The Radical Left has become increasingly bold in recent times. But thankfully there are still checks and balances.

And the House of Representatives has hit a Radical leader with a massive loss.

In a bold move, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to amend a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill to reduce the salary of a DHS immigration officer, Nejwa Ali, who has openly expressed support for Hamas, to $1.

This decision comes after Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas refused to fire Ali despite her blatant anti-Semitic remarks and troubling background.

Nejwa Ali, a former spokeswoman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)—a U.S.-designated terrorist group—was hired by DHS to vet immigrants.

Despite her employment with the federal agency, she continued to express strong anti-Semitic views and support for Palestine on social media.

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV), the sponsor of the DHS funding bill, introduced the amendment on behalf of Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a vocal advocate for holding anti-Semites accountable. Amodei emphasized that the Republican conference has consistently stood with Israel in its fight against terrorist organizations and that Ali’s views have no place in DHS.

“Our conference has been quite clear about standing with Israel in their fight against a brutal and inhumane terrorist organization,” Amodei stated. “Anti-Semitism certainly has no place in the Department of Homeland Security.”

Following the Daily Wire’s exposé, Mayorkas placed Ali on paid leave pending an investigation. However, despite clear evidence of her anti-Semitic behavior and her confirmation in an audio recording that she celebrated the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, she remained on the DHS payroll. Ali even used her paid leave to protest outside the Israeli embassy and harass military officials.

Amodei expressed his frustration, noting that Mayorkas confirmed within the last two weeks that Ali was still employed. “This is unacceptable. The Department has had more than eight months to investigate and terminate this employee with cause pursuant to the civil service applicable regulations,” he said.

“While the Secretary in the Biden administration refused to do the right thing, I would invite the members of the House of Representatives to terminate this employee. We must do the right thing and act with urgency to force their hand.”

On the other side, Lauren Underwood (D-IL) defended the DHS, arguing that the investigation process must be allowed to proceed. “It’s important that we defend the core principles upon which our country is founded, and that includes the system of checks and balances,” she said, adding that Ali’s case was under active investigation.

Despite Underwood’s objections, the amendment passed based on a voice vote, highlighting the strong bipartisan support for removing Ali from her position.

In addition to this amendment, Republicans successfully passed an amendment introduced by Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) to strip Secretary Mayorkas of his salary.

These amendments are part of a broader effort by House Republicans to use the DHS funding bill to restrict the activities of the department, which they argue has shifted from enforcing immigration law to facilitating the transport of illegal immigrants into the U.S. interior under the Biden administration.

Representative Gregory Steube (R-FL) highlighted how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has diverted resources from the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical care to illegal immigrants, leaving veterans waiting.

His amendment to prevent DHS from using veterans’ funding for this purpose passed 254-176, with 27 Democrats supporting it.

The proceedings became more contentious with other votes. Representative Thomas Tiffany (R-WI) criticized DHS’s abuse of the “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS) program, particularly for nationals of El Salvador, who have been allowed to work in the U.S. under TPS since a 2001 earthquake.

His amendment to revoke El Salvador’s TPS status failed 190-222, with all Democrats and 18 Republicans opposing it.

While the underlying DHS funding bill vote was postponed, these amendments send a strong message to the Biden administration.

Inserting these amendments into a must-pass bill increases their likelihood of becoming law, although they could be removed during reconciliation with the Senate’s version.

The House Republicans’ actions reflect a broader strategy to hold the Biden administration accountable for what they see as failures in immigration policy and national security.

The amendments targeting Nejwa Ali and Secretary Mayorkas underscore the GOP’s commitment to rooting out anti-Semitism and ensuring that federal agencies uphold their intended purposes.

This legislative push represents a significant step in addressing concerns about DHS’s current direction and the broader implications for U.S. immigration policy.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for more news updates.

Joe Biden is an expert at making a fool of himself. And even when people try to save him, he can’t help but ruin it.

And Biden was just saved from major embarrassment, but the damage is already be done.

In a moment that encapsulated growing concerns over his cognitive fitness, President Joe Biden froze on live television during CNN’s presidential debate against former President Donald Trump on Thursday night. The incident occurred while Biden was discussing his administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As Biden attempted to articulate his point, he stumbled over his words, saying, “…eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the, with the COVID,” followed by a confused, “Excuse me with, dealing with everything we have to do with, uh, look–, if we finally beat Medicare–” This incoherent moment underscored ongoing doubts about his mental acuity.

BIDEN: "…with the COVID.. excuse me.. dealing with.. everything we have to do with.. look.. if… we finally beat, Medicare."

