Connect with us

News

Barack Speaks After ACA Ruled Unconstitutional, & It’s Worse Than You Thought

This guy refuses to go away. He just doesn’t get it!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Barack Obama’s biggest problem is…never mind. We’d be here all day.

After a federal judge ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional now that Republicans have repealed the individual mandate, the former president is speaking out.

As you’d imagine, Barack and company will challenge the ruling – probably until they get the answer they’re looking for.

From Daily Wire:

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Former President Obama also weighed in on the issue, according to Fox News, reiterating to potential Obamacare enrollees that the law has not been struck down for good, and that he believes the Affordable Care Act will survive the appeals process.

“You might have heard about a federal court decision on a Republican lawsuit trying to strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety,” the former President said in a post on Facebook and on Twitter. “As this decision makes its way through the courts, which will take months, if not years, the law remains in place and will likely stay that way.”

Eventually, the unAfforable Care Act will most likely make its way back to the Supreme Court.

Liberals aren’t pleased with the judge.

They want action. They want appeals.

They want Medicare for all!

WATCH:

https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU0NDk1ODYwNSwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTAwNTQ2MDI0IiwiayI6InBob3RvLzEwMDU0NjAyNC9odWdlLmpwZyIsIm0iOjEsImQiOiJzaHV0dGVyc3RvY2stbWVkaWEifSwicldBaHVOL2ttbDRLWENoR091VmFUeVdhanFrIl0%2Fshutterstock_100546024.jpg&ir=true&pi=39906161&m=100546024

President Trump tweeted:

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, virulent anti-Trumper: “Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the ACA’s consumer protections for health care, and on America’s faithful progress toward affordable health care for all Americans.”

Potential 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (CA) whined:

Bernie calls for the rich to fork over their cash in order to be redistributed, yet forgets he’s a member of the 1%.

He’s also big into “saving” the planet, yet has no problem flying private.

The list could go on for a while.

But spending $300,000 on private flights in a single month? Is this guy a rockstar?

From Daily Wire:

“According to federal campaign finance reports, Friends of Bernie Sanders, the senator’s official 2018 Senate campaign committee, spent $297,685.50 with Apollo Jets, a private charter jet service headquartered in New York,” the website VtDigger.com reported. “The report does not break down the number of trips or where they were taken. The check was issued on Oct. 10, according to the report.”

“This expense was for transportation for the senator’s 9-day, 9-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” campaign spokesman Arianna Jones told VtDigger.com. “This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont,” she said.

Jones said Sanders used private jets “to allow the senator to campaign in all of the states where candidates wanted his help and get back to Vermont in order to join the Vermont Democratic Party coordinated campaign’s final GOTV efforts. As Bernie often said while encouraging voters to get involved leading up to Election Day, this was the most important midterm election in our lifetimes and he wanted to have maximum impact.”

Sanders probably would’ve been the Democrat nominee for president in 2016 had the Democrat National Committee not worked their “magic” for Hillary Clinton.

Would Bernie have defeated Donald Trump? We’ll never know.

But what about two years from now?

Does Sanders have a chance?

Sharpton: “Twenty-twenty, everyone is talking about this candidate or that candidate. A central question is, will Bernie Sanders run again?

Sanders: “And the answer is, Al, I will make that decision at the appropriate time. I will be honest with you, you’re a friend, you know, we’re looking at it. But it is … a decision that impacts your family. And I want to make sure that when I make that decision, if I decide to run, that I have concluded, in fact, that I am the strongest candidate who can defeat Donald Trump,” Sanders said. “And I’ve got to make that decision based on my background, based on my past, based on my ideas that, in fact, I am the candidate that can defeat Trump.

WATCH:

News

SHADOW WAR: Judge Refuses to Reveal Info About FBI’s Raid on Project Veritas

The First Amendment itself is at stake here.

Published

on

You know that things are heading downhill fast for the Biden administration when the FBI is forced to raid home and offices connected to investigative journalists.

In this latest affront to the First Amendment, the Bureau took aim at Project Veritas – a provocative news outlet that just happens to lean to the right – and it’s founder, James O’Keefe, with both suffering raids of their homes after a story emerged regarding their potential possession of a “diary” that once belonged to one of the Biden children.

Now, in what appears to be an attempt to keep this whole debacle as quiet as possible, a federal judge is refusing to let materials related to the case be seen by the public.

A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden.

