The Radical Left is known for extremism. But no one thought they would take things this far.

And a Capitol bomb threat by Radical Leftists has left citizens terrified.

On Saturday, the serene setting of the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg was shattered by a bomb threat, allegedly emailed by a pro-Palestine individual.

The threat triggered an immediate and robust response from law enforcement and state officials, highlighting the persistent dangers facing our nation’s institutions and the urgent need for vigilance and security.

Eric Veronikis from the Pennsylvania Department of General Services explained in a statement that the threat was sent via email to all members of the House of Representatives and Senate.

The email, ominously titled “My Manifesto,” demanded that President Joe Biden publicly denounce Israel as an “illegitimate state” and threatened to detonate explosives hidden in and around the State Capitol if the demand was not met. The sender also claimed to be armed with a knife and inside the Capitol.

“The Capitol Police immediately worked with House and Senate security, as well as the Office of the PA Courts, to issue an immediate evacuation notice to those in the buildings,” Veronikis stated, according to CBS News.

This swift and coordinated response underscores the critical importance of preparedness and the seamless cooperation among various security agencies.

Capitol Police, the FBI, Pennsylvania State Police, House and Senate security, and the Dauphin County Sheriff’s Office quickly mobilized to ensure the safety of the area. A thorough search, including K9 units, was conducted, but no explosives were found.

Representative Ryan Bizzarro shared a screenshot of the threatening email on social media, revealing the perpetrator’s disturbing motives.

The email’s explicit connection to pro-Palestine sentiments and its demand for a geopolitical stance from the President raises troubling questions about the intersection of domestic security and international politics.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro responded to the incident, reassuring the public that no explosives were found during the K9 search of the Capitol Complex perimeter.

“Capitol Police and the FBI are still actively conducting a comprehensive search and investigation in coordination with the Pennsylvania State Police, House and Senate security, and the Dauphin County Sheriff’s Office to ensure the safety of the area,” Shapiro added.

This incident is a stark reminder of the persistent threats posed by radical ideologies and the lengths to which some individuals will go to promote their agendas.

The pro-Palestine angle of the threat, in particular, highlights the volatile nature of Middle Eastern politics and its far-reaching implications.

As the situation in Israel and Palestine continues to be a contentious issue globally, it is essential to remain vigilant against the potential for such conflicts to spill over into domestic threats.

From a conservative perspective, this incident underscores several key points. First and foremost, it reaffirms the necessity of a robust national security apparatus. The quick and effective response by Capitol Police and other security agencies is commendable and highlights the importance of well-funded and well-trained law enforcement.

Conservatives have long advocated for strong support of our police and security forces, and this incident is a clear example of why such support is crucial.

Secondly, the threat brings to light the ongoing debate about immigration and the vetting process for individuals entering the country. While the identity of the perpetrator has not been disclosed, the nature of the threat raises concerns about radical ideologies infiltrating our borders.

Conservatives have consistently argued for stricter immigration controls and thorough vetting processes to ensure that individuals who pose a threat to national security are not allowed entry into the country.

Furthermore, the demand for a political statement against Israel reflects the dangerous rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments. Conservatives have been vocal in their support for Israel, recognizing it as a key ally in the Middle East and a bastion of democracy in a volatile region. This incident serves as a reminder of the importance of standing firm with our allies and denouncing extremist ideologies that seek to undermine our values and security.

The incident also highlights the crucial role of communication and transparency from our elected officials. Representative Ryan Bizzarro’s decision to share the threatening email publicly was a commendable move that provided clarity and transparency to the public.

It is essential for government officials to keep the public informed, especially during security threats, to maintain trust and ensure that citizens are aware of the measures being taken to protect them.

Lastly, this event underscores the necessity for unity in the face of threats. While political divisions are an inherent part of democracy, incidents like this remind us that security and safety are common concerns that transcend party lines. It is crucial for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, to support measures that ensure the safety of our institutions and the people who serve within them.

In conclusion, the bomb threat at the Pennsylvania State Capitol is a sobering reminder of the ever-present dangers posed by radical ideologies. It highlights the importance of strong national security, thorough vetting processes, unwavering support for our allies, transparent communication from officials, and unity in the face of threats.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of both domestic and international security, it is imperative to remain vigilant and steadfast in our commitment to protecting our nation and its values.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for more of the TRUTH in the news.

Donald Trump has made many election promises that terrify Democrats. But this most recent one will completely unravel their secret plan.

And Trump’s latest election promise has sent Democrats running for the hills.

In a stirring address released via social media, former President Donald Trump announced a comprehensive plan aimed at ending what he terms “citizenship tourism” and addressing the broader issue of illegal immigration.

Trump, who has been a vocal critic of current immigration policies, outlined his intentions to issue an executive order that would fundamentally alter the landscape of birthright citizenship in the United States.

Trump says on Day 1 he “will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law going forward the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic US citizenship.”

pic.twitter.com/MtllIgrFPl

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 7, 2024

“As part of my plan to secure the border on day one in my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that, under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal immigrants will not receive automatic citizenship,” Trump declared in the video.

Trump’s proposed executive order seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants. This move is grounded in his belief that current policies surrounding birthright citizenship serve as a magnet for illegal immigration.

He argues that by eliminating automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, the United States can significantly reduce the incentives that drive illegal immigration.

