This fat, black kunt is a serious menace:

New York Attorney General Letitia James has been selected as the tip of the spear to launch the globalists’ war on beef. This week, she filed a ludicrous lawsuit against the world’s largest beef producer, JBS USA.
“This is their opening volley but it won’t be their last,” said Jason Nelson, CEO of Prepper All-Naturals. “They’re weaponizing the climate change hoax to destroy the beef industry, thereby forcing people to choose between petri dish ‘meat,’ tofu burgers, or insect powder to get the protein we need.”
James’ lawsuit claims JBS USA is “greenwashing” by allegedly misleading the public about its environmental impact. She asserts that the company cannot possibly achieve their goal of net-zero by 2040 because they don’t have an appropriate plan in place 16 years before the deadline.
“We are contacting our ranching partners and cattle associations across the country, including New York, to coordinate a response to this and other attacks on real beef,” Nelson said. “We’ve seen what these people will do with lawfare and we need to take actions to fight back.”
Nelson’s company, Prepper All-Naturals. has promised to not only supply Americans with long-term storage cuts of steak, but also to help support all-American veterans’ charities. Their “prepper beef,” which has a 25-year shelf-life, is offering a special discount for a limited time. Americans can take 25% off all of their products with promo code “veterans25”.
As Nelson noted, James isn’t just using this lawsuit to punish a company for ridiculous reasons. She’s also using the lawsuit as a platform from which to normalize beef price hikes and gaslight people into thinking they don’t need all-natural meat.
As her recent statement indicates, they want Americans to choose to accept the alternatives the powers-that-be are promoting. Here’s a segment of her statement, emphasis added:
“As families continue to face the daily impacts of the climate crisis, they are willing to spend more of their hard-earned money on products from brands that are better for the environment. When companies falsely advertise their commitment to sustainability, they are misleading consumers and endangering our planet.”
“This is psychological warfare on top of their lawfare,” said Nelson, a combat-disabled veteran who served in the Middle East. “They’re trying to take away our access to all-natural meat but to do so they need enough people to willingly and often enthusiastically accept the lab-grown alternatives they’re peddling.”

Just curious – did that video of a professor saying Trump is ga-ga draw upon Trump supposedly forgetting his wife’s name? Calling her Mercedes?

Cryon de Telli match figures.
Out LBW twice.
Total of 20 runs from two digs.
Burnt two DRS reviews along the way.
As pointed out above, the Michael Jackson moonwalk across the stumps and fidgety flicks at the ball might work OK when you come in at 2/80 against pie throwers when you have the eye and reflexes of a 24 year old.
Not so much as a 34 year old against a new ball which is darting around at pace.

Reading Antony Beevor’s Russia, Revolution and Civil War this afternoon I was reminded that the February revolution, which led to the abdication of Nicholas II a week later, was kicked off by women protesting on International Women’s Day. The scale of the protests in Petrograd and the speed of political developments took even the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks by surprise.

After the October revolution, the Bolsheviks declared 8th March IWD. The day remained largely a Communist bloc celebration until taken up by second-wave feminists in the West in the 1960s.

Yes James is evil and dishonest beyond belief. A psychopath.

Is she seriously being touted as the one to wean Americans off beef?

Look at the size of her!

I wonder if she has not been dragooned by the same argument that had the scowling wookie, Michelle Obama, bewildered by numbers she had not even seen before appearing on the bathroom scale, take it upon herself to put all the school kids on a diet that made them tired, sallow, and feeble.

Letitia looks like she starts each day with a protein smoothie – dropping a whole cow into a gigantic blender and slurping the pulp through a garden hose.

Otherwise she can’t make it to morning T-Rex.

Rabz
Mar 10, 2024 6:06 PM

err, hello?

Is this thing on?

Well, there is your next radio show – Pink Floyd’s The Wall.

Hello (hello, hello)
Is there anybody out there…

“The knives are out for Pesutto”.

“Though the knives of the party cut slowly
Yet they cut exceedingly genital.”

propping up your propaganda

Qatar threatening to kick hamas leadership out of Doha if they don’t reach a hostage deal

What’s taken them so long?

Taxmania, it’s not so much a map, as a state of mind!

Where your GST goes to die.

“The knives are out for Giuseppe Prosciutto”

I hope it’s televised like last time.

Anyway, slumming it but a belt of Jamieson’s down, time to cook a beef and Bearnaise sauce and a new Barossa Shiraz.

Later taters!

Piss off Bolton.

Joe Biden is Just a Bitter, Hate-Filled Old Man

I think it was Beevor who made the point that the secret police of “Nicholas the Bloody” – the last of the Romanoff Czars – took very few lives compared with the Cheka…

IIFRC, it might have been Solzhenitsyn who said that the commies had executed more people in their first 6 or 12 months, than the Tsars had in the previous 150 years!

Daily Mail.

Alice Springs couple robbed at knifepoint in their own home by a gang who demanded money, cigarettes and alcohol

Elderly couple face group of knife-wielding men
They burst into their house before daylight

From the Oz. Any of the bush lawyers on the Cat care to comment?

Judge’s email could be the biggest clue to Bruce Lehrmann defamation verdict

By stephen rice
NSW Editor
8:39PM March 10, 2024

Has Justice Michael Lee dropped the biggest clue about where his mind is at in Bruce Lehrmann’s mammoth defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson?

As Lee’s self-imposed deadline for a verdict looms later this month, or early next, it’s the topic currently occupying the minds of some of the country’s highest ­profile lawyers.

Three weeks ago Justice Lee emailed all parties to the case ­asking a very specific question.

