Most popular

    Opinion

    Home Opinion Page 21

    CDC Now Doling Out Controversial ‘Advice’ For New Dads

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    ANALYSIS – Your federal tax dollars, hard at work – The far-left l*nacy has taken control of so many formerly respected American institutions, it’s tough for some of them to outdo themselves. 

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) though wasn’t content just m*sinforming Americans about C*VID-19’s o*igins, risks, m*sking, and l*ckd*wns, it is now promoting l*ftist ins*nity and likely endangering the health of babies.

    And it is time for Congress to investigate.

    The CDC, with a $12 billion budget and more than 12,000 employees, is an Atlanta-based federal agency tasked with protecting Americans from disease outbreaks and other public health threats. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, ex-head of the CDC under Joe Biden resigned effective June 30, without explanation.

    Previously an infectious-diseases specialist at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Walensky had no experience running a government agency prior to being picked for the job by Biden.

    The agency recently published advice for ‘tr*ns-id*ntified’ and ‘n*n-bi*ary’ individuals (aka m*n) on how to bre*stfeed their infants, which the health agency called “ch*stfe*ding.” 

    Biological men who tr*nsition to women can produce a form of br*astmilk by taking a cocktail of h*rmone drugs that mimic the changes a woman’s body undergoes during the late stages of pregnancy and shortly after the birth of a child.

    Initially developed for biological women who adopted or had a child via surrogacy and wanted to bre*stfeed, it’s called the N*wman-G*ldfarb pr*tocol, and it tricks the body into l*ctating.

    The CDC’s Health Equity Considerations page explains that these bi*logical men don’t need to physically have a child to feed a child from the ch*st: “An individual does not need to have given birth to br*astfeed or ch*stfeed,” the CDC website reads.

    The now thoroughly discredited agency also notes that br*astfeeding can be referred to as ‘b*dyfeeding’ which sounds like it’s describing something gr*tesque out of a ho*ror movie. 

    It notes: “Some families may have other preferred terminology for how they feed their babies, such as nursing, ch*stfeeding, or bo*yf*eding.” 

    Jay W. Richards, a senior research fellow in religious liberty and civil society at the Heritage Foundation, called for greater review of the health agency from congressional leaders. 

    He told The Christian Post that the CDC showed a willingness to put politics ahead of public health during C*VID, adding that the “latest debacle” over “ch*stf*eding is even worse.”

    Encouraging bi*logical men on off-label g*nder ch*nge drugs to ‘ch*stfeed’ babies is crazy, and risky.

    The Christian Posts added:

    “The agency seems to be tacitly endorsing males’ chestfeeding’ infants with the help of experimental drug cocktail now proves that the CDC has been captured by an ideology that puts the fetishes of disturbed men over the wellbeing of infants,” Richards stated. “It doesn’t even pretend that these experiments have been carefully tested. Its commitment to so-called ‘health equity’ seems to override any old-timey concerns about the effects of drugs, and weird discharges from male bodies, on defenseless infants.”

    The CDC’s endorsement of biological men feeding infants directly from the breast has also received pushback from several health experts, who warn that the long-term impact of the practice is not well-known. 

    U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, who served as an Obstetrician for 25 years and delivered over 5,000 babies, said in a statement that the CDC statement is “irresponsible”  “defies science and safety.”

    “In my opinion, the CDC has lost all credibility and is in direct conflict with the FDA for marketing a non-FDA approved drug,” Marshall said. “A biological male filled with hormones and a concoction of other drugs that have not been studied that could harm a baby should NEVER be encouraged. When will the Woke Left wake up and realize what they are doing to our country?”

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Hollywood Star Defends Common Sense!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    “Harry Potter” actress Helena Bonham Carter has landed herself in hot water after speaking out against liberals’ favorite weapon of choice: cancel culture.

    Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    ‘Barbie’ Movie Banned in Vietnam as Hollywood Again Kowtows to China

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1

    ANALYSIS – China’s outrageous claim to almost the entire South China Sea – everything within a “nine-dash line” drawn on Chinese maps – has taken its most recent victim – the movie-viewing public in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government has banned the movie due to a scene with that Chinese-made line on a map.

    China takes its illegal claim very seriously and strives to impose its visual representation on maps everywhere, including those appearing in Hollywood movies.

    While it’s unclear why the soon-to-be-released film ‘Barbie’ about the iconic doll and her boyfriend Ken would get embroiled in international politics, it has. 

    This south China Sea has been a flashpoint between Vietnam and China for years. The artificial line is shown on Chinese maps to mark their claims over the area despite Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, and Taiwan claiming parts of the same vast expanse of sea.

    Chinese warships and fishing vessels routinely operate in these waters to establish de-facto presence, often provoking clashes with neighboring countries.