“Birthright citizenship, as it stands, encourages illegal immigration. It’s a loophole that must be closed to protect our nation’s sovereignty and the integrity of our immigration system,” Trump stated.

One of the more controversial aspects of Trump’s plan is its aim to end “birth tourism.” This practice, according to Trump, involves individuals from around the world coming to the United States with the primary intention of giving birth on American soil, thereby securing U.S. citizenship for their children.

“Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the planet squat in hotels for their last few weeks of pregnancy to illegitimately and illegally obtain U.S. citizenship for the child, often to later exploit chain migration to jump the line,” Trump asserted. By requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident, Trump believes this practice can be effectively curbed.

The proposed executive order is expected to face significant legal challenges, particularly concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This has traditionally been interpreted to mean that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship.

Critics argue that Trump’s proposal is unconstitutional and that the 14th Amendment’s guarantees cannot be altered through executive action alone.

Legal experts predict that any such order would quickly be contested in court, setting the stage for a potentially protracted legal battle.

However, Trump, his supporters, and many Americans believe that the original intent of the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and that it should not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.

They argue that the amendment was intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves, not to anyone born on American soil regardless of their parents’ legal status.

Trump’s announcement is a direct response to what he describes as President Biden’s “mass amnesty” policies. Under the Biden administration, pathways to citizenship have been made more accessible, with recent executive orders allowing nearly 1.5 million illegal immigrants to cross the border into the United States each year.

“The Biden administration’s policies have thrown open the floodgates to illegal immigration. We need strong, decisive action to protect our borders and our nation’s future,” Trump said. He emphasized that his plan would not only address the immediate crisis but also ensure a long-term solution to illegal immigration.

Should Trump’s executive order come to fruition, it would represent one of the most significant shifts in U.S. immigration policy in decades. Supporters argue that it would restore the rule of law and protect American jobs and resources from being strained by illegal immigration.

“This is about fairness, about ensuring that those who play by the rules and come here legally are not undermined by those who circumvent the system,” said a spokesperson from Trump’s campaign.

Donald Trump’s announcement marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over immigration in the United States. His plan to end birthright citizenship and tackle “citizenship tourism” is a bold move that underscores his commitment to securing the nation’s borders and addressing illegal immigration head-on.

While the proposed executive order will undoubtedly face significant legal challenges, it reflects a broader effort to redefine the parameters of American citizenship and immigration policy. As the nation looks ahead to the next presidential election, immigration remains a key issue that will shape the political landscape and the future of the United States.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Donald Trump has faced incredible backlash and pushback from the left. But things just took a shocking turn.

Because a recent Trump trial discovery has revealed the Democrats’ newest plans to lock him up.

It was recently discovered that in the defamation case of E. Jean Carroll against former President Donald Trump, Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, attempted to remove a juror based on his choice of news source.

This unusual request highlights ongoing concerns about media bias and the influence of personal information sources in the judicial process.

The controversy arose when Kaplan discovered that one of the jurors regularly consumed news from the popular podcast Timcast IRL, hosted by Tim Pool.

Pool, known for his commentary on various political issues, has often been labeled by some media outlets as a “right-wing, conspiratorial, conservative incel guy.”

This characterization, however, oversimplifies the diverse and nuanced content that Pool produces, appealing to a broad audience that values his in-depth analysis and independent stance.

Kaplan’s shock and subsequent request for the juror’s removal underscores a broader issue regarding the perceived biases and preconceptions jurors bring to the courtroom.

In an interview with Katie Couric at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Kaplan expressed her disbelief at discovering the juror’s news source, initially mishearing “Timcast IRL” as “the temple.” This misinterpretation reveals the team’s lack of familiarity with Pool’s podcast and its significant following.

“He’s an incredibly right-wing, conspiratorial, conservative, incel guy.”

E. Jean Carroll’s attorney tells Katie Couric why she tried to remove a juror when she found out he was a fan of @Timcast pic.twitter.com/pgKGoRq3em

— TENET Media (@watchTENETnow) July 6, 2024

“So the first trial on behalf of E. Jean Carroll – both cases we had a jury of nine – the first jury, there was no one from New York City. This takes place in lower Manhattan, with no one from either Manhattan or The Bronx. I think a couple from Westchester and all the other jurors were north of Westchester, so this is Trump country,” Kaplan explained, highlighting the geographical and potential ideological divides among the jurors.

“The random draw comes in, there’s not much you can do about it. Those are the jurors you’re stuck with,” she continued, acknowledging the inherent randomness and limitations of the jury selection process. However, her statement also reflects an underlying frustration with the jury’s composition and the perceived challenges it presented for her case.

The specific juror in question, referred to as Juror No. 77 in court documents, became a focal point of Kaplan’s concerns. She described her near “heart attack” upon learning the juror’s true source of news, comparing it to her initial, incorrect assumption of him being an Orthodox Jew.

This comparison, while seemingly offhand, underscores the broader anxieties about the influences and worldviews jurors may hold, particularly in a high-profile case involving a polarizing figure like Trump.

Kaplan’s attempt to remove the juror was ultimately unsuccessful. Judge Lewis Kaplan, presiding over the case, rejected the request, stating it was too late in the process. This decision underscores the principle of maintaining the integrity of the jury selection process and avoiding disruptions based on late-stage revelations.

According to court documents, Carroll’s legal team argued that Pool’s podcast had played a role in promoting extremist personalities, such as Steve Bannon and Alex Jones. This characterization was used to bolster their claim that the juror’s media consumption could bias his judgment.

