Politics can be full of corrupt people. But the thought of this level of corruption at the highest levels of government is concerning.

And this Congressman shocked the country by pleading guilty to a terrible crime.

Former New York Republican Rep. George Santos has pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, according to a press release from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

This marks a significant chapter in the ongoing saga of Santos, whose political career has been marred by scandal and dishonesty.

George Santos, once a rising star within the Republican Party, has now become a cautionary tale of what happens when ambition overrides integrity.

The former congressman admitted to a litany of crimes, including filing fraudulent reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), embezzling funds from campaign donors, unauthorized use of credit cards, and fraudulently obtaining unemployment benefits.

These admissions come as no surprise to those who have followed his career, as his tenure in Congress was marked by deception and self-interest.

The DOJ’s press release confirmed that Santos’s crimes were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of fraudulent behavior. U.S. Attorney Breon Peace did not mince words in his statement: “Today, for what may seem like the first time since he started his campaign for Congress, Mr. Santos told the truth about his criminal schemes. He admitted to lying, stealing, and conning people. By pleading guilty, Mr. Santos has acknowledged that he repeatedly defrauded federal and state government institutions as well as his own family, supporters, and constituents.”

The trajectory of George Santos’s political career serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of unethical behavior in public office.

Elected to Congress in 2022, Santos quickly gained attention for his flamboyant personality and his promises to bring change to his district. However, it wasn’t long before cracks began to appear in his carefully crafted image.

In December 2023, Santos became the first member of Congress to be expelled in more than two decades after the House voted against him 311-114. The expulsion was a clear signal that even his colleagues could no longer ignore the mounting evidence of his wrongdoing.

The House Ethics Committee’s report, which preceded his expulsion, was damning. It detailed how Santos had filed fraudulent reports with the FEC and misused campaign funds for personal luxuries, including botox treatments and subscriptions to OnlyFans accounts.

Santos’s guilty plea is the culmination of months of legal wrangling and public scrutiny. Facing 23 charges, he opted to enter a plea agreement to avoid the spectacle of a trial.

This decision, while likely the best course of action given the overwhelming evidence against him, does little to mitigate the damage he has done to the public’s trust.

The former congressman’s sentencing is scheduled for February 7, 2025, where he faces a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison and a maximum of 22 years. Additionally, Santos has been ordered to pay restitution of $373,749.97 and forfeiture of $205,002.97.

The tale of George Santos is one of ambition gone awry, but it is also a lesson in the importance of integrity in public service.

As Americans, we must hold our leaders accountable and ensure that they are worthy of the offices they hold. Anything less is a betrayal of the trust placed in them by the American people.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

It is no secret that supporters of the Radical Left are unhappy right now. But no one thought things would escalate this far.

And now, a brutal attack at the DNC by some of their own has caused mayhem.

As the Democratic National Convention (DNC) kicked off its first night of programming in Chicago, the United Center became the epicenter of a different kind of spectacle.

Far-left agitators, some wearing keffiyehs and brandishing anti-Israel signs and flags, breached the fenced perimeter surrounding the convention site, leading to a tense standoff with law enforcement.

This brazen display of lawlessness is a stark reminder of the growing influence of radical elements within the Democratic Party and their disregard for law and order.

The agitators, emboldened by a political climate that often excuses or even endorses their behavior, broke through the initial fencing that had been set up to secure the United Center. This was no small feat; the fencing was intended to prevent exactly this kind of chaos.

Yet, the determination of these far-left radicals to disrupt the DNC was evident as they swiftly moved towards a second line of fencing, where dozens of officers were stationed.

Their actions were nothing short of an assault on the very security measures put in place to protect both the event and the city of Chicago. As the agitators attempted to tear down the interior fencing, riot police were forced to intervene, pushing back the mob as signs and other objects were hurled at them. The situation escalated quickly, leading to the arrest of four protesters. However, the chaos didn’t end there.

The actions of these agitators go beyond mere protest; they represent a direct challenge to authority and a willingness to use violence and intimidation to achieve their goals.

The agitators’ attempt to breach the interior fencing was not just a physical act of aggression; it was a symbolic gesture, signaling their intent to tear down the very foundations of law and order.

The agitators’ defiance was further demonstrated when, after the initial arrests, they immediately moved to dismantle the fencing once again, attempting to “save” their fellow protester.

This reckless behavior highlights the dangerous mindset that has taken hold among far-left radicals who view law enforcement not as protectors of public safety, but as obstacles to be overcome in their pursuit of anarchy.

Amidst the chaos, the anti-Israel sentiment displayed by the agitators added another layer of concern. The keffiyehs, anti-Israel signs, and flags present at the scene point to a troubling trend within the far-left: the merging of radical activism with anti-Semitic undertones.

This is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern where anti-Israel rhetoric has become increasingly common within certain factions of the Democratic Party and its base.

This incident at the DNC is a stark reminder of how the far-left’s agenda has been seeping into mainstream Democratic politics. The presence of anti-Israel symbols at a major political event should raise alarms, yet the Democratic leadership has largely remained silent on the issue, further emboldening these radicals.

As the night progressed, the Democratic Party continued with its planned programming, with President Joe Biden set to speak later in the evening. However, the silence from Democratic leaders regarding the breach of security and the actions of these far-left agitators was deafening.

This lack of condemnation from the party’s leadership is not surprising, given their reluctance to distance themselves from the radical elements that have increasingly come to define their base.

In recent years, the Democratic Party has seen a shift towards more extreme positions, often driven by pressure from the far-left. The reluctance to denounce the agitators who disrupted the DNC is indicative of the party’s broader struggle to maintain control over these radical elements. Instead of taking a firm stance against lawlessness and radicalism, the Democratic leadership seems content to appease these factions, even at the cost of public safety and order.

The events outside the United Center should serve as an example for the American public. The willingness of far-left agitators to breach security perimeters, challenge law enforcement, and promote radical agendas is not just a problem for the Democratic Party—it’s a problem for the nation as a whole.

When political discourse devolves into violent confrontations and the rule of law is disregarded, the very fabric of our society is at risk.

As we move closer to the 2024 election, it’s clear that these far-left radicals will continue to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior. The Democratic Party’s inability—or unwillingness—to rein in these elements within their ranks only serves to embolden them further. The question now is: How far will the radicals go, and what will be the consequences for our nation?

The breach of the DNC’s security perimeter by far-left agitators is more than just an isolated incident—it’s a reflection of the growing radicalism within the Democratic Party and the dangerous path that lies ahead if these elements are not confronted. The silence from Democratic leaders is troubling, as it signals a tacit acceptance of this behavior.

As Americans, we must demand strong leadership that is willing to stand up to radicalism and protect the rule of law. The events in Chicago are a reminder that the stakes are high, and the future of our nation depends on our ability to uphold the values of law and order, respect for authority, and the protection of our democratic institutions.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left loves to spread fake news. And this time, they crossed a major line.

