The Biden family is scrambling to help prop up Joe Biden. And they are also hiding things that people can’t even imagine.

But now a Biden official has come forward and exposed a terrifying secret the family is trying to hide.

A senior Biden administration official recently disclosed troubling details about President Joe Biden’s demeanor in the White House, revealing that staff members are “genuinely terrified” of him.

This discovery comes amid increasing calls for Biden to step down following his widely criticized performance in a debate against former President Donald Trump last week.

The senior official, speaking to POLITICO, painted a picture of a president who is far from the avuncular, grandfatherly figure often portrayed in the media. Instead, the official described a tense work environment where staffers must carefully curate briefings to avoid triggering Biden’s anger.

“It’s like, ‘You can’t include that, that will set him off,’ or ‘Put that in, he likes that,’” said the official. “It’s a Rorschach test, not a briefing. Because he is not a pleasant person to be around when he’s being briefed. It’s very difficult, and people are scared s**tless of him.”

The official added that Biden has become increasingly isolated, only taking advice from a select few top aides, leading to a “perfect storm” of isolation and poor decision-making.

Those shielding Biden from the tough conversations necessary for effective governance reportedly include First Lady Jill Biden and his sister, Valerie Biden Owens.

These concerns are echoed by veteran investigative journalist Carl Bernstein, who recently told CNN that Biden’s debate performance is indicative of an ongoing pattern of cognitive decline. Bernstein cited sources close to the president who reported 15-20 instances over the past year and a half where Biden has shown signs of mental deterioration.

“They are adamant that what we saw the other night, the Joe Biden we saw, is not a one-off,” Bernstein said. He highlighted an incident at a Four Seasons hotel fundraiser where Biden reportedly became so stiff he had to be seated for the remainder of the event.

The lack of transparency surrounding Biden’s health is another significant concern. Bernstein suggested that the White House’s physician report might not be entirely forthcoming about the president’s condition. “I mean, obviously, it’d be great if we could have real doctor’s reports from both candidates,” he remarked. “Well, that’s not gonna happen.”

The debate debacle has amplified calls from within the Democratic Party for Biden to step aside. Many party insiders worry that his age and apparent cognitive decline could jeopardize their chances in the upcoming election.

Despite these concerns, the Biden family remains resolute. “We will not let those 90 minutes define the four years he’s been president,” Jill Biden told Vogue. “We will continue to fight.”

Republicans have seized on these revelations to underscore their long-standing concerns about Biden’s fitness for office.

They argue that the president’s volatile temperament and cognitive issues are not just a Democratic problem but a national security risk.

They assert that a president who cannot handle briefings without erupting in anger is unfit to lead the nation.

As the 2024 election approaches, these issues are likely to become even more pronounced. The Republican strategy will likely focus on contrasting Biden’s instability with their vision of strong, decisive leadership.

They will also continue to press for greater transparency regarding Biden’s health and decision-making processes.

The revelations about President Biden’s workplace demeanor and cognitive decline raise serious questions about his ability to lead the country effectively.

As calls for him to step down grow louder, the Biden administration faces increasing pressure to address these concerns transparently.

For Republicans, these developments offer a potent line of attack as they prepare for the 2024 election, emphasizing the need for strong, stable leadership in the White House.

For Americans, this discovery highlights the issue of Biden running for office again, and it certainly makes the issue of who to vote for in November all that much easier.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Biden administration is constantly overstepping their authority to push their Radical agenda. But now, they are facing resistance from within.

Because a Federal prosecutor has lashed out against the Biden administration and dealt a major blow.

In a case that has drawn significant attention from conservative and pro-life communities, Paul Vaughn, a father of 11, escaped prison time after being sentenced in Nashville for his participation in a peaceful protest at a Tennessee abortion facility in March 2021.

The Biden administration had sought a one-year prison sentence, but U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger instead imposed a sentence of three years of supervised release with no prison time or fines.

The charges against Vaughn and 10 other pro-life activists stem from their participation in a sit-in at the Carafem Health Center Clinic in Mt. Juliet. Vaughn was convicted of violating the FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act) and participating in a conspiracy against rights.

Despite the Biden administration’s push for a harsher sentence, the judge acknowledged the non-violent nature of the protest and Vaughn’s strong religious motivations.

During the sentencing, Vaughn expressed his motivations, emphasizing his love for his country and his belief in protecting unborn children.

He questioned the necessity of the aggressive FBI raid on his home, which traumatized his children. Vaughn maintained his innocence regarding the FACE Act, which has been criticized for being used to target peaceful pro-life protesters.

Judge Trauger, while critical of the activists’ actions as imposing their beliefs on others, noted the entirely non-violent nature of the protest.

She acknowledged that Vaughn’s actions were motivated by strongly held religious beliefs that abortion ends a child’s life, a viewpoint shared by many Americans.

Vaughn’s supporters filled an overflow room at the courthouse, erupting into cheers when the judge announced no jail time.

Steve Crampton, Vaughn’s lawyer from the Thomas More Society, highlighted Vaughn’s peaceful protest and criticized the Biden administration for bringing unprecedented conspiracy charges against the pro-life activists.

