“The President’s mandate that all federal workers must be vaccinated has already gone into effect, although everyone was given a grace period to receive counseling and reconsider their decision not to comply. The first round of dismissals of the unvaccinated was slated to take place this week. But that entire process was thrown into disarray on Friday when a federal court issued an injunction against the mandate, saying that Joe Biden had overstepped the limits of his executive powers. Today, the White House ran up the white flag and indicated that it would abide by the injunction and not begin disciplinary proceedings against federal workers who still refuse to comply. This may not represent a permanent end to the issue since the decision is still being appealed, but at least those at risk of being dismissed are being given some breathing room. The real question is what will be done about those who were already adversely impacted by the planned mandate. (Government Executive.)
Just as the Biden administration was preparing to suspend thousands of employees across the government for failure to comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, it has issued a notice that it will pause all enforcement.
The updated guidance brings the administration in compliance with an injunction issued by a federal court in Texas on Friday, which found that President Biden had overstepped his authority in issuing the executive order last September. The Biden administration had told the court that Friday was the first day that suspensions for some unvaccinated federal employees who had not requested a medical or religious exemption to the mandate would have begun, after it delayed those penalties late last year.
“To ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified, or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation, the federal government will take no action to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement,” the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, a Biden-created group led by officials in the White House, Office of Personnel Management and General Services Administration, said on Monday.
The punishment phase of this program would have had a severe impact on a lot of people. More than 40,000 federal workers remain unvaccinated and were looking at termination. Another 100,000 have requested exemptions and are waiting for the results of those requests before learning their fate. But now, unless the injunction is lifted, the federal government won’t continue processing the exemption requests.
If the courts don’t turn this around, we may have heard the last of this issue, at least for the federal workforce, and people can get back to going about their business. But that won’t apply to everyone. Two groups of people in particular may wind up being incensed at the results of this “hurry up and wait” situation.
First, there are all of the people who thought they saw the writing on the wall and left their jobs to look for work with companies not imposing these types of restrictions. If the mandate is permanently dropped, will they be offered their jobs back? I somehow doubt it. And the years that they put in while planning on a comfortable retirement will have gone to waste for many of them.
And then there are the people who felt they couldn’t afford to give up their government careers and finally caved and went to get a vaccination they did not want and perhaps didn’t trust. What about them? Unlike a person’s employment situation, the vaccine can’t be “reversed.” As we’ve discussed here in the past, once the person administering the jab finishes pushing in the plunger, that vaccine rapidly spreads throughout your body. It can’t be taken back out.”
“In his targeting of the unvaccinated population, President Macron has taken France down the road of Austria, Germany, and Italy.”
—–
“On January 19, Prime Minister Boris Johnson indicated from the dispatch box of the House of Commons that all Covid-related restrictions in England would come to an end. Sajid Javid, the health secretary, added at a press conference that, though the finish line hadn’t yet been crossed, “we must learn to live with Covid in the same way we live with flu.”
Only a week before, on January 13, the United States Supreme Court blocked President Biden’s workplace vaccine mandate. While some individual U.S. cities, such as New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., have implemented vaccine passports, and more are adopting such measures, the U.S., like the U.K., seems set to travel at its own pace toward a new and sunnier post-Covid upland.
France, on the other hand, has taken a radically different path. On January 16, the French parliament voted to introduce the vaccine passport. Even though the government also recently announced a supposed loosening of certain Covid restrictions, such as the current outdoor masking requirement, to take effect in February, France has now joined Austria, Italy, Germany, and others in the adoption of policies that actively obstruct public life for the unvaccinated.
Le Figaro reports that, from now on, each and every Frenchman will have to divulge and justify his health status “to access leisure activities, restaurants and bars, fairs or interregional public transport.”
——-
“Speaking of the unvaccinated in a January 4 interview, President Emmanuel Macron notoriously said: “I really want to piss them off. And so we’re going to keep on doing it, until the end. That’s the strategy.” He added that “it is a very small minority that resists,” offering the judgment that “an irresponsible person is no longer a citizen.”
