.
1/1/13, "Global Jihad 2012: The Body Count," Atlas Shrugs
"Thanks to the Religion of Peace;
To no
one's surprise, the Religion of Peace racked up 11,267
dead bodies in 2,459 barbaric terror attacks during 2012.
The Nigerian child pictured above was in the wrong
place at the wrong time... church on a Sunday
morning
List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 30
Days
Islamic Terror Attacks for First Part of 2012
Islamic Terror Attacks for 2011
Islamic Terror Attacks for 2010
Islamic Terror Attacks for 2009
Islamic Terror Attacks for 2008
Islamic Terror Attacks for 2007
Islamic Terror Attacks for 2006
Islamic Terror Attacks for 2005
Islamic Terror Attacks for 2004
Islamic Attacks from September 11th, 2001
through 2003"
.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Missing Breitbart. Breibart was one of few reasons any Republican had a ghost of a chance, especially one, Romney, we now find loathed the whole idea of running for president
.
1/1/13, "Missing Breitbart," Tom Blumer, PJMedia
"I could not help but wonder whether November’s presidential election might have turned out differently if Andrew had not died on March 1....
Breitbart is one of the main reasons why a Republican candidate, and especially one who we have since learned really didn’t want to run for the office, even had a ghost of a chance against Obama....
What Breitbart understood, and what all too many establishment Republicans and even conservatives don’t, is that there is no accommodating the left, and there is no hope of receiving fair treatment
from the left-dominated establishment press.
The left is hellbent on fundamentally transforming the country into a socialist utopia which has never succeeded anywhere it has been tried, and the press is determined to help them do that. Folks, no matter what you do, they’re going to hate you
(and hate is the right word).
So you might as well do the right thing and follow your beliefs and principles (John “Plan B” Boehner, please note)....
Despite all the establishment press hype about Barack Obama’s “convincing” victory, the fact remains that he won with a smaller percentage of the popular vote (50.6%) than every successful incumbent in the past century except three, all Democrats who failed to achieve popular vote majorities: Bill Clinton in 1996, the second time he won with only a minority of the popular vote; Harry Truman in 1948 in a four-way race; and Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
Fewer than 200,000 switched votes in four battleground states
would have changed November’s outcome
to a Romney win....
This country now has a government headed by the most radical president in U.S. history, one with the worst economic record since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal extended the Great Depression by eight years. He nevertheless won reelection largely because his opponent conceded too much ground
and wouldn’t fight hard enough for what remained.
Barack Obama and the left believe they have only just begun. Sensible, Constitution-anchored conservatives need to start acting as an army of Breitbarts." ....via Lucianne
.
image via Legal Insurrection
=================================
Ed. note: Andrew was our only hope. With Andrew, those of us in the Silent Majority found out for a few brief, shining moments what it felt like to be heard.
.
1/1/13, "Missing Breitbart," Tom Blumer, PJMedia
"I could not help but wonder whether November’s presidential election might have turned out differently if Andrew had not died on March 1....
Breitbart is one of the main reasons why a Republican candidate, and especially one who we have since learned really didn’t want to run for the office, even had a ghost of a chance against Obama....
What Breitbart understood, and what all too many establishment Republicans and even conservatives don’t, is that there is no accommodating the left, and there is no hope of receiving fair treatment
from the left-dominated establishment press.
The left is hellbent on fundamentally transforming the country into a socialist utopia which has never succeeded anywhere it has been tried, and the press is determined to help them do that. Folks, no matter what you do, they’re going to hate you
(and hate is the right word).
So you might as well do the right thing and follow your beliefs and principles (John “Plan B” Boehner, please note)....
Despite all the establishment press hype about Barack Obama’s “convincing” victory, the fact remains that he won with a smaller percentage of the popular vote (50.6%) than every successful incumbent in the past century except three, all Democrats who failed to achieve popular vote majorities: Bill Clinton in 1996, the second time he won with only a minority of the popular vote; Harry Truman in 1948 in a four-way race; and Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
Fewer than 200,000 switched votes in four battleground states
would have changed November’s outcome
to a Romney win....
This country now has a government headed by the most radical president in U.S. history, one with the worst economic record since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal extended the Great Depression by eight years. He nevertheless won reelection largely because his opponent conceded too much ground
and wouldn’t fight hard enough for what remained.
Barack Obama and the left believe they have only just begun. Sensible, Constitution-anchored conservatives need to start acting as an army of Breitbarts." ....via Lucianne
.
image via Legal Insurrection
=================================
Ed. note: Andrew was our only hope. With Andrew, those of us in the Silent Majority found out for a few brief, shining moments what it felt like to be heard.
.
Sarah Palin 5th in 2012 poll of most admired women in the world by USA Today/Gallup
.
12/31/12, “Hillary beats Michelle Obama to top list of America’s most admired women of 2012 – and Sarah Palin comes FIFTH,” UK Daily Mail
“Hillary Clinton has beaten First Lady Michelle Obama to be named Most Admired Woman of 2012 – and Sarah Palin came in at number five….
The results are based on a USA Today/Gallup poll, which asks Americans to name their most admired man and woman living in any part of the world.”…
.
12/31/12, “Hillary beats Michelle Obama to top list of America’s most admired women of 2012 – and Sarah Palin comes FIFTH,” UK Daily Mail
“Hillary Clinton has beaten First Lady Michelle Obama to be named Most Admired Woman of 2012 – and Sarah Palin came in at number five….
The results are based on a USA Today/Gallup poll, which asks Americans to name their most admired man and woman living in any part of the world.”…
.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Occupy Baby Daddy and Baby Mama had weapons and explosives in their Greenwich Village apartment
.