Because Joe Biden spread horrific lies about Trump during his recent DNC speech.

President Joe Biden’s keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Monday night marked a unique and ironic conclusion to a political career that spanned five decades.

Yet, the event was less a celebration of Biden’s achievements and more a thinly veiled effort to quietly usher him out the door while simultaneously propping up Kamala Harris as the future of the Democratic Party. The night was riddled with falsehoods, revisionist history, and a desperate attempt to rewrite the narrative of Biden’s presidency.

For months, it has been clear that Democrats were uneasy about Biden’s prospects for 2024. His dismal performance in the June 27th debate against President Donald Trump only solidified their fears. The same party that once heralded Biden as a savior has since been quietly working behind the scenes to push him off the ticket.

Monday night’s convention was the culmination of these efforts, with speaker after speaker looking past Biden and proclaiming Kamala Harris as the new leader of the Democratic Party.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who refused to condemn the Democratic Party’s attempts to force Biden out, encapsulated the party’s betrayal. Despite millions of Americans voting for Biden in 2020, the Democrats have chosen to disregard their voices in favor of a handpicked successor.

This is not the action of a party that values democracy; it is the behavior of a party that seeks to consolidate power at any cost.

Biden’s speech was filled with the kind of falsehoods and exaggerations that have become all too common during his presidency. As he spoke, it became clear that the Democrats were more interested in painting a rosy picture of the past four years than in confronting the harsh realities of Biden’s failed policies.

Biden claimed that his administration had presided over “one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever, period.” He cited supposed achievements like the addition of 16 million jobs, record small business growth, and a thriving stock market. But the reality on the ground tells a different story.

The so-called economic recovery has been uneven at best, with inflation eroding the purchasing power of working Americans and the stock market experiencing volatility that has left many retirees in a precarious position.

Perhaps the most egregious of Biden’s claims was that “wages are up, inflation is down, way down,” and that the wealth gap has narrowed. In truth, inflation remains a significant concern for most Americans, with prices for essentials like food and gas still far higher than they were before Biden took office. The wealth gap has only widened under his administration, as his policies have disproportionately harmed the middle class while benefiting the wealthiest Americans.

Biden also falsely claimed that “we finally beat Big Pharma,” despite the fact that his administration has done little to rein in the exorbitant costs of prescription drugs. This is yet another example of the empty promises that have characterized his time in office.

In one of the most ironic moments of the night, Biden declared that “democracy has prevailed” and “delivered,” even as the Democratic Party was actively ignoring the will of the voters by pushing him aside in favor of Kamala Harris. The hypocrisy was palpable. The Democrats claim to champion democracy, yet they are more than willing to subvert it when it suits their purposes.

Biden’s assertion that “there is no place in America for political violence” was a direct reference to the events of January 6th, 2021, but it conveniently ignored the political violence that has erupted in cities across America under his watch.

From Portland to Kenosha, Democrat-led cities have been plagued by riots and unrest, yet Biden and his party have done little to address the root causes of this violence.

The most glaring irony, however, was Biden’s insistence that “democracy has prevailed” even as Kamala Harris, a vice president who was not elected by the people, is now being positioned as the next president.

Harris was chosen by Biden as his running mate in 2020, not by the voters. Now, as Biden steps aside, the Democratic Party is effectively appointing her as the future leader of the nation without giving the American people a say in the matter. This is not democracy; it is the antithesis of it.

As expected, Biden took several jabs at President Trump during his speech, but these attacks were largely baseless and served only to highlight Biden’s desperation. Biden called Trump a “loser” and accused him of spreading a “message around the world” that America is a failing nation. But the truth is that under Biden’s leadership, America has become weaker on the global stage, with adversaries like China and Russia growing bolder by the day.

Biden’s claim that violent crime has dropped to “the lowest level in more than 50 years” is patently false. In reality, violent crime has surged in many parts of the country, particularly in cities governed by Democrats.

Biden’s assertion that the murder rate is “falling faster than any time in history” is equally dubious, as crime data from across the country tells a different story.

Biden also attempted to pin the blame for the ongoing border crisis on Trump, claiming that Trump “killed the strongest bipartisan border deal in the history of the United States.” This is a blatant distortion of the facts.

The truth is that Biden’s own policies have exacerbated the crisis at the southern border, leading to record-high numbers of illegal immigrants crossing into the country. His belated executive action on the border is too little, too late, and does nothing to address the root causes of the crisis.

The Democratic National Convention was a masterclass in hypocrisy. The same party that once lauded Biden as the savior of the nation is now discarding him in favor of Kamala Harris, all while claiming that democracy has prevailed. The irony is lost on no one, and it serves as a stark reminder of the Democrats’ true priorities: power and control.

As Biden took his final bow, it was clear that his speech was less a celebration of his presidency and more a desperate attempt to rewrite history. The Democrats may have succeeded in pushing Biden out, but they cannot erase the failures of his administration.

The American people are not fooled by the falsehoods and fearmongering that have become the hallmark of the Biden presidency.

The 2024 election will be a referendum on the Democrats’ failed policies and their disregard for the will of the people. As the American people look ahead to the next chapter in our nation’s history, they must ask themselves whether they want to continue down the path of failed leadership and hypocrisy, or whether they are ready to return to the strong, principled leadership that President Trump represents.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Leftist media is lying to the American people. And you wouldn’t believe what’s really going on.

And now, a CBS poll has shown the stunning truth about the 2024 election race.

A recent CBS News poll has uncovered a reality that Democrats are likely dreading as they look toward the 2024 presidential election: former President Donald Trump holds a commanding lead over Vice President Kamala Harris on crucial issues such as the economy, immigration, and inflation.

For conservatives, this is no surprise. The American people are seeing what decades of Democratic mismanagement have led to, and they’re ready for a return to Trump’s America-first policies.

The CBS News poll surveyed 3,258 likely voters between August 14 and 16, and the results should have the Democratic establishment on edge. According to the poll, 83 percent of voters identified the economy as a major factor in their voting decisions.

Another 76 percent highlighted inflation, 74 percent pointed to the state of democracy, 62 percent cited crime, and 56 percent marked the U.S.-Mexico border as a key issue.

Among voters who prioritize the economy, inflation, and immigration, Trump leads Harris by a staggering margin. On the economy, Trump has a 56 percent to 43 percent lead over Harris. When it comes to inflation, his advantage expands even further, with a 61 percent to 38 percent lead.

But the most glaring difference comes on the issue of immigration and the border, where Trump dominates Harris 76 percent to 24 percent. These are the core concerns of everyday Americans, and Trump’s track record speaks for itself.

During his administration, America enjoyed unprecedented economic growth, record-low unemployment, and wages were rising for all workers. Trump renegotiated trade deals to put America first and secured our southern border, reducing illegal immigration dramatically. Meanwhile, under the Biden-Harris administration, we’ve seen rampant inflation, skyrocketing food and energy prices, and a border crisis spiraling out of control.

