Jack Nicklaus sued by Nicklaus Companies after Saudi offer

Jack Nicklaus is being sued by his own company.

Nicklaus Companies filed a lawsuit against the golf Hall of Famer earlier this month, claiming that Nicklaus actively worked directly against the company on multiple occasions after he had reached a $145 million exclusive deal with the company, according to Sports Illustrated.

Nicklaus Companies was initially founded in 1970, and works on golf course design, apparel, eyewear, art and more. Nicklaus Companies is currently run by executive chairman Howard Milstein. Nicklaus’ son, Jack Nicklaus II, is a vice chairman at the company !!! …

Nothin’ says ” I luv ya Dad quite like a lawsuit , huh ?!!! …

According to the lawsuit, it was actually Nicklaus Companies that stopped Nicklaus from accepting that deal.

“The Company essentially saved Mr. Nicklaus from himself by extricating him from a controversial project that could have not only tarnished his legacy and reputation, but severely damaged the Nicklaus Companies’ name, brands and business,” the lawsuit said, via Sports Illustrated. “Thanks to the intervention of Nicklaus Companies, the Company was able to minimize fallout from the situation and protect the goodwill and good name of both the Company and Mr. Nicklaus.

“The potential irreparable harm that Nicklaus Companies faced had Mr. Nicklaus’s unauthorized activities not been abandoned has been highlighted by the continued statements made by the PGA Tour and various leading Tour players and the substantial negative news coverage criticizing Phil Mickelson’s involvement as a paid endorser of the Saudi-backed golf league. If not for the efforts of Nicklaus Companies, Mr. Nicklaus could have been pilloried in the news media for accepting payment for what could be characterized as betraying the PGA Tour.”

Nicklaus, 82, denied the accusations against him in a small statement.

“The claims made by Howard Milstein are untrue,” he said, via Sports Illustrated. “Our relationship has been a difficult one, at best. I have little doubt about the outcome, but I don’t intend to make this a public spectacle, if it can be avoided.”

Source: Jack Nicklaus sued by Nicklaus Companies after Saudi offer

A Few Good Ones …

O.K. Buddy … Show Me Something !!! …

The highest-profile case brought so far by John Durham, the Special Counsel tasked with pinpointing the origin of the plot to frame Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, as a Russian spy and traitor to America, starts Monday in a D.C. courtroom.

Durham’s case combines all the worst elements of media frenzy — Rachel Maddow’s fainting couch moments, “Trump Stole the Election” fake headlines, and packing peanut-weight Pulitzer Prizes — in a melodrama embodied in the person of Michael Sussmann, Hillary Clinton’s attorney and the man who represented the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election cycle.

Durham is trying Sussmann for lying to the FBI by saying he wanted his old friend — luckily the FBI general counsel —  to hear a juicy tidbit about the Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, being a Russian spy. Oh no, Sussmann claimed, he wasn’t coming on behalf of any of his Democrat clients. Not him! He was coming to tell the FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was there to give him a scoop out of the goodness of his heart and for the good of America. Apple pie. Cherry trees. Grandma’s needlepoint. George Effing Washington. Semper Fi.

But Durham says Sussman lied. He thinks Sussmann was doing it to help elect Hillary. Well, he knows Sussmann was doing it for Hillary. If he weren’t working for Hilldog, why did his records show that he billed her for his time to meet with the FBI general counsel? Why would he send a text to Baker indicating he was working only for America and not Hillary Clinton, hence showing the lie?

What’s the big deal about lying to an FBI executive?

Well, it turns out that lying to a federal agent is a Bozo No No and against the federal law “in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.” It’s the Emoluments Clause, FARA, and the Logan Act times a thousand.

Durham now goes to court with his first contested case after being laterally moved from Connecticut U.S. Attorney to special counsel by Trump Attorney General Bill Barr. As special counsel, his job was to find the origins of the hoax that dogged the Trump campaign through the first year of his presidency.

And all fingers point to Hillary, her comrades, and her attorneys, among them Michael Sussmann, formerly of Perkins Coie, the white-shoe of all white-shoe political law firms, except for the law firm representing Sussmann, Latham Watkins.

Hillary, her campaign right hand Robby Mook, Sussmann, Fusion GPS, former MI6 spook Christopher Steele, and Marc Elias stage-managed what is widely believed to be the worst political hit job in the history of political hit jobs. Worse than Donald Segretti’s frat boy “dirty tricks,” Grover Cleveland’s bastard, or any October Surprise dreamt up by the “Christic Institute,” the op against Donald Trump was the pinnacle of political dirty tricks. If they gave out awards for dirty tricks, this one would win.