12/31/12, "Greenwich Village couple busted with cache of weapons, bombmaking explosives: sources," NY Post, Schram, Antenucci, McNulty
"The privileged daughter of a prominent city doctor, and her boyfriend — a Harvard grad and Occupy Wall Street activist — have been busted for allegedly having a cache of weapons and a bombmaking explosive in their Greenwich Village apartment.
Morgan Gliedman — who is nine-months pregnant — and her baby daddy, Aaron Greene, 31, also had instructions on making bombs, including a stack of papers with a cover sheet titled, “The Terrorist Encyclopedia,’’ sources told The Post yesterday.
People who know Greene say his political views are “extreme,” the sources said.
Cops found the stash in the couple’s West Ninth Street home Saturday when they went there to look for Gliedman, 27, who was wanted for alleged credit-card theft.
A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings.
Police also found a flare launcher, which is a commercial replica of a grenade launcher; a modified 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun; ammo; and nine high-capacity rifle magazines, the sources said."...via Free Republic
.
12/31/12, "Greenwich Village couple busted with cache of weapons, bombmaking explosives: sources," NY Post, Schram, Antenucci, McNulty
"The privileged daughter of a prominent city doctor, and her boyfriend — a Harvard grad and Occupy Wall Street activist — have been busted for allegedly having a cache of weapons and a bombmaking explosive in their Greenwich Village apartment.
Morgan Gliedman — who is nine-months pregnant — and her baby daddy, Aaron Greene, 31, also had instructions on making bombs, including a stack of papers with a cover sheet titled, “The Terrorist Encyclopedia,’’ sources told The Post yesterday.
People who know Greene say his political views are “extreme,” the sources said.
Cops found the stash in the couple’s West Ninth Street home Saturday when they went there to look for Gliedman, 27, who was wanted for alleged credit-card theft.
A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings.
Police also found a flare launcher, which is a commercial replica of a grenade launcher; a modified 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun; ammo; and nine high-capacity rifle magazines, the sources said."...via Free Republic
.
National Journal hosted dinner for 'renewable energy industry leaders' and Beltway insiders, National Journal owner says revenues from crony dinners necessary because 'economic foundation of journalism' has fallen away
.
On November 14, 2012 UK Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg wrote that Obama was going to "take personal charge of climate change" which she termed an "existential crisis." She then spoke of a recent dinner hosted by National Journal for "leaders in the renewable industry." Apparently media outlets like National Journal routinely get insiders together and charge corporations to have dinner and discuss mutual interests off the record. Conversation is moderated by a Beltway journalist. In this case the interested parties were after more US taxpayer billions for "existential" non-existent CO2 terror. Following an excerpt about the dinner from Ms. Goldenberg below is a 2009 Politico article about how National Journal owner sees revenues from these dinners replacing journalism's failed business model. It's fine if you think reinforcing Beltway cronyism is the way to go. National Journal is part of Atlantic Media owned by David Bradley:
11/14/12, UK Guardian: "At a dinner last week for leaders in the renewable energy industry,
hosted by the National Journal,
the retired general Wesley Clark argued that a climate change agenda could not advance without Obama's personal intervention.
Obama, he told the dinner, needed a strategy. "There is no substitute for White House leadership. The president can't simply throw this to Congress," he said....
Clark went on: "He's got not only to have a megaphone at the top, but he's got to have local amplifiers out there."...
"Barack Obama claimed climate change as a personal mission of his second term on Wednesday, offering for the first time to take charge of the effort to find a bipartisan solution
to the existential crisis."...
---------------------------------------
7/6/2009, "David Bradley defends Atlantic Media's exclusive 'salons'," Politico, Michael Calderone
"Atlantic Media publisher David Bradley on Monday issued a full-throated defense of the kind of off-the record, corporate-sponsored "salons" that last week ensnared The Washington Post in controversy, arguing that they are both a source of revenue "and advance a legitimate purpose for a media organization —
promoting debate and discussion."
In a highly personal 1,500-word letter published on the Hotline, Bradley wrote that Atlantic Media has been hosting sponsored
salon dinners for more than six years, and he doesn't "believe that any one of these events had any of the ill intention or effect that some have attributed to The Washington Post concept."
"But," Bradley continued, "we live on a street too close to the brush fire to pretend no interest."
That brush fire was ignited Thursday, following POLITICO’s reporting on a flier sent out by the Post's business side which sought underwriters for off-the-record dinners at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth.
A July 21 dinner, according to the flier aimed at lobbyists, would allow the sponsor to sit down alongside the Post's publisher, executive editor Marcus Brauchli, Post health care reporters, Obama administration officials and members of Congress.
That same day, reacting to what the paper's ombudsman described as a public relations "disaster," Weymouth cancelled the planned series. On Sunday, she apologized in a letter to Post readers, and earlier today announced that the paper's general counsel would "review recent events to make sure that our business processes are consistent with, and will not in any way compromise, our journalism."
But Bradley said he had no intention of distancing himself from the dinners. "From some of our earliest events, I have been part of the thinking behind this work. I've approved many sponsored dinners personally, set out my own invitations, hosted some dinners at my house, welcomed the sponsors in my remarks, and written thank you notes to those involved. I am part of this work. Openly."
By Bradley's account, the dinners have been attended by 2,000 guests, who have included "journalists from virtually all major networks, national magazines and newspapers."
If anything, the Post was a late entrant to what a number of publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The Economist, in addition to Atlantic Media, have found to be a lucrative source of income. Bradley described that
revenue as a
legitimate justification for the salons at a time when
"the economic foundation beneath journalism is falling away."