By mentioning the words “strategy” and “minority” in the same statement, President Macron led many to suspect electioneering as a key motivator for passing the law. The French presidential elections are only three months away.”
—–
I love when cowards like Macron talk tough while hiding behind their gates and security.
“Former Ambassador to Germany under the Trump administration, Ric Grenell, told “The Count” on Newsmax about the Ukraine crisis: “We don’t have any good choices. But the reality is that the leaders of Russia and China and a whole bunch of other places smell weakness.”
RIC GRENELL: Where to begin? This is such chaos. It’s important to note right now, that we are in a situation where we have terrible and bad choices, and that’s what we’re having to choose between. And it’s important to note that elections have consequences and we weren’t in this situation before. We are in this situation after just one year of Joe Biden pushing us to the brink like this.
I’m actually, uh, I’ve moved into the pissed-off phase when it comes to foreign policy, because all the work that we did, whether it’s the border, whether it’s the middle east and now what we’re seeing in Europe with NATO and NATO members is really frustrating.
So I just want to start by saying we don’t have any good choices. But the reality is that the leaders of Russia and China, and a whole bunch of other places, they smell weakness. They see. I mean, you just played this clip of Kamala Harris. I mean, that was pathetic. She wasn’t convincing anybody, she was barely getting through her talking points.
\And so what we’re learning right now is there’s a difference between a threat of military action and a credible threat, and this Biden team does not have a credible threat.
NEWSMAX HOST: Now we know there are already reports that the U.S. has evacuated or started to evacuate diplomats from Ukraine. Here’s how Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, responded when asked whether the White House had a good handle on how many Americans are left in Ukraine.
JEN PSAKI: It’s an open question around the world. We don’t put a chip in Americans when they go to countries around the world and track their movements. People can register with the state department. That’s something they do or they may choose not to register.
NEWSMAX HOST: Now, this just seems like deja vu right here we saw what happened in Kabul. Everybody should evacuate, those chaotic flights out. Is this going to be Afghanistan 2.0?
RIC GRENELL: I mean, really, what Jen Psaki was saying, as you know, we don’t have a plan, and so we really don’t have a handle on the numbers look as as an ambassador in a country that’s one of your number one jobs is protecting American citizens getting them out.
This should have been a plan of action a long time ago. We shouldn’t even be in this situation where we’re evacuating Americans.
Remember, there is no ambassador. We have no ambassador in Ukraine, so you have lower-level individuals trying to coordinate back with Washington.
I can tell you from experience. I’ve been at the State Department for 11 years. The individuals who are in charge of our embassy in Ukraine right now are not making decisions on their own. They’re going back and they’re organizing with the Assistant Secretary [of State] for Europe, who is Karen Donfried, who used to work for the German Marshall Fund where the Germans paid part of her salary.
So this is a disaster situation all over. You’ve got the new Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Schultz, who has already snubbed President Biden and said, “I don’t want to coordinate.” Biden invited him to talk about Ukraine and he said no. Now we’re seeing reports that the French and the Germans are going to organize with the Russians and the Ukrainians on their own. This is a disaster.
The Americans have said we’re going to follow the Europeans, we’re not going to have an America-First policy. We’re going to have a European policy that we’ll just stamp.
I could go down the line and tell you story after story. The Germans aren’t paying their NATO fair share, but yet now are telling Estonia, a member of NATO that they can’t supply weaponry to the Ukrainians.
Where is American leadership? What is happening? Blinken is totally dismissed on the world stage and so is Joe Biden.”
“Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-WY) was so fixated on going after President Donald Trump, that she sold herself to the Democrats to be on their partisan Jan. 6 Committee. She said the quiet part out loud at the beginning of the month, saying the “single most important thing” was to ensure that Trump wasn’t the Republican nominee. Could it get any plainer?