However, the broader implications of this argument raise critical questions about the role of media consumption in juror impartiality and the potential for perceived biases to influence legal proceedings.

Despite the juror’s inclusion, the jury found Trump liable for defamation, resulting in an $83 million judgment in favor of E. Jean Carroll.

The case, and the controversy surrounding the juror, highlight the ongoing debates about media influence, bias, and the challenges of ensuring a fair trial in a deeply polarized society. Tim Pool, who has often been mischaracterized by mainstream media, represents a segment of independent media voices that challenge conventional narratives and provide alternative perspectives on current events. His significant following indicates a growing demand for diverse viewpoints outside traditional media channels.

For conservatives and independent media advocates, this incident is a stark reminder of the prejudices and misunderstandings that can arise in high-stakes legal battles. It also underscores the importance of protecting the rights of jurors to consume a variety of media sources without facing undue scrutiny or bias.

As this case continues to unfold, it serves as a microcosm of the broader societal and cultural conflicts playing out in America today. The tension between traditional media, independent voices, and the judicial system’s efforts to maintain impartiality reflects deeper divisions and the ongoing struggle for truth and fairness in a complex media landscape.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

At this point, it is no secret that Democrats are done with Biden. But people were still surprised when they announced this move.

And Democrat advisors have uncovered a secret plan to out Biden before the convention.

As the 2024 election draws near, concerns about President Biden’s cognitive health have intensified, leading to a shocking plan from influential Democrats.

The proposal, revealed in a memo obtained by Semafor, involves a “blitz primary” to replace Biden before the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in August.

Ted Dintersmith, a prominent venture capitalist, and Rosa Brooks, a former Biden campaign advisor, are behind this plan, which aims to rejuvenate the Democratic Party’s chances in the upcoming election.

The memo outlines a dramatic strategy: President Biden would step down as the Democratic nominee in mid-July, supported by Vice President Kamala Harris. A swift primary would follow, allowing new candidates a few days to enter the race.

DNC delegates would then select six candidates to campaign until the convention, where the nominee would be chosen through ranked-choice voting. This nominee would be announced on stage in a grand event featuring Biden, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton.

Dintersmith expressed the need to shift the current narrative and uplift the party amid growing concerns about Biden’s ability to lead. “In the midst of malaise and crisis, we can forge an uplifting path,” he stated.

However, convincing Biden to step down presents a significant challenge, as he has made it clear he does not intend to drop out of the race against his Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump.

Concerns over Biden’s cognitive health are not new but have become more pronounced following his recent debate performance against Trump. High-profile Democratic donors and lawmakers have increasingly voiced their worries, fearing a lack of a viable path to victory in November​.

Reports of Biden’s cognitive decline have been circulating for months, with many pointing to his frequent gaffes and lapses as evidence​ ​.

The memo details an ambitious timeline: the blitz primary would begin with Biden’s resignation announcement, followed by a rapid-fire entry period for new candidates.

Delegates would select six contenders to campaign in weekly forums moderated by cultural icons like Michelle Obama, Taylor Swift, and Oprah. This process aims to energize the voter base and present a dynamic, unified front at the convention in Chicago on August 19​ ​.

The Democratic Party is in a state of panic, as evidenced by the increasing calls for Biden to withdraw.

This strategy, however, has sparked controversy within the party. While some see it as a necessary move to avert a potential electoral disaster, others view it as a desperate and potentially destabilizing maneuver.

The idea of using cultural icons to moderate forums has been particularly divisive, with critics arguing it could trivialize the primary process.

From a conservative viewpoint, this development highlights the instability and lack of confidence within the Democratic Party.

The GOP has consistently questioned Biden’s cognitive abilities, and this internal Democratic turmoil only bolsters their argument. Former President Donald Trump, who remains the leading Republican candidate, has capitalized on these concerns, framing Biden as unfit for office and calling for greater transparency regarding his health​​.

The proposed “blitz primary” underscores the Democratic Party’s urgent need to address growing doubts about President Biden’s cognitive health and leadership capabilities.

As the 2024 election approaches, the party faces a critical decision: whether to stand by their incumbent president or risk a dramatic shake-up in hopes of revitalizing their campaign.

Regardless of the outcome, this unprecedented strategy is sure to have profound implications for the Democratic Party and the broader political landscape.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics where we bring you the TRUTH in the news.

Joe Biden’s list of allies is getting smaller every day. But he never thought to look for betrayal from within.

And now, the White House has stabbed Biden in the back with a this telling report.

In recent months, President Joe Biden’s speaking errors have become an alarming trend, raising serious questions about his cognitive fitness to lead the nation.

The White House’s own official transcripts suggest that Biden’s speaking errors have steadily worsened, with his rate of missteps doubling in the 12 months leading up to his disastrous debate performance in June 2024.

White House staff, responsible for preparing transcripts of Biden’s speeches and remarks, have increasingly had to correct his statements.

These corrections often involve crossing out erroneous words or inserting the words he should have said using brackets.

This editorial intervention was necessary a staggering 51 times in May 2024 alone. This figure marked one of the worst months of his presidency, both in terms of the number of corrections and the rate of errors per words spoken.

In June 2023, the White House corrected 33 errors, resulting in an error rate of 3.2 per 10,000 words. By May 2024, the 51 errors translated into a rate of 7.2 per 10,000 words, during a month in which Biden spoke approximately 70,000 words.