"The imperative," he said, "is to rebuild journalism on different financial pillars. One of them, and not inconsequential to us, is events — of all types."
Atlantic has been particularly aggressive in staging events, the most famous of which, the Aspen Ideas Festival, was under way last week when the controversy over the Post's proposed dinners first began.
Some of the dinners he has hosted are, Bradley said, "for my own interest and my own account," a reference to a series of off-the-record evenings with newsmakers he has held for a select group of prominent Washington reporters. Those are different, he said, from the dinners that have corporate sponsors, which usually have about 30 participants, including members of Congress and administration officials, and follow a prescribed format.
The sponsored dinners, he said, "usually run about two and a half hours. If I am there, I give welcoming remarks and thank the sponsor. Most of the time, the sponsor responds with his or her own welcoming remarks. Then, and for the remainder, our moderator — typically an Atlantic Media editor or writer, though sometimes a journalist from another enterprise —
directs the whole table in conversation. There is no constraint placed on either the moderator or our guests as to the questions raised or the opinions expressed."
In their effort to distance themselves from the flier promoting the salon at Weymouth's home, Post executives said they would never have agreed to making the dinners off-the-record, meaning that nothing said could be used in a news story. But Bradley has no such qualms about his dinners.
They are always off-record, he said, because "there is a great deal of constructive conversation that can take place only with the
promise that no headline is being written." He also emphasized that while corporate sponsors will have input into the dinner, Atlantic Media has the final say in the topics and guest list.
Still, corporate clients clearly help set the agenda.
Atlantic spokesperson Zachary Hooper told Talking Points Memo on Monday that "the corporate sponsor comes to us and says, 'We're interested in having a discussion on a certain topic.'" And some corporate sponsors, TPM reported, have included AstraZeneca ("Healthcare Access and Education”); Microsoft (“Global Trade”), G.E. ("Energy Sustainability and the Future of Nuclear Power"); Allstate ("The Future of the American City"); and Citi ("The Challenge of Global Markets").
When asked by TPM, Hooper declined to comment on how much a corporation pays to sponsor an event, so it is unclear if the Atlantic asks anywhere in the $25,000 to $250,000 range described in the Post's flier that advertised for underwriting opportunities. Both Weymouth and Brauchli have said the flier wasn't vetted by the newsroom.
The Post, like most newspaper companies, is struggling to create a revenue stream to help fill the gap left by print advertising drying up and circulation dropping. And Weymouth back in December told staffers that the paper was considering hosting "specialized conferences for business decision makers with a stake in Washington policymaking."
Despite the Post's cancelling its series, Weymouth said she plans to go forward with private events, explaining in a staff memo:
"We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do — cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington. And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.""
--------------------------------------------
5/5/2010, "High Tide at 'The Atlantic,'" The Observer, Felix Gillette
===================================
11/14/12, "Obama vows to take personal charge of climate change in second term," UK Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg
=======================
6/4/12, “Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006,” Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage

“Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord.”…
=========================
"Virtually everyone believes the shift (CO2 drop) could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.”…
8/16/12, “AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low,” AP, Kevin Begos
========================
Following from National Journal CO2 terror cheerleader and climate science denier Coral Davenport:
12/30/12, "Arnold Schwarzenegger: Terminator, Body-Builder, and Global Leader on Climate-Change," National Journal, Coral Davenport
"If the United States ever enacts a major climate-change law, it will owe a debt to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Strange as it sounds, the Austrian-born bodybuilder, former California governor, and movie star has flexed more legislative muscle on climate change than President Obama--who ran for office on the promise of curbing sea level rise and creating millions of green jobs--and Al Gore, the former vice president who won a Nobel Prize for his advocacy on climate change."
.
.
On November 14, 2012 UK Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg wrote that Obama was going to "take personal charge of climate change" which she termed an "existential crisis." She then spoke of a recent dinner hosted by National Journal for "leaders in the renewable industry." Apparently media outlets like National Journal routinely get insiders together and charge corporations to have dinner and discuss mutual interests off the record. Conversation is moderated by a Beltway journalist. In this case the interested parties were after more US taxpayer billions for "existential" non-existent CO2 terror. Following an excerpt about the dinner from Ms. Goldenberg below is a 2009 Politico article about how National Journal owner sees revenues from these dinners replacing journalism's failed business model. It's fine if you think reinforcing Beltway cronyism is the way to go. National Journal is part of Atlantic Media owned by David Bradley:
11/14/12, UK Guardian: "At a dinner last week for leaders in the renewable energy industry,
hosted by the National Journal,
the retired general Wesley Clark argued that a climate change agenda could not advance without Obama's personal intervention.
Obama, he told the dinner, needed a strategy. "There is no substitute for White House leadership. The president can't simply throw this to Congress," he said....
Clark went on: "He's got not only to have a megaphone at the top, but he's got to have local amplifiers out there."...
"Barack Obama claimed climate change as a personal mission of his second term on Wednesday, offering for the first time to take charge of the effort to find a bipartisan solution
to the existential crisis."...
---------------------------------------
7/6/2009, "David Bradley defends Atlantic Media's exclusive 'salons'," Politico, Michael Calderone
"Atlantic Media publisher David Bradley on Monday issued a full-throated defense of the kind of off-the record, corporate-sponsored "salons" that last week ensnared The Washington Post in controversy, arguing that they are both a source of revenue "and advance a legitimate purpose for a media organization —
promoting debate and discussion."
