;
Connect with us

News

Prostitution, Drug Possession, Low-Level Crimes Will No Longer Be Prosecuted In Baltimore

Everybody good with this?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Calling all criminals: Baltimore wants you! That’s basically what the liberal-run city is saying with its new policies regarding what they consider “low-level crimes.”

Here’s the scoop, via The Daily Wire:

Baltimore will no longer prosecute low-level crimes such as drug possession, prostitution, or minor traffic violations following an experimental year of refusing to prosecute such crimes in order to keep COVID-19 from spreading among the prison population.

NBC News reported that the city stopped prosecuting low-level offenses when the coronavirus began to spread in an effort to reduce jail populations and keep the virus from spreading inside prisons. The move was copied by prosecutors in other cities as well, though Baltimore appears to be the only city that implemented this policy and saw crime rates drop.

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.

CONTINUED:

“In Baltimore, nearly all categories of crime have since declined, confirming to [State’s Attorney Marilyn] Mosby what she and criminal justice experts have argued for years: Crackdowns on quality-of-life crimes are not necessary for stopping more serious crime.”

Mosby announced on Friday that she would be making permanent the decision to stop prosecuting low-level crimes, arguing that Baltimore had shown a potential path for criminal justice reform.

There’s a theory that everything should be legal, including hookers and drugs. Frankly, it’s more of a conservative theory than a liberal theory.

Yes, you should have the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want.

Then again, we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

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