Connect with us

News

Democrats Slam Barrett For Using Phrase ‘Sexual Preference,’ Despite Ginsburg And Other Dems Doing The Same

Published

on

You know the radical left in this country is getting desperate to stop the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett when the only thing they can attack her on is the usage of phrases they deem to be politically incorrect.

During the confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Democrats verbally assaulted ACB for using the phrase “sexual preference,” which is apparently a big no-no, because progessive ideology believes that homosexuality is something you are born with.

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono almost went off the deep end saying, “Seuxal preference is an offensive and outdated term.”

Hilariously, Democrats are totally ignoring the fact that their current presidential nominee has also used this term as recently as May during a virtual roundtable with some African-American representatives in the state of Florida:

America’s the only nation in the world that when we’ve gone through a major crisis, we’ve almost always been able to come get through it and come out stronger. I’m hopeful. I’m going to need you if we win. I’m going to need you to help this time rebuild the backbone of this country, the middle class, but this time bring everybody along regardless of color, sexual preference, their backgrounds, whether they have any … Just bring everybody along.

Here’s more from The Daily Wire:

The Washington Post admitted, “Plenty of figures on the left — including Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Barrett is hoping to replace on the high court — have also used the phrase, which was considered acceptable as recently as a decade or two ago.”

The Washington Free Beacon released a video of Biden, other Democrats, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg using the term “sexual preference”:

Barrett later apologized for using the term “sexual preference,” asserting, “I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community.”

There really wasn’t a need for Barrett to apologize. Saying “sexual preference” isn’t offensive. It might not be politically correct, which is in and of itself ridiculous, but this phrase should not be held as being offensive for anyone.

Do not homosexual people prefer the same-sex? Is the anger stemming from this phrase implying that being gay is a lifestyle choice?

It’s a desperate grasping at straws is what it is. Anything to try and shoot this woman down from getting put on the bench before the election.

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