TRUMP: "He's right. He did beat Medicare. He's destroying Medicare." pic.twitter.com/jgVCpXUhWZ

— Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) June 28, 2024

Recognizing the potential damage, CNN’s Jake Tapper intervened swiftly, interrupting Biden mid-sentence. “Thank you, President Biden,” Tapper said, attempting to shift the conversation away from Biden’s evident struggle.

Former President Donald Trump seized the opportunity to highlight what he perceives as Biden’s failures, particularly in managing social welfare programs.

“Well, he’s right,” Trump remarked. “He did beat Medicaid. He beat it to death and he’s destroying Medicare because all of these people are coming in. They’re putting them on Medicare, they’re putting them on Social Security. They’re gonna destroy Social Security. This man is going to singlehandedly destroy Social Security, these millions and millions of people coming in. They’re trying to put them on Social Security.”

Biden’s freeze is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern that has fueled speculation about his cognitive decline.

Critics argue that such moments are becoming increasingly frequent, raising serious questions about his capacity to effectively lead the nation.

This latest incident comes at a time when the President is under intense scrutiny, with many Americans expressing concern over his mental and physical fitness for office.

The way CNN handled the situation has also drawn criticism. Many conservatives view the network’s quick intervention as further evidence of media bias and protectionism towards Biden.

It appears that mainstream media outlets are willing to go to great lengths to shield Biden from embarrassment and scrutiny, even if it means interrupting live debates to cover for his gaffes.

This incident is reminiscent of past instances where the media has been accused of downplaying or ignoring Biden’s verbal missteps and cognitive lapses.

Critics argue that if a similar moment had occurred with a Republican candidate, the media would have amplified the narrative of unfitness for office rather than intervening to mitigate the damage.

The President’s cognitive struggles add another layer of complexity to his administration’s efforts to maintain public confidence.

Leaders are expected to communicate effectively and inspire trust; frequent public lapses undermine this expectation and provide fodder for opponents.

The upcoming election is crucial, with both sides vying to secure the trust and votes of the American people.

Biden’s recent debate performance may have significant implications for his re-election campaign. Voters are increasingly looking for strong, decisive leadership, particularly in the face of ongoing challenges such as the pandemic, economic instability, and international tensions.

As Biden continues to face questions about his cognitive health, it remains to be seen how his campaign will address these concerns. Will they continue to rely on media interventions to shield him, or will they adopt a more transparent approach to reassure the electorate?

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

Joe Biden had a disastrous night at his first presidential debate. But still, no one expected things to be this bad.

And Joe Biden was just stabbed in the back by one of his closest allies.

In a major turn of events, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough suggested on Friday morning that President Joe Biden should consider stepping down following his disastrous debate performance against former President Donald Trump.

This statement is noteworthy coming from a media figure who has been a staunch supporter of Biden throughout his presidency.

"In 2024, failure is not an option… We know Joe Biden can govern — But can he run for president in 2024?"

— @JoeNBC reacts to Biden's debate performance Thursday night https://t.co/bCcWKISFZy pic.twitter.com/BS27Du1TFp

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) June 28, 2024

Scarborough began his commentary by lavishing praise on Biden’s presidency, emphasizing his accomplishments. “I love Joe Biden and Jill,” he declared, adding that he would gladly debate anyone on Biden’s effectiveness as a president.

Scarborough pointed to Biden’s success in passing bipartisan legislation, expanding NATO, responding to China’s threats, and maintaining the strongest economy and military relative to the rest of the world in decades. “I think his presidency has been an unqualified success,” he asserted.

Despite this praise, Scarborough raised critical questions about Biden’s performance in the recent debate.

He drew a parallel to the corporate world, asking rhetorically, “If Joe Biden were a CEO and performed the way he did on Thursday night, would any Fortune 500 corporation keep him on as CEO?” This analogy underscores the gravity of Biden’s perceived failures during the debate.

Scarborough argued that Democrats need to face the reality of Biden’s declining performance.

He suggested that a trusted adviser needs to have a candid conversation with Biden, indicating that it might be time for him to step down.

“The fact is, friends, failure is just not an option,” Scarborough emphasized, pointing to the high stakes of the upcoming 2024 election.

Scarborough stressed the critical importance of the 2024 election, particularly in the context of preventing a second term for Donald Trump.

“In 2024, failure is not an option,” he said, noting that personal feelings towards Biden should not cloud judgment about what is best for the country.

He claimed that while Biden has proven he can govern effectively, his ability to campaign has come into serious question.