In a highly personal 1,500-word letter published on the Hotline, Bradley wrote that Atlantic Media has been hosting sponsored
salon dinners for more than six years, and he doesn't "believe that any one of these events had any of the ill intention or effect that some have attributed to The Washington Post concept."
"But," Bradley continued, "we live on a street too close to the brush fire to pretend no interest."
That brush fire was ignited Thursday, following POLITICO’s reporting on a flier sent out by the Post's business side which sought underwriters for off-the-record dinners at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth.
A July 21 dinner, according to the flier aimed at lobbyists, would allow the sponsor to sit down alongside the Post's publisher, executive editor Marcus Brauchli, Post health care reporters, Obama administration officials and members of Congress.
That same day, reacting to what the paper's ombudsman described as a public relations "disaster," Weymouth cancelled the planned series. On Sunday, she apologized in a letter to Post readers, and earlier today announced that the paper's general counsel would "review recent events to make sure that our business processes are consistent with, and will not in any way compromise, our journalism."
But Bradley said he had no intention of distancing himself from the dinners. "From some of our earliest events, I have been part of the thinking behind this work. I've approved many sponsored dinners personally, set out my own invitations, hosted some dinners at my house, welcomed the sponsors in my remarks, and written thank you notes to those involved. I am part of this work. Openly."
By Bradley's account, the dinners have been attended by 2,000 guests, who have included "journalists from virtually all major networks, national magazines and newspapers."
If anything, the Post was a late entrant to what a number of publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The Economist, in addition to Atlantic Media, have found to be a lucrative source of income. Bradley described that
revenue as a
legitimate justification for the salons at a time when
"the economic foundation beneath journalism is falling away."
"The imperative," he said, "is to rebuild journalism on different financial pillars. One of them, and not inconsequential to us, is events — of all types."
Atlantic has been particularly aggressive in staging events, the most famous of which, the Aspen Ideas Festival, was under way last week when the controversy over the Post's proposed dinners first began.
Some of the dinners he has hosted are, Bradley said, "for my own interest and my own account," a reference to a series of off-the-record evenings with newsmakers he has held for a select group of prominent Washington reporters. Those are different, he said, from the dinners that have corporate sponsors, which usually have about 30 participants, including members of Congress and administration officials, and follow a prescribed format.
The sponsored dinners, he said, "usually run about two and a half hours. If I am there, I give welcoming remarks and thank the sponsor. Most of the time, the sponsor responds with his or her own welcoming remarks. Then, and for the remainder, our moderator — typically an Atlantic Media editor or writer, though sometimes a journalist from another enterprise —
directs the whole table in conversation. There is no constraint placed on either the moderator or our guests as to the questions raised or the opinions expressed."
In their effort to distance themselves from the flier promoting the salon at Weymouth's home, Post executives said they would never have agreed to making the dinners off-the-record, meaning that nothing said could be used in a news story. But Bradley has no such qualms about his dinners.
They are always off-record, he said, because "there is a great deal of constructive conversation that can take place only with the
promise that no headline is being written." He also emphasized that while corporate sponsors will have input into the dinner, Atlantic Media has the final say in the topics and guest list.
Still, corporate clients clearly help set the agenda.
Atlantic spokesperson Zachary Hooper told Talking Points Memo on Monday that "the corporate sponsor comes to us and says, 'We're interested in having a discussion on a certain topic.'" And some corporate sponsors, TPM reported, have included AstraZeneca ("Healthcare Access and Education”); Microsoft (“Global Trade”), G.E. ("Energy Sustainability and the Future of Nuclear Power"); Allstate ("The Future of the American City"); and Citi ("The Challenge of Global Markets").
When asked by TPM, Hooper declined to comment on how much a corporation pays to sponsor an event, so it is unclear if the Atlantic asks anywhere in the $25,000 to $250,000 range described in the Post's flier that advertised for underwriting opportunities. Both Weymouth and Brauchli have said the flier wasn't vetted by the newsroom.
The Post, like most newspaper companies, is struggling to create a revenue stream to help fill the gap left by print advertising drying up and circulation dropping. And Weymouth back in December told staffers that the paper was considering hosting "specialized conferences for business decision makers with a stake in Washington policymaking."
Despite the Post's cancelling its series, Weymouth said she plans to go forward with private events, explaining in a staff memo:
"We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do — cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington. And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.""
--------------------------------------------
5/5/2010, "High Tide at 'The Atlantic,'" The Observer, Felix Gillette
===================================
11/14/12, "Obama vows to take personal charge of climate change in second term," UK Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg
=======================
6/4/12, “Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006,” Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage

“Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord.”…
=========================
"Virtually everyone believes the shift (CO2 drop) could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.”…
8/16/12, “AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low,” AP, Kevin Begos
========================
Following from National Journal CO2 terror cheerleader and climate science denier Coral Davenport:
12/30/12, "Arnold Schwarzenegger: Terminator, Body-Builder, and Global Leader on Climate-Change," National Journal, Coral Davenport
"If the United States ever enacts a major climate-change law, it will owe a debt to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Strange as it sounds, the Austrian-born bodybuilder, former California governor, and movie star has flexed more legislative muscle on climate change than President Obama--who ran for office on the promise of curbing sea level rise and creating millions of green jobs--and Al Gore, the former vice president who won a Nobel Prize for his advocacy on climate change."
.
.
4 federal court cases challenging ObamaCare received favorable rulings in Dec. 2012. The media didn't tell you about them, they only told you about Hobby Lobby
.
12/31/12, "MSM Gives Us the Mushroom Treatment on HHS Mandate," American Spectator, David Catron
"The media are keeping us in the dark on Obamacare’s legal woes and feeding us Hobby Lobby."