Statements from state representatives, including Rep. Jody Barrett and Sen. Kerry Roberts, were read in support of Vaughn. Crampton argued that the context of the protest and the administration’s heavy-handed approach should result in no jail time for Vaughn.

A representative from Carafem claimed that employees feared for their lives during the sit-in, describing it as an “attempt at terror.”

However, this characterization was at odds with the peaceful nature of the protest, where participants prayed, sang hymns, and urged women not to get abortions.

While Vaughn avoids prison, he faces severe penalties as a convicted felon, including losing his right to vote and own firearms.

The judge imposed travel restrictions and barred him from being within 100 feet of an abortion facility or participating in future sit-ins. Vaughn was placed on home detention but allowed to attend work, church, and other approved activities.

This case highlights the Biden administration’s aggressive stance against pro-life activists, raising concerns about the use of federal power to silence dissenting voices.

The FACE Act, intended to protect access to abortion facilities, has increasingly been used against peaceful protesters, prompting criticism from conservative and religious communities.

The Thomas More Society plans to appeal Vaughn’s conviction, arguing that the charges and the FBI’s raid were excessive for a peaceful demonstration.

Crampton reiterated that the protest was a witness to life, filled with prayer and hymn-singing, aimed at persuading expecting mothers to choose life over abortion.

Paul Vaughn’s case has galvanized the pro-life movement and highlighted the ongoing battle over abortion rights in the United States.

The leniency shown by Judge Trauger is seen as a small victory for pro-life advocates, who view the Biden administration’s actions as a politically motivated attack on their beliefs and freedoms.

As Vaughn’s legal team prepares for an appeal, this case will continue to be a focal point in the national debate over abortion and the right to peaceful protest.

Before the sentencing, over 100 pro-life supporters gathered outside the federal courthouse, singing hymns and praying in solidarity with Vaughn. Their presence underscored the deep convictions and community support that drive the pro-life movement, even in the face of significant legal and political challenges.

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

It seems to many that there is no stopping the advance of the harmful and radical agenda of the Left. But there are still those who oppose the absurd and radical changes.

And now, the RNC has teamed up with a swing state to deal a major blow to the Democrats.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) and members of the Arizona legislature have filed a motion to stay a court decision that struck down the state’s proof-of-citizenship voting requirements.

This motion, if successful, would allow Arizona to enforce its law requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote in the upcoming presidential election or cast a ballot by mail in any election.

The RNC has labeled this legal battle as a “landmark” development for election integrity in Arizona, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that only American citizens participate in the voting process.

RNC Chairman Michael Whatley stated, “Our elections and the future of our country should be decided by Americans. Non-citizen voting compromises our elections, and we are committed to stopping it.”

Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda echoed these sentiments, arguing that election outcomes must reflect the voices of American voters and that any vote cast by a non-citizen dilutes those votes, risking the silencing of American voices. “This is a very real problem in Arizona, and we are committed to resolving it,” Swoboda said.

The motion to stay the court’s decision comes after a federal district court struck down Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement, a move that Republicans believe undermines the integrity of the state’s elections.

The legal battle over this issue highlights the broader national debate over election integrity and voter identification laws.

Republicans argue that proof-of-citizenship requirements are necessary to prevent non-citizens from voting and to ensure that elections are fair and accurate.

They point out that without such measures, the potential for voter fraud increases, compromising the legitimacy of election outcomes.

Opponents of proof-of-citizenship laws argue that they can disenfranchise eligible voters, particularly among minority communities and low-income individuals who may have difficulty obtaining the necessary documentation.

They also falsely claim that instances of non-citizen voting are extremely rare and that such laws address a problem that does not exist on a significant scale.

The Arizona case has drawn national attention, with both sides viewing it as a critical test of the balance between election security and voter access.

The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications not only for Arizona but also for other states considering similar measures.

In their motion, the RNC and Arizona Republicans are seeking to ensure that the state’s proof-of-citizenship requirement is reinstated in time for the November election.

They argue that this is essential to maintaining public confidence in the electoral process and preventing potential voter fraud.

The motion’s success would mean that Arizona voters would need to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote or casting a ballot by mail.

This requirement would be in addition to existing voter identification laws that already require voters to present identification at the polls.

The legal fight over Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement is part of a broader national debate over election integrity, with Republicans pushing for stricter voter identification laws and Democrats advocating for measures to expand voter access and participation.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the issue of election security is likely to remain a contentious and highly politicized topic. Both parties are expected to continue to battle over how best to balance the need for secure elections with the goal of ensuring that all eligible voters can participate in the democratic process.

In the meantime, the RNC and Arizona Republicans are committed to their legal fight, determined to uphold what they see as essential measures to protect the integrity of the state’s elections. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues and influence the broader national conversation on election integrity.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left can be very extreme at times. But no one thought they would take things this far.

Because now this presidential assassination threat throws Washington, D.C. into chaos.

Following the recent immunity decision handed down by the Supreme Court, some figures on the extreme Radical Left are making horrific claims regarding presidential assassinations.

In a significant ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with former President Donald Trump, affirming in a 6-3 decision that presidents are covered by limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office. This ruling has sparked controversy and misinterpretations, particularly from extremist elements of the left.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated, “under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” This decision reaffirms the principle that presidents are protected from prosecution for their official acts, but not for unofficial acts.

