Connect with us

News

Perpetual Vaccination? Pfizer Says More Doses After a Year

This is going to be a deal breaker for some, which could slow down our economic recovery efforts.

Published

on

One of the hardest hurdles for the US medical community of late has been convincing famously independent Americans to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

The inoculation scheme has been going swimmingly for those who’ve opted to be vaccinated, with the Biden administration boasting several times that they’ve exceeded their already ambitious goals.

But there has been some recent trouble with side effects that have pushed vaccine hesitancy to new highs, with 1 in 5 Americans suggesting that they have no interested in getting the jab at all.

Now, there’s news that one of the main vaccinations in circulation could need a third dose within the next year or so.

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.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said people will “likely” need a third dose of a Covid-19 vaccine within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated. His comments were made public Thursday but were taped April 1.

Bourla said it’s possible people will need to get vaccinated against the coronavirus annually.

“We need to see what would be the sequence, and for how often we need to do that, that remains to be seen,” he told CNBC’s Bertha Coombs during an event with CVS Health. “A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed. And again, the variants will play a key role.”

“It is extremely important to suppress the pool of people that can be susceptible to the virus,” Bourla said.

This additional dose could be a deal breaker for those who are already uncomfortable with the idea of receiving such a hurried vaccine.

News

Dem-Run City Adds Stunning New Stipulation to Second Amendment

At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement. 

Published

on

We must remember always:  When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it.  They can’t mean it.

They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright.  The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed.

And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms.  They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds.

The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California.

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.

A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules.

The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021.

“The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week.

The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent:

The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates.

“Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common horrific reports of shootings throughout the nation do little more than elicit a performative parade of prayers and platitudes from Congress. Because problem-solving must be elevated over political posturing,” he added.

On Monday, Liccardo explained at a news conference that the proposal intends to better compensate shooting victims and their familes, as well as make it harder for people who aren’t willing to follow the rules to own a firearm, KTVU reported.

“While gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Liccardo said, via the report, the “2nd Amendment does not require the taxpayers to subsidize folks to own guns.”

At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement.

We must remember always:  When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it.  They can’t mean it. They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright.  The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed. And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms.  They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds. The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California. A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules. The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021. “The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week. The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent: The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates. “Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common…

Continue Reading

News

Puffed-Up Putin Issues Threat Against US and NATO Over Ukraine Invasion

The potential for disaster is high here, and it is going to take a concerted, global effort to keep the Moscow madman in check. 

Published

on

And so we find ourselves at the precipice of war, dragged there by the belligerent and bellicose Vladimir Putin.

The Russian President, despite his protestations, appears hellbent on bringing Ukraine back into the folds of the motherland.  He has tens of thousands of troops at the border, he’s telling the world to butt out, and his mouthpieces in the media are threatening nuclear war.  There’s no real denying it any longer, but Putin keeps saying the right words when asked, as if this buys him some sort of plausible deniability.

He has deniability, sure, but it definitely isn’t plausible.  Especially if he decides to keep issuing threats to the rest of the global community.

Russia’s top diplomat on Wednesday promised to take appropriate measures if the West’s response to Moscow’s security demands is not found to be constructive.

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 U.S. agreed with Russia that it would answer questions regarding NATO’s military presence in the region. The Kremlin has accused the West of a military expansion that raises security concerns for Moscow, Reuters reported. The report said Ukraine had no objections to the U.S. responses.

“If we do not receive a constructive answer from the west on our security demands, Moscow will take appropriate measures,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a statement, Reuters reported.

And, lest someone was inclined to believe that Putin’s motives were pure:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a “menu of options” for taking hostile action toward Ukraine, Fox News contributor Daniel Hoffman said to Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

“He could blockade the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov,” Hoffman said, highlighting the 100,000 Russian troops Putin has stationed at the border with Ukraine. “He could launch a full-throttle assault on Kyiv, which we would obviously see. He could also use his Spetsnaz guys, special forces guys — and they’re inside Ukraine already — to topple this Zelensky government. That’s also an option.”

“I have a high level of confidence Putin will do something,” Hoffman added. “As far as what that is, I’m not even sure if Putin has decided yet.”

The potential for disaster is high here, and it is going to take a concerted, global effort to keep the Moscow madman in check.

And so we find ourselves at the precipice of war, dragged there by the belligerent and bellicose Vladimir Putin. The Russian President, despite his protestations, appears hellbent on bringing Ukraine back into the folds of the motherland.  He has tens of thousands of troops at the border, he’s telling the world to butt out, and his mouthpieces in the media are threatening nuclear war.  There’s no real denying it any longer, but Putin keeps saying the right words when asked, as if this buys him some sort of plausible deniability. He has deniability, sure, but it definitely isn’t plausible.  Especially if he decides to keep issuing threats to the rest of the global community. Russia’s top diplomat on Wednesday promised to take appropriate measures if the West’s response to Moscow’s security demands is not found to be constructive. The U.S. agreed with Russia that it would answer questions regarding NATO’s military presence in the region. The Kremlin has accused the West of a military expansion that raises security concerns for Moscow, Reuters reported. The report said Ukraine had no objections to the U.S. responses. “If we do not receive a constructive answer from the west on our security demands, Moscow will take appropriate measures,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a statement, Reuters reported. And, lest someone was inclined to believe that Putin’s motives were pure: Russian President Vladimir Putin has a “menu of options” for taking hostile action toward Ukraine, Fox News contributor Daniel Hoffman said to Fox News Digital on Tuesday. “He could blockade the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov,” Hoffman said, highlighting the 100,000 Russian troops Putin has stationed at the border with Ukraine. “He could launch a full-throttle assault on Kyiv, which we would obviously see. He could also use his Spetsnaz guys, special…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week