Scarborough’s comments are significant in light of the mainstream media’s ongoing efforts to defend Biden’s presidency.

Legacy media has often dismissed criticisms of Biden’s mental acuity and fitness for office, labeling unflattering videos of Biden as “cheap fakes” and claiming they are deceptively edited.

This defense strategy has been met with skepticism from many Americans who witnessed Biden’s apparent struggles firsthand.

Tom S. Elliott, founder of Grabien media, recently shared a supercut video contrasting footage of Biden’s public appearances with the glowing defenses offered by media figures.

The video juxtaposes clips of Biden appearing confused or lost with audio of media personalities praising his sharpness and effectiveness. This stark contrast has only fueled doubts about Biden’s ability to lead.

Biden’s decline is not just a personal issue but has broader implications for the Democratic Party.

Polls have shown Biden trailing Trump in key battleground states, and many Democratic candidates are outperforming Biden in their respective races.

For instance, a New York Times poll revealed that several Democratic senators are polling better than Biden in their states, highlighting the president’s drag on the ticket.

Americans have seized on these weaknesses, with many suggesting that Biden’s administration is out of touch with the needs and concerns of everyday Americans.

Issues such as rising inflation, a faltering economy, and a perceived lack of leadership have been key points of criticism.

Joe Scarborough’s call for Biden to step down is a dramatic development, especially coming from a prominent supporter.

It reflects a growing concern within the Democratic Party about Biden’s ability to lead the country effectively, particularly as the 2024 election approaches. The stakes are high, and as Scarborough emphasized, failure is not an option.

The question now is whether Biden and the Democratic Party will heed this call for change or continue on their current path. The coming months will be crucial in determining the future direction of the party and the country.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Being a politician is not a game, but the Radical Left seems to treat it as one. And because they messed around, now they are finding out.

And this shocking development sends another liberal squad member packing their bags.

Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), a prominent member of the Squad, is facing a serious challenge in her primary race.

According to a recent poll conducted by Democrat pollster Mark Mellman and published by Politico, Bush’s opponent, Wesley Bell, has pulled ahead in the race.

This comes shortly after another Squad member, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), was defeated in his primary.

The poll, conducted between June 18-22 with a sample size of 400 voters and a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points, revealed that Bell, the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, has a slight lead over Bush.

Bell currently holds 43% of the vote, compared to Bush’s 42%, with 11% of voters still undecided. Among the most regular primary voters, Bell leads Bush by a significant 10 points.

The poll’s analysis indicated that Bell’s image is improving while Bush’s is moving in a negative direction.

“This primary race is essentially tied but clearly moving in Wesley Bell’s direction,” the analysis stated. Bell’s momentum is attributed to his rising favorability among voters and his strong campaign strategy.

Bush, who has been a vocal advocate for progressive causes, faces vulnerability due to her stance on Israel.

In the wake of the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, Bush called for a ceasefire and advocated for making U.S. aid to Israel conditional, which has alienated some pro-Israel Democrat voters.

AIPAC, a pro-Israel advocacy group, has endorsed Bell, which could further consolidate his support among pro-Israel Democrats.

Marshall Wittmann, a spokesperson for AIPAC, stated, “We proudly endorse Wesley Bell, who is a strong advocate for the US-Israel relationship, in clear contrast to his opponent who represents the extremist anti-Israel fringe.”

This endorsement underscores the growing division within the Democratic Party over issues related to Israel and the influence of progressive members like Bush.

Bush’s vote against a House resolution declaring that Israel is “not a racist or apartheid state” has also sparked controversy.

She, along with other Squad members such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) voted against the resolution, further fueling criticism from pro-Israel constituents and organizations.

The challenge to Bush’s seat reflects broader tensions within the Democratic Party, where progressive and centrist factions are increasingly at odds.

Bush, who has been a prominent figure in the Black Lives Matter movement and a staunch advocate for progressive policies, is now battling to retain her seat in a district that has shown signs of shifting political allegiances.

In a similar vein, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) recently lost his primary race to Westchester County Executive George Latimer by double digits.

Bowman’s defeat signals potential trouble for other progressive members of Congress who may face similar challenges from more centrist or moderate Democrats.

With six weeks remaining until the August 6, 2024, primary, the race between Bush and Bell is expected to intensify. Bell’s campaign strategy appears to be resonating with voters who are looking for a change in representation.

If Bell continues to gain support, he could potentially unseat Bush and further shift the balance of power within the Democratic Party.

The outcome of this primary race will not only impact the constituents of Missouri’s 1st Congressional District but also serve as a barometer for the influence of progressive politics within the Democratic Party.