"In December, there were five federal court decisions relating to Obamacare. Chances are, however, that you will have heard about only one of them....
The irony here is that Justice Sotomayor’s Hobby Lobby opinion was utterly predictable and, in the long run, probably far less significant than any of the other four decisions. The Wheaton College ruling was not merely a rebuke for the lower court, which naively dismissed the lawsuit last August based on a non-binding government promise “to revise the mandate to accommodate some religious institutions before it goes into effect,” it demolished an argument that the Justice Department has been making in all the anti-mandate lawsuits.
The Obama administration has been arguing, in the many lawsuits it is fighting over the HHS mandate, that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue because they have not yet been injured by the contraception rule, and that HHS apparatchiks are revising it to make it fairer. But federal judges are increasingly reluctant to accept that line of reasoning. As U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan phrased it in his decision involving the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, “There is no ‘Trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution.”
The most recent victory against HHS and its egregious anti-conscience mandate came last Friday, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing the government from enforcing the mandate against an Illinois company called Korte & Luitjohan Contractors. And it delivers a potentially deadly blow to the administration’s most pernicious argument — that secular, for‐profit employers are not entitled to the same First Amendment protections enjoyed by strictly religious institutions like churches.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which represents Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, also represents a company called American Pulverizer. Upon securing a similar injunction for that company’s owners on December 20, ACLJ issued a statement that neatly sums up the effect of the HHS edict:
“By January 1, 2013, at the latest, Paul and Henry Griesedieck face a stark and unavoidable choice: abandon their beliefs in order to stay in business, or abandon their businesses in order to stay true to their beliefs.”
The ACLJ isn’t the only public interest law firm fighting the HHS mandate. Another leader is the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Wheaton College in its recent victory. The Becket Fund, a law firm “dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians,” also represents Hobby Lobby. But, despite media insinuations to the contrary, this is no group of fundamentalist lightweights. The Becket Fund was behind the landmark 9-0 Supreme Court victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.
And, unlike most of the media, Becket’s general counsel puts the Sotomayor opinion in perspective: “The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the Tenth Circuit.” So, why have the “news” media made such a big deal of the Hobby Lobby ruling while virtually ignoring the other December decisions? The answer is obvious. That the Obama Justice Department batted one-for-five in December is not to be advertized.
In their ongoing effort to emulate Pravda, the media are doing their best to prop up Obama administration propaganda. Just as they exaggerated anything resembling good news about the economy during the run-up to the recent election, they are now echoing the administration’s talking points on Obamacare and the HHS mandate. The party line on the “Affordable Care Act” is that it has survived all significant legal challenges and full implementation is inevitable. Stories that don’t fit that line don’t get past the editor.
Thus, we get thousands of stories about the Sotomayor opinion with headlines that suggest it constitutes the demise of all serious challenges to the HHS mandate. Meanwhile, we see and hear almost nothing about 80 percent of the rulings handed down by federal courts during the same month on the same issue. But the lawsuits continue to plod forward. Moreover, the HHS mandate is by no means the only provision of Obamacare still being litigated.
And the utterly corrupt MSM does not get the final word on any of these lawsuits. Thank God." via Lucianne
.
12/31/12, "MSM Gives Us the Mushroom Treatment on HHS Mandate," American Spectator, David Catron
"The media are keeping us in the dark on Obamacare’s legal woes and feeding us Hobby Lobby."
"In December, there were five federal court decisions relating to Obamacare. Chances are, however, that you will have heard about only one of them....
The irony here is that Justice Sotomayor’s Hobby Lobby opinion was utterly predictable and, in the long run, probably far less significant than any of the other four decisions. The Wheaton College ruling was not merely a rebuke for the lower court, which naively dismissed the lawsuit last August based on a non-binding government promise “to revise the mandate to accommodate some religious institutions before it goes into effect,” it demolished an argument that the Justice Department has been making in all the anti-mandate lawsuits.
The Obama administration has been arguing, in the many lawsuits it is fighting over the HHS mandate, that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue because they have not yet been injured by the contraception rule, and that HHS apparatchiks are revising it to make it fairer. But federal judges are increasingly reluctant to accept that line of reasoning. As U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan phrased it in his decision involving the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, “There is no ‘Trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution.”
The most recent victory against HHS and its egregious anti-conscience mandate came last Friday, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing the government from enforcing the mandate against an Illinois company called Korte & Luitjohan Contractors. And it delivers a potentially deadly blow to the administration’s most pernicious argument — that secular, for‐profit employers are not entitled to the same First Amendment protections enjoyed by strictly religious institutions like churches.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which represents Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, also represents a company called American Pulverizer. Upon securing a similar injunction for that company’s owners on December 20, ACLJ issued a statement that neatly sums up the effect of the HHS edict:
“By January 1, 2013, at the latest, Paul and Henry Griesedieck face a stark and unavoidable choice: abandon their beliefs in order to stay in business, or abandon their businesses in order to stay true to their beliefs.”
The ACLJ isn’t the only public interest law firm fighting the HHS mandate. Another leader is the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Wheaton College in its recent victory. The Becket Fund, a law firm “dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions—from Anglicans to Zoroastrians,” also represents Hobby Lobby. But, despite media insinuations to the contrary, this is no group of fundamentalist lightweights. The Becket Fund was behind the landmark 9-0 Supreme Court victory in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.
And, unlike most of the media, Becket’s general counsel puts the Sotomayor opinion in perspective: “The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the Tenth Circuit.” So, why have the “news” media made such a big deal of the Hobby Lobby ruling while virtually ignoring the other December decisions? The answer is obvious. That the Obama Justice Department batted one-for-five in December is not to be advertized.