Despite the ruling’s clear limitations, some left-wing commentators have seized upon it to suggest an alarming scenario where a president could commit heinous crimes with impunity.

Elie Mystal, writing for The Nation, argued that the ruling means “presidents can murder, r*pe, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, r*ping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States.”

This interpretation is misleading and inflammatory. Mike Berry, executive director for America First Policy Institute’s (AFPI) Center for Litigation, addressed these claims, highlighting historical precedent from the Obama administration.

In 2011, the Obama administration ordered the targeted killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen suspected of terrorism, along with two other U.S. citizens.

The administration defended its actions as lawful under national security grounds. Berry pointed out that no one suggested prosecuting President Obama for these actions, underscoring the legal framework that supports presidential immunity in national security contexts.

Berry further clarified that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not provide carte blanche for presidents to commit crimes. “A President of the United States enjoys broad authority to direct the military with very few limitations. But one such limitation is that the President’s orders may not contravene the Constitution or the laws of the United States,” Berry noted. “Accordingly, the President has no authority to order the military to assassinate a political rival.”

The Supreme Court case in question, Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, involved issues of presidential immunity and the scope of executive power.

The ruling emphasized that while presidents have significant protections, these do not extend to unofficial acts or actions that violate U.S. laws.

Furthermore, the military is bound by laws that prevent them from carrying out unlawful orders, including those that would involve criminal acts like assassination.

Any military officer who issued or executed such an order would be committing a grave crime, reinforcing that presidential immunity has its boundaries.

The hyperbolic response from the left overlooks these crucial distinctions and the built-in safeguards of the American legal system.

It is essential to understand the context and limitations of the Supreme Court’s ruling rather than resort to fear-mongering and sensationalism.

In summary, the Supreme Court ruling does not grant the president the authority to commit crimes without consequence. It maintains a balance between protecting the executive’s ability to perform official duties and upholding the rule of law. Misinterpretations and exaggerated claims only serve to mislead the public and undermine the judicial process.

The case serves as a reminder of the importance of a well-defined separation of powers and the need for clarity in interpreting legal protections afforded to the president. It also highlights the dangers of politicizing legal decisions and the necessity for responsible discourse in the media and public commentary.

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the principle of presidential immunity for official acts but did not create a pathway for unchecked criminal behavior by the president.

The Constitution and U.S. laws continue to provide safeguards against abuses of power, ensuring that no individual, including the president, is above the law.

The exaggerated claims by some commentators should be critically examined against the actual legal framework and historical precedents that guide presidential conduct.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

After the Trump immunity decision handed down from the Supreme Court, the Left has been fighting back. But a new development has sent them reeling.

Because SCOTUS attacked Special Counsel Jack Smith in move Democrats never saw coming.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that former President Donald Trump possesses presidential immunity for official acts conducted during his tenure, shielding him from prosecution in the January 6 case brought forth by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

This decision is a significant victory for Trump, affirming his protection under the doctrine of presidential immunity, a principle designed to ensure the independence and functioning of the executive branch.

Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, raised critical constitutional concerns about the appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel.

Thomas argued that the appointment of Smith might violate constitutional structures because it was not clear that his office was established by law, as required by the Constitution.

“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure,” Thomas noted.

He questioned the legality of appointing a private citizen as Special Counsel without a clearly established office by Congress. “The Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”

Thomas’s opinion underscores a fundamental constitutional principle: the separation of powers. The Constitution mandates that federal offices must be created by law, a safeguard to prevent the executive from unilaterally establishing positions of significant authority.

Thomas argued that no statute clearly established the office of the Special Counsel in this case, raising serious questions about the validity of Smith’s appointment.

“By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” Thomas wrote.

“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”

Thomas further highlighted that throughout American history, no former president has faced criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office, despite numerous presidents engaging in actions that many might argue constitute crimes. This unprecedented prosecution, according to Thomas, must be conducted by someone duly authorized by the American people.

Thomas’s opinion delved into the technicalities of the Appointments Clause, which differentiates between principal and inferior officers.

He questioned whether Smith was a principal officer, who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or an inferior officer, who could be appointed by the Attorney General if Congress has vested such authority in the Attorney General.

“Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause,” Thomas argued. “If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be.”

Thomas stressed that determining whether the Special Counsel’s office was “established by Law” is not a mere technicality. It ensures that the executive branch does not overreach its authority, maintaining the balance of power fundamental to the Constitution’s protection of liberty.

This ruling and Thomas’s concurrence have significant implications for the current political landscape. Trump and his supporters see this as a vindication, reinforcing the narrative that the prosecutions against him are politically motivated. The ruling may embolden Trump’s base and bolster his campaign for re-election, presenting him as a victim of political persecution.

For the Biden administration and the Department of Justice, this ruling presents a setback. The validity of Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel is now under scrutiny, potentially undermining ongoing investigations and prosecutions. This could lead to a broader reassessment of the appointment processes for special counsels and other significant federal positions.

Justice Thomas’s call for the lower courts to address the constitutional questions surrounding the Special Counsel’s appointment signals that this legal battle is far from over. The courts must now determine whether Smith’s appointment was constitutional and, by extension, whether his prosecution of Trump can proceed.