Harris, on the other hand, is burdened by her association with the disastrous Biden administration. The CBS poll revealed that 64 percent of voters view Harris’s policies as “mostly the same” as those of President Biden, with 19 percent saying they are “entirely the same.” That’s bad news for Harris, who, despite Biden’s tanking approval ratings, has been unable to carve out any identity of her own.

Voters know what they’re getting with Harris, and it’s more of the same: more inflation, more reckless spending, more open borders, and more weakness on the world stage. Trump’s America was one of strength, security, and economic prosperity, while Biden and Harris have ushered in an era of uncertainty, chaos, and decline. Even on something as basic as border security, the poll shows that 48 percent of voters expect more border crossings if Harris were to win in 2024, while only 8 percent believe the problem would worsen under Trump.

In fact, a resounding 72 percent of voters believe border crossings would decrease with Trump back in the Oval Office.

The economy remains the most critical issue for American voters, and Trump’s policies clearly resonate. When Trump was president, he slashed taxes, reduced burdensome regulations, and revitalized American manufacturing.

His America-first trade policies and tax cuts for middle-class families fueled a boom that lifted millions of Americans out of poverty and into financial security.

Compare that to the Biden-Harris approach, which has been nothing short of catastrophic. Inflation, driven by reckless government spending and policies hostile to energy independence, has hit families where it hurts most—at the grocery store, the gas pump, and in their paychecks.

According to the CBS poll, 48 percent of voters believe that food and grocery prices will rise even higher if Harris is elected, compared to 37 percent who think prices would climb under Trump.

The message is clear: voters trust Trump to fix the economic mess created by Biden and Harris. They know he’s a businessman who knows how to get things done. In contrast, Harris’s policies, which are just a continuation of Biden’s disastrous economic agenda, have been an utter failure.

Immigration and the crisis at the southern border have been defining issues throughout both the Trump and Biden administrations. Trump’s strong stance on border security, including building the wall and enforcing strict immigration laws, kept the border under control. Meanwhile, under Harris and Biden, illegal crossings have skyrocketed, cartels are thriving, and fentanyl is pouring into American communities.

The poll’s numbers on immigration are perhaps the most damning for Harris. A staggering 76 percent of voters who care about immigration favor Trump over Harris. Why? Because Trump has a proven track record of securing the border. Voters know Trump means business when he says he’ll protect American sovereignty and put an end to the disastrous “open borders” policy of the Biden-Harris administration.

While Trump dominates Harris on the economy, immigration, and inflation, the poll does show that Harris holds an edge over Trump on issues such as race and diversity, abortion, and the state of democracy. But that’s not where the average American is focused.

The CBS poll reveals that a majority of voters—86 percent—believe they know what Trump stands for. In contrast, only 64 percent can say the same about Harris.

Harris has spent most of her vice presidency evading responsibility, offering up word salads instead of concrete policy solutions, and clinging to the far-left ideology of the Democratic Party. Voters are starting to notice that Harris, like Biden, is out of touch with the real concerns of working-class Americans.

Despite the overwhelming lead Trump holds on the most important issues, the poll shows that Harris holds a narrow 3-point lead over Trump nationally, and the two are tied in battleground states. However, these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.

Trump’s base is strong, and the enthusiasm for his return to office is undeniable. In contrast, Harris struggles with a lack of identity and low approval ratings. Even among Democrats, she has failed to inspire the kind of energy and passion that Trump does on the Republican side.

As we inch closer to the 2024 election, it’s clear that the American people are craving a return to strong leadership, economic prosperity, and secure borders—everything Trump’s presidency delivered and everything Harris’s would fail to achieve.

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

It is no secret now that the Radical Left loves terrorists. But they have taken things to the extreme.

And the Chicago Mayor’s stunning pro-terror protest comments have revealed the Democrats’ plan.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is making headlines for his nonchalant attitude regarding the massive pro-Palestinian protests planned for the Democratic National Convention (DNC) this week.

In an interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, Johnson claimed that he’s “not worried” about the demonstrations overshadowing the convention, Kamala Harris, or her potential rise as the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer in the 2024 election.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is asked if he has seen evidence there will be fewer protesters at the DNC now that Biden is no longer the nominee:

"You certainly know that there's tremendous excitement." pic.twitter.com/RrkajreQbR

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 18, 2024

However, Johnson’s dismissiveness is emblematic of the Democratic Party’s larger issues—failing leadership, internal discord, and a blatant disregard for the true concerns of American citizens.

Mayor Johnson’s assurance that Democrats “can handle” the protests because it’s a “privilege” to hear grievances reveals just how out of touch the Democratic establishment has become. What Johnson fails to acknowledge is that these protests aren’t just a minor inconvenience—they are a glaring symptom of a fractured party, divided between its radical fringe and an out-of-touch establishment.

The protests began Sunday night with demonstrators vowing to “bring the war home,” a dangerous escalation of rhetoric that should concern any responsible leader. Rather than addressing the legitimate safety concerns, Johnson seems more focused on the city’s reputation for hosting conventions.

It’s laughable that he would boast about Chicago’s “experience” in hosting conventions, as if this alone will magically resolve the deep political unrest festering within the Democratic Party.

With the Chicago Police Department operating with 1,700 fewer officers than just five years ago, and crime skyrocketing under his leadership, Johnson’s assurance that safety will be paramount is hard to take seriously.

The reality is that Chicago has become a symbol of Democratic failure—rampant crime, ineffective governance, and now, massive protests that threaten to overshadow the party’s marquee event.

Adding fuel to the fire, the protesters are not just targeting President Biden, but also Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris, who has tried to distance herself from the Biden administration’s disastrous legacy, is now facing the same backlash as the President.

The notion that Harris, who has been Biden’s closest political ally for nearly four years, can somehow escape the tarnish of this administration is absurd.

Harris has been notably absent when it comes to addressing real issues facing the American people. From her failures as “border czar” to her tone-deaf speeches on economic recovery, Harris has done little to instill confidence in her leadership abilities.

Yet, Mayor Johnson could hardly contain his enthusiasm, claiming there’s “tremendous excitement” around her campaign stops.

But who is truly excited? Certainly not the American people, who continue to suffer under crushing inflation, out-of-control gas prices, and a border crisis that the Democrats have been utterly incompetent in addressing.

Johnson’s failure to address the growing discontent within his own party is part of a larger issue facing Democrats. The pro-Palestinian protests are a manifestation of the ideological tug-of-war within the Democratic Party. On one side, you have the radical left, pushing anti-Israel rhetoric, and on the other, the more traditional wing of the party struggling to keep control. This infighting only serves to highlight the Democrats’ inability to govern effectively.

Instead of dealing with these fractures, Johnson and the party’s leaders, like Harris, prefer to focus on virtue-signaling and empty platitudes about “First Amendment rights” and “the privilege” of hearing grievances.