This escalating error rate culminated in a disastrous debate performance on June 27, where his cognitive difficulties became glaringly apparent to the world.

The most recent example of Biden’s speaking errors occurred in Madison, Wisconsin. Addressing concerns about his age and cognitive abilities, Biden stated, “They’re trying to push me out of this race. Well, let me say this as clearly as I can: I’m staying in the race. I’ll beat Donald Trump. I will beat him again in 2020.”

The White House transcript of this speech reads:

“They’re trying to push me out of this race. Well, let me say this as clearly as I can: I’m staying in the race. I’ll beat Donald Trump. I will beat him again in [2020] 2024.”

This type of mistake has become all too common. The transcripts, which cover nearly 400 official events, show a president who is increasingly unable to communicate effectively.

One of the most troubling aspects of Biden’s speaking errors is his consistent difficulty with numbers. Despite overseeing a multi-trillion-dollar budget, Biden routinely makes numerical errors that are off by orders of magnitude. This suggests a lack of basic awareness of key facts such as the size of the federal budget or the population of the country. Examples of these errors include:

“We cut the debt [deficit] by $1.7 trillion.”
“On January the 8th [6th].”
“Invest $200 million [billion].”
“440 [thousand] new jobs.”
“Another $2 thousand [$2 trillion] tax cut.”
“These 100 [1,000] billionaires.”
“800,000 in prem- — $8,000 [$800].”

These mistakes paint a picture of a president who blindly reads from a teleprompter, saying whatever words appear, even when they make no sense.

For instance, Biden has referred to America inventing something called “cheeps” and has made numerous other bizarre statements that leave the public and political commentators baffled.

Biden’s errors are not limited to numbers. He also demonstrates a warped sense of time and confusion about basic geographical facts.

At one point, he referred to pop star Taylor Swift as Britney Spears and sometimes does not seem to remember who is president. Some notable examples include:

“Hand on my little son [grandson] Hunter.”
“It’s been 65 years [days] since the deadliest day of the Jewish people since the Holocaust — 65 years [days].”
“Brian Schantz [Schatz], our senator.”
“Ice hockey; 1,000 [10,000] Lakes; and the Mall of America.”
“Mitterrand [Macron], from Germany — I mean, from France.”
“Secretary Julie Shu [Su].”
“The NAAC [NAACP] spirit endures.”
These errors are deeply concerning, especially given Biden’s role in overseeing geopolitical affairs and making critical decisions that affect the nation’s future.

This analysis, which focuses on errors acknowledged by the White House transcript preparers themselves, highlights the severity of Biden’s cognitive decline.

These documented errors reflect only a portion of his speaking mistakes, typically those involving severely nonsensical remarks while reading from a teleprompter. Despite some reporters claiming that the White House has downplayed Biden’s cognitive difficulties, the official documents speak for themselves.

From a conservative viewpoint, Biden’s growing rate of speaking errors is not just a series of unfortunate slips but a clear indication of his unsuitability for office. The Republican party has seized upon these errors as evidence of Biden’s cognitive decline, arguing that he is unfit to lead the country, especially in such challenging times.

House Republicans have highlighted these issues in various statements, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability. They argue that Biden’s cognitive decline is a matter of national security and public trust. As the 2024 presidential race heats up, these speaking errors will likely play a significant role in campaign strategies and public discourse.

President Joe Biden’s escalating speaking errors, as documented by the White House’s own transcripts, present a troubling picture of a leader struggling with cognitive decline. These errors, ranging from numerical inaccuracies to bizarre statements, raise serious questions about his ability to fulfill the duties of the presidency.

As the nation heads into the 2024 election, these issues will undoubtedly be at the forefront of political debates and public concern.

The American people deserve a president who can communicate effectively, understand complex issues, and lead with confidence.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Since it is clear that Joe Biden is unfit for office, millions of Americans have called on him to step down. Even Democrats are joining in the call.

And now, a new 25th Amendment push has White House officials running for cover.

In a bold move that underscores the escalating political tension in Washington, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) has called on Vice President Kamala Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Joe Biden from office.

Roy’s resolution, filed last Friday, argues that Biden’s recent performance in a debate, as well as his overall conduct, demonstrate an inability to effectively discharge the duties of the presidency. This call has sparked significant debate, drawing responses from various political figures and commentators.

Rep. Chip Roy’s resolution comes in the wake of what he describes as Biden’s “lackluster” debate performance against former President Donald Trump.

Roy claims that Biden’s behavior during the debate and in other public appearances shows that he is “unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office”.​​

He urges Vice President Harris to convene the Cabinet to declare Biden unfit for office under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to determine if the President is incapable of performing his duties​.

Roy’s call is not without precedent; he has previously expressed doubts about Biden’s capability to lead, citing what he views as frequent gaffes and signs of cognitive decline.

His resolution has found support among certain factions of the Republican Party, particularly those aligned with the House Freedom Caucus, of which Roy is a prominent member​.

In response to Roy’s resolution, Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY) offered a vigorous defense of President Biden on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report”.

Goldman highlighted the supposed stability and competence of Biden’s administration, contrasting it with what he described as the chaotic and high-turnover environment of Trump’s tenure.

According to Goldman, Biden has maintained a consistent and capable team with little turnover, which he argues is indicative of a stable and effective administration​​.