Cheney seemed to think that was going to elevate her politically. There was even delusional talk that she was thinking about running for president in 2024 and that she wasn’t “ruling anything out.” As though anyone would want her. The big problem with that thought? She has no constituency. Democrats will vote for Democrats, they don’t care about her, they’re only using her for their ends. Republicans won’t vote for her because she’s not only attacked Trump, she’s attacked the Republican Party and thrown in with the Democrats. So who does she think she would get to vote for her? Who would ever trust her?
But now karma is about to bite her big time when it comes to her seat in Wyoming.
Harriet Hageman, the candidate endorsed by Trump who is running in the GOP primary against Cheney, won a GOP straw poll for the seat over the weekend. And it wasn’t even close.
Harriet Hageman won with 59 votes in the poll conducted by the Wyoming Republican State Central Committee; Cheney got just six votes. Talk about a dismal showing! Other candidates took three votes. That was out of 74 Committee members. While the party can’t endorse before the primary, that’s a good indication of how much trouble Cheney is in and how likely she is to get pummeled in the primary.
It probably didn’t help when, like her father, she leveled friendly fire at another Wyoming GOP member.”
New: Rep. Liz Cheney tells me she finds it "concerning" that the chair of the Wyoming GOP — who is aiding her party's bid to unseat her — is an alleged member of the far-right Oath Keepers. pic.twitter.com/AmoKOwPPAb
“Last year, McKinsey & Company, the global management consulting firm, agreed to pay nearly $600 million to settle complaints brought by 49 state attorneys general for its alleged role in exacerbating the opioid crisis. McKinsey was accused of helping to “turbo-charge” opioid sales by advising drug manufacturers to focus marketing efforts on doctors already writing the most prescriptions of the addictive painkillers.
From 1999 to 2019, more than 500,000 people died from opioid overdoses. Consumer advocates might expect at least some of that settlement money to trickle down to families who suffered and lost loved ones in the still-ongoing crisis.
But the first recipient of the windfall was a group of lawyers. The settlement deal allocated $15 million to the nonprofit National Association of Attorneys General with the remaining cash mainly slated for state government departments and state general fund accounts.
So much for the consumer protection the lawsuits promised. And it’s hardly an isolated case. Attorneys general – politicians who have to campaign for that role – and other state government entities often hire large private trial-lawyer firms to help prosecute their cases, entering into weak contracts that provide big fees for the firms but few guarantees that consumers will see any restitution from the legal action, according to a new report by the conservative Alliance for Consumers.
The report also notes that, though Democrats tend to boast about standing up to big business and protecting consumers, it’s Democratic politicians who appear to benefit most from weak public contracts, as well as their natural political ties to trial lawyers.
The AFC study found that the top eight plaintiff-side trial firms — all of which boast numerous state and local government public contracts involving prominent litigation — generated $15 million in combined political donations from 2017 to 2020. The donations were doled out by the firms either directly, or through their roughly 1,300 lawyers and other employees and staff, with 98% of those funds going to Democrats or groups supporting their reelection. Those eight firms are Morgan & Morgan, Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Baron & Budd, Grant & Eisenhofer, Berger Montague, Cohen Milstein, and Simmons Hanly Conroy.
The $15 million from these eight firms dwarfs federal donations generated by some of the biggest U.S.-based corporations, including BlackRock (the world’s largest asset manager), Nike and Twitter.
Lieff Cabraser, for instance, generated more than $30,000 per lawyer in federal giving from 2017 through 2020, more than $2.5 million in total with only $30 of that political largesse going to a Republican candidate or committee, the AFC found.
“It’s a political money game where [these firms] are getting millions in state money through very problematic, under-protective contracts, then they’re turning around and being very aggressive with their political giving to Democrats,” said O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, which works to ensure that consumer-protection efforts, class-action lawsuits and attorney general enforcement actions are consistent with the rule of law and benefit everyday consumers, not just class-action lawyers and politicians.