As the race unfolds, all eyes will be on St. Louis to see if another Squad member will face the same fate as Jamaal Bowman.

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

Gavin Newsom is one of the most liberal leaders in our nation today. And the thought of him holding any more political power is terrifying.

And now Newsom has slapped Republicans with shocking election curveball.

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent State of the State address was less about the state’s current issues and more a blatant attempt to shift blame onto his political opponents while positioning himself for a potential future campaign.

In his 28-minute speech, Newsom portrayed California as a victim of right-wing forces that he claimed were “threatening the very foundation of California’s success.”

This narrative conveniently ignores the glaring failures of his administration, from the state’s mass exodus of residents to its spiraling budget deficit.

Newsom began his address by blaming conservatives for California’s woes, suggesting that the Right’s supposed attacks were undermining the state’s achievements.

“The California way of life we recognize is under attack,” he asserted, claiming that conservatives aim to “impeach the very things that have made us successful.”

This statement is perplexing, considering that California, under Democratic leadership, has seen a mass departure of residents and businesses due to high taxes, rampant homelessness, and rising crime rates.

California has been leading the nation in outbound migration, a fact Newsom chose to gloss over. According to recent data, more people have left California than any other state in the country.

This exodus is largely driven by the state’s high cost of living, burdensome regulations, and deteriorating quality of life — issues that have festered under Newsom’s leadership.

Instead of addressing these concerns, Newsom accused conservatives of wanting to “throw our economy and, in many respects, society as we’ve known it, into chaos.”

Under Newsom’s watch, California’s financial health has deteriorated significantly. The state is now grappling with a massive multibillion-dollar budget deficit.

Despite this, Newsom has continued to push for expansive and costly social programs without a clear plan for sustainable funding.

His address failed to offer any concrete solutions for balancing the budget or curbing the state’s reckless spending. Instead, he deflected responsibility by accusing the Right of attempting to “roll back social progress” and “economic justice.”

Newsom’s claims about California’s handling of the border crisis and homelessness were particularly misleading.

He boasted that California was leading the way in managing the influx of illegal immigrants resulting from President Joe Biden’s border policies. However, this assertion is patently false.

Reporters have repeatedly called out Newsom for overstating California’s role and effectiveness in dealing with the border crisis.

Similarly, Newsom claimed that California was making significant strides in addressing homelessness, despite the state having the largest homeless population in the country.

California’s homeless crisis has only worsened during Newsom’s tenure, with homeless encampments becoming a common sight in cities across the state. His administration’s efforts have been widely criticized as insufficient and poorly executed.

In perhaps the most audacious part of his speech, Newsom dismissed the “wall-to-wall right-wing media coverage” about California’s crime epidemic as false.

He even went as far as to claim that California is safer than Florida, a statement that is easily debunked by crime statistics.

Under Newsom’s leadership, major cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland have seen significant spikes in violent crime, including homicides and assaults.

This rise in crime has been attributed to lenient criminal justice policies and a failure to adequately support law enforcement.

Newsom’s State of the State address bore all the hallmarks of a campaign launch. His rhetoric was filled with sweeping claims about his administration’s successes and dire warnings about conservative policies, painting himself as a defender of California’s progressive values.

This speech seems to be less about addressing the real issues facing Californians and more about positioning himself as a national figure within the Democratic Party.

Governor Gavin Newsom’s State of the State address was a masterclass in deflection and political posturing. By blaming the Right for California’s myriad problems, Newsom conveniently ignored his administration’s failures and the real reasons behind the state’s decline.

Californians deserve leadership that acknowledges and addresses the state’s critical issues, not one that deflects responsibility and uses public addresses as campaign platforms.

As the state continues to struggle with high costs, rampant homelessness, and rising crime, it’s clear that Newsom’s leadership has been anything but the success he claims it to be.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Mayorkas has completely failed his job as DHS secretary. And now he is making things even worse.

Because Mayorkas flat-out lies on National TV and people couldn’t be more outraged.

In a recent broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas addressed concerns regarding a report that DHS identified over 400 migrants affiliated with an ISIS-linked human smuggling network.

Mayorkas asserted that there is no evidence suggesting these individuals pose a threat to the United States. He claimed that there are rigorous screening and vetting processes in place to ensure national security.

However, co-host Mika Brzezinski raised two critical issues that everyone was thinking.

First, she referenced NBC News reporting on the 400 migrants from Central Asia and elsewhere, suggesting potential ISIS affiliations.

Second, she highlighted ongoing issues with the administration releasing illegal crossers into the U.S. while they pursue asylum claims, a practice that isn’t effective in controlling illegal immigration.