The decision reaffirms the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and maintaining the checks and balances designed to prevent the abuse of power. As the nation moves towards the 2024 presidential election, this ruling will likely continue to resonate, influencing political discourse and the legal strategies of both parties.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s presidential immunity, coupled with Justice Thomas’s questioning of the Special Counsel’s appointment, underscores the ongoing tensions between different branches of government and highlights the constitutional safeguards designed to protect American democracy. This ruling is a significant development in the legal and political saga surrounding Trump, with far-reaching implications for the future of presidential immunity and the separation of powers in the United States.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story.

It is safe to say that Joe Biden’s foreign policy is a disaster. But no one thought things would get as worse as this.

Because Joe Biden backstabbed America’s allies with one jaw-dropping decision.

In the aftermath of President Joe Biden’s lackluster performance at the recent presidential debate, concerns have emerged from Israel about the potential emboldening of Iran, one of the most significant threats to Middle Eastern stability and security.

The Israeli government and its citizens are closely watching the political developments in the United States, understanding the profound impact American leadership has on global geopolitics, especially in relation to adversaries like Iran.

During the debate, Biden’s performance raised significant questions about his cognitive abilities and fitness to lead. His obvious confusion and inability to articulate clear policies have not only alarmed Americans but also key allies such as Israel.

As a result, there is growing unease about whether the current U.S. administration can effectively counter Iran’s aggressive strategies and ambitions in the region.

Israeli officials are particularly worried that Biden’s perceived weakness might encourage Iran to expand its nuclear program and increase its support for terrorist organizations.

A strong, decisive American leader is seen as essential to keeping Iran’s ambitions in check and maintaining stability in the Middle East.

Iran has long been a destabilizing force in the Middle East, with its pursuit of nuclear capabilities and support for terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

The country’s leadership has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, and its military activities in Syria and other parts of the region continue to pose significant threats to Israeli security.

Under the Trump administration, the United States adopted a hardline stance against Iran, withdrawing from the controversial Iran nuclear deal and implementing stringent economic sanctions.

This approach was applauded by Israeli leaders who viewed it as necessary to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions and reduce its regional influence.

From an Israeli perspective, Biden’s weak debate performance signals a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy that could favor appeasement over confrontation.

This shift could lead to the lifting of sanctions and a more lenient approach to Iran’s nuclear program, which would be a significant blow to Israeli security interests.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, known for his hardline stance against Iran, has consistently emphasized the need for a strong American presence in the region to counter Iranian aggression.

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders are concerned that Biden’s administration might not have the resolve to maintain this pressure, potentially allowing Iran to progress unchecked in its nuclear ambitions.

Republicans in the United States have echoed these concerns, criticizing Biden for his foreign policy stance and his administration’s approach to Iran. They argue that Biden’s policies could lead to a resurgence of Iranian power and a subsequent increase in threats to Israel and other U.S. allies in the region.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently stated, “Biden’s foreign policy is a disaster waiting to happen. His inability to stand firm against our adversaries, especially Iran, puts our allies, like Israel, at grave risk. We need a president who projects strength, not confusion and weakness.”

The strategic implications of a perceived weak American president are far-reaching. If Iran feels emboldened by a lack of decisive American leadership, it may escalate its nuclear program and increase its support for terrorist activities.

This could lead to a more volatile Middle East, with Israel potentially facing greater threats from Iranian proxies and an emboldened Iranian military.

Furthermore, the recent normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, brokered by the Trump administration, could be jeopardized if regional actors perceive a weakened American stance on Iran.

These agreements are crucial for regional stability and cooperation, and any shift in U.S. policy could undermine these efforts.

In response to these concerns, Israel is likely to continue bolstering its military capabilities and intelligence operations to counter the Iranian threat independently if necessary. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have already ramped up preparations for potential confrontations with Iran and its proxies, ensuring they remain vigilant and ready to respond to any aggression.

Israeli leaders are also likely to intensify diplomatic efforts to ensure continued U.S. support, regardless of the administration in power. Maintaining strong bipartisan support for Israel in Congress is essential for ensuring that American policy remains aligned with Israeli security interests.

The recent debate performance of President Joe Biden has not only raised concerns domestically but also among key international allies like Israel. The potential for a weakened U.S. stance on Iran under Biden’s leadership is alarming for Israeli officials who rely on strong American support to counter the Iranian threat.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Democrat party is majorly suffering because of Joe Biden. And more and more supporters are turning away.

And a major Democrat donor has turned his back on the party and viciously attacked Jill Biden.

Billionaire Bill Ackman, known for his substantial donations to Democratic figures such as former President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, recently criticized First Lady Jill Biden for her steadfast defense of President Joe Biden’s decision to run for re-election despite growing concerns about his mental fitness.

In the aftermath of President Biden’s disastrous performance at the debate with former President Donald Trump, there has been a significant uproar within Democratic circles, with many calling for Biden to step aside.

However, Jill Biden has remained unwavering in her support for her husband, firmly stating that the Biden family will not let a poor debate performance overshadow four years of presidency. “We will continue to fight,” she told Vogue in a phone interview.

Ackman took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to voice his concerns, suggesting that President Biden may no longer possess the mental acuity necessary to make such critical decisions.