While free speech is undoubtedly a cornerstone of American democracy, there is a growing sense that the Democratic Party is more concerned with catering to fringe, activist groups than addressing the real concerns of ordinary Americans—such as economic instability, national security, and rising crime.

Kamala Harris, as the Democratic Party’s potential 2024 nominee, represents a continuation of failed policies and poor leadership. From her inability to address the southern border crisis to her disastrous handling of economic recovery initiatives, Harris has demonstrated time and again that she is simply not equipped to lead the country.

Even Democrats appear to be losing faith in her ability to handle the complexities of governance.

As for Mayor Johnson, his comments highlight the broader issues with Democratic leadership in cities like Chicago. Under his watch, crime has surged, the police force has been weakened, and the city’s reputation continues to decline.

Yet, instead of addressing these critical issues head-on, Johnson is more concerned with downplaying the significance of the protests and celebrating Chicago’s convention-hosting abilities.

His comments comparing the Republican Party to “breakdancing at the Olympics” might have been meant as a humorous jab, but they only reveal how unserious the Democrats have become.

While the Republican Party focuses on restoring economic stability, securing the border, and protecting American values, Democrats like Johnson and Harris are more interested in pandering to radical activists and deflecting blame for their failures.

In contrast, the Republican Party, with leaders like Donald Trump, has consistently put the American people first. Trump’s America First agenda focused on creating jobs, securing the border, and strengthening the economy. Unlike Harris and her Democratic colleagues, Trump faced challenges head-on and delivered results.

While Democrats are busy navigating protests and internal chaos, the Republican Party is focused on the issues that truly matter to American families—reducing inflation, restoring law and order, and ensuring that the United States remains a global leader.

As the Democrats continue to crumble under the weight of their own failures, the GOP stands ready to provide the strong, decisive leadership the country desperately needs.

As the Democratic National Convention unfolds in Chicago, it’s clear that the party is in disarray. Mayor Brandon Johnson’s blasé attitude toward the protests only underscores the larger problem—Democrats are more concerned with placating their radical base than addressing the issues facing the American people.

Kamala Harris, touted as the party’s future, is no more capable of leading than Biden, and the protests surrounding her only highlight the deep divisions within the Democratic Party.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Kamala Harris is a disgrace, and her campaign has been a joke. But things just took a shocking turn.

Because Harris just exposed herself when approached by a reporter on a recent campaign trip.

On Sunday, Kamala Harris toured western Pennsylvania on her campaign bus, giving staged smiles and photo-ops while she searched for Doritos at a Sheetz. During the tour, she briefly entertained a few press questions, providing another glimpse into her ill-fated fiscal plans for America—plans that would further cripple an already fragile economy.

Her stop served as yet another example of just how out of touch she is with the reality of what Americans are facing.

In an attempt to justify her latest economic policies, Harris stammered through a bizarre and incoherent answer that exposed her lack of understanding of basic economics.

When asked by a reporter how she planned to pay for her proposed initiatives, which include fixing prices for goods, federally regulating housing, and spending trillions on social programs, Harris gave a nonsensical response about children. Yes, children. As if that alone could explain away the $1.7 trillion her proposals would add to the national debt.

It's a "return on investment" guys, nothing to worry about. Kamala says that $1.7 trillion plan "pays for itself."

pic.twitter.com/hAWmNndTUw

— Libby Emmons (@libbyemmons) August 19, 2024

It’s no surprise that Harris would attempt to change the narrative around her economic policies by invoking children. After all, her record is abysmal when it comes to actually supporting them.

In 2017, she voted against President Trump’s child tax credit expansion, a move that would have provided immediate relief to millions of American families. Yet now, conveniently after Trump and Senator JD Vance have vowed to bring back that popular policy, Harris has suddenly had a change of heart. Now, she’s promising to extend the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and reintroduce a $6,000 child tax credit for a child’s first year of life.

While she boasts that the “return on investment” from these tax credits will somehow magically pay for itself, the reality is far less rosy. What Harris fails to mention is that every dollar the government spends on these programs comes from somewhere—either increased taxes or more borrowing.

The federal government cannot continue to print money to fund giveaways without dire consequences, such as higher inflation and the eventual collapse of the dollar.

Harris loves to point out that under the first year of the Biden-Harris administration, child poverty was reduced by 50 percent, but she conveniently leaves out the context. That brief reduction was the result of massive government handouts, which created dependency rather than opportunity.

Now, she’s doubling down on that same failed strategy, claiming that the child tax credit and EITC are a panacea for all economic woes. But what happens after that first year? Harris has no answer for that, just more pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.

Perhaps the most jaw-dropping element of Harris’s economic fantasyland is her plan to build 3 million new homes during her first 100 days in office. That’s right, she believes that in just over three months, the federal government can crank out millions of homes, all while providing $25,000 in downpayment assistance to first-time buyers. Harris glosses over the logistics of this plan, and of course, she can’t explain where the money is going to come from to fund it.

In her mind, it’s all justified because, as she said, “When we increase homeownership in America, what that means in terms of increasing the tax base, not to mention property tax base, what that does to fund schools, again: return on investment.”

This kind of vague rhetoric is typical of Harris, who throws around buzzwords like “return on investment” without understanding the real economic consequences of her policies.

But let’s be clear: there is no magical “return on investment” here. Building 3 million homes out of thin air is a logistical and fiscal nightmare. It would require billions, if not trillions, of dollars in taxpayer money.

And what’s worse, artificially boosting homeownership through government subsidies only creates a housing bubble, just as we saw in the 2008 financial crisis. When that bubble bursts, it will be ordinary Americans—not Harris and her elite cronies—who are left to pick up the pieces.

Harris’s plan to increase corporate taxes is yet another example of her economic ignorance. Under President Trump, corporate taxes were cut, unleashing a wave of investment and job creation that benefited millions of Americans. But Harris wants to undo all that progress by hiking taxes on businesses, falsely believing that corporations will simply absorb the costs.

In reality, these increased taxes will either be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices or result in layoffs and reduced hiring. Companies are not charities—they exist to make a profit. When the government imposes punitive taxes, it stifles innovation, kills jobs, and drives investment overseas.

Her claim that taxing the wealthy will fund her plans is equally naive. The rich are not a bottomless pit of money to be plundered. High earners often have the means to shelter their wealth or simply move it abroad. Harris’s tax hikes will only shrink the economy further, leaving middle-class Americans to bear the brunt of the costs.

Even liberal economists like Jason Furman, who served under the Obama administration, are sounding the alarm. Furman has warned that Harris’s policies could lead to “bigger shortages, less supply, and ultimately risk higher prices and worse outcomes for consumers.” Yet Harris presses on, convinced that her reckless spending and tax plans will somehow “pay for themselves.”