Goldman emphasized that 40 out of 44 Cabinet members and senior officials from Trump’s administration have refused to endorse him for the 2024 presidential race.

This lack of support, he suggests, underscores the dysfunction and disarray that characterized Trump’s leadership. In contrast, Biden’s administration has been marked by steady leadership and a commitment to upholding democratic norms and the rule of law​​.

The call for invoking the 25th Amendment is more than just a critique of Biden’s recent performance; it is part of a larger group of Americans who question the President’s fitness for office ahead of the 2024 elections.

Democrats, on the other hand, view these moves as politically motivated attacks rather than genuine concerns for governance.

They argue that such actions are designed to distract from the successes of the Biden administration and to undermine confidence in the current government.

Goldman’s defense of Biden is part of a broader Democratic strategy to counter these narratives and to reinforce the image of a competent and stable administration​​.

As the political battle lines are drawn, it is clear that the debate over Biden’s fitness for office and the use of the 25th Amendment will continue to be a contentious issue.

While Roy’s resolution may not succeed in removing Biden from office, it serves as a rallying point for those within the Republican Party who are eager to challenge Biden’s presidency and to pave the way for a Republican victory in 2024.

The discourse surrounding this issue highlights the deep divisions within American politics and the high stakes of the upcoming presidential election.

As both sides prepare for the electoral battle ahead, the discussions initiated by figures like Roy and Goldman will shape the narratives and strategies that define the political landscape.

The call by Rep. Chip Roy to invoke the 25th Amendment against President Biden has sparked significant debate and highlighted the ongoing political divisions in the United States.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for more news and updates.

The Radical Left will do everything they can to cover for Biden. But some within their own supporters are turning on Biden.

And now, a liberal media article has detailed terrifying White House secrets that have left Americans horrified.

In a recent article, the Associated Press (AP) sparked widespread backlash by describing President Joe Biden, 81, as “often sharp and focused” but also “confused and forgetful.” This portrayal, published on July 3, 2024, came on the heels of Biden’s notably poor debate performance against former President Donald Trump, igniting a firestorm of criticism and mockery online.

The article, co-authored by five AP reporters, attempted to present a balanced view of Biden’s mental acuity. However, the dichotomy in their portrayal — highlighting moments of clarity alongside episodes of confusion — drew scorn from various quarters.

The title alone was enough to elicit a wave of reactions, with many questioning the journalistic integrity and intentions behind such a seemingly contradictory description.

The report did not sit well with many readers and commentators. The Editor-in-Chief of The Post Millennial shared a screenshot of the article, simply remarking, “It’s real,” capturing the incredulity felt by many.

It’s real. pic.twitter.com/QTtW5qhsfF

— Libby Emmons (@libbyemmons) July 4, 2024

Kyle Mann, editor at the satirical site The Babylon Bee, expressed his frustration humorously, tweeting, “How are we at The Babylon Bee supposed to compete with AP?”

How are we at @TheBabylonBee supposed to compete with @AP? pic.twitter.com/7OojupMqIp

— Kyle Mann (@The_Kyle_Mann) July 4, 2024

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis also chimed in, tweeting, “The AP is really doing this…”

The AP is really doing this… https://t.co/ajAEiKtGY6

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 4, 2024

The AP piece delved into Biden’s behavior behind closed doors, drawing on sources close to the president.

It noted that while Biden can be sharp and focused, he also experiences periods where his thoughts are jumbled, particularly in the evenings. The article highlighted instances of Biden trailing off mid-sentence, forgetting names, and moving slowly, all of which have fueled ongoing concerns about his cognitive fitness for office.

Despite these concerns, the AP article suggested that such lapses might not be uncommon for someone of Biden’s age.

However, it also acknowledged that these issues have taken on new significance following his recent debate missteps, which appear to have adversely affected his poll numbers.

The timing of the article — shortly after Biden’s disastrous debate performance — suggests an attempt to address growing public and political scrutiny.

Biden’s allies worry that further missteps could resurrect voter concerns about his fitness for office, concerns that have been amplified by misleading online videos and clips taken out of context.

For instance, one viral clip showed Biden standing still during a White House Juneteenth event, leading to speculation that he had “frozen.” However, Philonise Floyd, who was with Biden at the time, claimed that the president was simply enjoying the music and chatting casually​.

White House aides and officials have defended Biden’s capabilities, emphasizing his command over both domestic and foreign policy issues. Brett McGurk, a senior National Security Council official, praised Biden’s preparation and decision-making in high-stakes situations. Neera Tanden, a domestic policy adviser, also highlighted Biden’s engagement and thoroughness in policy discussions​​.

Despite these defenses, there remains frustration among some Democrats over Biden’s decision to remain in the race, particularly after his debate performance.

Critics within the party feel that addressing these concerns earlier might have alleviated some of the current pressures and skepticism​​.

As Biden continues his campaign, the scrutiny of his cognitive health is likely to remain a contentious issue, influencing public opinion and political discourse.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for all of your news needs.

Amid rising rumors that Biden will step down or be replaced by the DNC, the White House is doing everything they can to control the narrative. But the truth always comes out in the end.

And the White House has made a shocking announcement after a recent meeting with Democrat governors.

In an attempted move to quash growing dissent within the Democratic Party, President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign announced on Wednesday that all Democratic governors across the country support Biden as the party’s nominee for the upcoming presidential election.

