;
Connect with us

News

House Impeachment Manager Says Dems Getting Foreign Info On Trump OK Because It Was ‘Purchased’

How horrible is this!?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Even when applying liberal logic, this one is a complete head scratcher. It’s as if Rep. Hakeem Jeffries didn’t think anybody actually heard him saying these words. What a character. From Daily Wire:

Democratic House impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said this week during President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial that it was not a problem for Democrats to get foreign opposition research on then-candidate Trump in 2016 because they “purchased” it.

The New York Post noted that Jeffries made the remark in response to a question from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), “who noted Hillary Clinton’s campaign hired Christopher Steele – a former British spy – to work with contacts abroad and compile the salacious dossier.”

WATCH:

Last Friday, Jeffries said something so blatantly ignorant about President Trump that he should be removed from his post.

It’s really that simple.

From The Hill:

Jeffries stood out during the impeachment trial as someone who launched sharply worded rebukes against the president and his GOP defenders while also eloquently framing the motivation behind Democrats’ decision to push forward with impeachment.

[…]

Pelosi’s decision to tap him is a sign that the Speaker trusts Jeffries, who has quickly risen through the ranks to be the No. 5 Democrat after being elected in 2012.

WATCH:

The Steele Dossier was bogus from the jump and everyone knew it.

It was merely the Democrats’ first real attempt at doing what they could to discourage the American people from voting for Trump over Hillary Clinton.

Of course, Dems haven’t stopped doing everything they can to bring 45 down. It doesn’t matter that the economy is booming and unemployment numbers are at record lows.

What matters is Trump = bad, and that’s never going to change.

Last November, some interesting news dropped from the founder of Fusion GPS. According to the founder, now-discredited Steele Dossier memos initially made their way to Barack Obama’s desk back in 2016.

To some people, this is a big problem. To other people, men can grow their hair and and decide they are now women.

BREAKING: In new book “Crime in Progress,” set for release next month, #Spygate archvillain Glenn Simpson reveals that he was first hired to investigate Trump in “the fall of 2015” and that memos from his now-discredited Steele dossier made their way directly “to President Obama”

News

Major Disparity Discovered Between Moderna and Pfizer Vaccines

This could make an enormous difference when it comes to the subject of COVID boosters.

Published

on

These days, when you get your polio or tetanus vaccines, you don’t really go shopping around, right?  These two inoculations have been perfected to death, over decades and decades, and really just come with one choice:  Be vaccinated or don’t.

But, in the case of COVID-19 and the swiftly-developed vaccines against it, there are several competing options to choose from, which has created and fomented a hotly-debated choice for many Americans.

Now, new evidence seems to suggest that there is truly a difference in efficacy between the two most popular jabs.

Data collected from 18 states between March and August suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 by 91% in the first four months after receiving the second dose. Beyond 120 days, however, that vaccine efficacy drops to 77%.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • 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.

Meanwhile, Moderna’s vaccine was 93% effective at reducing the short-term risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and remained 92% effective after 120 days.

Overall, 54% of fully vaccinated Americans have been immunized with the Pfizer shot.

The news could create a major shift in the way country considers the possibly of vaccine booster shots, which has been a confusing and fraught subject over the course of the last several weeks.

One clinical study suggested that the Pfizer boosters could return the efficacy to the 95% range, but the addition of another shot is likely to move the needle on vaccine hesitancy as well, which is a balance that health experts are wary of teetering.

These days, when you get your polio or tetanus vaccines, you don’t really go shopping around, right?  These two inoculations have been perfected to death, over decades and decades, and really just come with one choice:  Be vaccinated or don’t. But, in the case of COVID-19 and the swiftly-developed vaccines against it, there are several competing options to choose from, which has created and fomented a hotly-debated choice for many Americans. Now, new evidence seems to suggest that there is truly a difference in efficacy between the two most popular jabs. Data collected from 18 states between March and August suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 by 91% in the first four months after receiving the second dose. Beyond 120 days, however, that vaccine efficacy drops to 77%. Meanwhile, Moderna’s vaccine was 93% effective at reducing the short-term risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and remained 92% effective after 120 days. Overall, 54% of fully vaccinated Americans have been immunized with the Pfizer shot. The news could create a major shift in the way country considers the possibly of vaccine booster shots, which has been a confusing and fraught subject over the course of the last several weeks. One clinical study suggested that the Pfizer boosters could return the efficacy to the 95% range, but the addition of another shot is likely to move the needle on vaccine hesitancy as well, which is a balance that health experts are wary of teetering.

Continue Reading

News

Texas Doctor Defies Abortion Ban, Setting Up New Legal Challenge to Enforcement

This is just a game of courts and time, and this doctor is betting that with enough of the latter, the former will swing to his favor.

Published

on

While the Supreme Court is often seen as a finish line for certain legal challenges here in the United States, in some cases, it is truly only the beginning of another, larger fight.

Such seems to be the case in Texas, where a new abortion ban has already been defied by one doctor.

A Texas doctor claimed Saturday that he has deliberately violated the state’s new abortion law in order to help test whether it’s legal.

Alan Braid, an obstetrician-gynecologist in San Antonio, explained his actions in an essay published in The Washington Post.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • 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.

Braid writes that he understands “there could be legal consequences” because of his action.

It seems that “legal consequences” were the whole point.

“But I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

He added later: “I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly.”

The news comes just days after the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, stated his unequivocal opinion that the new Texas law was unconstitutional – something that very well may have factored into the decision by Braid.

Braid’s case, should Texas choose to enforce the law against him, certainly has the makings of a situation that could again reach the Supreme Court.  Should there be any changes to the makeup of that judicial body ahead of Braid’s case, there could be a reasonable chance that the Texas law gets overturned.

This is why the GOP is so concerned about the Biden administration’s willingness to consider the possibility of packing the court.

While the Supreme Court is often seen as a finish line for certain legal challenges here in the United States, in some cases, it is truly only the beginning of another, larger fight. Such seems to be the case in Texas, where a new abortion ban has already been defied by one doctor. A Texas doctor claimed Saturday that he has deliberately violated the state’s new abortion law in order to help test whether it’s legal. Alan Braid, an obstetrician-gynecologist in San Antonio, explained his actions in an essay published in The Washington Post. Braid writes that he understands “there could be legal consequences” because of his action. It seems that “legal consequences” were the whole point. “But I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.” He added later: “I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly.” The news comes just days after the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, stated his unequivocal opinion that the new Texas law was unconstitutional – something that very well may have factored into the decision by Braid. Braid’s case, should Texas choose to enforce the law against him, certainly has the makings of a situation that could again reach the Supreme Court.  Should there be any changes to the makeup of that judicial body ahead of Braid’s case, there could be a reasonable chance that the Texas law gets overturned. This is why the GOP is so concerned about the Biden administration’s willingness to consider the possibility of packing the court.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week