Poll Results

YES: 16% | NO: 84%

In this National Immigration Poll, we asked:

“Do you support sanctuary cities hiding illegal immigrants?”

This issue has been at the center of immigration debates for years. Sanctuary cities — municipalities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — are praised by some as compassionate and protective, while others see them as obstacles to law enforcement and border security.

Here’s how voters responded:

• No – Don’t Support Sanctuary Cities: 84%
• Yes – I Support Sanctuary Cities: 16%

Why This Matters

Sanctuary city policies affect how immigration laws are enforced at the local level. In cities with these policies, local authorities often refuse to detain or report undocumented immigrants to federal agencies — even when there are active deportation requests or immigration holds.

The debate touches on core issues: states’ rights vs. federal authority, the rule of law, community safety, and how best to treat undocumented residents.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – Don’t Support Sanctuary Cities”

• Undermining Federal Law:
  Respondents argue that sanctuary policies directly conflict with federal immigration enforcement, creating a patchwork of rules that allow some cities to ignore the law.
• Public Safety Risks:
  Critics cite cases where individuals with prior arrests or deportation orders were released under sanctuary policies — sometimes going on to commit additional crimes.
• Incentivizing Illegal Entry:
  Opponents believe that sanctuary policies encourage more unauthorized immigration by signaling that enforcement will be lax or avoided altogether in certain jurisdictions.
• Taxpayer Impact:
  Detractors say sanctuary cities strain public services such as schools, hospitals, and housing, and that local taxpayers bear the cost.
• Justice Should Be Uniform:
  Many believe the law should apply the same across all cities and states — not selectively enforced based on politics or local leadership.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – I Support Sanctuary Cities”

• Community Trust:
  Supporters argue that sanctuary policies build trust between immigrant communities and local police, encouraging victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of deportation.
• Protecting Families:
  Many believe that sanctuary cities help protect families from being torn apart by sudden deportations, especially when children are U.S. citizens.
• Local Autonomy:
  Cities and states have a right to set their own policies, particularly when they disagree with federal enforcement priorities or methods.
• Moral Responsibility:
  Some view sanctuary policies as an act of compassion, particularly for undocumented immigrants who have lived peacefully in the community for many years.
• Focus on Serious Offenders:
  Advocates argue that enforcement should prioritize dangerous criminals — not otherwise law-abiding residents who lack legal status.

Conclusion

According to this poll, a large majority of respondents do not support sanctuary cities that hide or shield illegal immigrants from federal enforcement. For these voters, the issue is one of law, order, and consistency — not selective interpretation of immigration policy.

Still, the issue remains deeply emotional and politically complex, and it continues to play a defining role in national, state, and local immigration debates.

Poll Results

YES: 78% | NO: 22%

In one of our most discussed polls to date, we asked:

“Was hiding Biden’s mental health issues a crime?”

As questions mount over President Biden’s cognitive condition and the timeline of who knew what — and when — the debate has shifted from political ethics to possible legal implications. Was this a matter of poor judgment and secrecy, or could it rise to the level of criminal concealment?

Here’s how respondents answered:

• Yes – Hiding It Was a Crime: 78%
• No – Hiding Is Not a Crime: 22%

Why This Question Matters

The President of the United States holds ultimate decision-making authority over military operations, international diplomacy, and federal enforcement. If his ability to carry out those duties was knowingly impaired — and that fact was concealed from the public, Congress, or key officials — it raises serious constitutional and legal questions.