So maniacal was the total war effort against Donald Trump that Democrats didn’t care who or what got hurt in the crossfire. Durham’s case has highlighted the corruption and the destruction of public trust and credibility in the FBI, CIA, the media, and the Department of Justice the way a trailer park looks when an EF 5 tornado hits it. If you stop and listen, you can hear the sound of a rolling hubcap hitting up against a rusty oil drum.

COVID-19 has slowed Durham’s case down, as it has all of us, but this is the first of what could be several cases by the man tasked with finding something of the truth behind this gaslight operation to depict Trump as a colluder with Russians when it turns out that Hillary Clinton was the one doing that.

The world knew that Al Capone was a mobster and killer, but the feds got him on a tax charge. Michael Sussmann disseminated traitorous poison into Washington, D.C.’s political water table in order to sway an election and frame a president as a traitorous spy. He and his friends did so on behalf of a chardonnay-drenched wretch with no conscience.

Sussmann faces a charge of lying to the feds. He says he didn’t do it.

Let’s see if anyone believes him after this trial.

It’s show time. It’s up to you and the facts now, John Durham.

Source: It’s Show Time for John Durham – PJ Media

I Agree …

Diversity Isn’t Always Good

By M.B. Mathews

Diversity, the integration of people with widely diverging cultures, colors, and persuasions, is not always good.  Nor is diversity always the best idea for a group or nation that wants to cohere in its traditions and remain functionally intact.  It has become a glib aphorism, almost received scripture that “diversity is our strength,” but the reality does not bear that out, and I have seen no evidence that it is always true.  Quite the contrary.

Sohrab Ahmari, author of The Unbroken Thread, opines that when a population devoted to specific traditional ideals that emerge from their religious or ethnic heritage gets too diverse, that population fractures and loses cohesion.  Introducing diverse foreign ideologies into a close-knit population can destroy it more easily than enhancing it.  If a group of Mennonites or Amish, for example, were to encourage diversity of faith and practice, it would risk disintegration of their unique culture.

The same is true of most Christian churches, ethnic groups such as Sons of Italy, Hasidic Jews, and groups like our armed forces …

A general whose troops are divided along racial or cultural lines, which is what forced diversity brings, cannot fight a winning defensive war for America’s survival with such fragmented troops.  I am talking not about color, but about different ideas of what America should be about and why it should be defended.

Maintaining the homogeneity of a group is self-preservation for a specific purpose — perpetuation of the tenets of the group, not perpetuation of the society at large.  Progressive diversity commandants call their invasions of cultures and groups “progress.”  Too often, it is regress for the group involved, and many times it is oblivion.  There is nothing wrong with a group saying they want things to remain as they are.  After all, many people worked hard to form that group under a certain set of ideas.  Who is anyone to say it is not valid because it is not “diverse”?  And why is diversity good and non-diversity bad?  It is not self-evident.

Historically, diversity (here defined as the influx of different-culture people into a homologous population) is supposed to create cohesion.  Supposedly, diversity creates spiritual, intellectual, and cultural growth.  But although many people prefer to live with people who are different from themselves, many do not, preferring to live among like-minded people.  There is nothing racist or bigoted about wanting to be in the company of like-minded people …  

It is called freedom of assembly …

Hit the link below for more …

Source: Diversity Isn’t Always Good – American Thinker

Some good ones …

Ultra MAGA sounds so cool ! …

I think all the little brains in the White House burned the midnight oil for a few days trying to find the perfect pithy slogan and Ultra MAGA was the result.

It amazes me that nobody saw the phrase in print and said, “You know what? This doesn’t make the Republicans sound bad. It makes them sound totally bad-ass.”

The other day in a speech to union members, a shouting, angry Joe took it a step further, referring to Donald Trump as “the great MAGA king.”

Instantly, people on Twitter were all pointing out that Trump was going to embrace that nickname with pride.

And he did.

From his account on Truth Social, Trump tweeted a Photoshopped image of the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King movie poster with him as the bearded King and the title “The Return of the Great MAGA King.”

Source: Ultra MAGA sounds so cool! – PatriotRetort.com

Tom Brady’s new job … NFL broadcaster

When the news broke that Tom Brady had already agreed to become the lead NFL analyst for Fox Sports upon his (next) retirement from football, it immediately led to an obvious rhetorical question.

That guy really does not enjoy being a stay-at-home dad, huh?

Certainly the leaked salary numbers — a reported total package of US$375-million over 10 years — are enough to make anyone reconsider the appeal of, say, grooming the perfect lawn and learning to play the guitar in one’s retirement, but Brady, 44, has already stretched his playing career to previously unthinkable lengths, and his first retirement did not take. Evidently, he likes to have things on his calendar, even in the long term, and even if it amounts to getting paid absurd amounts to say things like “This is a big play here, Kevin,” every Sunday.

But there is another rhetorical question that this news raises, and it’s one that I cannot even begin to explain: Why do these networks want to pay their NFL analysts so much money? The economics here are truly baffling.