Mayorkas responded by refuting the notion that the identified migrants were plotting harm, underscoring the priority of American safety.

“The safety and security of the American people [is] our highest priority,” Mayorkas stated.

He detailed the DHS’s protocols, including taking enforcement action when derogatory information is found.

However, these claims come during a time in which there has been a significant spike in illegal immigrants murdering US citizens, so most Americans are not comforted by the empty promises of Mayorkas and the Left.

Regarding the release of illegal crossers, Mayorkas claimed a significant reduction in numbers since President Biden’s proclamation.

He acknowledged the limitations in detention capacity, a longstanding issue predating the current administration, necessitating the release of individuals into immigration enforcement proceedings. These individuals are monitored through Alternatives to Detention programs.

Mayorkas reiterated the necessity for congressional action to reform the immigration system, which he described as fundamentally broken, yet the Radical Left refuses to do anything about it.

He stressed that bipartisan agreement exists on the need for reform, yet it remains unfixed since 1996.

The American perspective sharply criticizes the Biden administration’s handling of immigration. Critics argue that the administration’s policies and lack of strict enforcement contribute to national security risks and undermine the integrity of the immigration system.

They claim that the current administration’s approach is overly lenient, allowing potential threats to enter the country under the guise of asylum.

The report on migrants linked to ISIS has fueled conservative concerns about the administration’s competence in safeguarding the nation.

They argue that the screening and vetting processes, despite Mayorkas’s assurances, are insufficient to mitigate the risks posed by such individuals.

Additionally, the ongoing practice of releasing illegal crossers while they pursue asylum claims is seen by many conservatives as a loophole that exacerbates the border crisis.

They advocate for stricter enforcement measures and increased detention capacity to prevent illegal immigrants from disappearing into the country and to ensure that those with legitimate asylum claims are processed efficiently.

Mayorkas’s call for congressional reform aligns with a broader push for comprehensive immigration reform.

However, many Americans emphasize that such reform should prioritize border security, the rule of law, and the interests of American citizens.

They argue that without these priorities, any reform effort will fail to address the root causes of the immigration crisis and will continue to place the nation at risk.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left is always doing things to harm Americans. But this time, it seems things could be different.

And a Radical Liberal leader has proposed a shocking pro-American policy that has the White House scrambling.

In response to a violent attack outside a California synagogue by pro-Palestinian agitators, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass announced that the city is considering a ban on wearing masks at protests.

This development marks a significant move aimed at curbing escalating violence and ensuring public safety during demonstrations.

Mayor Bass addressed the issue at a Monday press conference, emphasizing the need to reassess current policies surrounding protests.

“We are contacting the city attorney to examine several measures, including permits for protests, the idea of people wearing masks at protests, and establishing clear lines of demarcation between what is legal and what is not,” Bass stated.

Bass also highlighted increased patrols by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood, where the Adas Torah Synagogue is located, as well as around other houses of worship in the city.

The Mayor’s swift action underscores the seriousness of the recent violence and the city’s commitment to preventing future incidents.

The attack occurred outside the Adas Torah Synagogue at approximately 1:40 p.m. Pro-Palestinian agitators surrounded the house of worship, creating a volatile and dangerous situation.

In response, Jewish individuals formed a protective line around the synagogue to shield it from further aggression, while others were prevented from entering by the agitators.

The confrontation resulted in at least one pro-Israel supporter and a journalist being beaten. One person was arrested during the altercation.

“Sunday’s violence in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood was abhorrent, and blocking access to a place of worship is unacceptable,” Mayor Bass declared.

“Los Angeles will not be a harbor for antisemitism and violence. Those responsible for either will be found and held accountable.”

Bass’s remarks reflect a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism and violence, emphasizing that the city will take all necessary steps to protect its residents and uphold the law.

Los Angeles is not the only city considering such measures. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has also discussed the possibility of implementing a partial mask ban in New York City, particularly focusing on the subways.

However, lawmakers have not ruled out the prohibition of masks at protests entirely.

From a conservative viewpoint, the proposed mask ban at protests is a necessary measure to ensure public safety and maintain order.

The recent attack at the Adas Torah Synagogue highlights the potential for violence when agitators can hide their identities.

By banning masks, law enforcement can more effectively identify and apprehend individuals who engage in violent or illegal activities during protests.

The attack outside the synagogue is a stark reminder of the increasing antisemitism and violence that many communities face.

It is crucial for city officials and law enforcement to hold perpetrators accountable and take proactive measures to prevent such incidents.