Kamala Harris’s fiscal policies are a train wreck waiting to happen. Her $1.7 trillion spending spree, coupled with her incoherent answers about how to pay for it all, demonstrates just how unqualified she is to lead this country.

If allowed to implement these disastrous plans, Harris will take an already struggling economy and drive it further into the ground.

America cannot afford more of the same reckless spending and misguided policies that have already led to inflation, rising interest rates, and shrinking paychecks. Kamala Harris may talk a good game about “return on investment,” but the only thing her presidency would guarantee is more debt, fewer jobs, and a lower standard of living for all Americans.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

For years now, many Americans have been arguing that DEI is more harmful than good. But the Radical Left has been pushing it nonetheless.

But now, a massive new discovery has proven that DEI had a hand to play in the attempt on Trump’s life.

The Secret Service (USSS) has long stood as a vanguard of security, ensuring that America’s leaders are protected against any threats—domestic or foreign.

Yet, recent troubling developments raise serious questions about the competence of the agency under progressive influences.

It has been revealed that during the assassination attempt on Trump, a female Secret Service agent reportedly abandoned her post to breastfeed her baby.

This is not just an isolated occurrence but a symptom of a deeper problem. It highlights how the Left’s radical policies, particularly Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, are undermining national security at the highest levels.

According to Real Clear Politics reporter Susan Crabtree, the agent in question did not inform her superiors before leaving her post to breastfeed in a room meant for critical Secret Service operations. This breach of protocol isn’t just a procedural lapse; it’s a potential risk to national security.

The Secret Service is tasked with protecting high-profile figures such as Trump, especially during his campaign rallies. Any deviation from this responsibility can open dangerous vulnerabilities—and that’s precisely what happened here.

The agent’s actions occurred as the Secret Service was preparing for Trump’s motorcade, conducting final sweeps to ensure the safety of the event. What they found was deeply troubling: a female agent in a secure room breastfeeding her child, with two additional family members present—none of whom had the required security clearance to be in that area. This security breach, facilitated by event staff bypassing proper protocols, could have ended in catastrophe.

This lapse cannot be seen as a mere personal decision. It speaks to the larger issue of radical DEI initiatives infiltrating government institutions like the Secret Service. These policies, which emphasize “equity” over merit, and “diversity” over duty, may well be influencing the prioritization of personal needs over national security.

The fact that an agent on duty felt it was acceptable to bring her child, and unauthorized family members, into a secure zone during a crucial assignment suggests a breakdown in professional standards.

It should be noted that while women in the workforce, including mothers, should absolutely be accommodated in appropriate ways, the question here is about timing and the role of responsibility.

A Secret Service agent on duty has one job: protecting the President or other dignitaries. This is not a role where distractions or deviations from the mission can be tolerated, as they could mean the difference between life and death.

The Left’s relentless push for DEI and so-called “work-life balance” in even the most sensitive areas of government could be compromising that singular focus.

This recent incident isn’t happening in isolation. The Secret Service has come under increasing scrutiny for its security failures, including during Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, which led to an assassination attempt on the now-Republican nominee.

This pattern of lapses is raising serious concerns about whether the agency has been compromised by progressive values that prioritize identity politics over professional duty.

Kim Cheatle, the former director of the Secret Service, resigned shortly after the assassination attempt on Trump, leaving questions about how deep the rot goes within the agency. Under Cheatle’s leadership, it seems that security took a backseat to DEI priorities.

The Left’s constant push for gender diversity and equitable representation in federal agencies has had serious consequences, and this latest incident further underscores that problem. When decisions about personnel are driven by political agendas rather than competence, we risk compromising the very fabric of our national security.

The push for diversity in federal agencies, including the USSS, means that standards are being relaxed to meet quotas. For roles as critical as Secret Service agents, there should be no compromise when it comes to experience, physical readiness, and above all, commitment to the mission. However, DEI policies, driven by progressive ideology, have created an environment where performance and security are taking a back seat to identity-based hiring practices.

It is deeply concerning that, at a time when political tensions are higher than ever, radical left-wing policies are seeping into even the most critical security roles in the country. The safety of a former president, and now presidential candidate, should never be in question due to personal distractions.

Yet, the priorities of the Left, from forcing gender parity to promoting identity politics, have clearly filtered down into institutions like the USSS, where it has no place.

DEI has morphed into an ideological straightjacket, where even life-and-death roles are being shaped by progressive whims. In the wake of this incident, many Americans are asking: are radical policies from the Left placing our national leaders at greater risk?

President Trump has been vocal in his criticism of the Left’s infiltration into every part of American life, including its most trusted institutions. This latest event proves that Trump was right to sound the alarm.

As his campaign rallies gather momentum heading into 2024, it is critical that the Secret Service refocus on its core mission—protecting its principal—not catering to politically correct ideologies that detract from their responsibilities.

The Secret Service spokesperson, Anthony Guglielmi, downplayed the North Carolina event, saying there was “no impact” on the rally. Yet, any security lapse is a potential disaster in the making.

Even if nothing happened this time, we cannot ignore the fact that a breach occurred—a breach that could have endangered President Trump’s life. This incident must be thoroughly investigated, not only for the lapse in security but also to examine how radical DEI policies have infiltrated even the most vital national security functions.

When it comes to protecting the leader of the free world, there can be no room for errors—especially not those driven by ideological imperatives that weaken the focus of the agents tasked with defending our country’s most important figures.

It is time for a comprehensive review of the impact of progressive DEI policies on the Secret Service and other agencies responsible for national security. The safety of the President should never be compromised for the sake of political correctness.

As the investigation unfolds, one thing remains clear: we cannot allow the priorities of the radical Left to continue endangering the lives of our leaders. It’s time to reestablish accountability, competency, and professionalism in our federal institutions—before it’s too late.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Ever since America learned the truth about Kamala Harris’s VP pick, there has been major controversy. Because Tim Walz is a pathological liar.

And the newest stolen valor claims are so bad that Tim Walz’s campaign might be over.

In a powerful address delivered at a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) post in Pennsylvania, Republican vice presidential nominee and Marine veteran Senator JD Vance (R-OH) leveled a devastating critique of Democrat vice presidential nominee Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, revealing serious inconsistencies in Walz’s claims about his military service.

The fallout from these revelations has infuriated millions of veterans and Americans who see the dishonesty as a disqualifying character flaw, unfit for leadership in the highest office of the land.

Vance, speaking in front of a crowd of veterans and their families, didn’t hold back in his sharp condemnation of Walz’s false statements. “We’re not attacking his honorable service. We’re attacking the dishonesty about that service. That is not honorable. That is the height of dishonor, and Tim Walz should not be the vice president of the United States because of it,” Vance declared.

Governor Tim Walz served 24 years as a reservist in the Army National Guard, an accomplishment in and of itself. However, it’s not Walz’s service that’s under scrutiny—it’s the misleading and dishonest claims he’s made about that service. Walz has repeatedly claimed he retired as a “command sergeant major,” an E-9 rank, when in reality, he retired as a sergeant major, an E-8 rank.