This declaration follows a tumultuous few weeks for Biden, marked by a challenging debate performance against former President Donald Trump, which has intensified discussions about potential alternatives to Biden on the Democratic ticket.

“Tonight, President Biden and Vice President Harris met with Democratic governors from across the country at the White House to discuss their continued partnership in this re-election campaign,” the Biden campaign stated. “The president reiterated his determination to defeat the existential threat of Donald Trump at the ballot box in November and sought the advice and expertise of Democratic governors.”

The campaign emphasized the meeting’s focus on ensuring Democratic victories “up and down the ballot” to secure more Democratic governors and legislative majorities in Congress and statehouses nationwide. The campaign claimed, “All participants reiterated their shared commitment to do everything possible to make sure President Biden and Vice President Harris beat Donald Trump in November.”

The Biden campaign’s statement aims to project a united front in the face of internal and external pressures. Among those attending the White House meeting were Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, chair of the Democratic Governors Association, along with other prominent Democratic governors such as Gavin Newsom of California, J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Kathy Hochul of New York, Wes Moore of Maryland, and Andy Beshear of Kentucky. While many governors issued statements of support following the meeting, some notable absences and the virtual attendance of several others hint at underlying tensions within the party.

Biden’s re-election campaign has been marred by increasing speculation about his viability as the Democratic nominee. Reports have surfaced suggesting that Biden is considering stepping aside, prompting a firm rebuttal from the president during a campaign meeting earlier in the day.

“Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can, as simply and straightforward as I can: I am running,” Biden asserted. “No one is pushing me out,” he continued. “I’m not leaving. I’m in this race to the end and we’re going to win.”

Despite Biden’s confident declarations, the underlying discontent among Democratic ranks is palpable. A Democratic strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity, highlighted the growing unease: “Biden’s debate performance was a wake-up call. There’s genuine concern about his ability to go toe-to-toe with Trump in a prolonged campaign. The calls for new leadership are getting louder.”

Furthermore, not all governors have been equally vocal in their support. For instance, while Governor Newsom has publicly praised Biden’s leadership, he has also been careful to maintain his own national profile, fueling speculation about his future political ambitions.

The backdrop to this unfolding drama includes Biden’s recent debate with Trump, which many analysts viewed as a less-than-stellar performance. This has reignited debates within the Democratic Party about the wisdom of Biden’s re-nomination, especially considering his age and ongoing concerns about his health and stamina. These concerns are compounded by the relentless criticism from the Republican side, with Trump’s campaign capitalizing on every misstep.

Moreover, the political climate is fraught with challenges. The Biden administration is grappling with several critical issues, including managing the economy, addressing immigration, and responding to global crises. These complex issues demand robust leadership, and any perceived weakness or indecision could have significant electoral repercussions.

The sequence of events leading up to the current situation is crucial to understanding the Democratic Party’s internal dynamics.

Biden’s initial announcement to seek re-election was met with mixed reactions. While many party loyalists and establishment figures quickly rallied behind him, a segment of the party’s progressive wing remained skeptical.

The skepticism turned into open criticism following Biden’s debate with Trump. Political commentators noted that while Biden managed to avoid multiple major gaffes, he appeared fatigued and struggled to articulate a compelling vision for the future. This has led to increasing calls from within the party for a fresh face to lead the Democrats into the 2024 election.

In response to these challenges, the Biden campaign has doubled down on showcasing unity and continuity. The meeting with Democratic governors was a calculated move to demonstrate broad-based support and to quell any narratives suggesting internal discord.

The Biden campaign’s strategy reflects a cautious yet assertive approach. By highlighting unanimous support from Democratic governors, the campaign aims to project confidence and stability. However, the underlying skepticism and critical voices within the party suggest a more complex reality. The tension between presenting a united front and addressing genuine concerns about Biden’s candidacy is palpable.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the Democratic Party faces a critical juncture. President Biden’s re-election campaign is working hard to maintain a unified front, emphasizing support from Democratic governors as a key element of their strategy. However, the internal dynamics of the party, coupled with the formidable challenge posed by Donald Trump, ensure that the road to the election will be anything but smooth.

The coming months will be crucial in determining whether Biden can solidify his position and quell the growing dissent within his ranks. For now, the Biden campaign’s focus remains on projecting unity and readiness to take on Trump in what promises to be a fiercely contested election.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

With rumors spreading quickly that the Left is attempting to replace Biden, people are starting to wonder. But now, things just got very real.

Because an alarming new poll has revealed just how bad the Democrats’ Biden replacement plans are.

In a surprising twist in the political landscape, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll has revealed that former First Lady Michelle Obama is the only Democrat leading former President Donald Trump in a hypothetical 2024 presidential matchup.

This comes despite Michelle Obama’s consistent declarations that she has no intention of running for office. The poll highlights intriguing dynamics as the nation braces for another contentious election cycle.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, released this week, indicates that Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, is neck and neck with President Joe Biden, each securing 40% of the vote.

Trump edges out Vice President Kamala Harris by one point, and surpasses California Governor Gavin Newsom and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer by three and five points, respectively.

However, Michelle Obama emerges as a clear frontrunner, leading Trump by an impressive 11-point margin, with 50% to Trump’s 39%.

This poll’s results have sparked significant discussion among political analysts and strategists. The suggestion that a non-candidate could outpace a prominent figure like Donald Trump underscores both the enduring appeal of the Obama legacy and the current vulnerabilities within the Democratic Party’s lineup.