The consideration of a mask ban at protests is a step in the right direction, signaling that violence and hate will not be tolerated.

While some may argue that a mask ban infringes on civil liberties, it is important to balance the right to protest with the need to protect public safety.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and peaceful assembly, but it does not protect violent or unlawful behavior.

By implementing clear guidelines and restrictions, cities can ensure that protests remain peaceful and that individuals can exercise their rights without fear of violence or intimidation.

The recent attack outside the Adas Torah Synagogue has prompted Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to consider a ban on wearing masks at protests.

This measure, along with increased police patrols, aims to prevent future violence and protect the city’s residents.

These steps are necessary to maintain order and ensure public safety. As discussions continue, it is essential to find a balance between protecting civil liberties and upholding the rule of law.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden has lied to the American people about many things. But this recent lie has even Democrats shocked.

Because Biden deployed Americans to Ukraine in a frightening policy reversal.

The Biden administration is reportedly moving towards a policy that would allow American military contractors to be deployed to Ukraine.

This move aims to assist the country in maintaining and repairing US-provided weapons systems.

While the policy is still under development and has not yet been signed off by President Joe Biden, it marks a significant shift in the US’s involvement in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

According to CNN, four US officials familiar with the matter have disclosed that the discussions are still premature.

One administration official emphasized, “We have not made any decisions and any discussion of this is premature. The president is absolutely firm that he will not be sending US troops to Ukraine.” This statement aims to assuage concerns that the US might be directly entering the conflict.

The proposed policy would enable the Pentagon to award contracts to American companies, allowing them to work within Ukraine for the first time since Russia’s invasion in 2022.

Officials believe this would expedite the maintenance and repair of US weapons systems currently used by the Ukrainian military.

Presently, this equipment must be transported to NATO countries like Poland or Romania for repairs, causing significant delays.

One key system requiring regular maintenance is the F-16 fighter jet, which is set to arrive in Ukraine later this year.

This marks a shift from Biden’s previous stance, where he promised not to send fighter jets to Ukraine.

The reconsideration of these restrictions is reportedly driven by recent snags in US funding for the war in Congress and Russia’s advancements on the battlefield.

Contrary to the extensive contractor presence seen in the Middle East, the policy change would involve a relatively small number of contractors in Ukraine.

Current and former officials suggest this would range from a few dozen to a few hundred contractors at any given time.

Retired Army officer Alex Vindman, known for his role as a whistleblower during Trump’s presidency, described it as a “much more focused and thoughtful effort to support Ukraine in country.” Vindman has also offered a proposal to aid Ukraine’s military in repairing US weapons.

This potential deployment of contractors comes on the heels of another significant policy shift. President Biden has recently allowed Ukraine to use US weapons to strike inside Russia.

In early June, Ukraine used US-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) to attack a logistics and artillery center in Russia near Ukraine’s northern region of Kharkiv. This move has escalated the conflict, signaling a more aggressive stance by the Biden administration.

From a conservative perspective, this policy shift raises several concerns. The deployment of American contractors to Ukraine, even in a non-combat capacity, could be seen as a step towards deeper involvement in a conflict that many believe the US should avoid.

There is also skepticism about the Biden administration’s ability to manage such a complex and potentially hazardous operation without escalating the situation further.

Republicans have long called for greater transparency and accountability regarding US involvement in foreign conflicts.

This potential deployment of contractors could necessitate increased oversight to ensure that American interests are protected and that there is no mission creep that could lead to direct US military involvement.

The deployment of contractors to Ukraine also has economic and strategic implications. While it may expedite the repair and maintenance of critical weapons systems, it also raises questions about the long-term sustainability of such support.

The reliance on contractors could lead to increased costs and potential accountability issues, as seen in previous conflicts.

As the situation continues to evolve, it is crucial for the administration to maintain transparency with the American public and uphold the principles of responsible governance.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

For years Americans have been worried about government corruption. And while the Left has tried to deny it, they have now been fully exposed.

Because a devastating GOP report reveals terrifying CIA corruption.

In a bombshell revelation, the House Judiciary Committee announced on Tuesday that CIA contractors collaborated with the Biden campaign in 2020 to disseminate misinformation regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The campaign falsely labeled the laptop as having “all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation,” a move that significantly influenced the 2020 presidential election narrative.

🚨 MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: New Information Shows CIA Contractors Colluded with the Biden Campaign to Discredit Hunter Biden Laptop Story

Read our latest report: https://t.co/nzZTNWwvUo pic.twitter.com/NPC2vhApZZ

— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 25, 2024

According to the Judiciary Committee, senior CIA officials, including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were informed about the statement before its approval and publication.

