Connect with us

Opinion

DHS Says Trump ‘Reinstatement’ Talk is Dangerous

Oh really?

Published

on

Over the course of the last several weeks, there has been a wild new theory circulating among the MAGA faithful, and the Biden administration’s DOJ is none too happy about it.

The idea first came to us from Sidney Powell – a pro-Trump lawyer who once represented Michael Flynn – who declared that Donald Trump could be “simply reinstated” to the presidency, without providing any sort of evidence as to how the Constitution would allow for this.

Then, just days later, there were rumors that Trump himself had been pontificating on the idea with his close acquaintances.

And, just days ago, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell suggested that this “reinstatement” could come as early as August 13th of this year.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • 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.

That has the DHS sounding the alarm.

And last month, the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning that Trump’s “reinstatement” fantasies could lead to more violence this summer from right-wing extremists.

Trump’s language made it more difficult for some of his supporters to argue that they could safely be released from jail before trial.

The issue came up during a recent Capitol riot hearing.

Federal prosecutors brought up Trump’s rhetoric this week in one of the US Capitol riot cases.
The rioter, Marine Corps veteran Alex Harkrider, asked a judge to discontinue his GPS tracking and remove his ankle monitor. The Justice Department opposes this request, saying Trump’s rhetoric could inspire Harkrider to become violent in the future. Harkrider has pleaded not guilty.
“Former President Trump continues to make false claims about the election, insinuate that he may be reinstalled in the near future as President without another election, and minimize the violent attack on the Capitol,” prosecutors wrote in the filing. “Television networks continue to carry and report on those claims, with some actually giving credence to the false reporting.”
Prosecutors continued, linking Trump’s rhetoric to the Capitol rioter’s case: “The defendant in this case is not a good candidate to be out in the community without electronic monitoring to ensure the safety of the community and the safety of democracy in the current environment.”
Those who subscribe to the Trump “reinstatement” theory will likely brush this criticism aside, however, blaming the sour attitude on the mainstream media’s well-documented hatred for Donald Trump.

Opinion

Biden Mandate Busted Again, This Time in Lone Star State

It was a BRUTAL smackdown at that!

Published

on

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures.

And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House.

The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas.

A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • 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.

Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect.

There was no beating around the bush, either.

Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees.

“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.”

And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures. And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House. The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas. A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.” Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect. There was no beating around the bush, either. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.” And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

Continue Reading

News

Fact Checkers Make Exception for Liberal-Leaning News Outfit

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

Published

on

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them.

You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”.

The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts.

NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • 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.

On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench.

Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request.

But then:

Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding.

Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear.

“There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing anonymous sources,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of Newsguard. “It’s hard to say anything definitive about either report without more information.”

But Newsguard cannot hide from this fact:

However, even after all three Justices named in the story – Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts – made public statements debunking it, while NPR refused to issue a correction, Newsguard maintained that the story was still unfolding.

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them. You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”. The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts. NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story. On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench. Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request. But then: Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding. Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear. “There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week