While he was provisionally promoted to command sergeant major, he did not meet the requirements to officially retire at that rank.

Moreover, Walz has implied he was “in war,” despite never deploying in combat. He has referred to himself as a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), which gives the impression that he served in Afghanistan. Yet, Walz never set foot in the combat zones of Afghanistan, spending his time in Europe instead.

Perhaps most damning, Walz retired from the Army National Guard after learning his unit was being deployed to Iraq. At the time, he was responsible for over 100 soldiers as their command sergeant major. Instead of leading them into combat, Walz chose to retire early and run for Congress.

These glaring inconsistencies have not gone unnoticed by the public, particularly by veterans who feel betrayed. “Tim Walz said that he carried a weapon in war. He never went to war. Tim Walz said that he didn’t know his unit was about to deploy to Iraq when even his own press release at the time said that he knew exactly that,” Vance pointed out.

Veterans who have sacrificed everything for this nation are particularly sensitive to any politician who attempts to embellish or distort their military record, and in Walz’s case, the outrage has been palpable.

In typical fashion, the Left and the Harris-Walz campaign have tried to brush off these serious allegations, claiming Walz simply “misspoke” when he said he carried a weapon “in war.” Yet, they have not addressed any of the other falsehoods Walz has made about his service. Instead, they’ve turned their attack on Vance, accusing him of undermining Walz’s military service.

This attempt to deflect from the real issue—a candidate’s honesty and integrity—has left many Americans frustrated and angry. Vance put it succinctly, saying, “Tim Walz claimed to be a command sergeant major, even had it printed on his challenge coins, and he knew he never achieved that rank. And, now, Kamala Harris, showing terrible judgment, has decided that her way out of this political problem is to claim that she and Tim Walz are the victims.”

The Left’s response has been to portray Harris and Walz as victims of political smears, but the real victims, as Vance aptly pointed out, are the veterans whose service is being tarnished by Walz’s fabrications. For many veterans, the insult runs deep.

They see Walz’s lies as a direct slap in the face to those who’ve served honorably, without embellishing their records. Veterans have sacrificed time, health, and in many cases, their lives for this country. To have someone like Tim Walz make false claims about his own service is seen as deeply dishonorable.

The outrage surrounding Walz’s lies isn’t just limited to veterans; millions of Americans are also disgusted by his deceit. As Vance made clear, the issue at hand is not about diminishing Walz’s actual service but about confronting his dishonesty. “This is about disparaging the dishonesty and asking Kamala Harris, ‘Why are you showing such poor judgment by standing by a guy who insulted our veterans and lied about his service?'” Vance asked pointedly.

The Harris-Walz campaign’s decision to gloss over these issues is emblematic of a larger problem within the Democratic Party. There’s a pervasive sense that they can avoid accountability by redirecting the conversation, focusing on personal attacks or playing the victim card. But this strategy is wearing thin.

The American people, and particularly veterans, are tired of the dishonesty and the evasion of responsibility. They want leaders who will stand by their principles and who can be trusted to tell the truth, even when it’s difficult.

Veterans and their families have expressed their dismay over Walz’s lies and the subsequent cover-up. For those who’ve worn the uniform, integrity and honor are not negotiable. By lying about his service and then attempting to downplay those lies, Walz has alienated an important segment of the electorate.

As Vance stood surrounded by veterans, including those who’ve made the ultimate sacrifices for their country, he drove home a point that resonated with every person in the room: “Every single person standing with me has sacrificed something for this country. Some of us, like Brian, have sacrificed more than most Americans can possibly fathom,” Vance said, referring to a veteran beside him. “But every single one of us honors every veteran for their service whether they went to war or not. So long as you did what this country asked you to do, you deserve to be praised for it.”

Tim Walz’s repeated lies about his military service have become a major issue in this election, and rightly so. They speak to a broader problem of character, integrity, and the lengths to which politicians on the Left will go to deceive the public. The Harris-Walz campaign can continue to try and sweep these issues under the rug, but the American people—especially veterans—are not so easily fooled.

In this crucial election, millions of Americans are waking up to the truth: Tim Walz is not fit to be vice president, and Kamala Harris’s decision to stand by him only underscores her poor judgment. The veterans and everyday Americans who value honesty and integrity will not stand for this kind of deception. And come election day, they will make their voices heard.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Many large tech companies lean Left and are overwhelmingly supportive of the Radical Left. But they take it too far when they interfere.

And now, a massive liberal tech company is facing a stunning loss because of their horrific attempts.

On Wednesday, Senator Roger Marshall took a bold stand against Big Tech by calling for the subpoena of Google executives to appear before the Senate Homeland Committee.

Marshall’s demand comes on the heels of Google’s controversial omission of the Trump assassination attempt from its search autocomplete feature, despite showing suggestions for other famous assassination attempts throughout history. This move has sparked outrage among conservatives, who see it as another example of Big Tech’s bias against Republican voices, particularly President Donald Trump.

Marshall, a staunch Trump ally and conservative voice in the Senate, made his frustration known on X (formerly Twitter). In a fiery post, he wrote, “Weeks after the assassination attempt that left President Donald Trump within centimeters of his life, Google is still defending its misinformation, declaring the assassination attempt a ‘hypothetical act of political violence.’ Google’s top executives must come before the Senate Homeland Committee IMMEDIATELY. We are launching a full investigation into Google’s litany of failures & history of suppressing conservative viewpoints. Time for accountability—time for top-down subpoenas.”

Marshall’s statement was accompanied by a letter from Google, in which the tech giant defended its decision to block autocompletes for hypothetical acts of violence against current political figures.

According to the letter, Google’s systems are designed to prevent autocompletes that suggest political violence toward current figures, in contrast to historical figures such as President Truman or Ronald Reagan, for whom autocompletes are allowed.

Google’s letter to Senator Marshall is at the heart of the controversy. The tech company explained that its systems are built to avoid providing search predictions for hypothetical violence involving current political leaders. “As discussed, these protections are not event-specific but rather applied to categories of possible searches,” the letter read.

“As a result, prior to July 13, 2024, it would have been inappropriate for our systems to offer any predictions involving possible assassination attempts on President Trump. In the immediate aftermath of the horrific events in Butler, PA, these systems were still in place and predictions related to the assassination attempt failed to appear.”

Google went on to acknowledge that its systems were “out of date” and claimed to have made adjustments following the incident. However, this admission has done little to quell the anger from conservatives who see this as yet another case of selective censorship.

It’s worth noting that this is not the first time Google has been accused of bias. In fact, accusations of political favoritism have dogged the tech giant for years.

Whether it’s the suppression of conservative news outlets in search results or alleged preferential treatment of liberal media, Google has been a frequent target of criticism from the political right. However, this particular case strikes a deeper nerve, as it involves an assassination attempt on a former U.S. president—a matter of national security and historical significance.