The committee’s findings indicate that the CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) was involved in the process, sending the draft statement to then-Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis.

Makridis reportedly informed Haspel or then-Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about the impending publication.

“High-ranking CIA officials, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the Hunter Biden statement prior to its approval and publication,” the committee stated.

Despite this high-level awareness, the committee suggests that the CIA did not take necessary steps to vet the statement thoroughly.

“Senior CIA leadership had an opportunity at that time to slow down the CIA’s process for reviewing publication submissions and ensure that such an extraordinary statement was properly vetted,” the committee emphasized.

One of the most damning revelations is that CIA contractors, including Michael Morrell, were actively involved in the misinformation campaign.

Morrell, who was on an active contract with the CIA at the time, penned the controversial letter after being contacted by a senior adviser to the Biden campaign.

This direct involvement raises serious questions about the misuse of intelligence resources for political purposes.

Previously, the House Judiciary found that Antony Blinken, then a senior advisor to the Biden campaign, played a pivotal role in initiating the public statement.

This statement, signed in October 2020, falsely implied that the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop was a product of Russian disinformation.

Blinken’s involvement underscores a coordinated effort within the Biden campaign to manipulate public perception and deflect scrutiny away from Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

The implications of these findings are profound. The coordination between the Biden campaign and CIA contractors to mislead the public about Hunter Biden’s laptop represents a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

By discrediting legitimate news reporting as Russian disinformation, the Biden campaign, with the aid of intelligence officials, sought to shield Hunter Biden and, by extension, Joe Biden from damaging revelations.

The Judiciary Committee’s report sheds light on the extent to which political operatives within the Biden campaign were willing to go to protect their candidate.

The involvement of high-ranking CIA officials and contractors in this scheme raises serious concerns about the politicization of intelligence agencies and their potential to interfere in domestic elections.

In light of these revelations, there are growing calls for accountability. Republican lawmakers are demanding a thorough investigation into the actions of the CIA and the Biden campaign.

“This kind of collusion between a political campaign and intelligence officials to spread misinformation is unprecedented and unacceptable,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

“We need to hold those responsible accountable and ensure that our intelligence agencies are not used for political purposes.”

The House Judiciary Committee’s findings also cast a shadow over the integrity of the 2020 election. Many conservatives argue that the misinformation campaign significantly impacted voter perception and may have influenced the election’s outcome.

“The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened in 2020,” Jordan added. “We cannot allow this kind of manipulation to go unchecked.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left cannot afford to lose any ground before the upcoming election season. But now, it seems things are not going their way.

Because a major Republican victory in a blue state could massively change the presidential election.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) clinched victory in the GOP primary for Colorado’s 4th Congressional District on Tuesday night in a significant move for America.

This primary win follows her strategic switch to a more Republican-heavy district, replacing the outgoing Republican Rep. Ken Buck, who resigned from Congress.

Boebert’s district switch aimed to consolidate Republican power, ensuring another GOP candidate could secure her previous district, which she nearly lost in the 2022 elections.

Her decision proved successful, as she won the six-way GOP primary decisively, positioning herself as the frontrunner for the November general election in a district that overwhelmingly supported former President Donald Trump in 2020.

Decision Desk HQ projects Lauren Boebert wins the Republican primary for US House in Colorado's 4th Congressional District.#DecisionMade: 9:15pm ET

Follow live results here: https://t.co/4v0iV5mJM7 pic.twitter.com/R2Qxv4l1RP

— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) June 26, 2024

Boebert, a prominent conservative figure known for her unyielding support of Trump, received the former president’s endorsement for her campaign.

This endorsement played a crucial role in solidifying her base among the district’s conservative voters.

Despite recent controversies, including an incident where she and a date were removed from a Denver theater for causing a disturbance, Boebert managed to maintain her support.

The Denver theater incident, where Boebert was captured on security cameras vaping and causing a disruption during a “Beetlejuice” musical production, drew national attention.

In response to the incident, Boebert issued a public apology, stating, “The past few days have been difficult and humbling, and I’m truly sorry for the unwanted attention my Sunday evening in Denver has brought to the community. While none of my actions or words as a private citizen that night were intended to be malicious or meant to cause harm, the reality is they did and I regret that.”

Her ability to overcome this controversy and win the primary highlights her strong standing within the Republican Party and the support she garners from her constituents.

Boebert’s victory in this primary not only solidifies her position but also showcases the strength of Trump-endorsed candidates within the GOP.