“Time and time again in these cases, it ends up with lawyers getting millions of dollars, part of which goes to help feed political donations to Democrats, and consumers get nothing. … Consumer protection is getting hijacked,” he said.
Skinner, who previously worked on top consumer-oriented cases under Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, argues the taxpayer-funded contracts between state governments and these firms often lack basic ethics protections that should be part of all outside-counsel contracts.
Too often, he said, the contracts are only a few pages long and glaringly weak, sometimes appearing to be written by the trial lawyers themselves rather than government officials. The contracts, which often have no expiration date, also almost never ensure that contingency fees for the lawyers will not be taken out of money set aside for restitution to victims, for instance. They also usually fail to require that the lawyers provide the best pricing terms that the same firms offer to other governmental clients on the same matters. And the contracts almost never include language providing appropriate conflicts protection, even though trial lawyers often represent multiple government entities that may have very different interests in the same case.
“These types of weak, under-protective, giveaway contracts make some sense if the goal is to fund left-wing campaigns,” the report states. “… But they make no sense if your goal is to help consumers and protect taxpayers.”
——–
But that’s not the goal for Democrats. Campaign cash is.
Biden’s State Department spokesman: “We do not have a count we consider to be accurate of the number of Americans” in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/DmNhJ8ubXc
Now in the old days (2 years ago) that kinda remark from the president would be frowned upon by the pearl clutching journalists, but it’s a new day, and the president is a Dem now, so……
Thank you, @BrianStelter, for showing solidarity for your fellow journalist and demonstrating you uphold your principles regardless of partis– oh, wait, this is from 2018:https://t.co/YgULnZIdR5
"Biden deadpanned?" 🤣 Well no Biden was literally caught on a HOT MIC. – he was being deceitful as usual. btw it was a question worthy of an answer. In case you're wondering that's how he feels about you as well, ijs.
They should spend 6 days crying about it, declaring a national emergency, seeking therapy for their trauma, and then write a best-selling book about how much danger they're in, like CNN and Jim @Acosat did. https://t.co/K7FIH19snJ
Read the comments. You'd think this would be something we could all laugh about together. Progressive pouters don't know how to laugh. They find offense in everything, even the fact that the Fox team finds the whole thing hilarious. They WANT Peter to be as miserable as they are. https://t.co/WNsYXjbdFo
Speaking of COVID vaccinations and such…weren’t we?…I read this article this morning
“Superintendent Ewert is wrong, and is now on notice of that. The two teenage children had no parents present and no parental consent. They did not use their real names or real personal information. No identification was required. Their parents were not asked whether they had any pre-existing conditions that could cause an adverse effect. The minor children with no parents present, and no identifications to confirm their age were readily offered the shots and encouraged to get them,” the boy’s father wrote in the email he provided to @libsoftiktok.
Unfortunately, this subversion of parental rights is becoming more common. This incident is just the latest example that has been exposed since the jab was green-lighted for use in young children.
If your child is a student within the Littleton Public School District, and you are concerned about this inexcusable incident, their board of education can be reached directly here.
Their next school board meeting, which is scheduled for Jan 27th, should be a doozie.
I am thankful to not have school age children but I do have grandchildren… the subversion of parental watch over their children is becoming alarming in just about every sector of “education”!😡
Wandering Views 
You’d think Biden would be tired of racking up losses by now…..
“Biden administration to “pause” punishment of unvaccinated feds”
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/01/24/biden-administration-to-pause-punishment-of-unvaccinated-feds-n443747
“The President’s mandate that all federal workers must be vaccinated has already gone into effect, although everyone was given a grace period to receive counseling and reconsider their decision not to comply. The first round of dismissals of the unvaccinated was slated to take place this week. But that entire process was thrown into disarray on Friday when a federal court issued an injunction against the mandate, saying that Joe Biden had overstepped the limits of his executive powers. Today, the White House ran up the white flag and indicated that it would abide by the injunction and not begin disciplinary proceedings against federal workers who still refuse to comply. This may not represent a permanent end to the issue since the decision is still being appealed, but at least those at risk of being dismissed are being given some breathing room. The real question is what will be done about those who were already adversely impacted by the planned mandate. (Government Executive.)