This issue is not only about Biden’s health. It’s about transparency at the highest levels of power, and whether the American people and their elected representatives were misled in a way that may have violated the law.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – Hiding It Was a Crime”

• Deception of the Public and Congress:
  Supporters of this view believe that if White House staff or Cabinet officials knowingly misrepresented the President’s fitness to hold office, it could constitute fraud or a breach of official duty.
• Potential National Security Risks:
  If critical decisions — such as authorizing the use of force or signing executive actions — were made without the President’s full capacity, some argue this could amount to negligence or willful misconduct.
• Obstruction or Dereliction of Duty:
  Some legal scholars have suggested that knowingly concealing incapacitation — especially if it affected governance — could be seen as obstruction, conspiracy, or failure to notify relevant authorities under the 25th Amendment.
• Book & Media Confirmations:
  Insider accounts, like Original Sin by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, suggest that aides knowingly misled not only the public, but members of Biden’s own Cabinet. If true, this raises the stakes beyond mere politics.
• No One Is Above the Law:
  Respondents feel strongly that even the highest offices must be held to account — and that concealing critical information from the electorate violates the democratic contract.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – Hiding Is Not a Crime”

• Not All Deception Is Illegal:
  Critics of criminalizing the issue argue that while poor judgment or political spin may have occurred, it doesn’t necessarily break any laws.
• Medical Privacy and Discretion:
  The President has the right to some degree of privacy, and staff may have believed they were acting in his best interest by managing public appearances or limiting exposure.
• Intent Matters:
  For something to be a crime, it must involve intent to defraud or harm. Some argue there’s no clear evidence that staff or advisors intentionally broke the law.
• Uncharted Legal Territory:
  No modern legal precedent directly defines the act of hiding a president’s medical state as criminal. Without specific statutes, prosecution would be difficult.
• Focus Should Be on Reform, Not Retaliation:
  Some believe the real solution is to establish clearer rules for medical disclosure — rather than launch criminal investigations into what may amount to political mismanagement.

Conclusion

According to this poll, a significant majority of respondents believe that hiding President Biden’s mental health issues may have crossed a legal line — not just a political one.

Whether future legal action follows or not, this issue highlights a deep concern among voters: that honesty and transparency in leadership are not optional — they’re essential.

Poll Results

YES: 81% | NO: 19%

In this poll, we asked:

“Should the U.S. government be banned from making a national gun registry?”

This question reflects a long-running debate over the Second Amendment, personal privacy, and the role of federal oversight. While some see a registry as a common-sense tool for safety and accountability, others view it as a potential step toward gun control overreach and loss of civil liberties.

Why This Issue Matters

Firearms ownership has always been a uniquely protected right in the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, rising concerns over gun violence have led to calls for increased regulation — including efforts to track gun ownership through national databases.

Whether a national registry would help protect the public or undermine constitutional freedoms is at the core of this ongoing policy debate.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – No National Registry”

• Constitutional Protections:
  Opponents of a national registry argue that it infringes on the Second Amendment and could be used as a precursor to gun confiscation.
• Government Overreach:
  Many fear that creating a national list of gun owners would open the door to surveillance, abuse of power, or future restrictions on lawful gun owners.
• No Impact on Crime:
  Critics note that criminals who obtain weapons illegally are unlikely to register them, so a national database would mostly affect law-abiding citizens.
• Historical Precedent:
  In various countries, registries have at times led to confiscation or bans — fueling skepticism among Americans who view firearm ownership as a safeguard against tyranny.
• Privacy Concerns:
  A centralized list of gun owners could potentially be leaked, hacked, or misused — putting individuals at risk and undermining trust in the government.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – Create a National Registry”

• Public Safety:
  Supporters believe a registry could help law enforcement track guns used in crimes and prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
• Accountability and Responsibility:
  Just as cars are registered and drivers are licensed, some argue that firearms should be tracked for accountability and responsible ownership.
• Helps in Tracing Illegal Sales:
  A registry could help prevent black-market sales and identify the origin of guns used in shootings or mass violence.
• Precedents Exist Locally:
  Several states already have forms of gun registration. Supporters say a national system would provide consistency and better enforcement across state lines.
• Registry Doesn’t Equal Confiscation:
  Proponents argue that a registry alone doesn’t remove anyone’s rights — it simply adds oversight to an area that currently has large gaps in transparency.

Conclusion

According to this poll, an overwhelming majority of respondents oppose the creation of a national gun registry, believing it poses risks to constitutional freedoms, privacy, and trust in government.

As national conversations about firearms continue — balancing safety, rights, and enforcement — this issue remains one of the most closely watched in American public life.