He placed the blame squarely on Jill Biden, accusing her of prioritizing her own status and the perks of being First Lady over the well-being of her husband and the country.

Ackman’s post on X was scathing. He wrote:

“I no longer blame @POTUS Biden for not stepping aside. He no longer has the mental acuity to make important judgments about himself. It is becoming increasingly clear however that the fault lies with @FLOTUS Jill Biden.”

I no longer blame @POTUS Biden for not stepping aside. He no longer has the mental acuity to make important judgments about himself.

It is becoming increasingly clear however that the fault lies with @FLOTUS Jill Biden.

FL Jill Biden becomes irrelevant the moment her husband…

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) June 30, 2024

Ackman accused Jill Biden of enjoying the benefits of her role to the detriment of her husband’s health. He argued that the stress of maintaining the presidency is exacerbating any existing neurological issues Joe Biden might have.

Ackman cited instances where Jill Biden appeared to treat her husband in a manner akin to managing an elderly relative, noting how she praises him for basic functions and manages his public appearances.

Ackman questioned Jill Biden’s motivations, suggesting that she enjoys the power and control that come with her position. He implied that her circle of friends and advisors might be enabling this behavior, fearing loss of access and influence.

“Her power has clearly grown as he gets weaker. And she likes the feeling of power. She speaks for the president when he can’t or when he is napping. She tells his team and staff when he is available, and when he is not. She likes being in control.”

Ackman further speculated that many decisions ostensibly made by the President could actually be Jill Biden’s doing, raising concerns about who is truly in charge.

Ackman warned that Jill Biden’s actions could tarnish not only Joe Biden’s legacy but her own as well.

He expressed alarm at the potential risk to national security and the stability of a world in turmoil, should the President’s cognitive decline impact his decision-making abilities.

“Jill Biden is destroying her own legacy along with the president’s. The whole thing would just be a tragedy for the Biden family if it didn’t put the country at greater risk in a world in turmoil.”

In a final pointed remark, Ackman suggested that Jill Biden might not fully grasp the gravity of her marriage vows: “Perhaps she didn’t understand what ‘in sickness and in health’ meant.”

Ackman’s comments reflect a growing unease within both political circles and the general public regarding President Biden’s capacity to lead the nation effectively. His criticisms are part of a broader discourse questioning the integrity of those surrounding the President and the potential consequences of a leadership perceived as faltering.

In contrast, White House officials have dismissed these concerns, reiterating confidence in President Biden’s abilities. Yet, Ackman’s remarks underscore a significant divide in perception, one that could influence voter sentiment as the 2024 election approaches.

From an American viewpoint, Ackman’s critique highlights the perceived fragility of Biden’s administration and the alleged manipulations by those close to him.

It underscores a narrative that positions the Biden presidency as one propped up by those who benefit from its continuation, rather than one driven by the President’s own competencies and vision.

Republicans are likely to leverage these criticisms to galvanize their base, framing the upcoming election as a critical juncture to restore competent and transparent leadership.

They argue that the current administration’s actions, from domestic policies to handling international relations, have often seemed disjointed and reactive, suggesting a need for decisive and robust leadership.

As the 2024 election draws nearer, such narratives will undoubtedly play a significant role in shaping the political landscape, potentially swaying undecided voters and reinforcing the resolve of the conservative electorate.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

With the Radical Left doing everything they can to oppose Trump, he has his work cut out for him. And now, even swing states seem to be out for him.

Because a crucial swing state threw Donald Trump a massive curveball he never expected.

Regulators in New Jersey are poised to decide whether the liquor licenses for Donald Trump’s golf courses in Colts Neck and Bedminster should be renewed following his guilty conviction on 34 felony counts.

The State Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has issued temporary permits, delaying the final decision until a hearing scheduled for July 19 in Trenton.

Trump, after assuming the presidency in January 2017, handed over the management of The Trump Organization, which runs these golf courses, to his sons Donald Jr. and Eric.

However, New Jersey officials argue that because Trump remains the “sole beneficiary” of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, his felony conviction impacts the businesses’ eligibility to serve alcohol.

The Attorney General’s Office explained, “A review by ABC indicates that Mr. Trump maintains a direct beneficial interest in the three liquor licenses through the receipt of revenues and profits from them, as the sole beneficiary of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.”

New Jersey law prohibits anyone convicted of a crime involving “moral turpitude” from holding a liquor license. Therefore, Trump must prove that his crimes do not fall under this category to retain the licenses.

The Trump Organization responded with a statement: “We believe that a hearing regarding the renewal of our liquor licenses is unwarranted and unjustified. We sincerely hope that this investigation is not political in nature, and given the foregoing, we feel confident that our licenses will remain unaffected.”

While the Colts Neck and Bedminster courses face scrutiny, a third Trump golf course in Pine Hill had its liquor license renewed by the municipality and is unaffected by the hearing.

This move by New Jersey regulators is seen by many conservatives as yet another attempt to politically target and harass former President Trump.

The timing and nature of this hearing raise serious concerns about whether these actions are driven by genuine legal concerns or a continued effort by left-leaning authorities to undermine Trump’s businesses and legacy.