    The Daily Wire (DW) reported:

    “We do not grant license for the American movie ‘Barbie’ to release in Vietnam because it contains the offending image of the nine-dash line,” Vi Kien Thanh, head of the Department of Cinema, a government body in charge of licensing and censoring foreign films, was quoted as saying in the state-run Tuoi Tre newspaper.

    The movie’s trailer shows Barbie leaving her perfect doll world and to explore the “real world” after becoming disillusioned with her life.

    So why did a big Hollywood studio decide to include this ridiculous claim in their otherwise non-political movies?

    All I can think of is – in order to please the communists in Beijing. China is obviously a far bigger market than Vietnam. And who knows if Chinese investors were involved in the movie’s production.

    DW notes:

    “Barbie” isn’t the first film banned for including the nine-dash line. The Vietnamese government also blocked the DreamWorks animated film “Abominable” (2019) and the action-adventure film “Unchartered” (2022) for the same reason. Netflix removed the Australian spy drama “Pine Gap” in 2021 for their inclusion of the line.

    Hollywood blockbusters including the Marvel films “Eternals” and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” have also been in China after directors or actors involved in the films made comments critical of China.

    Another big controversy exploded in 2019 over the Tom Cruise movie ‘Top Gun: Maverick.’ Initially the movie appeared to remove the flags of Taiwan and Japan from Maverick’s flight jacket. The flags were part of historical patches representing prior U.S. naval deployments to the region.

    As NBC News reported:

    In 2019, the trailer for “Top Gun: Maverick” showed Cruise’s character, U.S. Navy pilot Pete Mitchell, in the same bomber jacket he wore in the original film. But two of its flag patches — representing Japan and the Republic of China, the official name for Taiwan — appeared to have been replaced by other emblems.

    The move was criticized at the time as an act of self-censorship to please China’s censors. Beijing sees Taiwan, a self-ruling democracy of 24 million people, as an inalienable part of its territory and lashes out at any reference to it as a sovereign nation.  

    In this case Hollywood, or Cruise, had a change of heart and reversed their apparent kowtowing to China. CHinese investors also pulled out of the movie.

    NBC News continued:

    On the film’s release last month after a two-year pandemic delay, both flags had been restored. At an advance screening in Taipei, the audience broke out in cheers and applause at the sight of the Taiwanese flag on the big screen, local news outlet SETN reported.

    Sometimes in Hollywood the good guys do win. Sadly, not in the case of Barbie.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    House GOP Targets Anti-Christian Military Lobbying Group

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1

    *Warning: This article contains some graphic language.

    ANALYSIS – For those conservatives who say that Republicans are weak or ineffective, take note of all the actions this GOP-led House has taken so far. And with only the slimmest of majorities. The latest effort targets a distasteful anti-Christian group that focuses on influencing Pentagon policy.

    While operating under the misleading name of the ‘Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), this advocacy group is anything but an organization for religious freedom. Its real mission is to attack and remove any Christian influences from our entire military.

    In February, for example, the MRFF convinced Merchant Marine Academy leaders to move a massive historical painting titled “Christ on the Water” from a public space to a chapel.

    This move was attacked by Republican lawmakers and Christian groups as gross overreach, especially since it was a historical item and part of the Academy’s proud heritage.

    But the Academy caved quickly to the group’s outrageous demand.

    The aggressive actions of the group have raised concerns among lawmakers for years, with ill-informed military staffers often overreacting to the group’s incessant, and at times inappropriate, demands without following proper review procedures.

    Thankfully, the GOP House has it in its sights.

    Under an amendment to the House draft of the annual defense authorization bill last week, reported Military Times, Defense officials and troops would be barred from communicating with the Foundation or from making “any decision as a result of any claim, objection, or protest made by MRFF without the authority of the Secretary of Defense.”

    While the language for the amendment was offered by Republican Rep. Mike Turner, of Ohio, the amendment was adopted with unanimous, bipartisan support in the House Armed Services Committee.

    The amendment is designed to simply ensure that military staffers don’t overreact to the group’s demands without following proper protocols. And its bipartisan support shows that it is very reasonable.

    But that didn’t stop the group from issuing a profanity-laced tirade.

    Confirming its bigoted anti-Christian bias, not to mention lack of professionalism and decorum, the MRFF’s president and founder Mikey Weinstein, angrily lashed out, calling his opponents “bastards” and “enemies.”

    More specifically he said, according to Military Times: “If they don’t like what we do at MRFF … they can take a number, pack a picnic lunch and stand in line with the rest of those fundamentalist Christian extremist bastards who constitute our enemies.”

