The Biden administration has tried to get away with doing whatever it wants. But that time is over.

Because Congress has introduced a game-changing bill that hits Biden where it hurts most.

A major way that the radicals on the Left have pushed their propaganda is through institutions to bring their extreme ideas everywhere.

One of the ways that do this is through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Executive abuse of federal agencies to waste taxpayer money? Color us surprised.

At the expense of the American taxpayer, Democrat administrations like the Biden admin or the Obama admin can use the USAID to bring “woke” ideas internationally and drum up international support for their agendas.

Well U.S. House Republicans have had enough of this abuse of American tax dollars.

Concerned that USAID is utilizing taxpayer funds to preach “wokeism” overseas, Republican Representative Matt Gaetz (FL) presented a bill to eliminate USAID on Tuesday.

According to a report from the Heritage Foundation published last year, which Gaetz referenced in a news release, the agency is spending American tax dollars on “leftist activism” abroad. The measure would effectively shut down the agency’s operations.

According to Gaetz’s news release, “American taxpayer dollars are being wasted to fund radical leftist propaganda in foreign countries.”

“We will not accept its force-feeding abroad under Old Glory, and neither will the American people tolerate government-funded degeneracy at home.”

“USAID does not serve a meaningful purpose,” he continued.

The law would also “rescind the unobligated funds made available for the agency and transfer all other assets or liabilities to the Secretary of State,” as stated in the news release.

Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Eli Crane (R-AZ), and Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) are all on board as cosponsors of the bill, which criticizes USAID for spreading what they call “leftist ideology.”

According to the law, the agency has used tax dollars to fund grants for various leftist causes, including $850,000 for “the rights of gender diverse people” in Bangladesh, a $1 million grant for ”LGBTI human rights advocacy in Asia,” and a $370,000 grant for ”the human rights of LGBTI people in Armenian society.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced their intention to invest up to $50 million to advance “digital gender equality” in Africa and elsewhere in April.

According to a research by the Heritage Foundation, the Biden administration “weaponizes” foreign aid by supporting and spreading “climate alarmism,” gender ideology, and access to abortion.

On Tuesday, Gaetz tweeted that the plan was an excellent “way to cut spending.”

I found a way to cut spending https://t.co/EHPpc1mgVp

— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) August 1, 2023

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Biden is getting older, and it shows. But he just got the worst news of his life.

And Joe Biden’s alarming test results just changed everything.

President Biden is the oldest sitting president in the history of this country.

His obvious decline has led many to question whether he can effectively lead.

Now even his own party is turning on him.

According to a recent poll, half of prospective Democratic primary voters want the party to nominate someone other than President Biden to compete for the White House in 2024.

Although Biden is almost certain to be nominated for a second term next summer, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll released Tuesday, only 45% of potential primary voters want the 80-year-old to be the party’s standard-bearer, while 50% prefer someone else.

A plurality of Democrats (39%) oppose Biden’s reelection because of his old age, while another 20% believe he hasn’t done enough to win a second term. Another 14% stated they would rather have someone new.

When asked how they would feel if Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, two-thirds (67%) said they would be “enthusiastic” or “satisfied” with the concept.

In comparison, more than seven in ten potential Democratic voters (71%) said they would be “enthusiastic” or “satisfied” if Biden was the party’s nominee, while Harris’ “enthusiastic” quotient was somewhat higher (26% vs. 20%).

Last year, only 26% of probable Democratic primary voters wanted Biden to be renominated, but over the next year, the president’s support among prospective Democratic voters 65 and older increased by 30%.

Biden has 64% support in the primary, while environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has 13% and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson has 10%.

In a rerun of the 2020 election, Biden and former President Donald Trump both gain 43% support, with 6% stating they were not going to vote at all or would not vote if those two major party candidates were the only ones running.

Another 4% said they would support someone else, while the other 4% stated they didn’t know or declined to answer.

Notably, Biden trails Trump by a slim margin among Hispanics (41%-38%) and self-described independents (42%-37%), while the former president leads the incumbent among those earning less than $50,000 per year (44%-40%) and $50,000 to $100,000 per year (44%-41%). Trump also has a 37% to 31% lead against Biden among those who did not vote in 2020.