Poll Results

YES: 83% | NO: 17%

We recently asked our readers:

“Do you support the effort to deport illegal immigrants?”

This question speaks to one of the most persistent and debated policy issues in the United States: how to manage illegal immigration and enforce immigration law. It raises questions about fairness, resources, public safety, national identity, and the role of federal enforcement agencies.

Why This Matters

The U.S. immigration system is complex, and the country continues to face high numbers of unauthorized border crossings. In response, many officials and voters have called for stronger enforcement — including the removal of individuals who entered or remained in the country unlawfully.

Others argue that mass deportation policies can be disruptive, inhumane, or ineffective. This poll aims to capture where public sentiment currently stands.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – I Support Deporting Illegals”

• Rule of Law Matters:
  Supporters believe that allowing people to remain in the country after entering illegally undermines the rule of law and weakens national sovereignty.
• Public Safety & Resources:
  Deportation, they argue, helps reduce crime, drug trafficking, and gang activity, while easing the strain on schools, hospitals, and housing systems.
• Fairness to Legal Immigrants:
  Those who follow the legal immigration process — often waiting years — should not be put at a disadvantage compared to those who bypass the system.
• Deterrence Factor:
  Strong enforcement, including deportation, is seen as a necessary deterrent to discourage future illegal entry.
• Restoring Order at the Border:
  Many view deportation as a key step in regaining control of the southern border, particularly in high-traffic or overwhelmed regions.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – I Don’t Support Deportation”

• Humanitarian Concerns:
  Opponents worry that deportation can separate families, harm vulnerable individuals, and overlook the circumstances that led people to enter the U.S. in the first place.
• Economic Impact:
  Some argue that undocumented workers fill important jobs in agriculture, construction, and services — and that sudden mass deportations could disrupt local economies.
• Focus on Pathways, Not Punishment:
  Critics believe the system should prioritize earned legal status, especially for those who have lived in the U.S. peacefully for years, rather than rely on removals.
• Limited Enforcement Resources:
  Immigration enforcement agencies have finite resources. Opponents believe efforts should focus on serious criminal offenders, not broad-based deportation.
• Moral & Global Responsibility:
  Some say that as a nation built by immigrants, the U.S. has a responsibility to balance enforcement with compassion, particularly for those fleeing violence or poverty.

Conclusion

According to this poll, a strong majority of respondents support the effort to deport illegal immigrants. For many, it’s seen as a matter of national security, fairness, and upholding the law — while others raise valid concerns about ethics, economics, and long-term solutions.

As immigration remains a central topic in national and local policy debates, public opinion will continue to shape the direction of enforcement and reform efforts.

Poll Results

YES: 84% | NO: 16%

We recently asked our readers:

“Would you support a formal investigation into Biden Administration autopen use?”

This poll follows growing public interest in how presidential authority was delegated — and whether the use of the autopen, a mechanical signature device, was properly managed and disclosed. The concern is not with the tool itself, but with the possibility that it may have been used to sign off on key government actions without the President’s direct awareness.

Why This Question Matters

The President’s signature carries legal force — from signing bills into law to authorizing executive orders. The autopen, while legally recognized for decades, becomes controversial if there is reason to believe it was used without direct presidential knowledge or instruction.

This issue has surfaced alongside broader concerns about transparency, decision-making in the executive branch, and the role of senior staff. For many, it’s not just about a device — it’s about who is really in charge, and whether the public was properly informed.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – I Support an Investigation”

• Transparency and Accountability:
  Supporters argue that the public has a right to know whether the President was personally involved in key decisions. If staff used an autopen without his knowledge, that could represent a serious breakdown in executive accountability.
• Recent Insider Reports Raise Red Flags:
  Revelations from journalists like Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson in Original Sin suggest that President Biden’s staff tightly managed his public exposure and may have shielded him from aspects of daily governance. This has fueled speculation that signatures may have been applied without his full awareness.
• Legal and Ethical Implications:
  While autopen use is legal, many respondents believe the threshold for use should be very high — and clearly authorized. If used inappropriately, it could raise constitutional questions about who is making the final call on official acts.
• Setting a Precedent:
  A formal investigation could clarify the boundaries for future administrations and help define what counts as acceptable delegation. Without oversight, critics argue, the power of unelected staff could quietly expand.
• Public Trust at Stake:
  This issue isn’t just administrative — it’s symbolic. If Americans lose confidence that the President is personally making decisions, it weakens faith in democratic leadership.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – I Wouldn’t Support an Investigation”