It’s a trend that began just a couple of years ago, when CBS gave Tony Romo more than US$17-million per year to be the extremely excitable foil to Jim Nantz. NFL analyst money had already been silly, with Jon Gruden reportedly the highest-paid ESPN employee at US$6.5-million annually to be a perfectly bland commentator, but the Romo deal was so large as to invite serious confusion. No one had begun his broadcasting career making as much of a splash as Romo, with his knack for reading formations and calling plays before the snap of the ball, but the novelty of that wizardry had already worn off by the time he was given his massive raise. More fundamentally, the question was whether Romo affected CBS’ NFL ratings at all. And the answer is: Almost certainly not.

The NFL is a monstrously successful television product. In the United States, eight of the top 10 most-watched broadcasts in 2021 were NFL games, and one of the other two was a bang-average drama that aired immediately after the Super Bowl and which garnered millions of viewers who had simply fallen asleep or passed out …

Source: Scott Stinson: Tom Brady’s new job is a lesson in the baffling economics of NFL broadcaster deals | National Post

I get a kick outta Elon …

In what appeared to be a dark Twitter joke on Sunday night, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk suggested that he could “die under mysterious circumstances” after he was apparently threatened by Russia’s space chief Dmitry Rogozin.

“The delivery of the Starlink equipment was carried out by the Pentagon. Elon Musk, thus, is involved in supplying the fascist forces in Ukraine with military communication equipment,” read the statement. “And for this, Elon, you will be held accountable like an adult—no matter how much you’ll play the fool.”

Musk commented that the “word ‘Nazi’ doesn’t mean what [Rogozin] seems to think it does.” He subsequently tweeted, “If I die under mysterious circumstances, it’s been nice knowin ya,” and later, “There are no angels in war.”

Maye Musk, the billionaire’s mother, replied to the “nice knowin ya” post by writing, “That’s not funny,” leading her son to add, “Sorry! I will do my best to stay alive.”

Musk and Rogozin have entered one another’s radars before. In 2014, the Russian official responded to Western sanctions by joking that the U.S. should use a trampoline to transport its astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), given that NASA was relying on Russian spacecraft for its crewed missions. Six years later, NASA used a SpaceX rocket to send two NASA astronauts to the ISS. Musk then capitalized on the launch by offering a counterpunch to Rogozin’s jab. “The trampoline is working!” he said in 2020.

Source: Elon Musk Teases His Own “Mysterious” Death, His Mom Says, “That’s Not Funny” | Vanity Fair

New York Times removes the word ‘fetus’ from possible Wordle answers …

If you and a friend noticed different Wordle answers Monday, you’re not alone. The New York Times removed the word “fetus” from its list of answers in order to keep the hugely popular word puzzle “distinct from the news.”

Fetus was meant to be the answer for May 9, having been pre-loaded into the game last year during the puzzle’s development by creator Josh Wardle.

The New York Times removed the word because it’s “closely connected to a major recent news event” — likely referring to a leaked draft ruling that indicates the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade.

In a statement released Monday, the New York Times explained that it altered the answer list in order to preserve its Games division as a “place to entertain and escape.”

The decision in Roe v. Wade holds that the U.S. Constitution protects a person’s liberty to get an abortion free of excessive government restrictions. Advocates across the U.S. have decried that abortion access will be threatened if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

But despite the Times’ efforts, not everyone is seeing the updated puzzle.

Some on social media had fun at the Times’ expense.

” Wordle just aborted the word fetus “

” So the @nytimes had a fetus they did not want and was able to make the private decision to get rid of it?  weird “

What a farce !!! …

Source: New York Times removes the word ‘fetus’ from possible Wordle answers – National | Globalnews.ca

Batheroom Liberal MP apologizes …

OTTAWA – MPs were warned once again Friday to keep their calls with nature and the call to democracy separate after a Liberal parliamentarian was forced to apologize for bringing the House of Commons to the bathroom with him via Zoom.

One would think that after two years of virtual parliament, MPs would know not to bring their recording devices with cameras turned on with them to bathroom while attending proceedings.

MORBNOTE ; At this point , I’m already formulated a thought about this individual’s background …

And yet on Friday , Liberal MP for Brampton Centre …

MORBNOTE II ; As soon as I saw ‘ Brampton ‘ …AHA !!! … GOTTA BE A SOUTH ASIAN !!! …

SHAFQAT ALI !!! … was caught on an internal camera feed doing just that while sitting virtually in the Chamber …

And then he rambles on …3 days later ! …With an obviously scripted apology ( written by someone else ! ) goin’ on about ‘ how it will never happen again ‘ …

Well … At least he’s figured out that we use bathrooms here …

FILTHY !!! …

Source: Liberal MP apologizes after he was caught bringing the House of Commons to the bathroom via Zoom | National Post