What happens if he decides that Ten and/or Wilkinson’s defences have failed, but that no damages – or only nominal ­damages – should be awarded to ­Lehrmann?

If that was his verdict, Lee ­inquired, how should he approach the issue of aggravated damages? Aggravated damages are awarded to a plaintiff who has suffered ­increased distress as a result of the manner in which a defendant has behaved when committing the wrong or thereafter.

Trying to read the tea leaves in any defamation case is fraught, and perhaps more so in the case of Lee, who has been openly sceptical during the hearing about the evidence of both Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins, the two central witnesses in the case.

“It is clear that there are significant credit issues in relation to the two principal witnesses … certainly Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins,” he observed at one point. “Various parts of each witness’s evidence simply can’t be accepted.”

So Lee’s final decision may not be a black-and-white, winner-takes-all finding for one side.

And in any case, there are now very clearly three sides to this case, with Wilkinson pointing to evidence from her cross-claim against Ten for legal costs that she says lessens – or voids – her culpability in the network’s allegations and conduct towards Lehrmann.

If Lee finds himself unable to conclude, on the balance of ­probabilities, that Lehrmann raped Higgins on a couch in ­Parliament House, he will then have to decide whether the reporting and subsequent actions of Ten and Wilkinson were reasonable in the circumstances.

If he finds that either Ten or Wilkinson acted unreasonably, he may give judgment to Lehrmann.

But should Lee award him any damages – especially if he believes Lehrmann was lying in the ­witness box?

Lee raised the issue of aggravated damages after evidence in Wilkinson’s cross-claim revealed she was acting on Ten’s legal advice when she gave her infamous Logies speech. Not only had Ten failed to make that advice public, it had ­refused to waive legal privilege earlier in the defamation case, so Lee couldn’t see it either.

In his judgment in favour of Wilkinson, Lee noted he was “in the unusual situation of having some insight into how the sausage has been made”. He didn’t seem pleased about what he’d seen.

If Lehrmann won the case but Lee decided to give him nothing (or only nominal or “contemptuous” damages) what should he do if he nevertheless reached the conclusion that the conduct of Ten or Wilkinson “was sufficiently improper to amount to an ­aggravating circumstance”?

Lee’s question is not necessarily a pointer to the way he will decide the case. Defamation trial judges often give an indication as to how they would have ­approached damages in the event that the plaintiff was successful.

The judge might find against Lehrmann but still indicate what damages he would have awarded, so that, if his judgment is set aside on appeal, that issue does not have to be re-litigated.

The careful Lee may simply be covering all his bases. Some lawyers, however, think the evidence revealed in Wilkinson’s successful cross-claim against Ten wasn’t just helpful for the star’s bank balance.

They think it may have ­reshaped one fundamental issue in the larger defamation case about whether the network acted reasonably towards Lehrmann.

Would Lee be diving this deep into the weeds if he was simply planning to find on the balance of probabilities for Network Ten and Wilkinson?

“I don’t think he’d be so interested in getting that nailed down if he didn’t intend to get to damages at all,” says one lawyer.

“Aggravated damages are a super, over-the-top damages that you get on top of other damages and there’s much less imperative to talk about them in these circumstances,” suggests another lawyer. “Raising the question of aggravated damages seems inconsistent with a finding that Ten acted reasonably.”

Wilkinson’s legal team, led by Sue Chrysanthou SC, claims the new evidence shows its client acted reasonably even if Ten didn’t.

In her final submissions, Chrysanthou argued that, because it was now clear Wilkinson had ­relied on Ten’s legal advice on all aspects of the case, it “could hardly be described as reckless or improper”.

She said it was also clear that Ten’s senior lawyer, Tasha Smithies, “strongly held the view, as ­reflected in her advice to Ms Wilkinson, that Ms Wilkinson should give the (Logies) speech in the terms she spoke” – a claim Ten strenuously rejected in its own submission.

Lehrmann’s lawyers aren’t letting Wilkinson off the hook just because she was acting on Ten’s legal advice. That would “lessen her personal culpability” on the question of aggravated damages, they conceded, but “her actions remain ill-advised, reckless and prejudicial to (Lehrmann’s) right to a fair trial.”

Lee told the parties last month he “had not been idle” since Christmas, and had planned to deliver his decision this month. After the startling evidence from Wilkinson’s cross-claim, that verdict may be delayed until early April.

Whatever his final decision, it’s unlikely any of the parties will emerge from it completely unscathed. And highly unlikely the fastidious Lee will have left any room for a successful appeal.

The Prime Minister praised Dr O’Donoghue for her “unceasing work” to better the lives of First Nations peoples.

“Her remarkable power was one built on an abiding faith in the possibility of a more united Australia,” he said.

“This was a faith she embodied with her efforts to bring about meaningful and lasting reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia.

“A faith underpinned by her unceasing work to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

“Yet consider the stony ground in which this faith somehow took root.

“Starting with a childhood that saw her separated from her family, her language and her own name, Dr O’Donoghue endured discrimination that would have given her every reason to lose faith in her country, but she never did.

I know Dr Lowitja O’Donoghues funeral was two days ago, but does anyone want to tell that driveling idiot, Anthony Albanese, that it was her own father, who placed her, and her siblings, in the care of the missionaries?

Canberra is run by perennial school teachers.

Clay Millican

332 MPH at Gator Nationals

Rosie
Mar 10, 2024 10:54 PM
Canberra is run by perennial school teachers.

That’s harsher than “a Nation of shopkeepers”.
The most horrifying thing they can witness when they venture beyond the borders of Canberra Shire Council is a restaurant sign saying “no split bills”.