Forwarded from Tierney
Calling its lawsuit challenging 2020 election procedures "groundless" and "disingenuous," a judge has ordered the Arizona Republican Party – and its lawyers – to pay the state thousands of dollars in legal fees.
In his ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah contended the GOP's team acted in "bad faith" when it questioned the process for auditing voting machines and sought to delay certification of election results last November. Arizona GOP attorney Jack Wilenchik, on the other hand, said directives like Hannah's serve only to "stop plaintiffs from rightfully invoking the courts to hear their issues." He said the order "encourages public distrust in the government for being openly hostile to them." "For a county judge to say that widespread public mistrust in an election is an 'improper' reason for a political party to be in his court is sorely disrespectful to the views of the many Americans whom I am proud to represent," https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1372229397550366724?s=20
In his ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Hannah contended the GOP's team acted in "bad faith" when it questioned the process for auditing voting machines and sought to delay certification of election results last November. Arizona GOP attorney Jack Wilenchik, on the other hand, said directives like Hannah's serve only to "stop plaintiffs from rightfully invoking the courts to hear their issues." He said the order "encourages public distrust in the government for being openly hostile to them." "For a county judge to say that widespread public mistrust in an election is an 'improper' reason for a political party to be in his court is sorely disrespectful to the views of the many Americans whom I am proud to represent," https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1372229397550366724?s=20
Twitter
Rasmussen Reports
2020 Election Integrity: Arizona Judge - 2020 AZ GOP lawsuit on election procedures "groundless" and "disingenuous." Judge rips Arizona GOP for 'groundless' lawsuit challenging Biden's win, orders it to pay legal fees https://t.co/vDwmbuOG6h via @usatoday
Forwarded from Tierney
Amazon plans to take over employer-based healthcare in the US with its new AMAZON CARE. How do you think that will end? The Amazon Care initiative will offer "a range of urgent and primary care services" but will not replace comprehensive medical insurance. Until now, it's only been offered in Washington State - home of Bill Gates. Now do you see the plan? The new service will be available to "companies of all sizes" and will offer services including Covid-19 and flu testing, vaccinations, treatment of illnesses and injuries, preventive care, sexual health and prenoscription requests. So Jeff Bezos can control your shopping, your health and your news! A separate healthcare venture launched three years ago by Amazon (Jeff Bezos), Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet) and JPMorgan (Jamie Dimon) aimed at providing broader health services to US firms was disbanded earlier this year. They needed the COVID scare to make this work! https://sg.news.yahoo.com/amazon-expand-health-care-across-145024427.html
Yahoo
Amazon to expand health care service across US
Amazon announced plans Wednesday to launch a health care service to employers across the United States that would include quick access to telemedicine and home visits from medical professionals.
Forwarded from Tierney
House Republicans voted Wednesday morning to reverse an internal ban on earmarks, which allow lawmakers to direct funding in spending legislation to pet projects, according to a Republican familiar with the vote. The Democratic majority in the House and Senate have moved forward to reinstate earmarks, now renamed "community project funding."
Republicans approved a resolution offered by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) that would allow their members to request a congressional earmark, as long as certain criteria are met. GOP lawmakers would need to publicly disclose the earmark, include a written justification for the project and verify that they have no financial stake in it, among other requirements. The secret-ballot vote was 102-84, according to sources familiar with the count.
Democrats have already announced similar reforms in their plan to bring back earmarks. But with the majority party planning to soon bring back the spending practice, many Republicans felt like they would be at a huge disadvantage if they decided not to participate while Democrats reaped the rewards of the spending practice. Not to mention that Republicans are feeling good about their chances of reclaiming the House majority next year.
Earmark proponents have argued that allowing lawmakers to ensure money for specific projects would restore power to the legislative branch and shift it away from the Biden administration. They also believe a return to earmarks will help make the institution more functional: The practice can be a useful tool for congressional leaders who are trying to corral votes for bills.
The GOP resolution, which was adopted by a secret-ballot vote, was written to say that members may not request earmarks unless several criteria are met, including the public disclosure and justification for the request. Members and their immediate family cannot have a financial interest in the request, and it must comply with any guidance issued by Republican committee chairs or ranking members.
These criteria align with those laid out by House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro, who announced the House would move to reinstate earmarks in late February. While many in the GOP conference still oppose the use of earmarks, Republicans recognized they would cede important control over how federal dollars are spent if they let Democrats direct spending without their input.
"There's a real concern about the administration directing where money goes. This doesn't add one more dollar. I think members here know what's most important about what's going on in their district, not Biden," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters after the vote. The decision by House Republicans comes ahead of an expected vote on a massive infrastructure bill to be proposed by the Biden administration.
Republicans ended the use of earmarks in 2011, after they swept into the House with a large majority. The vote by the House GOP conference to reverse the self-imposed ban will put pressure on Senate Republicans to also allow earmarks again.