It is crucial to remember that Trump has been a polarizing figure, and his presidency and post-presidency actions have faced relentless scrutiny.

This latest development adds to a series of legal and political challenges he has encountered since leaving office. Critics argue that such investigations are part of a broader strategy to diminish his influence and obstruct his potential 2024 presidential bid.

The underlying principle of fairness in the application of laws and regulations is at stake. If the liquor license renewals are denied based on these charges, it sets a precedent that can be used to target other political figures and business leaders in the future, effectively weaponizing regulatory bodies for political ends.

Supporters of Trump argue that the charges themselves are part of a politically motivated campaign against him. They point to numerous instances where Trump and his associates have faced legal actions that they believe are unjust and aimed solely at damaging his reputation and business interests.

Moreover, the concept of “moral turpitude” in New Jersey’s liquor laws is somewhat subjective and can be interpreted in various ways.

It is vital that this term is not misused to unjustly penalize individuals based on political affiliations or public opinions rather than clear legal standards.

In the broader context of Trump’s political career, this issue highlights the ongoing tension between his supporters and detractors. It also underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in the regulatory process.

Ensuring that all parties are held to the same standards, regardless of their political standing, is essential to maintaining public trust in the legal system.

As the July 19 hearing approaches, all eyes will be on the New Jersey regulators and the outcome of this decision. The implications of their ruling will likely resonate beyond the immediate scope of Trump’s golf courses, influencing perceptions of regulatory fairness and political impartiality in America.

This situation also serves as a reminder of the significant power that state and local regulators wield over businesses and how such power can be used — or abused — in politically charged climates. It is a call to action for conservatives to remain vigilant and advocate for a just and equitable application of the law, free from political bias and influence.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

After a disastrous showing at the first Presidential debate, many rumors have been circulating that the Left will replace Biden. And now, the rumors are becoming a shocking reality.

And the White House has made a major announcement regarding replacing Biden.

Amid mounting concerns about his mental acuity and fitness for office, the White House has firmly denied reports that President Joe Biden is considering withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race.

This speculation has gained traction following Biden’s lackluster performance at a recent presidential debate, which has intensified doubts among many, especially Democratic pundits, about his capacity to continue serving as president.

An NBC News report suggested that Biden planned to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with his family during a trip to Camp David.

This fueled speculation about Biden’s potential withdrawal. However, a White House official swiftly refuted the report, stating, “The premise of the story is not accurate.” The official added that the trip had been scheduled for weeks and included plans for a family photo session.

Despite the White House’s assertions, the rumors reflect a broader anxiety within the Democratic Party about Biden’s viability as a candidate.

Democratic leaders have publicly dismissed the notion of replacing Biden on the ticket. A spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi’s office stated, “Speaker Pelosi has full confidence in President Biden and looks forward to attending his inauguration on January 20, 2025. Any suggestion that she has engaged in a different course of action is simply not true.”

Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have also issued statements defending Biden.

Both have emphasized their unwavering support for Biden and confidence in his leadership. However, the involvement of these political heavyweights highlights the seriousness of the concerns within the Democratic Party.

Biden’s decision to run for re-election ultimately rests with him, but it is clear that the debate performance has had an impact.

The President has been attempting to reassure voters and donors who are skeptical of his potential for re-election.

During a recent event, Biden acknowledged the criticism, stating, “I understand the concern about the debate — I get it,” and admitted he “didn’t have a great night.”

Sources close to Biden describe his mood as humiliated and devoid of confidence. One source indicated that First Lady Jill Biden’s opinion would significantly influence the President’s decision.

“The only person who has ultimate influence with him is the first lady,” the source said. “If she decides there should be a change of course, there will be a change of course.”

The speculation about Biden’s potential withdrawal is not new. For months, questions have been raised about his age, cognitive abilities, and overall fitness for the demands of the presidency.

These concerns have been exacerbated by numerous public appearances where Biden has appeared confused, forgetful, or physically frail.

The media has been downplaying or ignoring Biden’s visible struggles, labeling any unflattering videos as “cheap fakes” and suggesting they are edited or taken out of context.

This strategy of minimizing concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities and fitness for office has been evident in the way the media has covered his recent public appearances.

For instance, a supercut shared by Grabien media founder Tom S. Elliott juxtaposed video of Biden appearing confused and lost with audio of his media defenders praising his mental acuity and leadership.

The contrast was striking and highlighted the disconnect between the reality of Biden’s condition and the media’s portrayal.

As the election approaches, Biden’s campaign faces a significant challenge. The President’s ability to effectively communicate and engage with voters is crucial, and any signs of weakness or frailty could be devastating. The involvement of high-profile Democrats like Obama and Clinton underscores the party’s recognition of this risk.

The coming months will be critical for Biden as he seeks to solidify his position within the Democratic Party and address the concerns raised by both supporters and critics.

The President will need to demonstrate that he has the physical and mental stamina to lead the country for another term. If he fails to do so, the pressure for him to step aside may become overwhelming.

In the meantime, the Republican Party is poised to capitalize on any signs of weakness. Former President Donald Trump and other potential GOP candidates have already begun to frame Biden as unfit for office, and this narrative is likely to intensify as the election draws closer.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden, his administration, and the entire Radical Left are full of ridiculous lies. And many of them are dangerous.