• Autopen Use is Longstanding and Legal:
  Multiple presidents — including George W. Bush and Barack Obama — have used the autopen for routine documents. Supporters argue that this is standard practice and not worthy of a full investigation.
• No Proof of Misuse:
  Opponents say that there’s no clear evidence the autopen was used improperly. Without concrete examples of unauthorized use, an investigation could be seen as politically motivated.
• Focus on Bigger Issues:
  Some voters believe that resources should be directed toward more urgent matters — such as economic policy, border security, or foreign affairs — rather than administrative tools.
• Presidents Often Delegate:
  Like other top officials, the President must rely on staff. Autopen use — if done with general authorization — is seen by some as a functional necessity, not a breach of power.

Conclusion

This poll indicates that a large majority of respondents support a formal investigation into the Biden Administration’s use of the autopen. For many, it’s about more than the device — it’s about confidence in presidential leadership, transparency in government operations, and the principle that decisions with legal consequences should be made by elected leaders themselves.

Thank you to all who participated in this poll. Your voice plays an important role in shaping the public dialogue around how our institutions operate — and who is truly at the helm.

Poll Results

YES: 83% | NO: 17%

In this recent poll, we asked a simple but serious question:

“Do you believe Biden’s staff used an autopen without his knowledge?”

The use of an “autopen” — a device that replicates a person’s signature — is not new to Washington. However, growing concerns over President Biden’s cognitive health and delegation of duties have sparked renewed scrutiny over how presidential authority is exercised — and whether key decisions were being made without his direct involvement or awareness.

Why This Issue Matters

The President’s signature carries legal and symbolic weight. Whether it’s signing a bill into law, authorizing orders, or responding to foreign matters, the assumption is that such decisions are made by the President himself — with full awareness and intent.

If staff used a signature tool like an autopen on official documents without the President’s knowledge or approval, it raises constitutional, ethical, and political questions about executive authority and transparency.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – It Happened Without His Knowledge”

• Signs of Delegated Authority:
  Many point to growing reports that President Biden’s schedule was limited, and that aides were managing much of his official correspondence. The idea that staff may have signed documents “on his behalf” doesn’t seem far-fetched to those concerned about how insulated he became in the latter part of his presidency.
• Cognitive Health Concerns:
  As questions about mental sharpness increased, particularly after Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report cited Biden’s memory lapses, some believe staff may have taken over routine approvals to maintain continuity — possibly without full disclosure to the President.
• Lack of Transparency:
  Critics say the White House has not been fully forthcoming about when or how the autopen has been used. If key decisions were being formalized without the President’s awareness, it would signal a major breakdown in democratic process.
• Historical Precedent Doesn’t Excuse Misuse:
  While past presidents have used the autopen for routine matters, doing so without the President’s direct instruction — particularly for significant or time-sensitive decisions — could cross the line into misuse of executive authority.
• Trust in the Office Undermined:
  The idea that staff may have “signed” for the President without his involvement challenges public confidence in who is really in charge — and when.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – Biden Was Aware and Approved”

• Autopen Use is Legal and Documented:
  The autopen has been used by multiple presidents, including George W. Bush and Barack Obama, typically for routine matters when the President is unavailable to physically sign.
• Authorized Use Only:
  Supporters argue that autopen use is carefully coordinated and done with explicit presidential approval. There’s no concrete evidence that President Biden’s staff acted without his consent.
• Efficiency in Office:
  Given the volume of paperwork the executive office handles, delegating signature mechanics — especially on routine or ceremonial documents — is often a practical necessity.
• No Violation Proven:
  Without direct evidence that Biden was unaware of a particular signature or order, the claim remains speculative. Critics, they argue, are assuming facts not in evidence.
• Focus on Substance, Not Signature:
  What matters, some say, is whether the President stands behind the decision — not whether he personally penned the signature every time.