    But he didn’t stop digging his anti-Christian hole there. He went on:

    If the fundamentalist Christian nationalists who are behind this are trying to execute us through legislation, we’ll take that as validation of the positive effect that we’re having for our clients and for the Constitution.”

    “And they can go fuck themselves.”

    Well, Mr. Weinstein, we won’t do that, but we will fight him and his group tooth and nail legislatively.

    The Senate Armed Services Committee’s draft of the defense authorization bill does not include any similar restrictions on communications or response to MRFF requests, but it should. Expect intense efforts to ensure that they are included in a final bill.

    House Republicans will also likely add more amendments on abortion and transgender issues when the bill is debated in the full chamber next month.

    If you want to be part of the solution, then contact your Senators and tell them how you feel about far-left extremists pushing a bigoted, anti-Christian agenda on our military.

    Religious freedom means our troops are guaranteed the right to express their religion, even on military bases and facilities. And defending that right is a fight worth having.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    State Department Sued For Labeling Trump ‘Disinformation Purveyor’

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    1
    (Miami - Flórida, 09/03/2020) Presidente da República Jair Bolsonaro durante encontro com o Senador Marco Rubio..Foto: Alan Santos/PR

    The United States Department of State is being sued for documents detailing a Biden administration scheme that censored the political speech of Americans and labeled President Donald Trump a “disinformation purveyor.”

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. State Department for all records which allege President Trump or any current or former member of his cabinet are ‘purveyors of disinformation.’”

    “The Biden censorship operation was compiling files on his political enemies from Trump world. The State Department should immediately disclose the records about this abuse, as FOIA requires,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

    Judicial Watch states in the complaint:

    According to media reports on April 30, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the State Department labeled a member of President Trump’s cabinet as a purveyor of disinformation, compiling a dossier of social media posts from the unnamed cabinet member. See, e.g., “Rubio says State had dossier accusing Trump Cabinet member of disinformation,” The Hill, April 30, 2025 

    Judicial Watch reports it sued the State Department after “it failed to respond to a May 1, 2025, FOIA request for records, including those of the Global Engagement Center (GEC), about social media posts of any current or former member of President Donald Trump’s cabinet, to include Trump himself, alleged to constitute misinformation, disinformation, or malign influence. Judicial Watch also asked for any guidance or policy documents.”

    Judicial Watch notes that during an April 30, 2025, Cabinet meeting, Rubio said, “We had an office in the Department of State whose job it was to censor Americans.”

    Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee, said at a hearing in April about the center: “The GEC [Global Engagement Center] was initially authorized for the statutory purpose of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts. Despite that mandate, for years the GEC instead deployed its shadowy network of grantees and sub-grantees to facilitate the censorship of American voices …”

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. 

    Urgent! Stand with Trump against Impeachment! Complete the Trump audit NOW.

    Heartwarming: Commie Biz Owner Forced To Close Cafe

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    You can’t help but smile when you see this…

    Watch Amanda explain the controversy below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Many in Gen Z ‘Love Big Brother,’ Want State Surveillance in Homes

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    3
    Image via Pixabay free images.

    ANALYSIS – Be afraid, Be very afraid. 1984 is almost here. A recent poll by the Libertarian CATO Institute showed that a big chunk of our latest and brightest Generation Z (Gen Z or Zoomers) actually favors having the government watch them 24/7.

    Including surveillance in their homes and bedrooms.

    Zoomers are officially those under the age of 26. And come right after Millennials.

    After the horrors of World War Two showcased the brutal dangers of modern totalitarian dictatorships such as Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union, George Orwell penned his classic dystopian tale titled ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ (1984).

    In the novel, written in 1949, the pervasive government of the fictional nation Oceania was known as ‘Big Brother,’ and it watched its citizens incessantly via two-way video devices called ‘telescreens.’ 

    This was of course before the advent of television or modern surveillance.

    Government agents known as the ‘Thought Police’ were able to monitor everyone at home, at work, on public streets, in shops, even in bathrooms. It was a terrifying existence.

    The book and term ‘Big Brother’ have since been widely referenced when warning about government overreach and expanding state control. 

    Sadly, it seems that almost 30 percent of Gen Z (and some Millennials) haven’t read the book or understand the danger.

    CATO’s Blog notes that: 

    In a newly released Cato Institute 2023 Central Bank Digital Currency National Survey of 2,000 Americans, we asked respondents whether they “favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”

    Fortunately, the poll shows that 75 percent of Americans oppose or are strongly opposed to this insane idea.

