Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Out soon? Biden faces growing calls to withdraw 2024 White House bid

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By

President Joe Biden faces a growing tidal wave of opposition and calls for him to leave the presidential race from his own party, with more elected Democrats coming out against him seemingly every day.

Meanwhile, unconfirmed media reports from multiple outlets have suggested Biden is considering bowing out of the race and could make the announcement in the coming days.

Despite those reports, Biden’s campaign released a statement Friday saying that the president will resume campaigning next week.

U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., released a statement on Friday calling for Biden to step aside so that another Democrat can take on former President Donald Trump in November.

Heinrich is the third elected senator to do so, joining dozens of House Democrats and other party leaders. This kind of revolt within the party is highly unusual, though Biden does have publicly voiced support from about 75 Democrats, according to a tally from the New York Times.

Most Democrats questioning Biden have made a similar argument: Biden has a great legacy, but he probably can’t beat Trump in November.

A leading Democrat in the House, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff of California, made that argument earlier this week when he called on Biden to step aside.

“A second Trump presidency will undermine the very foundation of our democracy, and I have serious concerns about whether the President can defeat Donald Trump in November,” Schiff said.

Freshly certified Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance took a shot at Biden on Friday, questioning his cognitive decline and questioning if Biden should leave the White House altogether.

“If Joe Biden doesn’t have the cognitive function to run for re-election, then he certainly doesn’t have the cognitive function to remain as Commander-In-Chief,” Vance wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “How can any Dem pushing him to drop out of the presidential race, argue in good faith that he should stay on as POTUS?”

Biden’s woes gained steam after his disastrous debate performance at the end of last month put his campaign on defense as traditionally liberal media questioned his fitness and Democrats began calling for him to leave the race.

Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt last weekend, further rallying his base and making him more sympathetic to Independents. Even before the assassination attempt, Trump led Biden nationally in polling and in nearly every key battleground state.

Biden has so far publicly insisted he will remain the party’s nominee. Since the assassination attempt and Biden began quarantining for his COVID-19 infection, the pressure has ramped up even more.

If Biden does drop out, a key question will be whether he decides to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris or to leave the Democratic National Convention in August open for other likely contenders, such Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, California Gov. Gavin Newsom or others to make a play for the nomination.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Trump’s fiercest supporters have been propelled by Trump’s wins, his attempted assassination survival, and seem more confident than ever about November.

“The Democrat party is in more chaos than ever,” U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “While they try to force out a feeble old man who refuses to give up the wheel, they remain unified on disastrous policies that have ravaged our country. Will Biden drop out? Maybe.

“Will it matter? No.

“The American people need Donald Trump, and in November, we’re sending him back to the White House,” she added.

Published by the nonprofit Franklin News Foundation, The Center Square depends on your tax-deductible contributions to keep this nonpartisan, free-press journalism alive. Every day, our journalists break news stories about political leaders’ claims versus their track records, ethics investigations, and election security that other outlets either politicize or ignore.

Shiloh Carozza McCall

Director of Engagement, Franklin News Foundation

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script that says men can get pregnant isn’t ‘neutrality,’ by any stretch.

Imagine a society in which the state broadcaster demanded that the female hosts eliminate the word “women” in favor of “people” and rebuked them if their facial expressions betrayed any hit of protest on air.

Welcome to the United Kingdom in 2025. According to the BBC: “Martine Croxall broke rules over ‘pregnant people’ facial expression, BBC says.”

Martine Croxall, a BBC presenter, was introducing an interview about “research on groups most at risk during UK heatwaves,” and the teleprompter script she was reading live on BBC News Channel contained the phrase “pregnant people.”

Croxall visibly raised her eyebrows, and corrected in real-time: “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”

When Dr. Mistry, a professor, came on for the interview, she too referred to “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people.”

Because a female presenter clearly objected to “women” being erased in favor of “people” for the ideological purpose of buttressing gender ideology, the BBC has now upheld “20 impartiality complaints” against Croxall. According to the BBC: “BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said it considered her facial expression as she said this gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter.’”

READ: BBC rebukes newscaster for correcting ‘pregnant people’ with ‘women’ on air

In other words, as a woman, Croxall obviously objected to the implication that men can get pregnant. Croxall has a son and has thus been pregnant herself. But in our current clown world, the Executive Complaints Unit “said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it ‘indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity.’”

The totalitarian trans activists desperately trying to force society to play along with their delusions with force or coercion were behind the complaints, with the ECU reporting that Croxall’s facial expressions were “variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt, or exasperation.” In other words: Say your lines the way we gave them to you and look like you believe them, bigot.