In Tuesday’s poll, Biden’s job approval rating is 39%, but only 23% of respondents believe the US is on the right track (65% believe America is moving in the wrong direction). The president had a somewhat higher personal favorability rating of 43%, with 83% of his 2020 voters favoring him.

Meanwhile, 41% of those polled thought Trump was very or somewhat favorable. This figure rises to 83% among people who supported him in 2020.

Another red flag for the president: only 20% of respondents believe the economy is “excellent” (2%) or “good” (18%), while 78% say it is “fair” (29%) or “poor” (49%).

Biden has begun vigorously promoting “Bidenomics,” in an attempt to address Republican complaints about inflation and other monetary difficulties.

In the most recent RealClearPolitics poll, Biden leads Trump by 0.9 percentage points, and his average job approval rating is 42.1% approve to 54.1% disapprove.

The New York Times/Siena College poll was conducted July 23-27 among 1,329 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.67 percentage points.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Highest Court in the land is under heavy assault. But it’s gone way too far.

Because the Supreme Court has been hit with jaw-dropping new attacks.

The Left has their eyes set on upending the institution of the Supreme Court because of their disagreements with the rulings that have been handed down in recent years.

Top, high-profile Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have said that we should no longer view the Supreme Court as a legitimate institution.

She literally screamed at the Supreme Court that they were “illegitimate” after they handed down a decision that effectively overturned Roe v. Wade.

AOC screams "ILLEGITIMATE!" and "INTO THE STREETS!" on the steps of the Supreme Court https://t.co/4DwIXltGGr

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) June 24, 2022

Or consider how the current Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), basically threatened the Supreme Court saying that they wouldn’t “know what hit them” if they continue to hand down rulings that the Leftists disagree with.

Simply put, these attacks are unhinged.

But now the Leftists are going after the Supreme Court to delegitimize them in a new way, by arguing that the Supreme Court has been off the rails for decades.

The Democrats have recently been trying to pass legislation to place new arbitrary ethical standards on the Supreme Court as a way to control them.

Of course, anyone with just a little bit of foresight can see how bad of an idea that is as it would give the Congress and legislative branch as a whole a leg up on the other branches of government by being able to effectively control the Highest Court in the land.

But a New York Times editorial board member, Mara Gay, argued live on cable TV news that the Supreme Court should have had ethical standards passed by the Congress placed on the Justices a long time ago.

She even says that to argue otherwise is to be anti-Democratic and anti-Constitutional.

First, she parrots the idea that the Supreme Court has become a tool of the scary “far-right”.

“In this moment in American history the far-right in the country, which includes several members of the Supreme Court at this point, is far less interested I believe, unfortunately, in precedent and in democratic institutions and far more interested in raw power,” Gay said on MSNBC.

Then she attacked Samuel Alito for defending himself against the Left’s attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

“And I think what’s interesting about this op-ed to me is it’s straight out of the right-wing playbook at this point,” she continued.

“Throw out an extreme idea that is anathema to everything that any American who has been to a high school social studies class would recognize as the importance of the balance and checks of power, and then get Americans used to it so by the time you’ve decided that Congress, despite Section 3 of the Constitution, has absolutely no role in altering or regulating the court, then Americans will accept that, as though it was true all along.”

Talk about truly insane, right?

The Democrats are now trying to tell the American people that we have had it wrong all these years and that Congress should ultimately be controlling the Supreme Court because that is “true checks and balances.”

But where were these criticisms of the Supreme Court when the Court was handing down rulings that were more sympathetic to the radical Left?

Ah, that’s right. The Left just can’t stand losing on the political scene at all.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is willing to do anything to accomplish their agenda. Even the pushing for the ultimate price won’t stop them.

And these top Democrats were caught threatening Trump’s life.

Ever since Trump was indicted recently, many people have been talking about how much of a witch hunt all of these cases are.

That’s true, it’s obviously a way to make Trump’s campaign for re-election as difficult as possible.

But what people aren’t talking too much about is the reality of the charges that have been brought against him.

We aren’t talking about a slap on the wrist or a couple months in jail.

No, if Trump gets a bad judge or jury, they could even take his life.