    However, CATO also notes that the younger you get, the less concerned Americans are about state surveillance and control:

    …Americans under the age of 30 stand out when it comes to 1984‐style in‐home government surveillance cameras. 3 in 10 (29 percent) Americans under 30 favor “the government installing surveillance cameras in every household” in order to “reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.” Support declines with age, dropping to 20 percent among 30–44-year-olds and dropping considerably to 6 percent among those over the age of 45.

    Support for 24/7 surveillance was especially high among those younger than 30. Almost a third of those born after 1993 said they would welcome round-the-clock monitoring by the government. 

    Those respondents in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were almost totally opposed. That is a terribly disturbing trend that bodes ill for liberty in America in the next decades.

    In his Boston Globe Email Newsletter, Jeff Jacoby provides his explanation for this sad state among Zoomers:

    …perhaps, [it] is that Generation Z has been indoctrinated to regard safety, not freedom, as the highest good — so much so that many would rather be under the nonstop watch of the state than face the possibility of being abused or endangered.”

    If so, they are in for a fearful awakening. What little protection they might gain from being under the authorities’ constant watch is nothing compared with the peril they would face. Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition is as relevant as ever: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Inviting Big Brother into your home will not keep Gen Z-ers safe. And by the time they realize what they have given up, it will be too late to get it back.

    Jacoby adds that the protagonist of Orwell’s novel, Winston Smith, is a weak man who resents the regime — and is ultimately broken for it. And the must-read book’s final words are haunting: “He loved Big Brother.”

    Yet, after all we have seen and know about tyranny, almost a third of Generation Z is still prepared to love Big Brother too. Yes, we must be afraid. Very afraid.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.

    The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.

    Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.

    Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.

    To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”

    In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.

    And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.

    To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.

    This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.

    There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”

    Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.

    What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.

    Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.

    None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.

    The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

    What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.

    This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    DOUBLE Your Impact to Crush the Left’s Comeback! It’s up to patriots like you to stop them. Heritage will match every dollar — up to $1 MILLION. Double your impact before it’s too late!

    .

    Amanda Head: Last Poll Results Before GA Senate Run-Off Election!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    Today is the final day to cast your ballot for Republican Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker in the Peach State’s runoff election. Make sure to head to the polls to cast your vote!

    Watch Amanda break down the latest Georgia runoff poll results below:

    New Poll Exposes Democrats’ True Thoughts About Biden

    By
    Norman Leahy
    -
    1
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    There’s a wealth of new polling data on the Democratic presidential nomination contest, with polls from The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press both finding that even Democratic voters are concerned that President Joe Biden is too old to run.

    The AP/NORC poll of adults (not registered voters) found that 77 percent of respondents believed Biden was too old to serve another term.

    And for the hardened Team Blue partisans who shout “ageism!” at such findings…69 percent of self-identified Democrats said Biden’s age is a big issue (among Republicans, it was a whopping 89 percent – which shouldn’t come as a surprise).

    But this must be a fluke, an outlier, and a one-off. Surely, the age issue can’t be that big a deal for Mr. Biden. Except The Wall Street Journal poll confirmed it is.

    The Journal asked a split question – one if voters think Biden’s mental fitness is sufficient for the job, the other specifically on whether he is “too old.”

    On the mental ability, 60 percent questioned Biden’s mental ability. On age, a total of 73 percent said he is “too old.”

    What are the comparable numbers for former President Donald Trump?

    A 49-46 split says Trump isn’t mentally up for the job. On age, another spilt, with 47 percent saying he’s too old and 45 saying he isn’t.

    As always with polls, the numbers are snapshots in time and subject to change.

    What these data points do, though, is reinforce narratives that have long been whispered in Democratic circles: Biden’s time has passed, and he would be wise to bow out and allow someone else to take the fight to what looks like Donald Trump in 2024.

    But such whispers against an incumbent are very hard to translate into hard reality. What could bring them a tad bit closer to the fore are the other items in the Journal poll, particularly the sense that most people think the economy has hit a rough patch, and they are feeling the effects:

    …58% of voters say the economy has gotten worse over the past two years, whereas only 28% say it has gotten better, and nearly three in four say inflation is headed in the wrong direction. Those views were echoed in the survey by large majorities of independents, a group that helped deliver Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential race. Voters were almost evenly split on the direction of the job market.

    It’s not a wipeout for Biden, but the data are hardly comforting to an incumbent who has staked his presidency on a massive reworking of the economy, with government intervention and support leading the way. Team Blue partisans will say it’s early, these things take time, etc., etc. And they aren’t entirely wrong.

    But there’s also the iron law of politics to contend with: if you’re explaining, you’re losing. And until the data show voters are feeling better about their own particular economic situation, then Mr. Biden will need more than a slogan – “Bidenomics” – and promises of widespread prosperity to save his own political future.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

    1...202122...40Page 21 of 40
    © Great America News Desk 2022