Conclusion

This poll suggests that a majority of respondents believe President Biden’s staff may have used an autopen without his direct knowledge — a view shaped by concerns about transparency, cognitive capacity, and executive accountability.

Whether or not this happened, the broader issue remains: Americans expect clarity and confidence in how major decisions are made — and by whom. Your feedback continues to shape that ongoing conversation.

Poll Results

YES: 7% | NO: 93%

In our latest survey, we asked:

“Should taxpayer-funded ‘safe use’ drug sites be allowed in U.S. cities?”

This question taps into a growing debate across American communities — how to address rising drug use, overdose deaths, and public safety, while balancing compassion and accountability. “Safe use” or “supervised injection” sites allow individuals to use drugs in designated areas under medical supervision, often with access to clean supplies and overdose-reversal medications.

Why This Issue Matters

As opioid overdoses and public drug use surge in many urban areas, policymakers are grappling with how to respond. Proponents of safe use sites argue that they save lives, reduce the spread of disease, and connect users to services. Opponents say such sites enable addiction, degrade communities, and use public funds inappropriately.

This debate strikes a balance between public health, criminal justice, and neighborhood impact — making it one of the most contentious urban policy topics in the country.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – Do Not Fund Safe Use Sites”

• Enabling vs. Treating Addiction:
  Critics argue that allowing individuals to use illegal drugs — even under supervision — does not solve the root problem. Instead of encouraging recovery, they say, it may normalize long-term substance abuse.
• Public Funds Should Support Treatment, Not Use:
  Many respondents believe taxpayer money should fund detox programs, rehabilitation, mental health services, and prevention — not facilities that allow people to continue using drugs.
• Neighborhood Decline & Safety Concerns:
  Residents near existing safe use sites have reported increases in loitering, petty crime, and discarded needles. Opponents fear such facilities may contribute to community decline.
• Moral and Legal Boundaries:
  Some view publicly sanctioned drug use as crossing a line — enabling illegal activity with government resources and undermining the rule of law.
• No Proven Long-Term Solution:
  While overdose prevention is a key goal, opponents question whether these sites lead to real, sustained recovery — or simply prolong addiction in a cleaner setting.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – Allow and Fund Them”

• Overdose Prevention:
  Supporters argue that safe use sites reduce overdose deaths by ensuring trained staff can respond immediately with naloxone or medical care.
• Harm Reduction Approach:
  The goal is not to condone drug use, but to reduce its worst consequences — including disease transmission, deaths, and abandoned drug paraphernalia in public spaces.
• Bridge to Treatment:
  Many safe use models include connections to social workers, addiction counselors, and medical professionals. For some users, it’s the first step toward recovery.
• Evidence from Abroad:
  Countries like Canada and Portugal have seen positive outcomes from harm-reduction approaches, including reduced overdose rates and fewer emergency calls.
• Public Health Over Policing:
  Proponents argue that addiction is a medical issue — not just a criminal one — and that treatment-focused strategies are more effective in the long run.

Conclusion

According to this poll, a majority of respondents oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to fund supervised drug-use sites in U.S. cities. While supporters view these facilities as tools to save lives and offer pathways to treatment, critics believe they enable addiction, misuse public funds, and create risks for surrounding communities.

As overdose deaths and public drug use continue to rise in many cities, the national conversation around this issue is far from over. Your voice adds important perspective to this evolving debate.

Poll Results

YES: 10% | NO: 90%

We recently asked our audience to weigh in on a deeply personal and highly debated issue:

“Should your tax dollars fund gender transitions for minors?”

This question raises important concerns about public spending, healthcare policy, parental rights, and how society treats children navigating gender identity. While some argue such procedures are medically necessary, others believe public funding should not support irreversible treatments for minors.