Michelle Obama’s popularity remains robust among her supporters, stemming from her tenure as First Lady, her bestselling memoir, and her ongoing advocacy work.

Her positive image contrasts sharply with the more polarized perceptions of other Democratic figures and even President Biden.

This dichotomy presents a fascinating scenario, suggesting that while traditional political figures struggle to galvanize widespread support, personalities like Michelle Obama continue to resonate deeply with the electorate.

Donald Trump’s position in this poll indicates a strong base but also highlights areas for concern as he contemplates a third run for the presidency.

His attacks on President Biden, particularly following Biden’s recent debate performance, reflect Trump’s strategy of capitalizing on weaknesses.

In a video circulating after the debate, Trump derided Biden, calling him a “broken down pile of crap” and suggesting that Biden might be on the verge of quitting the race.

.@realDonaldTrump via Truth Social. #NoTaxOnTips pic.twitter.com/mVPQg9M4L4

— Dan Scavino Jr.🇺🇸🦅 (@DanScavino) July 4, 2024

Trump’s rhetoric remains as fiery as ever, and his ability to energize his base is undisputed. However, the significant lead of Michelle Obama in a hypothetical matchup reveals potential challenges in expanding his appeal beyond his core supporters.

Calls for Biden to step aside for a new contender have grown louder, especially from those who believe a younger or more dynamic candidate could better challenge Trump.

Despite these criticisms, Biden has remained resolute in his intention to seek re-election. Key Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and various governors, have publicly supported Biden’s candidacy.

Nevertheless, the underlying tension within the party is palpable, as figures like Newsom, Whitmer, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and Maryland Governor Wes Moore are frequently mentioned as potential alternatives.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, the 2024 election is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for both major parties.

For Republicans, Trump’s dominance in the primary race is clear, but his general election prospects remain uncertain, particularly against a candidate like Michelle Obama, who combines name recognition with broad appeal.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden hates America and American citizens. And anyone who says otherwise is flat-out lying.

Because Joe Biden was caught doing the most despicable and anti-American thing possible.

Recently, in a shocking and disgusting anti-America move, the Biden administration has begun flying illegal immigrants from Cameroon, who were previously deported during the Trump administration, back into the United States.

This decision revealed through internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memos obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, has reignited debates over illegal immigration and border security, two of the top issues concerning many Americans.

The exact number of Cameroonians re-admitted into the U.S. remains undisclosed, but the memos indicate that 28 individuals are scheduled for return.

This action seems to respond to a Human Rights Watch report alleging that dozens of African asylum seekers faced severe mistreatment by their government upon returning home.

The official reason for their return appears to be the avoidance of a “potential lawsuit,” although no court had mandated their return to the U.S.

To minimize public attention, the Biden administration has reportedly flown these migrants back via multiple airports, preventing a large group from being visible to the public.

This covert approach has drawn criticism from former ICE officials and conservative commentators alike.

Former ICE Chief of Staff Tom Blank told the Free Beacon that decisions by federal agencies should not be influenced by activist reports. “These individuals were deported by the order of a court after they were afforded all due process rights,” he argued.

“For DHS to arbitrarily reverse court orders to satisfy complaints from an activist group makes a joke out of the entire legal immigration process. It looks like outside activist groups now run the DHS immigration process instead of the courts.”

The Human Rights Watch report that prompted this reversal accused the U.S. of violating the “principle of nonrefoulement,” which prohibits returning refugees to places where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

Memos reviewed by the Free Beacon show that an ICE official collaborated with non-profit groups to facilitate the return of these Cameroonian migrants.

One email from Fatma Marouf, director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at Texas A&M University, indicated coordination with ICE officials regarding the arrival details of the returning immigrants.

The Biden administration’s decision has sparked a significant backlash from conservatives who view this as a dangerous precedent and a clear case of executive overreach.

Critics argue that reversing lawful deportations undermines the integrity of the U.S. legal system and immigration processes. They fear this sets a troubling precedent where activist groups can unduly influence federal immigration policy.

This move also has significant political implications. The decision to re-admit previously deported individuals could further inflame the already contentious immigration debate in the U.S.

With illegal immigration consistently ranking as a top concern among voters, this action by the Biden administration may fuel further distrust and dissatisfaction among those who believe in strict border enforcement and adherence to existing immigration laws.

This incident underscores the ongoing tug-of-war over U.S. immigration policy. The Biden administration’s approach, characterized by a more lenient stance on immigration enforcement, starkly contrasts with the Trump administration’s stringent policies.

This divergence highlights the broader ideological battle over how the U.S. should handle immigration, refugee protection, and border security.

As this situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how it will impact public opinion and future immigration policy.

For now, it serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities and controversies surrounding immigration in America, a nation built by immigrants yet continually grappling with the challenges of managing its borders and maintaining the rule of law.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for more of the TRUTH in the news.

With rumors circulating regarding if the Democrats will replace Biden, people are trying to find out the truth. But now, people won’t need to look anymore.

Because a top Democrat has just revealed the real Biden replacement plan.

In a move that has exposed the Democrats’ secret plans, former Ohio Representative and 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate Tim Ryan has declared that Vice President Kamala Harris should replace President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee for the 2024 election. This announcement comes amid increasing calls for Biden to step aside following his lackluster debate performance in late June.

Ryan, a vocal advocate for generational change within the Democratic Party, articulated his concerns and suggestions in a recent op-ed published in Newsweek.

