Connect with us

Opinion

Lawmakers Opt Out of Biden’s Congressional Address Over Attendance Policies

And, boy, did they throw some serious shade with their RSVP’s.

Published

on

During Joe Biden’s first 100 days, one of the most prevalent themes surrounding the 46th Commander in Chief has been access to the President…or, rather, the lack of access that many have had to the President.

Biden, who kept a rather scant campaign schedule during the run-up to the 2020 election, was largely seen then as protecting his image by restricting his speaking time.  This is a politician with a long history of damaging gaffes after all, and the media has never been afraid of looping these flubs to death during primetime.

Now, in a bit of a different accessibility issue, several lawmakers have suggested that they will not be attending Biden’s speech to Congress on Wednesday night on account of the lack of available seating.

Instead of 1,600 people crowded into a House chamber for a regular State of the Union address, just 200 people will be attending Biden’s first marquee event before Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday.

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.

Some lawmakers have balked at the coronavirus restrictions and social distancing mandates put in place, especially since the 535 members of Congress have long had access to vaccinations.

Senator Marco Rubio went off on what he saw as a nonsensical bit of caution.

“I will not be attending, and one of the reasons why is the ticket numbers have been really limited; they’re making people sit in the gallery,” Rubio told “Fox and Friends” Tuesday.

The Florida senator also called out inconsistencies with the enforcement of coronavirus restrictions at the Capitol, dubbing it “silly season.”

“It’s interesting — when it came to coming together to impeach Donald Trump for the second time after he was out of office, they put 100 senators in the same room sitting just inches apart for hours at a time over five or six days,” Rubio said. “Apparently COVID was not an issue then. But now, of course, for something like this we can’t have that many people in the room sitting next to each other. So it’s kind of silly season here.”

Biden is expected to ask for trillions of dollars from Congress during the speech, a large sum of that being a part of his highly controversial infrastructure package.

Opinion

In Marathon Presser, Biden Offers Grim Assessment of Russia-Ukraine Situation

And he was harshly rebuked by Ukraine in the process.

Published

on

On Wednesday, US President Joe Biden set out to prove to the nation that he is not the “Sleepy Joe” that Donald Trump so ruthlessly mocked on the campaign trail, enduring a nearly two-hour press conference that appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be a simple PR stunt.

Biden’s answers to the press’s questions were a bit off at times, with even CNN running articles on Thursday detailing the numerous factual errors that he made.

But, on the subject of Ukraine, the Commander in Chief had a bleak warning.

President Joe Biden said Wednesday he thinks Russia will invade Ukraine and warned President Vladimir Putin that his country would pay a “dear price” in lives lost and a possible cutoff from the global banking system if it does.

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, speaking at a news conference to mark his one-year anniversary in office, also said a “minor incursion” by Russia would elicit a lesser response. He later sought to clarify that he was referring to a non-military action, such as a cyberattack, that would be met with a similar reciprocal response, and that if Russian forces cross the Ukrainian border, killing Ukrainian fighters, “that changes everything.”

But the comments also hinted at the challenge of keeping the United States and its NATO allies united in their response to Russia. In explaining the minor incursion remark, he said “it’s very important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page.”

The statement was almost immediately lambasted by Ukrainian officials, who reminded the President that there is “no such thing as a minor incursion”.

 

On Wednesday, US President Joe Biden set out to prove to the nation that he is not the “Sleepy Joe” that Donald Trump so ruthlessly mocked on the campaign trail, enduring a nearly two-hour press conference that appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be a simple PR stunt. Biden’s answers to the press’s questions were a bit off at times, with even CNN running articles on Thursday detailing the numerous factual errors that he made. But, on the subject of Ukraine, the Commander in Chief had a bleak warning. President Joe Biden said Wednesday he thinks Russia will invade Ukraine and warned President Vladimir Putin that his country would pay a “dear price” in lives lost and a possible cutoff from the global banking system if it does. Biden, speaking at a news conference to mark his one-year anniversary in office, also said a “minor incursion” by Russia would elicit a lesser response. He later sought to clarify that he was referring to a non-military action, such as a cyberattack, that would be met with a similar reciprocal response, and that if Russian forces cross the Ukrainian border, killing Ukrainian fighters, “that changes everything.” But the comments also hinted at the challenge of keeping the United States and its NATO allies united in their response to Russia. In explaining the minor incursion remark, he said “it’s very important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page.” The statement was almost immediately lambasted by Ukrainian officials, who reminded the President that there is “no such thing as a minor incursion”.  

Continue Reading

News

Donald Trump Gets Bad News from SCOTUS Regarding January 6th

The Democrats just gained a whole lot of 2022 and 2024 ammunition.

Published

on

In their pursuit of political points, the January 6th committee has exuded a nonstop barrage of actions taken at the expense of former President Donald Trump, generally believed to be in the interest of stymying his plans for the 2024 presidential election.

Their attacks have fairly transparent of late, subpoenaing anyone and everyone who had contact with the former President in and around the date in question, and even some who had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol at all.

This week, the group scored a rather major win in the Supreme Court, which will allow them access to a trove of documents from the Trump White House.

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a blow to former President Donald Trump, rejecting his request to block release of White House records being sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

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.

The court’s order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden.

In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided.

And they didn’t beat around the bush.

“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court said in its order.

There is little doubt that this access will only cause the scope of the already-controversial investigation to widen, and allow the Democrats a plethora of new angles from which to launch their politically-focused onslaught.

In their pursuit of political points, the January 6th committee has exuded a nonstop barrage of actions taken at the expense of former President Donald Trump, generally believed to be in the interest of stymying his plans for the 2024 presidential election. Their attacks have fairly transparent of late, subpoenaing anyone and everyone who had contact with the former President in and around the date in question, and even some who had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol at all. This week, the group scored a rather major win in the Supreme Court, which will allow them access to a trove of documents from the Trump White House. The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a blow to former President Donald Trump, rejecting his request to block release of White House records being sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court’s order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden. In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided. And they didn’t beat around the bush. “Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court said in its order. There is little doubt that this access will only cause the scope of the already-controversial investigation to widen, and allow the Democrats a plethora…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week