AwesomeCapital

Friday, August 22, 2025

Most of public (59%) say will either “definitely not” or “probably not” get COVID-19 vaccine this fall

Amid ongoing news from federal agencies about changing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the replacement of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee members (ACIP), and re-examination of the federal childhood vaccine schedule, there is confusion among the public about U.S. vaccine policy. While half of the public thinks Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made “major” (26%) or “minor” (26%) changes to vaccine policy in the U.S., the other half either say they “don’t know enough to say” (40%) or say no changes have been made (7%). At least three in ten adults across demographic groups and party identification say they don’t know enough about the recent changes from Kennedy to vaccine policy to describe them. In addition, half (48%) of parents are not sure if federal health agencies are currently recommending that healthy children receive a COVID-19 vaccine this fall or not.
Once told about the changes to U.S. vaccine policy, the public is divided by partisanship in whether they think these changes will make people safer or less safe. About two in ten adults, including 41% of Republicans, think these changes will make people safer while about one-third of adults, including most Democrats (62%) and four in ten independents (41%) say they will make people less safe. Another third of adults (31%) say they “don’t know enough to say” as to whether the recent changes to U.S. vaccine policy will make people safer or not, and about one in ten say the changes won’t make a difference.
Most of the public (59%) say they will either “definitely not” or “probably not” get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall – including about six in ten Republicans who say they will “definitely not” get the vaccine. Older adults and Democrats are much more likely to report that they will get the COVID-19 vaccine. About four in ten Black adults and Hispanic adults say they plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine as do 37% of White adults.
With most of the public reporting that they will not get a COVID-19 vaccine this fall, few are worried about the availability of the vaccine or whether it will be covered by insurance. One-third (33%) of adults are concerned that COVID-19 vaccines won’t be available to them this fall, while a third (34%) of insured adults are also worried that their insurance won’t cover a shot. Concern about availability and coverage are tied to vaccine intention, with those who plan to get the vaccine much more likely to be concerned that it might not be available to them (66%), including specific demographic groups who are more likely to get vaccinated such as older adults and Democrats.
Personal doctors or health care providers remain the most trusted source for information about vaccines among asked sources, with eight in ten (83%) adults who say they trust their own doctor at least “a fair amount.” Smaller shares of the public, but still majorities trust their local public health department and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, to provide information on vaccines, though the share who say so has been steadily in decline since September 2023. Fewer continue to say they trust HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to provide information on vaccines, with about four in ten (37%) saying they trust him at least a fair amount, unchanged since his appointment in April of this year.
About half of the public have confidence in agencies like the CDC and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines approved for use in the U.S. (49%), while less than half say they have at least some confidence in the agencies to make decisions based on science rather than the personal views of agency officials (42%), or act independently, without interference from outside interests (37%). Democrats continue to be more confident in federal health agencies than Republicans to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Awareness of Changes to Vaccine Policy

Since his appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made several headlines about changing vaccine recommendations, leaving many confused about the scope of changes to U.S. vaccine policy and unsure of how these changes might affect people.

About half (52%) of the public are aware that RFK Jr. has made changes to U.S. vaccine policy, with about a quarter describing them as “major changes” (26%) or “minor changes” (26%). Four in ten adults say they don’t know enough about the changes to say whether they are “major” or “minor.” In addition, another 7% are unaware that changes have been made.

Whether the public views the changes as “major” or “minor” is largely partisan, with Democrats more likely to say they are “major” changes while Republicans describe them as “minor” changes. About four in ten (39%) Democrats say the changes that have been made to U.S. vaccine policy are “major,” compared to a quarter (25%) of independents and one in six (16%) Republicans. Nearly four in ten Republicans describe the changes as “minor,” compared to a quarter of independents and 18% of Democrats.

Young adults and those without a college degree are more likely to report that they don’t know enough about the issue to say whether or not the Secretary of HHS has made changes to vaccine policy. About half of those ages 18-29 (47%) and those without a college degree (45%) report that don’t know enough to say about changes to vaccine policy, compared to smaller shares of older adults and those with a college degree or higher.

With RFK, Jr. focusing attention on the childhood vaccine schedule, about half of parents are aware that changes have been made but the other half of parents are either unaware that changes have been made (9%) or report they don’t know enough to say (39%). Similar to all adults, how parents described the scope of the changes is largely partisan with Democratic-leaning parents describing them as major changes, and Republican-leaning parents describing them as minor changes.