But now a major group has called Biden out and exposed the entire administration.

In a dramatic rebuke to President Joe Biden’s claims during the first presidential debate that the Border Patrol had endorsed him, the Border Patrol Union has firmly clarified that they have never and will never endorse Biden. This statement came in response to Biden’s comments about his administration’s handling of border security and asylum officers.

During the debate, Biden asserted that his administration had significantly increased the number of asylum officers and that the Border Patrol supported his position on border security.

This statement was immediately contested by the Border Patrol Union. The union took to social media to make their stance unequivocally clear, posting, “To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.”

Brandon Judd, president of the Border Patrol Union, appeared on Fox News to directly address Biden’s misleading debate claim and his administration’s border policies.

Brandon Judd joins Fox News to set the record straight that Border Patrol does NOT support Joe Biden:

"The border can be secured tomorrow if we would go back and we would look at the policies that were in place that President Trump built. They were great policies." pic.twitter.com/RgdkiLis6n

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 29, 2024

“The border can be secured tomorrow if we would go back, and we would look at the policies that were in place that President Trump built. They were great policies,” Judd stated, underscoring the effectiveness of the previous administration’s approach to border security.

Vice President of the Border Patrol Union, Art Del Cueto, also voiced his disbelief and frustration over Biden’s claims. Speaking on the same broadcast network, Del Cueto said, “I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It shocked me when you hear this administration, to begin with, say the border was secure then ignore it for several years. But this one was a new one for me.”

Biden’s attempt to downplay the number of terrorists crossing the border during the debate also drew sharp criticism from Del Cueto. He accused the administration of either lying about or being unaware of the current border situation.

“This administration, they’ll lie about what’s happening at the border or they won’t realize that it’s actually happening. It’s one of the two and it’s upsetting to see it because the country is suffering from it,” Del Cueto remarked.

Del Cueto highlighted the recent incident involving a Haitian migrant who had entered the country illegally and subsequently raped a 15-year-old disabled girl in Boston, only to be released on a $500 bail.

“You continue to hear these cases pop up. One after another,” Del Cueto explained. “Because this administration has allowed so many individuals to just claim asylum and get released, it’s going to continue to happen.”

He emphasized that while securing the border is crucial, it is equally important to address the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country, some of whom pose significant threats.

Del Cueto warned, “We are going to see many, many more stories like this come in the near future because no one is doing anything about it.”

The Border Patrol Union’s strong rebuttal underscores the significant gap between the administration’s claims and the reality on the ground.

Biden’s policies, they argue, have led to an unprecedented surge in illegal immigration, endangering American communities and overwhelming Border Patrol resources.

The union’s stance also reflects a broader dissatisfaction with Biden’s handling of immigration among law enforcement and many Americans across the nation.

The Biden administration’s approach, which includes rolling back many of Trump’s effective border policies, has been widely criticized for creating a crisis at the southern border. The administration’s attempts to portray these policies as successful are seen by many as disingenuous and disconnected from the realities faced by border communities and law enforcement.

Biden’s debate performance and subsequent fallout have only intensified these criticisms. Many Republicans argue that the president’s cognitive abilities and overall fitness for office are in question, further undermining his credibility on critical issues like border security.

This latest episode, where Biden’s claims were quickly debunked by the very people on the front lines, adds to the growing list of controversies and missteps that have characterized his presidency.

As the administration continues to navigate these challenges, the divide between its rhetoric and the actual situation at the border remains a significant point of contention. The Border Patrol Union’s response is a stark reminder of the administration’s struggles to maintain credibility and effectively manage the complex issues surrounding immigration and border security.

President Biden’s misleading debate claims about Border Patrol endorsement have been thoroughly debunked by the union itself, highlighting the ongoing crisis at the border and the administration’s failure to address it effectively.

This incident is yet another example of the growing disconnect between the Biden administration’s narrative and the reality faced by those charged with securing America’s borders. As the 2024 election approaches, these issues will undoubtedly continue to play a pivotal role in the national discourse.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story.

The Biden administration has handled the border crisis terribly. And right now they seem to be trying to make things worse.

Because the Biden administration has made a terrifying border decision that will affect us all.

In a horrifying and shocking move that has sparked significant controversy, dozens of migrants involved in a violent riot at the border near El Paso, Texas, in March have been released into the United States by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

This incident raises critical concerns about border security, immigration enforcement, the policies of the current administration, and highlights the failures of the DHS Secretary Mayorkas.

On March 21, a group of over 200 illegal immigrants stormed the border near El Paso, clashing with Texas National Guardsmen who were defending the area.

The confrontation, captured on video, showed the migrants violently attempting to breach the border, leading to chaotic scenes of conflict.

In May, an El Paso judge dismissed criminal charges against all the involved migrants, resulting in their release from state custody and subsequent handover to ICE.

According to reports, ICE has since released 43 of these migrants into the United States. This decision has been met with widespread criticism, particularly from those advocating for stricter immigration controls.

An ICE spokesperson defended the agency’s actions, stating that release decisions are made on a “case-by-case basis.”