“I ran for President in 2020. I was the first Presidential candidate to endorse Joe Biden in 2020. I love America. I love our Party. I love Joe Biden. The Democratic Nominee in 2024 should be Kamala Harris,” Ryan wrote, highlighting his loyalty to the party and his previous support for Biden.

Ryan described Biden’s debate performance as “deeply troubling,” adding that his concerns extend beyond a single debate.

“It isn’t just about a 90-minute debate and a terrible performance,” he stated, emphasizing that the upcoming election should focus on generational change—something he has been advocating for more than a year.

While Ryan acknowledged Biden’s accomplishments, particularly his pro-union and pro-manufacturing stance, he stressed the need for a new path forward.

“He also promised to be a bridge President to the next generation. I liked that idea,” Ryan noted, lamenting that the metaphorical bridge had collapsed after Biden’s recent debate performance.

Ryan’s call for Harris to be the Democratic nominee is rooted in his belief that she represents the best path forward for the party. He praised Harris’s performance during the debate and her subsequent media appearances, describing her as “a ray of light in the darkness” and “stellar.”

Harris, according to Ryan, has honed her raw talent and intelligence through a tough national campaign and three and a half years of experience, making her ready for the job.

Ryan’s endorsement of Harris is not merely based on her debate performance. He believes Harris has the ability to energize the electorate and govern effectively as the next president.

“She should be the Democratic nominee because she can energize the electorate and govern effectively as our next president,” Ryan argued.

He highlighted her ability to connect with diverse communities and energize youth voters, suggesting that a Harris candidacy could pull dispirited young voters back into the Democratic fold.

Ryan also dismissed the notion that a Harris candidacy would be riskier than Biden’s continued campaign. “It is insulting to say that a Harris candidacy is a greater risk than the Joe Biden we saw the other night,” Ryan stated, advocating for a bold and aspirational campaign that showcases Harris’s strength, personality, and intelligence.

He believes Harris could carry a more convincing Democratic message than Biden, particularly on issues such as women’s rights and reproductive healthcare.

The former representative emphasized the need for the Democratic Party to embrace upward mobility and fresh leadership. He pointed to past successes with young leaders like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and John F. Kennedy Jr., arguing that a fresh, charismatic candidate could once again lead the party to victory.

“America is craving this generational change. You can feel it in the air,” Ryan asserted, calling on the Democratic Party to give the American people what they want—a sense of excitement about the future and the opportunity for renewal and reform.

Ryan’s bold statements come at a time when President Biden faces increasing scrutiny over his age and cognitive abilities.

Despite the White House and Democratic leaders dismissing the notion of replacing Biden on the ticket, Ryan’s op-ed adds to the growing chorus of voices calling for a change in leadership.

The Democratic Party now faces a critical decision as it prepares for the 2024 election. Will it continue to support Biden, or will it heed calls for generational change and embrace a new candidate like Kamala Harris?

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The border crisis has been all over the news ever since Joe Biden created the problem. But now, new developments could change everything.

And the Biden administration’s newest immigration move has completely shaken things up.

In a significant move on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it had deported a group of Chinese illegal immigrants over the weekend, marking the first large deportation charter flight to China since 2018.

This step, as part of Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ ongoing engagement with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), underscores the administration’s renewed focus on immigration enforcement amid a growing border crisis.

The DHS, while not specifying the number of deportees, emphasized that this action reflects their commitment to enforcing immigration laws.

“We will continue to enforce our immigration laws and remove individuals without a legal basis to remain in the United States,” Mayorkas stated in a press release.

He also cautioned against believing the false promises of human smugglers, reiterating the dangers and legal consequences of illegal migration.

This deportation initiative is framed within a broader context of cooperation between the United States and China to curb irregular migration and human smuggling through enhanced law enforcement efforts.

Despite the exact number of deported Chinese migrants not being disclosed, this action pales compared to the over 31,000 Chinese nationals apprehended at the U.S. southern border in the first 11 months of 2023 alone.

This figure surpasses the cumulative total of the previous decade, highlighting the escalating challenge faced by border enforcement agencies under the Biden administration.

In a bid to manage the surge at the borders, President Biden recently signed an executive order to temporarily suspend the entry of certain migrants if daily encounters exceed 2,500.

This move, however, has faced criticism from Republicans who view it as too little, too late. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) dismissed the executive order as mere “window dressing,” suggesting that genuine concern for border security would have prompted earlier and more robust actions.

Beyond the influx of Chinese migrants, the southern border has seen a rise in other security threats.

Notably, last month, eight individuals with alleged ties to ISIS were arrested after illegally crossing into the U.S.

This incident, involving discussions about bombings, underscores the heightened security risks associated with the porous border.

The Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis has been further scrutinized following several high-profile crimes allegedly committed by illegal immigrants.

Former President Donald Trump has been vocal about the deteriorating situation, stating, “This is horrible what’s taken place. What’s taken place in our country, we’re literally an uncivilized country now.”

This latest deportation flight to China is part of the administration’s broader efforts to demonstrate a tough stance on immigration as it faces mounting political pressure.

However, the true impact of these measures on the overall border crisis remains to be seen, with many critics arguing that more comprehensive and proactive policies are needed to address the root causes and ensure the security and integrity of U.S. borders.

We must elect officials into public office who will genuinely prioritize the lives and liberties of American citizens and not simply react after it is too late.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.