In light of the recent changes to policy, a third (36%) of the public say the changes that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made to vaccine policy will make people less safe while a smaller share (20%) say the changes to vaccine policy will make people safer. Similar to overall awareness of the changes, a substantial share (31%) say they don’t know enough about the recent changes to say whether they will make people safer or less safe. An additional one in ten (13%) say the changes will not make any difference.

Once again, views are largely partisan, including among parents. Pluralities of Democrats and independents say the changes RFK Jr. has made to vaccine policy will make people less safe, including six in ten (62%) Democrats and four in ten (41%) independents. However, Republicans are split, with similar shares who say the policy makes people safer (41%) and that they don’t know enough to say (34%).

Parents are also split, with a third (32%) who don’t know enough to say and three in ten (29%) who say these changes will make people less safe. Another quarter (22%) of parents say it’ll make people safer, while one in six (17%) say it won’t make a difference. Parents who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents are more likely to say the changes will make people less safe, while Republican-leaning parents are more likely to say the changes will make people safer.

Regulatory Transparency Is Vital

By Linnea Lueken

So far, there really is nothing negative to say about Lee Zeldin’s leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from a conservative point of view, except that maybe he has not gone far enough (yet) with deregulation. But there is one recent move that deserves some special attention.

EPA Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi recently gave Breitbart News some exclusive comments regarding the EPA’s “Guidance Portal” -- an online portal that provides a searchable database of important regulations and requirements for businesses and landowners. It’s meant to provide an easy-to-use guide. Fotouhi told Breitbart, “If you’re in any way subject to one of our regulatory requirements or statutory obligations, you can go on there and conduct a search and see very clearly what the agency’s interpretation of that requirement and how it applies to your situation.”

In other words, the Guidance Portal is intended to help people understand government environmental regulations so that average Americans and small businesses, who don’t have a team of regulatory lawyers on retainer, don’t accidentally run afoul of one of the many overlapping and complex rules and requirements. Things like the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), and 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA), and their various updates, can all impact what someone does on their own property. Thus, landowners must be aware of every regulation and how they apply in their specific case. Zeldin also pointed out the portal should help alleviate some of the cost of hiring expensive attorneys that would otherwise be needed to navigate the maze of rules and regulations.

Feedback given to the EPA on the portal, Fotouhi told Breitbart, can also help the EPA find places they can simplify and get rid of redundancies and bloat. Imagine that!

This seems like something that should be a no-brainer, that everyone would support. However, during his first term, President Trump directed his agencies to do the same thing via executive order. Predictably, as soon as Biden entered the White House, he (or his handlers) put a stop to it, rescinding the order in a bid to suppress the guidance portals. While the Biden EPA was unable to totally shut them down without an official rule, they did stop updating them. Why might that be?

Opaqueness has its benefits for an enviro-tyrannical government. Making it more difficult for farmers to figure out if they are allowed to put a barn on their own land, or build a road, can prevent them from doing anything the EPA may not like. Opacity allows regulators to apply rules arbitrarily.

Environmental regulations, especially when vague, have destroyed many lives, especially under Presidents Obama and Biden.

The first example that comes to mind is the recent Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case, in which the EPA was leveraging ambiguities in the CWA to stop a family from building a house on the small lot they owned in Idaho. They were already in the process of moving earth when the EPA swooped in to say that their property counted as protected wetland because it contained “navigable waters.” The agency demanded the Sacketts put all the dirt back, imposing thousands of dollars per day in fines for every day they didn’t comply. Those “navigable waters” were a ditch near the property that sometimes filled with water when it rained heavily, which would feed a shallow creek.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court sided with the Sacketts, but that was after 16 years in the courts. It never should have gone that far. It was absurd, but the EPA gets away with that kind of harassment when the law is nebulous, arbitrary, and difficult to understand. Most people won’t fight it out the way the Sacketts did because the idea of sitting in court for a decade or more is not something they can afford or handle.

The Sacketts case is just one of many. In particular, the CWA has a long history of vagueness, shifting definitions of what counts as navigable water, and arbitrary application. This has been fostered by the EPA to expand its mission and the scope of its authority.

In Allegheny Wood Products v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Allegheny Wood Products company had applied for an “incidental take” permit -- a permit that would cover them just in case some endangered species were harmed by their logging operations being conducted on land that several different animals might live on. The Fish and Wildlife Service thought the company’s application was incomplete and did not think the company’s required “habitat conservation plan” was sufficient. Meanwhile, Allegheny Wood Products was losing millions of dollars while waiting for the permit to finally go through. The vagueness of the Endangered Species Act and how it applied to their situation in West Virginia caused delays and denials with FWS for more than a decade.