Why This Matters

As gender identity has become a more visible and widely discussed topic in recent years, state and federal governments have faced growing pressure to determine whether treatments like puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery should be funded — especially when minors are involved.

The issue brings together two central questions:

1. Should minors have access to life-altering gender transition treatments?
2. Should taxpayers be required to fund them?

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – Public Funds Should Not Be Used”

• Minors Can’t Fully Consent:
  Critics argue that children and teens are not developmentally mature enough to make irreversible medical decisions. They believe gender transition procedures should be delayed until adulthood — if pursued at all.
• Long-Term Health Risks:
  There is concern over the long-term effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Some studies suggest potential impacts on fertility, bone density, and neurological development.
• Taxpayer Choice and Boundaries:
  Many respondents say their tax dollars should not support elective procedures — particularly those involving minors — that intersect with ideology, personal belief, and evolving medical science.
• Rising Number of Regret Cases:
  Increasingly, detransitioners — individuals who regret undergoing gender-related procedures — have spoken out about feeling rushed or unsupported in their decisions. This raises ethical concerns about government-sponsored care for youth.
• Prioritizing Essential Health Services:
  Some feel taxpayer dollars would be better spent on basic healthcare needs — such as cancer treatment, mental health support, or veterans’ services — instead of controversial, non-life-threatening procedures.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – Support Should Be Funded”

• Gender-Affirming Care as Healthcare:
  Supporters say gender-affirming treatments are medically necessary for many transgender youth and that denying them can lead to depression, anxiety, and even suicide.
• Health Equity and Access:
  They argue that families without the financial means to afford private care should still have access to medically approved treatments, especially if recommended by doctors.
• Professional Guidelines Support It:
  Leading medical associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, have supported access to gender-affirming care for minors under careful supervision.
• Public Health is Public Responsibility:
  Just as taxpayers support care for addiction, mental illness, and chronic disease, supporters believe gender care for minors should be available when it can improve long-term well-being.

Conclusion

According to this poll, a strong majority of respondents do not support using taxpayer money to fund gender transition treatments for minors. While the debate continues across legal, medical, and cultural lines, many voters believe public dollars should not be used for procedures they view as elective, controversial, or age-inappropriate.

We appreciate all who took part in this important conversation. Your voice helps shape public awareness and policy around some of the most sensitive issues facing families and communities today.

Poll Results

YES: 14% | NO: 86%

We recently asked readers:

“Did the Biden White House staff fully disclose Joe’s mental state?”

This question cuts to the heart of public trust — not just in the President, but in the team responsible for managing his communication, public image, and medical transparency. The role of White House staff is to serve both the President and the American people, which includes keeping the public informed about the President’s ability to lead.

Why This Matters

The President’s cognitive condition isn’t just a personal issue — it has far-reaching consequences. When signs of decline begin to appear, Americans expect transparency, not just from doctors, but from the individuals closest to the President: his advisors, staff, and communications team.

The concern is not whether aging causes change — it’s whether those changes were concealed, minimized, or misrepresented to the public.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – They Withheld the Truth”

• Insiders Say the Staff Knew and Managed Around It:
  In the investigative book Original Sin, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson revealed that senior aides closely managed Biden’s schedule based on when he was most lucid. Public appearances were limited, difficult questions were avoided, and staff controlled media access. Tapper reported: “They were lying — not only to the press, not only to the public, but to members of their own Cabinet.”
• Staff Controlled the Optics to Avoid Public Scrutiny:
  Reports show that Biden’s team minimized unscripted events, used teleprompters in informal settings, and cut press briefings short. The goal, critics say, was to prevent moments that might raise questions about mental acuity — not to reflect full transparency.
• Vice President and Cabinet Kept at Arm’s Length:
  According to excerpts from Original Sin, even top-ranking officials weren’t fully briefed on the President’s condition. This suggests a highly controlled inner circle, protecting not just the President but the political consequences of disclosure.
• Public Statements Contradicted Private Reality:
  The White House consistently reassured the public that President Biden was “sharp” and “engaged.” Yet behind the scenes, aides were reportedly limiting his workload, curating his public moments, and planning travel around his energy levels.
• A Breach of Public Trust:
  Voters don’t expect perfection, but they do expect honesty. Many respondents say the staff’s actions amounted to a deliberate concealment — and that the American public had a right to know the truth, especially heading into the 2024 election cycle.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – They Were Transparent”