Just as the Biden administration was preparing to suspend thousands of employees across the government for failure to comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, it has issued a notice that it will pause all enforcement.
The updated guidance brings the administration in compliance with an injunction issued by a federal court in Texas on Friday, which found that President Biden had overstepped his authority in issuing the executive order last September. The Biden administration had told the court that Friday was the first day that suspensions for some unvaccinated federal employees who had not requested a medical or religious exemption to the mandate would have begun, after it delayed those penalties late last year.
“To ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified, or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation, the federal government will take no action to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement,” the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, a Biden-created group led by officials in the White House, Office of Personnel Management and General Services Administration, said on Monday.
The punishment phase of this program would have had a severe impact on a lot of people. More than 40,000 federal workers remain unvaccinated and were looking at termination. Another 100,000 have requested exemptions and are waiting for the results of those requests before learning their fate. But now, unless the injunction is lifted, the federal government won’t continue processing the exemption requests.
If the courts don’t turn this around, we may have heard the last of this issue, at least for the federal workforce, and people can get back to going about their business. But that won’t apply to everyone. Two groups of people in particular may wind up being incensed at the results of this “hurry up and wait” situation.
First, there are all of the people who thought they saw the writing on the wall and left their jobs to look for work with companies not imposing these types of restrictions. If the mandate is permanently dropped, will they be offered their jobs back? I somehow doubt it. And the years that they put in while planning on a comfortable retirement will have gone to waste for many of them.
And then there are the people who felt they couldn’t afford to give up their government careers and finally caved and went to get a vaccination they did not want and perhaps didn’t trust. What about them? Unlike a person’s employment situation, the vaccine can’t be “reversed.” As we’ve discussed here in the past, once the person administering the jab finishes pushing in the plunger, that vaccine rapidly spreads throughout your body. It can’t be taken back out.”
LikeLike
The fevered dreams of the Branch Covidians have a similar vision in mind for America.
“France’s Vindictive Covid Strategy: Make Life Miserable for the Unvaccinated”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/frances-vindictive-covid-strategy-make-life-miserable-for-the-unvaccinated/
“In his targeting of the unvaccinated population, President Macron has taken France down the road of Austria, Germany, and Italy.”
—–
“On January 19, Prime Minister Boris Johnson indicated from the dispatch box of the House of Commons that all Covid-related restrictions in England would come to an end. Sajid Javid, the health secretary, added at a press conference that, though the finish line hadn’t yet been crossed, “we must learn to live with Covid in the same way we live with flu.”
Only a week before, on January 13, the United States Supreme Court blocked President Biden’s workplace vaccine mandate. While some individual U.S. cities, such as New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., have implemented vaccine passports, and more are adopting such measures, the U.S., like the U.K., seems set to travel at its own pace toward a new and sunnier post-Covid upland.
France, on the other hand, has taken a radically different path. On January 16, the French parliament voted to introduce the vaccine passport. Even though the government also recently announced a supposed loosening of certain Covid restrictions, such as the current outdoor masking requirement, to take effect in February, France has now joined Austria, Italy, Germany, and others in the adoption of policies that actively obstruct public life for the unvaccinated.
Le Figaro reports that, from now on, each and every Frenchman will have to divulge and justify his health status “to access leisure activities, restaurants and bars, fairs or interregional public transport.”
——-
“Speaking of the unvaccinated in a January 4 interview, President Emmanuel Macron notoriously said: “I really want to piss them off. And so we’re going to keep on doing it, until the end. That’s the strategy.” He added that “it is a very small minority that resists,” offering the judgment that “an irresponsible person is no longer a citizen.”
By mentioning the words “strategy” and “minority” in the same statement, President Macron led many to suspect electioneering as a key motivator for passing the law. The French presidential elections are only three months away.”