Again, this kind of uncertainty is devastating when regulators suddenly turn their ire toward you or your business. A Guidance Portal won’t stop the EPA from having vague and broad rules. But it will make it easier for average Americans to at least understand what the law requires and what actions they might take to avoid sparking agency oversight, control, and penalties. It should be clear what the law is and what it takes to comply with it. The Guidance Portal provides an electronic paper trail and something they can use as official EPA guidance.

Although there is still a long way to go before I would say the EPA has completely returned to its appropriate regulatory scope, increasing transparency is a good start to improve the EPA’s historically hostile relationship with property owners and businesses in the United States.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/08/regulatory_transparency_is_vital.html

The masculine stampede from the Democrats

By J.B. Shurk

The Democrat Party gets weirder every day. There was a time when most of the Democrats I knew were tradesmen, roughnecks, farmers, and union guys. They were tough dudes, often veterans, and told some of the bawdiest jokes I’ve ever heard. Now Democrats can’t define what a dude is; they want to wokify the military into some gaudy pageant for drag queens who fear guns; and they’ve replaced “politically incorrect” humor with stern lectures. No wonder American men are fleeing the Democrat Party like it’s a sexually transmitted disease.

Speaking of STDs, one of the Democrat lectures that Americans are forced to endure is that young people shouldn’t “discriminate” against potential partners who have HIV. Democrats have even gone out of their way to decriminalize the intentional act of infecting someone with the virus. This is the same political party that calls men “homophobic” and “transphobic” if they refuse to date “trans women” (psychologically disturbed men wearing push-up bras). So Democrats are telling young people that they are “haters” and “right-wing bigots” if they choose to avoid potential suitors with sexually transmitted diseases or male plumbing hidden behind specially-designed skirts.

Perhaps that’s why the “right-wing” pejorative has lost most of its sting since Obama “fundamentally transformed” America into an oasis for femboys and pansexual furries. Can you imagine how many teenage boys have asked, “So the ‘Nazis’ get to date pretty girls who wear Sydney Sweeney’s jeans?” Once they realize that Democrats merely graffitied the Republican Party’s front door with lies and slurs and that the average Republican voter just wants to live well and be free, the choice of future political affiliation is easy. Democrats live in fantasy; Republicans prefer reality.

That’s probably why so many of those older Democrat roughnecks have transitioned to the Republican Party. As one wrote to me, “This is the only transition I’m up for.” There was a pretty funny joke after that, but I’ll save it for a more casual venue. We Republicans may be politically incorrect, but we do have common decency and good manners!

This leftist madness is by no means restricted to the Democrat Party in the United States. All over the West, leftists are demanding open borders, loads of free stuff, and a ban on all forms of reliable energy. They want their already-bankrupt governments to pay them an income for merely existing and to jack up the mandatory minimum wage until fast-food workers earn as much as surgeons. They think legalizing drugs and abortion up to the moment of a baby’s birth will somehow make them “happy.”

They want an end to unwinnable wars, except they’re pretty sure we should get into a nuclear grudge match with Russia over Russian-speaking lands whose residents don’t want to be part of Ukraine. Oh, and they really want Israel to stop fighting back against sicko-terrorists who decapitate babies in front of their mothers. But they have absolutely nothing against Jews. They just want to kick them out of the nation they’ve built and hand everything they’ve created over to illiterate warlords who marry nine-year-old girls and scream, “Death to America!”

Speaking of the “religion of peace,” did you catch this story out of Evil Stepmother England? The locals in a pastoral, very beautiful part of the country are unhappy that a mega-mosque is being built in an area where the Muslim population is less than half of one percent. Most expect it to be the first step in a larger plan to settle a huge number of Islamic immigrants into the tight-knit community. A young father protested this unwanted invasion by singing, “We love bacon,” outside of the construction site. He was subsequently arrested for “racial abuse.” Free speech in the U.K. is dead.

As one social media commenter notes, “In the UK today, you can be arrested for liking bacon… or telling someone to speak English. However, if you’re in a Muslim rape gang, the government will cover it up. You can also be arrested for exposing the cover-up.” Podcaster Tim Pool says that Christian England “is conquered.” Another commenter observes: “Fun facts about bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9 year old!” Many other American pundits urge the U.S. military to airdrop guns and bacon into the U.K before Keir Starmer “transitions” St. Paul’s Cathedral into a mosque and hands the keys to Buckingham Palace over to a London imam.