The July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on President Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was a shocking and sobering reminder of the violent political climate we live in today. The would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was apprehended at the scene, but not before firing shots that narrowly missed Trump.

The event left the nation reeling and spurred renewed calls for political unity and civility—yet the omission of this event from Google’s autocomplete search function has raised eyebrows.

In the days following the assassination attempt, Google users began to notice that typing “Trump assassination attempt” into the search bar yielded no suggestions. In contrast, search queries for assassination attempts on historical figures like Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Teddy Roosevelt produced instant results. This glaring omission led many conservatives to accuse Google of intentionally downplaying the Trump assassination attempt in an effort to suppress information unfavorable to their political leanings.

Senator Marshall wasted no time in launching a full investigation into Google’s handling of the Trump assassination attempt in its search engine. In early July, Marshall wrote to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, stating, “Google’s failure to provide suggestions related to the assassination attempt against President Trump on July 13, 2024, as part of its search function is yet another example of censorship against conservative voices and violates the intent of Section 230.”

Marshall’s reference to Section 230, a provision of the Communications Decency Act, is significant. This law has long shielded tech companies from liability for user-generated content on their platforms.

However, it has come under fire from conservatives, who argue that Big Tech companies like Google and Facebook have abused this protection by acting as gatekeepers of information, selectively censoring conservative viewpoints while allowing liberal voices to flourish.

Marshall went on to accuse Google of “willful discrimination” against President Trump and its users. “Google’s omission of suggestions to the most obvious and recent victim of an assassination attempt shows a willful discrimination against President Trump and users of your search engine. Furthermore, Google’s decision to selectively erect hurdles to those seeking to obtain more information regarding one of the most important events in recent American history places you in the role of information arbiter, well beyond the scope of your firm’s purported purpose,” he wrote.

The debate over Google’s handling of the Trump assassination attempt is more than just a conservative grievance—it speaks to the broader concern about the role of Big Tech in shaping the flow of information. For years, conservatives have voiced concerns that Silicon Valley giants are using their platforms to suppress dissenting voices, manipulate political discourse, and stifle free speech. These concerns have only grown in recent years as evidence of bias continues to emerge.

Senator Marshall’s call for Google executives to testify before the Senate Homeland Committee represents a significant escalation in the ongoing battle between conservatives and Big Tech.

If Google is found to have intentionally suppressed search results related to the Trump assassination attempt, it could lead to renewed calls for reforming or repealing Section 230, as well as further investigations into other tech companies accused of similar behavior.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the role of Big Tech in influencing public opinion will be under intense scrutiny. With President Trump already a divisive figure and a favorite target of Silicon Valley elites, any perceived bias against him or his supporters will only serve to deepen the divide between conservatives and the tech industry.

As Senator Marshall continues to press for accountability from Google, the larger question of Big Tech’s role in shaping the political narrative remains front and center. Is this just another case of a “glitch” or outdated system, as Google claims, or is it a deliberate attempt to suppress information that conservatives have a right to know?

Only time will tell whether Google’s executives will face the full force of congressional subpoenas or if this controversy will fade into the background. One thing is clear, however: the battle for control of information is far from over, and conservative voices like Senator Marshall’s are not backing down.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Kamala Harris’s campaign has been a disaster so far. And even the liberal media is picking up on that.

Because now, a major liberal media outlet had confronted Kamala over this important issue.

Vice President Kamala Harris has long been criticized for her media-shy behavior, but the issue has taken on new urgency as the 2024 presidential race heats up. Harris, now a candidate following President Biden’s decision to step aside, has been accused of dodging the press and refusing to offer any concrete policy positions.

In a recent confrontation, CNN’s Jim Acosta directly challenged Harris’s communications director, Michael Tyler, on this very topic, pressing him about her continued avoidance of holding press conferences or engaging meaningfully with the media.

Acosta asked the question that has been on the minds of many Americans: “Would it kill you guys to have a press conference? Why hasn’t she had a press conference?” Tyler, in line with Harris’s trademark nervous laughter when faced with tough questions, chuckled but did little to provide a real answer.

His response mirrored the often vague and evasive responses the Harris campaign has become known for, claiming that Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, have been “busy” holding rallies across the nation.

It’s clear that campaign rallies, where Harris can speak without being questioned or challenged, are a far cry from press conferences. At a rally, she can stand behind a podium, read from a teleprompter, and deliver rehearsed lines that are geared more toward energizing her base than offering any kind of substantive explanation of policy.

Jim Acosta pressed Tyler further, calling out this fact: “Michael, you know a campaign rally isn’t really a press conference… She’s the vice president, she can handle the questions, why not do it?”

That’s the real question—why not? What is Harris afraid of? For a vice president, it is unusual to be so media-averse, especially in an election season when public scrutiny and transparency are crucial to winning the trust of voters.

The unwillingness to hold press conferences is often seen as a sign of a campaign that lacks confidence in its candidate’s ability to handle tough questions. Harris’s continued silence raises concerns about her readiness to assume the responsibilities of the presidency, should the need arise.

Harris’s reluctance to engage with the media isn’t just about fear of tough questions—it’s about her inability to articulate clear and coherent policy positions. From her time as vice president to her current campaign, Harris has shown a remarkable ability to avoid committing to anything substantial.

Whether it’s on healthcare, immigration, or foreign policy, Harris’s responses have often been vague or contradictory. She has a tendency to give non-answers or dodge altogether, leaving voters wondering where she actually stands.

One of the primary roles of the media in a functioning democracy is to hold politicians accountable, to press them on their views and plans for the country. Harris, however, seems to be avoiding this accountability, preferring to stick to safe environments where she won’t be challenged. The American people deserve better than a candidate who runs from tough questions.

Tyler’s claim that Harris has been too busy holding rallies to meet with the press is not only flimsy but insulting to voters who are seeking real answers. No one is denying that campaign events are a critical part of running for office, but they should not serve as a substitute for press engagement.

Every major candidate in recent memory has managed to hold both rallies and press conferences without issue. If Harris can’t handle balancing both, what does that say about her ability to lead the country as president?

Tyler also assured Acosta that Harris would “absolutely” hold a press conference in the near future and that she has a sit-down interview planned at the end of the month. However, the details surrounding this alleged interview are suspiciously vague. Where will this interview take place? Who will be conducting it? Will it be a softball interview from a friendly outlet, or will it be a serious journalistic inquiry into her campaign’s policies?

These are all questions left unanswered. Until Harris holds a real, open press conference where she faces questions from multiple reporters, these promises ring hollow.

Harris’s media avoidance becomes even more glaring when we consider the fact that it’s been 24 days since President Biden officially exited the race, and yet she hasn’t participated in a formal interview or held a press conference. It’s been almost a month, and the vice president has kept herself insulated from the press, choosing instead to focus on controlled campaign events where she won’t be challenged. What kind of leader is that?