The spokesperson explained, “ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] officers make decisions on associated enforcement actions and apply prosecutorial discretion, where applicable, in a responsible manner, informed by their experience as law enforcement professionals and in a way that best protects the communities we serve.”

However, a Homeland Security source suggested that ICE’s standards are arbitrary and highlighted the agency’s struggles to deport migrants swiftly enough due to limited resources.

“Sometimes we arrest a child molester and he gets released because of housing space. Or the charge is not egregious enough to keep him or her in custody,” the source revealed.

Of the migrants involved in the riot:

43 have been released into the U.S.
32 are in ICE custody pending court hearings.
105 are in detention awaiting deportation.
43 have been successfully deported.

The release of these individuals has raised alarms among Americans who argue that such leniency undermines the rule of law and endangers public safety.

Following the riot, Texas authorities identified nine migrants as leaders of the riot, intending to file felony rioting charges.

However, two of these individuals were released by Border Patrol before charges could be filed. Texas authorities managed to apprehend one, but the other remains at large.

In response to the riot, Texas has armed soldiers and state troopers on the border with non-lethal pepper ball guns to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators have been vocal in their condemnation of the Biden administration’s handling of this situation. They argue that the decision to release these migrants reflects a broader failure of the administration’s immigration policies.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) criticized the administration, saying, “This is what happens when you have an administration that refuses to enforce our immigration laws. It’s a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens and a clear signal to would-be illegal immigrants that they can break our laws with impunity.”

The release of these migrants underscores a larger debate about the efficacy and direction of U.S. immigration policy under President Biden. Critics argue that the administration’s approach has led to increased illegal immigration, strained resources, and compromised public safety.

The El Paso incident and its aftermath are indicative of a perceived leniency that many believe invites further illegal crossings and undermines the efforts of law enforcement at the border.

For those advocating for stronger immigration enforcement, the actions taken by ICE in this instance are seen as part of a troubling pattern of inadequate response to illegal immigration.

The actions of the Biden administration and its impact on border security will undoubtedly remain a focal point of political discourse as the nation heads into the 2024 election season.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden’s foreign policies are atrocious. And it seems he is always losing American lives in the process.

And now, his newest move in the Middle East could lead to thousands of American deaths.

The Biden administration is mobilizing military assets in preparation for a potential evacuation of American citizens from Lebanon as the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah intensifies.

The situation has escalated, with fighting spreading further north, prompting nations worldwide to advise their citizens against traveling to the volatile Mediterranean country and to develop contingency plans for safe evacuation.

NBC News reports that U.S. defense officials have revealed the strategic positioning of the USS Wasp, an amphibious assault ship, in the Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday.

Accompanying the USS Wasp are Marines from the 24th Expeditionary Unit, ready to join forces in the area for a military-assisted departure if the situation further deteriorates.

As of 2022, approximately 86,000 Americans were residing in Lebanon. While the exact number of those willing to evacuate remains uncertain, the precedent set in 2006 during a similar conflict, when the U.S. successfully evacuated 15,000 people, underscores the feasibility of such an operation.

White House National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson emphasized that preventing an escalation at the Israel-Lebanon border is a top priority for the U.S.

Watson stated, “We continue to work toward a diplomatic resolution that would allow Israeli and Lebanese citizens to safely return to their homes and live in peace and security.”

The administration is committed to a diplomatic path, although preparations for a military response underline the seriousness of the current threat.

The Biden administration’s response to the escalating conflict and the potential evacuation underscores significant criticisms regarding its handling of international crises.

Critics argue that the current administration has often appeared reactive rather than proactive, failing to establish a strong and clear foreign policy stance that would deter aggression from hostile entities like Hezbollah.

The readiness to evacuate Americans is seen as a necessary measure, yet it also highlights major weaknesses in Biden’s foreign policy.

The increasing aggression of Iran-backed Hezbollah and the instability in the Middle East are direct consequences of what many conservatives view as the administration’s inadequate and indecisive approach to foreign threats.

Under Donald Trump, the United States was able to stay out of any new conflicts in the Middle East, but as soon as Joe Biden took office, everything has fallen apart.

Joe Biden’s foreign policies are nothing short of a disaster and now, instead of being in a strong position, Biden has had to run for the hills and left thousands of Americans in danger in the Middle East.

The history of U.S. involvement in Lebanon, including the 2006 evacuation, serves as a backdrop to the current preparations.

The previous successful evacuation demonstrates America’s capability to protect its citizens, but also underscores the cyclical nature of conflict in the region and the persistent threats posed by terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.

Many Americans point out that the administration has failed to learn from history and has not taken sufficient steps to prevent the current escalation.

The Biden administration’s preparation for a potential evacuation of Americans from Lebanon is a prudent and necessary measure in light of escalating violence between Israel and Hezbollah.

However, for many Americans, this situation serves as a stark reminder of the need for a strong and proactive national security strategy to protect American lives and interests globally.

The administration’s reactive stance and failure to deter aggression from hostile entities highlight significant weaknesses in its foreign policy approach.

The evolving situation in Lebanon requires continuous monitoring and a readiness to respond decisively to safeguard American citizens.

As the conflict unfolds, the actions taken by the U.S. government will be scrutinized not only for their immediate impact but also for their long-term implications on America’s foreign policy and national security posture.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.