You put all this leftist-engineered self-destruction together, and it becomes obvious that the West will not exist if Democrats and their Antifa friends get their way. That’s probably why young people -- especially men -- are bolting the Democrat Party. Nobody with a brain votes for his own subjugation.

In response, Democrats have pushed childish morons -- such as Harry Sisson and this crazy girl with a nose ring -- into the spotlight to win young men back. To young men who don’t hate themselves, that’s like offering carnivores the vegetarian plate. Ah, there’s the Democrats’ next campaign slogan: We love fake meat.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/08/the_masculine_stampede_from_the_democrats.html

Getting illegal truckers off the road

By John M. Grondelski

On August 12, an illegal alien from India killed three people in Florida. He wasn’t the “usual” criminal alien who raped or murdered. He was one of those illegals liberals salute for “working” whose “only” infraction was getting to the United States illegally. Lots of TikTok women on X will announce they have “no f-ing problem” with such “undocumenteds.”

Harjinder Singh killed those three people with a truck. He was driving a semi that made an illegal U-turn on a highway. Three people just happened to be in his way. (Although from India, Singh also failed the “xenophobic” regulations put in place two months ago by the Trump Administration requiring truckers to be literate in English).

How was Singh driving? Because California gave him a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). In keeping with the Golden State’s sanctuary policies, the legal status of driver license applicants is not asked.

Gavin Newsom shares responsibility for the blood of those dead people. He’ll try to deflect but the man could not have been driving a semi without a California CDL.

Sanctuary jurisdictions almost certainly will try to continue their policies when it comes to driving. They’ll also certainly insist that driver licensing is a “state right” and they will continue to do what they’re doing because “it promotes public safety.” How do we stop this insanity?

I have two solutions.

First, much of the business semis do involves interstate commerce. The Constitution’s interstate commerce clause has been stretched by liberals for decades to ground their policy choices. It was the justification, for example, to impose Obamacare mandates.

It’s time conservatives fought fire with fire. Let’s simply require that any truck crossing state lines must have a “Real ID” CDL. To obtain a “Real ID” license, one must prove legal status, i.e., that one is a citizen or lawfully admitted to the United States.

Our current two-tier system -- states issue “Real IDs” and their own non-compliant state licenses -- is the loophole by which sanctuary jurisdictions put illegals on the road. Some conservatives, citing “privacy” and “the cure is worse than the disease” arguments, are willing to go along with the status quo. They claim it would be “too intrusive” for the federal government to enforce.

That might be true of ordinary driver licenses, though I believe this could be addressed. But CDLs are a different reality.

First, while the categories do not wholly overlap, most vehicles for which a CDL are needed also need Operating Authority numbers from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Congress, exercising interstate commerce powers, can stipulate that the FMCSA cannot certify a vehicle eligible for a number unless the owner certifies that the vehicle will not be operated by any driver lacking a Real ID CDL.

Second, while ‘sanctuary” jurisdictions might try to ignore these rules (unless Congress threatens to withhold their highway money), many states require trucks to stop for inspection at weigh stations. Law-abiding states could yank non-Real ID CDLs and their drivers when being inspected. They could also notify the FMCSA of a vehicle being operated in this manner to decertify its authorization. If the vehicle is licensed by a non-sanctuary state (e.g., driver is hired to drive for a company and doesn’t own his truck), those states could also be incentivized to cancel registration if the vehicle is involved in loss of previously held FMCSA Operating Authority. The same rules could be applied to any truck pulled over a legitimate traffic stop.

Companies owning trucks will have plenty of economic incentives not to risk their vehicle losing operational rights at the hands of illegals.

A federal requirement would degrade the value of non-Real ID state-issued CDLs. They’d essentially only be useful for intrastate commerce. We do run the risk of contiguous sanctuary states (e.g., much of the Northeast or the Pacific coastline) ignoring the rule and honoring their neighboring states’ non-compliant CDLs, but that is just the latest iteration of the “state nullification” theory advanced by Democrats during the Civil War, a nefarious idea we thought buried in 1865.

In any event, interstate commerce is subject to federal oversight even among “wink-and-nod” sanctuary states, so any truck intercepted elsewhere having been identified in “sanctuary interstate commerce” could lose FMCSA authorization. It’s also why we should incentivize “purplish” states (e.g., Arizona, New Hampshire) that don’t give illegals licenses to give extra attention to trucks from sanctuary states entering their territory.

We don’t have to sacrifice Americans because “hardworking” illegals (who have no right to work) get drivers licenses from sanctuary states to operate 18-wheelers. The power for the federal government to stop this is there. Let’s use it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/08/getting_illegal_truckers_off_the_road.html