• Medical Summaries Were Released Annually:
  The White House physician issued yearly updates on the President’s health, including neurological checks and physical exams. For some voters, this represents sufficient disclosure.
• Age Doesn’t Equal Unfitness:
  Supporters argue that the President’s occasional verbal stumbles were blown out of proportion and are typical of many older Americans who remain mentally sharp.
• Protecting the Office’s Dignity:
  Staff may have acted out of respect for the institution, avoiding unnecessary speculation or political attacks based on isolated moments.

Focus Was on Governance, Not Optics:

The White House chose to emphasize legislative progress, foreign policy, and economic recovery — not engage in media debates about personality or age.

Poll Results

YES: 9% | NO: 91%

Thank you to everyone who participated in our recent survey. We asked:

“Was the mainstream media honest about Biden’s mental health?”

This question touches on a larger issue of media credibility, public transparency, and trust in institutions. The health and mental fitness of the President of the United States is not just a private matter — it’s a national concern with global implications.

Why This Matters

As President Biden’s term progressed, public discussion around his cognitive sharpness became more frequent. Whether during press events, speeches, or public appearances, moments of visible confusion and verbal missteps sparked concern across the political spectrum.

The question now is whether the media fulfilled its responsibility to report fully and fairly — or whether it withheld information from the public.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – The Media Was Not Honest”

• Insiders Confirmed There Was a Cover-Up:
  In the 2024 book Original Sin by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson, it’s revealed that senior White House aides worked to shield President Biden from public exposure when he was least mentally sharp. Tapper reported that the administration was “lying — not only to the public and the press, but to their own Cabinet.” This admission, from two reporters with direct access, cast serious doubt on how much was intentionally hidden.
• Even Democrats Were Concerned:
  Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN), who challenged Biden in the 2024 primaries, repeatedly expressed concerns about the President’s mental fitness and said many Democrats privately agreed — but remained silent. After Biden’s withdrawal from the race, Phillips pointed to what he described as a “quiet understanding” among party insiders that the President was not up for another term.
• Calls for Investigation Cross Party Lines:
  Political analyst Mark Halperin urged both parties to support a congressional investigation into what was known and concealed about Biden’s cognitive state. He called such a probe “the right thing to do” — not for partisan gain, but to restore trust in government transparency.
• Media Avoided the Story Until It Was Too Late:
  Despite numerous incidents — stumbles, memory lapses, and long pauses during public appearances — major news outlets largely avoided pressing questions. Some observers argue the press only began discussing Biden’s mental fitness openly after the 2024 campaign was already in crisis.
• A Missed Responsibility to the Public:
  Many respondents feel the press failed in one of its core duties: to hold the powerful accountable, even when it’s politically inconvenient.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – The Media Was Honest”

• Respect for Medical Privacy:
  Supporters argue that unless the White House physician declared Biden medically unfit, journalists had no obligation to speculate on his health without verified information.
• Avoiding Politically Charged Rumors:
  News organizations may have been cautious not to amplify what could be seen as partisan attacks or edited clips taken out of context, particularly in the absence of formal medical evidence.
• Focus on the Job, Not the Gaffes:
  Some believe the media rightly chose to focus on policy, governance, and legislative outcomes, rather than minor or age-related verbal slips.
• Regular Medical Briefings Were Provided:
  The White House did issue health summaries and updates. For those who trust those reports, there was no clear justification for deeper medical probing.

Conclusion

This poll’s results show that a clear majority of respondents believe the mainstream media was not honest about President Biden’s mental health — and that important information may have been withheld from the public.

With insiders and even some Democrats now publicly raising concerns, the question isn’t whether the signs were there — but why more wasn’t done to report them.

We thank everyone who participated. Your voice plays a critical role in conversations about transparency, accountability, and trust in the institutions that serve the public.