The structure imposed by DeLauro does not increase federal spending, but gives members more say in how existing funds are used. DeLauro announced in late February that there would be a maximum of 10 project requests per member, and spending on these projects will be capped at no more than 1% of discretionary spending. There is no prohibition on earmarks in the House rules, so House committees can start implementing these policies as they write the appropriations bills this spring for the fiscal year beginning October 1.
Republicans approved a resolution offered by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) that would allow their members to request a congressional earmark, as long as certain criteria are met. GOP lawmakers would need to publicly disclose the earmark, include a written justification for the project and verify that they have no financial stake in it, among other requirements. The secret-ballot vote was 102-84, according to sources familiar with the count.
Democrats have already announced similar reforms in their plan to bring back earmarks. But with the majority party planning to soon bring back the spending practice, many Republicans felt like they would be at a huge disadvantage if they decided not to participate while Democrats reaped the rewards of the spending practice. Not to mention that Republicans are feeling good about their chances of reclaiming the House majority next year.
Earmark proponents have argued that allowing lawmakers to ensure money for specific projects would restore power to the legislative branch and shift it away from the Biden administration. They also believe a return to earmarks will help make the institution more functional: The practice can be a useful tool for congressional leaders who are trying to corral votes for bills.
The GOP resolution, which was adopted by a secret-ballot vote, was written to say that members may not request earmarks unless several criteria are met, including the public disclosure and justification for the request. Members and their immediate family cannot have a financial interest in the request, and it must comply with any guidance issued by Republican committee chairs or ranking members.
These criteria align with those laid out by House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro, who announced the House would move to reinstate earmarks in late February. While many in the GOP conference still oppose the use of earmarks, Republicans recognized they would cede important control over how federal dollars are spent if they let Democrats direct spending without their input.
"There's a real concern about the administration directing where money goes. This doesn't add one more dollar. I think members here know what's most important about what's going on in their district, not Biden," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters after the vote. The decision by House Republicans comes ahead of an expected vote on a massive infrastructure bill to be proposed by the Biden administration.
Republicans ended the use of earmarks in 2011, after they swept into the House with a large majority. The vote by the House GOP conference to reverse the self-imposed ban will put pressure on Senate Republicans to also allow earmarks again.
The structure imposed by DeLauro does not increase federal spending, but gives members more say in how existing funds are used. DeLauro announced in late February that there would be a maximum of 10 project requests per member, and spending on these projects will be capped at no more than 1% of discretionary spending. There is no prohibition on earmarks in the House rules, so House committees can start implementing these policies as they write the appropriations bills this spring for the fiscal year beginning October 1.
Forwarded from Breaking911
NIH embraces 1619 project ideology, launches “UNITE” effort against “racial inequity”
Follow @Breaking911
https://breaking911.com/nih-embraces-1619-project-ideology-launches-unite-effort-against-racial-inequity/
Follow @Breaking911
https://breaking911.com/nih-embraces-1619-project-ideology-launches-unite-effort-against-racial-inequity/
Breaking911
NIH embraces 1619 project ideology, launches "UNITE" effort against "racial inequity" - Breaking911
On March 1, the NIH released a statement penned by the director of the NIH, Dr. Francis S. Collins, stating, “NIH has launched an effort to end structural racism and racial inequities in biomedical research through a new initiative called UNITE…” In the statement…
Forwarded from JovanHuttonPulitzer (JovanHutton Pulitzer)
Did not know this was out there https://principia-scientific.com/science-of-kinematics-conclusively-proves-if-trump-or-biden-won/
Principia Scientific Intl. | A science-based community
Science of Kinematics Conclusively Proves It: Did Trump or Biden Win? | Principia Scientific Intl.
A world-leading technologist says a kinematic audit is the fairest, quickest and most obvious tool to resolve the greatest controversy in American politics – who really won the 2020 presidential election? Late in the day comes the perfect, simple-to-perform…
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Dangerous situation unfolding near West Jefferson AL
WARNING: A LARGE DANGEROUS TORNADO IS CONFIRMED TO BE ON THE GROUND SW OF TUSCALOOSA ALABAMA TRAVELLING NORTH EAST. WARNING: THIS IS A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION
http://twitter.com/NWStornado/status/1372273279889633282
http://twitter.com/NWStornado/status/1372273279889633282
Twitter
NWS Tornado
Tornado Warning continues for Tuscaloosa County, AL until 3:00 PM CDT
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
LARGE STRONG TORNADO SOUTH OF TUSCALOOSA MOVING NORTH EAST
https://uncoverdc.com/2021/03/17/chauvin-trial-latest-in-wake-of-27m-george-floyd-family-settlement/
UncoverDC
Chauvin Trial Latest in Wake of $27m George Floyd Family Settlement - UncoverDC
Defense attorney Eric Nelson, representing the former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, asked the judge Monday, to delay the trial because the announcement last Friday of a record $27m settlement for Floyd’s family could make a fair trial impossible.…