In their ongoing effort to emulate Pravda, the media are doing their best to prop up Obama administration propaganda. Just as they exaggerated anything resembling good news about the economy during the run-up to the recent election, they are now echoing the administration’s talking points on Obamacare and the HHS mandate. The party line on the “Affordable Care Act” is that it has survived all significant legal challenges and full implementation is inevitable. Stories that don’t fit that line don’t get past the editor.
Thus, we get thousands of stories about the Sotomayor opinion with headlines that suggest it constitutes the demise of all serious challenges to the HHS mandate. Meanwhile, we see and hear almost nothing about 80 percent of the rulings handed down by federal courts during the same month on the same issue. But the lawsuits continue to plod forward. Moreover, the HHS mandate is by no means the only provision of Obamacare still being litigated.
And the utterly corrupt MSM does not get the final word on any of these lawsuits. Thank God." via Lucianne
.
Listening to Mark Levin show Dec. 20, 2012, a night to remember with guests Jim Jordan, Louis Gohmert, and Tim Scott
.
12/28/12, "Mark Levin Audience Helped Defeat Boehner Plan B," Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator
"The Boehner Tax increase he called it. After weeks of taking on Republican House Speaker John Boehner over Boehner’s insistence on trying to make a deal over taxes with President Obama, by the night of December 20 — as House Republicans were being pounded by the GOP leadership to vote that very night for Boehener’s “Plan B” — the backlash dam finally broke on Mark Levin’s radio show.
As we wait for the “fiscal cliff” negotiations to resume at the White House, it’s worth going back to the evening of December 20 to note something that was overlooked as the Christmas holiday overtook the news on the defeat — by House Republicans — of Boehner’s Plan B.
As Levin’s show went live at 6pm Eastern, he opened with a sharp, passionate look at Republicans on the verge of rejecting longtime conservative principle — not to mention basic economics — by raising taxes.
His first guest was Ohio's Rep. Jim Jordan the outgoing head of the Republican Study Committee and one of the few Republicans who was fearless in his open opposition to fellow Ohioan Boehner. Jordan made plain his opposition to the Boehner tax increase proposal, saying Republicans should never “cross the line” in opposing economic growth, and called opposing tax increases a defining principle for Republicans as to “who we are.”
“Now it’s all about the Speaker,” remarked Levin after Jordan departed to return to the floor, citing with disdain multiple reports of Boehner loyalists insisting “we can’t embarrass the Speaker.”
Then, watching the Fox coverage from his broadcasting bunker, Levin braced his audience for learning of House Republicans who were on the verge of abandoning principle,
saying what was unfolding “turns my stomach.”
“If they want to talk like liberals — and they do — then get the hell off the stage.”
The answer to all this Levin said, in response to his first caller,
is not in Washington.
Then the drama ratcheted upwards. Levin, through his own contacts on Capitol Hill, broke the news that House Republicans were being threatened with losing their committee seats if they didn’t support Boehner’s Plan B. And he also broke the news that Boehner had scheduled an emergency Conference meeting.
Levin launched again -– and said this:
“Call your member of your Congress now.”
He called for “an official Levin surge” — and read out the number (202-224-2131) for the House switchboard, asking his audience to call the switchboard and ask to be put through to their GOP House members and make their disagreement with Plan B known loud and clear.
He recounted the tale of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor insisting the GOP Leadership had the votes — and said it was now plain that Cantor was lying.
More information streamed into Levin from his own sources, which he immediately broadcast to his audience of millions, saying there were now threats to subcommittee chairmanships if House GOP members didn’t support the Speaker.
“Are you proud of Boehner, ladies and gentlemen?” Levin asked his audience of the threats against GOP members. Adding: “We don’t have to accept this.” He read out the phone number again, saying “we ought to kick up a little dust.”
All this interspersed with the usual of talk radio — callers and commercials. But as soon as they halted for a minute, Levin kept up the pace. Then word arrives: callers from Levin’s show had shut down the House switchboard.
So…he came up with e-mail addresses.
Insisting all the while that he had no illusions as to whether this would work — he made the point again and again that it had to be tried anyway.
Then still more drama.
You can stop calling, he tells his audience. Levin breaks the news that Boehner had suddenly pulled Plan B from the floor — and read Boehner’s concession statement on the air.
It was stunning, both as talk radio and as news. Boehner, Levin accurately noted, had bullied rather than try to lead his fellow GOP members.
The House leadership wasn’t “clever enough” to pull this off, Levin said. He went on to note that there were millions of conservatives who hadn’t voted for Romney in November — for precisely reasons like those Boehner had made to pass his Plan B.
Fresh from all of this, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert — a leader in fighting this nonsense — called in. His tone was measured, decidedly not triumphant. This was about the Constitution, said Gohmert, calling for using the constitutional process of having the House pass a bill, the Senate taking the bill and making their own changes, then sending it to a House-Senate conference open to the public. This was what should be done, said Gohmert,
instead of having Boehner and Obama negotiating behind closed doors.
In other words, this entire episode — caused by too much spending — should be resolved by following the Constitution.
Gohmert was followed by South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott — in the headlines for being appointed to succeed the retiring Senator Jim DeMint.
After Scott departed, Levin told his audience he had now obtained from a source an inside list of the thirteen House GOP members who publicly bucked Boehner mere moments earlier to vote against the rule allowing Plan B to come to the floor —
reading the names aloud one by one.
