fogies and bring in someone with the skill and an understanding of modern media[.] We all know Joe Rogan is the only one who can handle a real debate between Biden and Trump[.]"

I feel bad for Chris WallaceStop bringing in these old fogies and bring in someone with the skill and an understa… https://t.co/XDsBSsZq8x
— Tim Pool (@Tim Pool)1601479293.0

A petition calling for the very same scenario gained traction in 2019.

A portion of the Change.org petition says Rogan would be the perfect moderator because he has "revolutionized the way political interview and discussion works, as he has provided a long-form media format that has allowed the exchange of ideas to be fully explored."

At the time of this reporting, the online petition has received more than 285,000 signatures in support.

Anything else?

The second presidential debate is set for Oct. 15 in Miami, Florida, with C-SPAN's Steve Scully as moderator.

A third and final debate is set for Oct. 22 in Nashville, Tennessee, with NBC News' Kristen Welker as moderator.