Poll Results

YES: 16% | NO: 84%

Setting the Stage

In recent years, the U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollars on foreign aid, defense assistance, and humanitarian support across the globe – most notably in Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict with Russia.

This poll posed a simple but powerful question:
Should we continue these commitments, or focus that money here at home?

The Case for Pulling Back

Those who believe it’s time to stop sending funds overseas often point to the following concerns:

• National Priorities First:
  With inflation, a rising national debt, and ongoing struggles at home – from infrastructure to veteran care – many believe taxpayer dollars should be spent domestically.
• Accountability & Oversight:
  Critics say that once money leaves U.S. hands, there’s little visibility on where it goes. Some question whether aid is truly effective or just fueling prolonged conflicts.
• Foreign Dependency:
  Continual financial support may discourage self-reliance among other nations and stretch U.S. resources thin when unexpected crises arise.
• America’s Borders vs. Others:
  A common sentiment is that we’re protecting other borders more aggressively than our own. Many voters ask: Why are we funding security elsewhere while our southern border remains a challenge?
  

The Case for Continued Aid

Supporters of continued funding see international assistance as a key part of U.S. leadership:

• Global Stability Matters:
  Backing allies can prevent larger conflicts and promote a rules-based international order. Helping Ukraine, for example, is viewed by some as a stand against authoritarian aggression.
• Strategic Interests:
  By aiding allies, the U.S. maintains influence in key regions and avoids the need for direct military intervention later.
• Humanitarian Role:
  For some, it’s a matter of principle – the U.S., as a wealthy nation, has a moral obligation to help those suffering from war, famine, or disaster.
• Preventing Power Vacuums:
  Pulling out abruptly could create openings for adversaries like China, Russia, or Iran to expand their influence unchecked.

What the People Said

In this poll, a strong 84% said the U.S. should stop sending money abroad and focus on its own people and problems. Only 16% supported continuing large-scale financial assistance to foreign countries.

It’s a clear signal that many Americans are feeling the pressure of economic strain at home – and want to see more resources directed inward rather than outward.

Poll Results

YES: 83% | NO: 17%

Should parents have the right to opt their children out of sex education, Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI), and transgender education?

What’s This Debate About?

Across the country, schools have become the front lines in a broader discussion about parental rights, education policy, and cultural values. As new curriculum topics – such as gender identity, race theory, and diversity programs – are introduced in public classrooms, parents are increasingly asking:

Should I have a say in what my child is taught?

This poll asked exactly that – and the results show a clear majority in favor of giving parents more control over sensitive content in the classroom.

Arguments for Allowing Parents to Opt Out

• Parental Authority:
  Parents are the primary educators of their children and should be able to guide what they learn about sensitive issues like sex, race, and gender.
• Respect for Personal Values:
  Families come from a wide range of moral, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Opt-out provisions allow parents to uphold their own values at home without interference.
• Transparency & Accountability:
  Many believe schools should be transparent about curriculum materials and allow families to review or decline content they find inappropriate.
• Child Readiness & Development:
  Supporters say that certain topics are best introduced at home, at a pace appropriate to each child’s age and maturity.

Arguments Against Opt-Out Policies

• Educational Consistency:
  Opponents worry that opt-outs could lead to fragmented learning and prevent students from receiving a full understanding of social and historical issues.
• Inclusion & Awareness:
  Some argue that exposure to different perspectives helps build empathy, reduce bullying, and prepare students for life in a diverse society.
• School Autonomy:
  There’s concern that broad opt-out rights could limit teachers’ ability to deliver comprehensive education and meet state standards.
• Potential Stigmatization:
  Students who opt out of certain lessons may feel excluded or singled out in the classroom, which can affect social dynamics.

Bottom Line

The message from this poll is clear:
A large majority of respondents believe parents should have the right to decide what their children are exposed to in the classroom – especially when it comes to deeply personal and potentially controversial subjects.

As the role of public education continues to evolve, this issue remains at the heart of many local and national conversations. Thank you for sharing your views and helping shape this important dialogue.