Boehner failed, Levin concluded, “because of people like you.” Which is to say, his audience. Regular rank and file Americans had jumped into the middle of this thing themselves — and they had succeeded.
The show ended with Levin saying if the House GOP leadership didn’t step down they should at a minimum get their act together.
“We intend to stand here and be heard,” he vowed of his audience at the close, with a thanks to “the Levin Surge.”
Exactly.
The entire show, found here, was a stunning display of grassroots Americans standing up to Washington insiders in real time — and winning.
One suspects Obama’s second term will not be the picnic his supporters envision. Clearly, Boehner’s speakership — if it continues — won’t be a picnic either.
Not if Mark Levin and his audience have anything to say about it." via Instapundit
========================================
Ed. note: I was lucky enough to be listening to Mr. Levin's show that night. Jeffrey Lord the author of the above piece may be in a position to know more about what went on behind the scenes. Many things amazed me about Mr. Levin's show that night. It was all low key, no fanfare. When his guests came on it flowed as naturally as if we were all sitting in a coffee shop talking. Tim Scott said we're not talking about the right thing, we should be talking about spending. Mr. Levin had immediate information, again without fanfare.
Most of the time we're ignored (by both Republicans and Democrats). If we're acknowledged at all we're ridiculed. That's why this night was so special for those of in the Silent Majority. Even if nothing more comes of it, for one night we were heard. Obama's second term will still be a picnic. He has nothing to worry about.
.
12/28/12, "Mark Levin Audience Helped Defeat Boehner Plan B," Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator
"The Boehner Tax increase he called it. After weeks of taking on Republican House Speaker John Boehner over Boehner’s insistence on trying to make a deal over taxes with President Obama, by the night of December 20 — as House Republicans were being pounded by the GOP leadership to vote that very night for Boehener’s “Plan B” — the backlash dam finally broke on Mark Levin’s radio show.
As we wait for the “fiscal cliff” negotiations to resume at the White House, it’s worth going back to the evening of December 20 to note something that was overlooked as the Christmas holiday overtook the news on the defeat — by House Republicans — of Boehner’s Plan B.
As Levin’s show went live at 6pm Eastern, he opened with a sharp, passionate look at Republicans on the verge of rejecting longtime conservative principle — not to mention basic economics — by raising taxes.
His first guest was Ohio's Rep. Jim Jordan the outgoing head of the Republican Study Committee and one of the few Republicans who was fearless in his open opposition to fellow Ohioan Boehner. Jordan made plain his opposition to the Boehner tax increase proposal, saying Republicans should never “cross the line” in opposing economic growth, and called opposing tax increases a defining principle for Republicans as to “who we are.”
“Now it’s all about the Speaker,” remarked Levin after Jordan departed to return to the floor, citing with disdain multiple reports of Boehner loyalists insisting “we can’t embarrass the Speaker.”
Then, watching the Fox coverage from his broadcasting bunker, Levin braced his audience for learning of House Republicans who were on the verge of abandoning principle,
saying what was unfolding “turns my stomach.”
“If they want to talk like liberals — and they do — then get the hell off the stage.”
The answer to all this Levin said, in response to his first caller,
is not in Washington.
Then the drama ratcheted upwards. Levin, through his own contacts on Capitol Hill, broke the news that House Republicans were being threatened with losing their committee seats if they didn’t support Boehner’s Plan B. And he also broke the news that Boehner had scheduled an emergency Conference meeting.
Levin launched again -– and said this:
“Call your member of your Congress now.”
He called for “an official Levin surge” — and read out the number (202-224-2131) for the House switchboard, asking his audience to call the switchboard and ask to be put through to their GOP House members and make their disagreement with Plan B known loud and clear.
He recounted the tale of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor insisting the GOP Leadership had the votes — and said it was now plain that Cantor was lying.
More information streamed into Levin from his own sources, which he immediately broadcast to his audience of millions, saying there were now threats to subcommittee chairmanships if House GOP members didn’t support the Speaker.
“Are you proud of Boehner, ladies and gentlemen?” Levin asked his audience of the threats against GOP members. Adding: “We don’t have to accept this.” He read out the phone number again, saying “we ought to kick up a little dust.”
All this interspersed with the usual of talk radio — callers and commercials. But as soon as they halted for a minute, Levin kept up the pace. Then word arrives: callers from Levin’s show had shut down the House switchboard.
So…he came up with e-mail addresses.
Insisting all the while that he had no illusions as to whether this would work — he made the point again and again that it had to be tried anyway.
Then still more drama.
You can stop calling, he tells his audience. Levin breaks the news that Boehner had suddenly pulled Plan B from the floor — and read Boehner’s concession statement on the air.
It was stunning, both as talk radio and as news. Boehner, Levin accurately noted, had bullied rather than try to lead his fellow GOP members.
The House leadership wasn’t “clever enough” to pull this off, Levin said. He went on to note that there were millions of conservatives who hadn’t voted for Romney in November — for precisely reasons like those Boehner had made to pass his Plan B.
Fresh from all of this, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert — a leader in fighting this nonsense — called in. His tone was measured, decidedly not triumphant. This was about the Constitution, said Gohmert, calling for using the constitutional process of having the House pass a bill, the Senate taking the bill and making their own changes, then sending it to a House-Senate conference open to the public. This was what should be done, said Gohmert,
instead of having Boehner and Obama negotiating behind closed doors.
In other words, this entire episode — caused by too much spending — should be resolved by following the Constitution.
Gohmert was followed by South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott — in the headlines for being appointed to succeed the retiring Senator Jim DeMint.