The indictment issued by Special Counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday against former President Donald Trump for his participation in seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election includes multiple serious offenses, including one punishable by death.

18 U.S.C. 241, “Conspiracy Against Rights,” carries a maximum sentence of ten years in federal prison. However, it adds that if the activities specified by this provision result in death, the perpetrator may be executed:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Ashli Babbitt, a rioter shot by a law enforcement officer, died as a result of the Capitol riot on January 6, which Smith said Tuesday was caused by Trump’s election claims. Democrats, on the other hand, have blamed Trump for the deaths of multiple demonstrators and Capitol Police officers.

Democrats and some of Trump’s Republican opponents have also tried to blame him for apparent rioter attempts to kidnap then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Smith could make the same case.

Other alleged violations in Trump’s January 6 indictment carry significant jail sentences as penalties:

18 U.S.C. 371 – Conspiracy to Defraud the United States – the maximum penalty is five years in prison, though penalties can be reduced if the conspiracy is to conduct a misdemeanor; in such instance, the sentence cannot be more severe than the maximum for that felony.

18 U.S.C. 1512 (k) – Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding – Originally intended to penalize witness tampering, this statute carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison for anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.”

18 U.S.C. 1512 (c) – Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruction an Official Proceeding carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

If Trump is convicted of all four offenses and receives the maximum non-lethal penalty, he may face a 55-year prison sentence if the penalties are served consecutively.

This, along with the potential 460-year prison term in the “documents” case, which Smith is pursuing in federal court in Miami, raises Trump’s maximum federal prison term to 515 years, or more than half a millennium.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Biden’s DOJ believes they have Donald Trump dead to rights. But they’ve made a critical mistake.

Because a top lawyer has utterly demolished the latest indictment case against Trump.

It really does feel like the banana republic under the “leadership” of President (supreme leader) Biden is well underway, doesn’t it?

Donald Trump has been hit with indictment after indictment and charged with countless felonies, many of which are beyond bogus.

The latest indictment against Trump may be the most insanely unhinged charge yet.

Special Counsel Jack Smith announced the latest indictment against Donald Trump earlier this week, this time over the events that took place on January 6th, 2021 in the wake of the 2020 Presidential election.

Donald Trump, to this day, maintains that the election was fixed. But that is his own opinion that no one can strip away from him, or shouldn’t at least.

The Democrats believe that Donald Trump should be silenced and face the consequences of daring to question the accepted narrative about the 2020 Presidential election.

It’s obvious that at the core of this new charge against Donald Trump for allegedly trying to overturn the election results is whether or not Trump’s First Amendment rights apply.

Well, a top attorney and legal expert believes that is going to be the undoing of the Department of Justice in their case against Trump.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University’s Law School, says that the vast majority of the case against Trump is protected by Trump’s First Amendment rights. And when you take all that out of the picture, there’s almost nothing left for the DOJ to charge Trump with.

Turley put Jack Smith on blast for trying to bring forward the “first criminal indictment” of disinformation.

“Special Counsel Jack Smith just issued the first criminal indictment of alleged disinformation in my view. If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku…” Turley shared on Twitter after the news of the Trump indictment was released.

Special Counsel Jack Smith just issued the first criminal indictment of alleged disinformation in my view. If you take a red pen to all of the material presumptively protected by the First Amendment, you can reduce much of the indictment to haiku…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 1, 2023

Turley says that while he believes the case against Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents indictment is fairly strong, he thinks this new indictment is the opposite.

He likens this new charge to the case when Virginia’s former Governor Bob McDonnell had his charge thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court, a charge that was prosecuted by Jack Smith.

…I felt that the Mar-a-Lago indictment was strong. This is the inverse. This is closer to the case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell where Smith was overturned by an unanimous Supreme Court…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 1, 2023

Finally, the law professor highlighted how deeply disturbing the Jack Smith indictment announcement was because his own signals were crossed.

…The press conference held by Smith only deepened the unease for some of us. Smith railed against the January 6th riot and made it sound like he was indicting Trump on incitement. He didn't. The disconnect was glaring and concerning.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 1, 2023

Be sure to stay tuned to Prudent Politics for more updates on the Trump legal cases that will be unfolding in the next few months.