Many in the Democratic Party, particularly those close to Harris, argue that limiting her media appearances is a smart strategy. After all, they worry that her weaknesses could be exposed in a high-pressure setting, and any gaffes or missteps could be used against her by the Trump campaign.

But this kind of media aversion only fuels more doubt about her candidacy. If Harris can’t handle questions from reporters, how is she going to handle foreign leaders, crisis situations, or the endless challenges that come with being the president of the United States?

The tone-deaf response from Harris’s team doesn’t help either. Tyler’s attempt to brush off concerns about her lack of media engagement with a laugh and a vague promise of future press access shows a deep disconnect from the concerns of the American people. Voters want answers. They want to know what Harris stands for, what her plans are for the country, and how she plans to address the key issues of the day.

Instead, Harris’s campaign seems to think they can get away with doing the bare minimum, relying on carefully curated campaign rallies and controlled interviews rather than subjecting their candidate to the real scrutiny that comes with being a serious presidential contender.

It’s no surprise that the Trump campaign is seizing on Harris’s avoidance of the press. Former President Donald Trump has never been one to shy away from the media, and his campaign is quick to point out the stark contrast between Trump’s openness with the press and Harris’s media shyness.

Trump regularly held press conferences, engaged in impromptu media scrums, and even faced hostile interviewers. Whether you agreed with his policies or not, Trump didn’t run from tough questions.

As the 2024 election unfolds, Harris’s reluctance to face the media will continue to be a major issue. Voters deserve to know who they are voting for, and right now, Harris’s media strategy is sending a message that she is either unprepared or unwilling to engage with the tough questions that come with seeking the highest office in the land.

In the end, Kamala Harris’s avoidance of press conferences and refusal to engage meaningfully with the media are troubling signs for a candidate who wants to be president. If she can’t handle the scrutiny now, what does that say about her ability to lead the country?

The American people deserve a candidate who isn’t afraid to face tough questions, someone who will be transparent and accountable. As the election draws closer, Harris’s strategy of hiding from the media will only raise more doubts about her readiness to lead.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Harris campaign is desperately trying to convince the public that America love Kamala. But even their own rally-goers know the truth.

And a shocking development at a Harris rally has sent her whole campaign reeling.

Kamala Harris, the current vice president under Joe Biden and now the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, continues to evade accountability and any serious policy discussions.

At a rally in Phoenix, supporters of Harris were challenged by Turning Point USA’s (TPUSA) Frontlines team to name her accomplishments as vice president. The responses were telling—not because they highlighted a glowing list of achievements but because they revealed the sheer emptiness of her political record.

This should alarm every American who values strong leadership and sound policy, particularly when faced with the prospect of Harris sitting in the Oval Office.

When TPUSA’s Kalen D’Almeida pressed rallygoers on Harris’ policy record, attendees repeatedly fell back on her identity rather than her achievements. One attendee’s response was that Harris’ greatest accomplishment was becoming the first female vice president, especially as a black woman.

This is a point of pride for many on the left, but when pressed for actual policies that make America better, there was only deafening silence.

It’s a troubling trend among Harris supporters—focusing on identity politics over substantive accomplishments. While breaking barriers can be celebrated, what truly matters in leadership is effectiveness, and Kamala Harris’ vice presidency has been marked by failure and incompetence. Yet, supporters seem to overlook these failings, intoxicated by the “vibe” rather than any concrete progress.

Harris has now been the Democratic nominee for three weeks and has yet to release a single policy platform. That’s right, America is watching a potential president coast through a campaign without the public having any idea what she stands for or plans to do.

This isn’t the first time Harris has dodged responsibility. Her entire vice presidency has been marked by a complete absence of real action.

She has failed to lead on crucial issues like the border, economic recovery, and national security. Her supporters at the Phoenix rally couldn’t name a single policy success because there isn’t one.

For example, one attendee, when asked about her favorite Harris policy, responded, “I wish they would tell us more about that.” It’s shocking that even her own supporters have no clue what she’s done.

This is a dangerous reality: a politician aiming for the highest office in the land who has neither articulated a plan nor delivered on her existing responsibilities.

If Kamala Harris is to be judged by her handling of any issue, the border crisis is a glaring failure. Appointed by President Biden in 2021 as the “border czar,” Harris was tasked with addressing one of the most pressing issues in America—illegal immigration. And she failed.

Border crossings skyrocketed during her time in charge, with illegal entries hitting record highs. Yet, Harris refused to visit the southern border to witness the crisis firsthand until the pressure became insurmountable. Even then, it was a half-hearted visit aimed more at damage control than real action.

One attendee at the Phoenix rally dismissed criticism of Harris’ handling of the border, claiming it wasn’t her fault. This is a staggering level of ignorance, considering Harris was given the reins by Biden to tackle the border crisis.

Instead of addressing the problem, she distanced herself from the situation, even laughing off questions about why she hadn’t visited the border by saying, “I haven’t been to Europe either.” This callous and tone-deaf response demonstrates her complete disregard for the American people and the rule of law.

Another rallygoer parroted the far-left’s argument, saying America should “let people come in and do what they like.” This sort of open-border mentality ignores the disastrous impact illegal immigration has on our nation’s economy, security, and social fabric. It also underscores the recklessness of Harris’ policies—or lack thereof.

Her failure to act as “border czar” has endangered countless American communities, and her refusal to take responsibility shows she is unfit for higher office.

If Harris truly had a vision for America, she would proudly share it with the country. Yet, she continues to avoid serious interviews and media engagements. Allies close to her have admitted that they are concerned about the potential damage a long-form interview could do to her campaign. In other words, Harris is incapable of handling the tough questions.

This should worry anyone thinking about her as a future president. A leader unwilling to answer for their record is not a leader at all. Since becoming the nominee, Harris has refused to participate in a single policy-focused press conference.

Instead, she prefers pre-packaged, friendly interviews where she can repeat talking points without facing the serious scrutiny that comes with being a national leader.

Why? Because she has no coherent policy positions to defend. Whether it’s on the economy, national security, or the border, Harris offers nothing of value to the American people. Instead, she hides behind identity politics and media softball interviews while her surrogates attempt to sell her to the public based on symbolism rather than substance.

Kamala Harris’ rise to power is not only a reflection of the Democratic Party’s obsession with identity politics, but it is also an indictment of their abandonment of real leadership. Harris is not just an ineffective politician—she is a danger to America.

With no clear policies, an open-border mindset, and a refusal to engage with the media or the public on the issues that matter, Harris has shown she is entirely unfit to lead.

As vice president, she has already failed on multiple fronts, from immigration to foreign policy. As president, she would be a disaster for this country. Americans deserve a leader who will defend their interests, enforce the law, and engage openly with the public.

Harris has proven time and again that she is unwilling and incapable of doing any of these things.

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