The ECU was also concerned that those who, you know, disagree with the idea that men can get pregnant were also pleased by Croxall’s act of defiance, and that she received “congratulatory messages” on social media (including one from J.K. Rowling), which “together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”

Clearly the BBC—which is desperately been trying to regain its reputation—is attempting to wave the fig leaf of “neutrality” in order to reestablish its previous bona fides. But rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script and making a facial expression that appeared to indicate opposition to the idea that men can get pregnant isn’t “neutrality,” by any stretch.

Just a decade ago, no media outlet would have considered implementing gender ideology into their coverage as fact. Now presenters are expected to use fundamentally propagandistic language that frontloads the premises of activists while keeping a straight face as if both transgender ideology and observable biological reality are two perspectives deserving of equal respect and consideration.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

Continue Reading

International

Large US naval presence in Caribbean reveals increased interest in western security

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

As the number of suspected narcotic transport boats destroyed by the U.S. military grows, so does the number of naval vessels in the Caribbean.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced on social media Thursday evening that U.S. forces carried out their 17th strike on alleged drug boats, killing three “male narco-terrorists” in the targeted operation.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that his administration’s intent to target narco-terrorists in the region to help curb the flow of drugs into the country.

Last month, it was announced that the newest and largest U.S. Navy Aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, and its strike group would be transiting to the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility in the Caribbean.

Ahead of the Ford’s arrival, several naval ships are already in the region, including the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, according to the U.S. Naval Institute—the Iwo Jima, a Wasp-class amphibious ship, among the larger classes of ships in the Navy.

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group deployed in August, carrying over 4,500 sailors and Marines, according to the Department of War. The group includes the Iwo Jima, USS Fort Lauderdale, USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.

As of early this week, the USNI reported that, in addition to the group, three Navy guided-missile destroyers are operating in the Caribbean, including the USS Jason Dunham, USS Gravely, and USS Stockdale. In addition, USNI reported the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) and the USS Wichita (LCS-13) are operating in the Caribbean.

The buildup of navy ships in the region points to the administration’s commitment to prioritizing targeting narco-terrorists. Still, it could also signal the U.S. focusing on potential adversarial threats in Latin America.

Hegseth told The Center Square last month at an event in the White House that the Department of War is keeping its eyes on adversaries in the region after TCS asked the secretary and the president if they had plans to expand U.S. Naval operations in Puerto Rico, specifically Roosevelt Roads, a Navy base closed in 2004.

“We’re familiar with the location that you’re referring to, and we will make sure that we’re properly placed in order to deal with the contingency we’re dealing with there, and also any ways in which other countries would attempt to be involved also, so we can walk and chew gum. We’re definitely keeping our eyes on near peer adversaries at the same time,” Hegseth told TCS.

The secretary’s response cemented the administration’s “America first” policy, which is beginning to shift focus to its “own backyard.”

“But we think sending a message on these cartels, these narco-terrorists, is an important, important inside our hemisphere, which for far too long other presidents, as the president pointed out, they’ve ignored our own backyard and allowed other countries to increase their influence here, which only threatens the American people. We’re changing that,” Hegseth concluded.

The naval buildup in the region could highlight concerns in recent years that Venezuela, under the dictatorship of socialist Nicolas Maduro, has aligned the country with American adversaries, such as Russia, China and Iran.

In 2022, Venezuela hosted military drills with countries including Russia, China and Iran.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that Latin America is ripe for U.S. adversarial influences.

“While Western observers have focused their attention on joint connivances of Russia and Iran in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and the Middle East, where Russo-Iranian military-security operations directly affect U.S. and European interests, the Western Hemisphere is not isolated from the two countries’ quests for global influence. In fact, in many ways it is an essential piece of the puzzle. First, both Iran and Russia perceive Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) as a fertile ground for exploiting popular resentment vis-à-vis the United States and the ‘collective West,’ which they – rather successfully – harness to advance their view of a multipolar world,” according to CSIS.

The group cites sanctions from the West, which are growing in large part due to Russia’s ongoing offensive in Ukraine.

“Second, LAC partners could prove instrumental in offsetting the impacts of Western sanctions against Moscow and Tehran by mitigating their diplomatic and economic isolation. Finally, certain LAC countries could also serve as less scrutinized partners for further developing Russo-Iranian warfare capabilities or cooperation, sheltering mercenaries or militias – such as Hezbollah – and acting as vectors for ‘horizontal escalation’ of conflicts in which Russia and Iran are currently involved,” the group added.

Continue Reading

Trending

X