—–
I love when cowards like Macron talk tough while hiding behind their gates and security.
LikeLike
Biden is synonymous with weakness.
“Ric Grenell: Ukraine Is A Disaster, Russia And China Smell Weakness”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/01/24/ric_grennel_im_moved_into_the_pissed_off_phase_on_foreign_policy_after_all_the_work_trump_did.html
“Former Ambassador to Germany under the Trump administration, Ric Grenell, told “The Count” on Newsmax about the Ukraine crisis: “We don’t have any good choices. But the reality is that the leaders of Russia and China and a whole bunch of other places smell weakness.”
RIC GRENELL: Where to begin? This is such chaos. It’s important to note right now, that we are in a situation where we have terrible and bad choices, and that’s what we’re having to choose between. And it’s important to note that elections have consequences and we weren’t in this situation before. We are in this situation after just one year of Joe Biden pushing us to the brink like this.
I’m actually, uh, I’ve moved into the pissed-off phase when it comes to foreign policy, because all the work that we did, whether it’s the border, whether it’s the middle east and now what we’re seeing in Europe with NATO and NATO members is really frustrating.
So I just want to start by saying we don’t have any good choices. But the reality is that the leaders of Russia and China, and a whole bunch of other places, they smell weakness. They see. I mean, you just played this clip of Kamala Harris. I mean, that was pathetic. She wasn’t convincing anybody, she was barely getting through her talking points.
\And so what we’re learning right now is there’s a difference between a threat of military action and a credible threat, and this Biden team does not have a credible threat.
NEWSMAX HOST: Now we know there are already reports that the U.S. has evacuated or started to evacuate diplomats from Ukraine. Here’s how Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, responded when asked whether the White House had a good handle on how many Americans are left in Ukraine.
JEN PSAKI: It’s an open question around the world. We don’t put a chip in Americans when they go to countries around the world and track their movements. People can register with the state department. That’s something they do or they may choose not to register.
NEWSMAX HOST: Now, this just seems like deja vu right here we saw what happened in Kabul. Everybody should evacuate, those chaotic flights out. Is this going to be Afghanistan 2.0?
RIC GRENELL: I mean, really, what Jen Psaki was saying, as you know, we don’t have a plan, and so we really don’t have a handle on the numbers look as as an ambassador in a country that’s one of your number one jobs is protecting American citizens getting them out.
This should have been a plan of action a long time ago. We shouldn’t even be in this situation where we’re evacuating Americans.
Remember, there is no ambassador. We have no ambassador in Ukraine, so you have lower-level individuals trying to coordinate back with Washington.
I can tell you from experience. I’ve been at the State Department for 11 years. The individuals who are in charge of our embassy in Ukraine right now are not making decisions on their own. They’re going back and they’re organizing with the Assistant Secretary [of State] for Europe, who is Karen Donfried, who used to work for the German Marshall Fund where the Germans paid part of her salary.
So this is a disaster situation all over. You’ve got the new Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Schultz, who has already snubbed President Biden and said, “I don’t want to coordinate.” Biden invited him to talk about Ukraine and he said no. Now we’re seeing reports that the French and the Germans are going to organize with the Russians and the Ukrainians on their own. This is a disaster.
The Americans have said we’re going to follow the Europeans, we’re not going to have an America-First policy. We’re going to have a European policy that we’ll just stamp.
I could go down the line and tell you story after story. The Germans aren’t paying their NATO fair share, but yet now are telling Estonia, a member of NATO that they can’t supply weaponry to the Ukrainians.
Where is American leadership? What is happening? Blinken is totally dismissed on the world stage and so is Joe Biden.”
——-
But no mean tweets, right?
That’s what’s important…..