The use of a search warrant to seize O’Keefe’s records raised the hackles of some First Amendment advocates, who said O’Keefe’s activities likely qualify for protection for members of the news media under federal law and Justice Department regulations. O’Keefe’s critics say his deceptive tactics and evident partisan bias disqualify him from any claim to being a journalist.

The entire fiasco appears to be turning muddy in recent weeks.

In the 19-page ruling, the magistrate judge referred to O’Keefe as one of the “subjects” of the investigation. Federal prosecutors use that term to describe someone whose activities are being actively examined by the investigation but who is not currently seen as likely to be charged.

If Cave intended to use the term in that sense, it would raise further questions about the raid on O’Keefe’s home, since prosecutors are not typically permitted to use search or seizure warrants to get unpublished media materials about crimes allegedly committed by others.

O’Keefe’s attorney has said that the conservative provocateur bought the “rights” to publish the diary from two individuals who claimed to have obtained it legally. O’Keefe said the people who turned over the diary found it abandoned in a room where Ashley Biden had been staying.

Project Veritas’ First Amendment rights are very much a central issue in this case, and allowing the US government to decide which journalists qualify for these protections is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

You know that things are heading downhill fast for the Biden administration when the FBI is forced to raid home and offices connected to investigative journalists. In this latest affront to the First Amendment, the Bureau took aim at Project Veritas – a provocative news outlet that just happens to lean to the right – and it’s founder, James O’Keefe, with both suffering raids of their homes after a story emerged regarding their potential possession of a “diary” that once belonged to one of the Biden children. Now, in what appears to be an attempt to keep this whole debacle as quiet as possible, a federal judge is refusing to let materials related to the case be seen by the public. A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer. The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden. The use of a search warrant to seize O’Keefe’s records raised the hackles of some First Amendment advocates, who said O’Keefe’s activities likely qualify for protection for members of the news media under federal law and Justice Department regulations. O’Keefe’s critics say his deceptive tactics and evident partisan bias disqualify him from any claim to being a journalist. The entire fiasco appears to be turning muddy in recent weeks. In the 19-page ruling, the magistrate judge referred to O’Keefe as one of the “subjects” of the investigation. Federal prosecutors use that term…

Continue Reading

News

Vaccine Manufacturer Now Says Three Shots Required to Fend Off Omicron

At what point will this all end?

Published

on

Our third COVID-19 winter is now arriving, and there appear to be varying ideas about just what the world should expect.

Winter time has long brought about fears of an increased spread of the illness, thanks to the fact that many more folks will the gathering indoors, where the virus will have an opportunity to spread with less resistance.

But the newest variant of the virus has been described as “mild” by the doctors most familiar with it, and even the normally-glum Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to have backed off of his earlier concerns a bit.

Pfizer this week released a statement suggesting that their vaccine, originally administered in two doses, will require a third shot to be effective against omicron.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Preliminary lab studies show two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron coronavirus variant, but three doses are able to neutralize it, the companies said in a news release on Wednesday.

Samples from people who had two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine saw, on average, a more than 25-fold reduction in neutralization ability against the Omicron variant than the earlier virus, “indicating that two doses of BNT162b2 may not be sufficient to protect against infection with the Omicron variant,” the companies said.

The companies said two doses may still provide protection against severe disease.

“Although two doses of the vaccine may still offer protection against severe disease caused by the Omicron strain, it’s clear from these preliminary data that protection is improved with a third dose of our vaccine,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

The news is sure to elicit some grumbling from the masses, who are very much over the continued hysteria regarding COVID-19.

Our third COVID-19 winter is now arriving, and there appear to be varying ideas about just what the world should expect. Winter time has long brought about fears of an increased spread of the illness, thanks to the fact that many more folks will the gathering indoors, where the virus will have an opportunity to spread with less resistance. But the newest variant of the virus has been described as “mild” by the doctors most familiar with it, and even the normally-glum Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to have backed off of his earlier concerns a bit. Pfizer this week released a statement suggesting that their vaccine, originally administered in two doses, will require a third shot to be effective against omicron. Preliminary lab studies show two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron coronavirus variant, but three doses are able to neutralize it, the companies said in a news release on Wednesday. Samples from people who had two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine saw, on average, a more than 25-fold reduction in neutralization ability against the Omicron variant than the earlier virus, “indicating that two doses of BNT162b2 may not be sufficient to protect against infection with the Omicron variant,” the companies said. The companies said two doses may still provide protection against severe disease. “Although two doses of the vaccine may still offer protection against severe disease caused by the Omicron strain, it’s clear from these preliminary data that protection is improved with a third dose of our vaccine,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.” The news is sure…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week