After Scott departed, Levin told his audience he had now obtained from a source an inside list of the thirteen House GOP members who publicly bucked Boehner mere moments earlier to vote against the rule allowing Plan B to come to the floor —
reading the names aloud one by one.
Boehner failed, Levin concluded, “because of people like you.” Which is to say, his audience. Regular rank and file Americans had jumped into the middle of this thing themselves — and they had succeeded.
The show ended with Levin saying if the House GOP leadership didn’t step down they should at a minimum get their act together.
“We intend to stand here and be heard,” he vowed of his audience at the close, with a thanks to “the Levin Surge.”
Exactly.
The entire show, found here, was a stunning display of grassroots Americans standing up to Washington insiders in real time — and winning.
One suspects Obama’s second term will not be the picnic his supporters envision. Clearly, Boehner’s speakership — if it continues — won’t be a picnic either.
Not if Mark Levin and his audience have anything to say about it." via Instapundit
========================================
Ed. note: I was lucky enough to be listening to Mr. Levin's show that night. Jeffrey Lord the author of the above piece may be in a position to know more about what went on behind the scenes. Many things amazed me about Mr. Levin's show that night. It was all low key, no fanfare. When his guests came on it flowed as naturally as if we were all sitting in a coffee shop talking. Tim Scott said we're not talking about the right thing, we should be talking about spending. Mr. Levin had immediate information, again without fanfare.
Most of the time we're ignored (by both Republicans and Democrats). If we're acknowledged at all we're ridiculed. That's why this night was so special for those of in the Silent Majority. Even if nothing more comes of it, for one night we were heard. Obama's second term will still be a picnic. He has nothing to worry about.
.
Wind turbines found to last half as long as previously thought, UK study of 3000 turbines found avg. life 12 yrs.
.
12/30/12, "Wind turbines 'last for half as long as previously thought' as study shows they show signs of wearing out after just 12 years," UK Daily Mail, Tamara Cohen
"Wind farms have just half the useful lifespan which has been claimed, according to new research which found they start to wear out after just 12 years.
A study of almost 3,000 turbines in Britain – the largest of its kind – sheds doubt on manufacturers claims that they generate clean energy for up to 25 years,
which is used by the Government to calculate subsidies.
Professor Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and former energy advisor to the World Bank, predicts in the coming decade far more investment will be needed to replace older and ineffective turbines – which is likely to be passed on in higher household electricity bills.
He said the performance of the UK’s wind turbines over the past 11 years had ‘deteriorated markedly’ and that ‘the subsidy regime is extremely generous if investment in new wind farms is profitable despite the decline in performance due to age and over time.’...
For offshore wind –examined only in Denmark where it has been used for longer - it declined even more dramatically from over 40 per cent at the start, to just 15 per cent after ten years.
He believes they become uneconomic after around 12 years. The decline in output was put down to wear and tear of the blades, and more frequent breakdowns for older turbines.
His report for the anti-wind farm charity the Renewable Energy Foundation (KEEP), noted: ‘Onshore wind turbines represent a relatively mature technology, which ought to have achieved a satisfactory level of reliability in operation as plants age. Unfortunately detailed analysis of the relationship between age and performance gives a rather different picture…’
Prof Hughes told the Sunday Telegraph the trend for larger wind turbines in Britain, which reach up to 400feet tall in some areas increased wear and tear.
He added: ‘I strongly believe the bigger turbines are proving more difficult to manage and more likely to interfere with one another.’ He said the data was verified by a statistician at University College London."...
-------------------------------------------------
Storm disintegrates Denmark wind turbine. uploaded Feb. 2008
------------------------------------------------
12/30/12, "Wind turbines 'last for half as long as previously thought' as study shows they show signs of wearing out after just 12 years," UK Daily Mail, Tamara Cohen
"Wind farms have just half the useful lifespan which has been claimed, according to new research which found they start to wear out after just 12 years.
A study of almost 3,000 turbines in Britain – the largest of its kind – sheds doubt on manufacturers claims that they generate clean energy for up to 25 years,
which is used by the Government to calculate subsidies.
Professor Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and former energy advisor to the World Bank, predicts in the coming decade far more investment will be needed to replace older and ineffective turbines – which is likely to be passed on in higher household electricity bills.
He said the performance of the UK’s wind turbines over the past 11 years had ‘deteriorated markedly’ and that ‘the subsidy regime is extremely generous if investment in new wind farms is profitable despite the decline in performance due to age and over time.’...
For offshore wind –examined only in Denmark where it has been used for longer - it declined even more dramatically from over 40 per cent at the start, to just 15 per cent after ten years.
He believes they become uneconomic after around 12 years. The decline in output was put down to wear and tear of the blades, and more frequent breakdowns for older turbines.
His report for the anti-wind farm charity the Renewable Energy Foundation (KEEP), noted: ‘Onshore wind turbines represent a relatively mature technology, which ought to have achieved a satisfactory level of reliability in operation as plants age. Unfortunately detailed analysis of the relationship between age and performance gives a rather different picture…’
Prof Hughes told the Sunday Telegraph the trend for larger wind turbines in Britain, which reach up to 400feet tall in some areas increased wear and tear.
He added: ‘I strongly believe the bigger turbines are proving more difficult to manage and more likely to interfere with one another.’ He said the data was verified by a statistician at University College London."...
-------------------------------------------------
Storm disintegrates Denmark wind turbine. uploaded Feb. 2008
------------------------------------------------
"Uploaded Dec 9, 2011, A wind turbine near Dalry and
Ardrossan in North Ayrshire caught fire during Scotland's extreme
weather on Dec 8th 2011. Filmed by producer and cameraman James Alcock." (:18)
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