LikeLike
Good bye to bad rubbish. 🙂
“Liz Cheney Gets a Big Signal That She’s About to Get the Boot”
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/01/24/liz-cheney-gets-a-big-signal-that-shes-about-to-get-the-boot-n511763
“Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-WY) was so fixated on going after President Donald Trump, that she sold herself to the Democrats to be on their partisan Jan. 6 Committee. She said the quiet part out loud at the beginning of the month, saying the “single most important thing” was to ensure that Trump wasn’t the Republican nominee. Could it get any plainer?
Cheney seemed to think that was going to elevate her politically. There was even delusional talk that she was thinking about running for president in 2024 and that she wasn’t “ruling anything out.” As though anyone would want her. The big problem with that thought? She has no constituency. Democrats will vote for Democrats, they don’t care about her, they’re only using her for their ends. Republicans won’t vote for her because she’s not only attacked Trump, she’s attacked the Republican Party and thrown in with the Democrats. So who does she think she would get to vote for her? Who would ever trust her?
But now karma is about to bite her big time when it comes to her seat in Wyoming.
Harriet Hageman, the candidate endorsed by Trump who is running in the GOP primary against Cheney, won a GOP straw poll for the seat over the weekend. And it wasn’t even close.
Harriet Hageman won with 59 votes in the poll conducted by the Wyoming Republican State Central Committee; Cheney got just six votes. Talk about a dismal showing! Other candidates took three votes. That was out of 74 Committee members. While the party can’t endorse before the primary, that’s a good indication of how much trouble Cheney is in and how likely she is to get pummeled in the primary.
It probably didn’t help when, like her father, she leveled friendly fire at another Wyoming GOP member.”
—
I love the smell of desperation in a political campaign…. 🙂
Plus it’s telling that she fears a veterans group, many of those vets were sent to war by her father’s lies. Now they fear them.
She’s an entitled brat. Show her the door.
LikeLike
Shakespeare had an idea for such as these…..
“Report: State Contracts Boost Dem-Linked Lawyers, Not Consumers”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/01/24/report_state_contracts_boost_dem-linked_lawyers_not_consumers_147083.html
“Last year, McKinsey & Company, the global management consulting firm, agreed to pay nearly $600 million to settle complaints brought by 49 state attorneys general for its alleged role in exacerbating the opioid crisis. McKinsey was accused of helping to “turbo-charge” opioid sales by advising drug manufacturers to focus marketing efforts on doctors already writing the most prescriptions of the addictive painkillers.
From 1999 to 2019, more than 500,000 people died from opioid overdoses. Consumer advocates might expect at least some of that settlement money to trickle down to families who suffered and lost loved ones in the still-ongoing crisis.
But the first recipient of the windfall was a group of lawyers. The settlement deal allocated $15 million to the nonprofit National Association of Attorneys General with the remaining cash mainly slated for state government departments and state general fund accounts.
So much for the consumer protection the lawsuits promised. And it’s hardly an isolated case. Attorneys general – politicians who have to campaign for that role – and other state government entities often hire large private trial-lawyer firms to help prosecute their cases, entering into weak contracts that provide big fees for the firms but few guarantees that consumers will see any restitution from the legal action, according to a new report by the conservative Alliance for Consumers.
The report also notes that, though Democrats tend to boast about standing up to big business and protecting consumers, it’s Democratic politicians who appear to benefit most from weak public contracts, as well as their natural political ties to trial lawyers.
The AFC study found that the top eight plaintiff-side trial firms — all of which boast numerous state and local government public contracts involving prominent litigation — generated $15 million in combined political donations from 2017 to 2020. The donations were doled out by the firms either directly, or through their roughly 1,300 lawyers and other employees and staff, with 98% of those funds going to Democrats or groups supporting their reelection. Those eight firms are Morgan & Morgan, Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Baron & Budd, Grant & Eisenhofer, Berger Montague, Cohen Milstein, and Simmons Hanly Conroy.
The $15 million from these eight firms dwarfs federal donations generated by some of the biggest U.S.-based corporations, including BlackRock (the world’s largest asset manager), Nike and Twitter.
Lieff Cabraser, for instance, generated more than $30,000 per lawyer in federal giving from 2017 through 2020, more than $2.5 million in total with only $30 of that political largesse going to a Republican candidate or committee, the AFC found.
“It’s a political money game where [these firms] are getting millions in state money through very problematic, under-protective contracts, then they’re turning around and being very aggressive with their political giving to Democrats,” said O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, which works to ensure that consumer-protection efforts, class-action lawsuits and attorney general enforcement actions are consistent with the rule of law and benefit everyday consumers, not just class-action lawyers and politicians.
“Time and time again in these cases, it ends up with lawyers getting millions of dollars, part of which goes to help feed political donations to Democrats, and consumers get nothing. … Consumer protection is getting hijacked,” he said.
Skinner, who previously worked on top consumer-oriented cases under Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, argues the taxpayer-funded contracts between state governments and these firms often lack basic ethics protections that should be part of all outside-counsel contracts.
Too often, he said, the contracts are only a few pages long and glaringly weak, sometimes appearing to be written by the trial lawyers themselves rather than government officials. The contracts, which often have no expiration date, also almost never ensure that contingency fees for the lawyers will not be taken out of money set aside for restitution to victims, for instance. They also usually fail to require that the lawyers provide the best pricing terms that the same firms offer to other governmental clients on the same matters. And the contracts almost never include language providing appropriate conflicts protection, even though trial lawyers often represent multiple government entities that may have very different interests in the same case.
“These types of weak, under-protective, giveaway contracts make some sense if the goal is to fund left-wing campaigns,” the report states. “… But they make no sense if your goal is to help consumers and protect taxpayers.”
——–
But that’s not the goal for Democrats. Campaign cash is.
LikeLike
2.0
Again.
LikeLike
Huh. And yet we were told he was the adult, right?
——–
Apology?
No.
LikeLike
Now in the old days (2 years ago) that kinda remark from the president would be frowned upon by the pearl clutching journalists, but it’s a new day, and the president is a Dem now, so……
———
https://twitter.com/bonchieredstate/status/1485753400587399172?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1485753400587399172%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2022%2F01%2F24%2Fheres-brian-stelter-in-2018-saying-president-trumps-jabs-at-reporters-expose-journalists-to-threats-and-intimidation%2F
———-
https://twitter.com/jimstinson/status/1485753440890408960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1485753440890408960%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2022%2F01%2F24%2Fheres-brian-stelter-in-2018-saying-president-trumps-jabs-at-reporters-expose-journalists-to-threats-and-intimidation%2F
———-
———
What a huge difference whether it’s an R or D after the name can make.
LikeLike
Oh, so it’s OK then….. 🙄
———–
———-
———–
——–
———
LikeLike
———–
———–
https://twitter.com/saltMiningSage/status/1485769311662739456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1485769311662739456%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2022%2F01%2F24%2Fmedia-matters-deputy-director-of-rapid-response-seems-upset-peter-doocy-and-jesse-watters-dont-seem-upset%2F
———–
———-
That just makes it funnier.
🤡🤡🤡🤡
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of COVID vaccinations and such…weren’t we?…I read this article this morning
“Superintendent Ewert is wrong, and is now on notice of that. The two teenage children had no parents present and no parental consent. They did not use their real names or real personal information. No identification was required. Their parents were not asked whether they had any pre-existing conditions that could cause an adverse effect. The minor children with no parents present, and no identifications to confirm their age were readily offered the shots and encouraged to get them,” the boy’s father wrote in the email he provided to @libsoftiktok.
Unfortunately, this subversion of parental rights is becoming more common. This incident is just the latest example that has been exposed since the jab was green-lighted for use in young children.
If your child is a student within the Littleton Public School District, and you are concerned about this inexcusable incident, their board of education can be reached directly here.
Their next school board meeting, which is scheduled for Jan 27th, should be a doozie.
I am thankful to not have school age children but I do have grandchildren… the subversion of parental watch over their children is becoming alarming in just about every sector of “education”!😡
LikeLiked by 1 person