In addition to the primary, a special election is being held to fill the remaining months of Buck’s term.

Former Mayor Greg Lopez, the Republican candidate, is expected to win against Democratic and third-party opponents, further ensuring Republican control.

Boebert’s primary win in this new, more conservative district demonstrates her resilience and adaptability in the face of political challenges.

Her strong alignment with Trump and unwavering conservative stance have secured her position as a key figure in the GOP, poised to continue her political career with renewed vigor and support from her base.

As the general election approaches, Boebert’s focus will likely be on maintaining her conservative agenda and addressing the needs of her constituents in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District.

Her victory in the GOP primary sets the stage for a competitive election season, where she will undoubtedly leverage her strong ties to Trump and her established political brand to secure her position in Congress.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden will debate Trump in just a short amount of time. But now it seems him and his team are much more worried than it initially appeared.

Because Trump’s latest debate demands have Biden and his team terrified.

In a bold move just days before the upcoming presidential debate, former President Donald Trump has called for current President Joe Biden to undergo a drug test.

Trump, never one to shy away from confrontation, declared on his Truth Social account, “DRUG TEST FOR CROOKED JOE BIDEN??? I WOULD, ALSO, IMMEDIATELY AGREE TO ONE!!!”

This declaration is a continuation of Trump’s ongoing narrative questioning Biden’s cognitive abilities and overall health.

Trump’s demand for a drug test isn’t new. Back in April, during an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Trump stated, “I want to debate, and I think debates, with him, at least, should be drug tested. I want a drug test.”

This call for drug testing highlights Trump’s strategy to cast doubt on Biden’s fitness for office.

The former president has consistently suggested that Biden may be using performance-enhancing drugs to maintain his public appearances and speeches.

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), who served as the White House doctor under Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump, echoed Trump’s sentiments.

In an interview, Jackson remarked, “I’m gonna be demanding on behalf of many millions of concerned Americans right now that he submit to a drug test before and after this debate, specifically looking for performance-enhancing drugs.”

Jackson’s professional background lends credibility to the demand, reinforcing the narrative that there are legitimate concerns about Biden’s mental and physical health.

The call for a drug test is fueled by several public incidents where Biden appeared to struggle. During a fundraising event in California, Biden seemed to freeze on stage until former President Obama took his hand and guided him off.

This incident followed another similar moment at a Juneteenth celebration at the White House. These occurrences have led many to question Biden’s capacity to perform the demanding duties of the presidency.

There has been ongoing speculation that Biden might have used stimulants to deliver the State of the Union address.

Observers noted that Biden started the speech with high energy but seemed to lose momentum as it progressed. Such observations have only intensified the calls for transparency regarding his health and fitness.

Trump’s demand for a drug test is more than a political maneuver; it’s a call for transparency.

The American people deserve to know that their president is in full command of his faculties.

With Biden’s moments of confusion and apparent cognitive decline becoming more frequent, the need for reassurance grows stronger.

The public and political reactions to Trump’s demand have been mixed. Supporters of Trump see it as a necessary measure to ensure the integrity and capability of the presidency.

The issue of Biden’s health is not one that can be easily dismissed. It’s a concern that resonates with many voters who worry about the president’s ability to handle the pressures of the office.

The media’s role in this situation cannot be overlooked. Mainstream media outlets have often downplayed or ignored Biden’s apparent health issues, choosing instead to focus on defending him against Trump’s attacks.

This selective coverage does a disservice to the public. It’s essential for the media to report these concerns objectively, allowing the American people to make informed decisions.

As the debate approaches, the question of Biden’s fitness will undoubtedly be a focal point. Trump’s call for a drug test may not lead to an actual test, but it will keep the issue at the forefront of voters’ minds.

Stay tuned to prudent Politics.

The Left has been pushing their agenda on the nation with seemingly no resistance. But now, they have no choice but to pay attention.

And a new Supreme Court decision has dealt a massive blow to the left’s Radical Agenda.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s challenge against a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and sex change surgeries for minors.

This significant case, which will be reviewed during the court’s 2024 term spanning from October 2024 to September 2025, has the potential to impact approximately 20 states with similar legislation.

In the case titled United States v. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking the Supreme Court to determine whether Tennessee’s SB 1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The appeal follows a federal appeals court decision that upheld Tennessee’s ban on these medical procedures for minors.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the federal government, argued in the petition to the court that the Tennessee law is discriminatory.

Prelogar stated, “The law leaves the same treatments entirely unrestricted if they are prescribed for any other purpose,” pointing out the inconsistency in treatment based on the purpose of the medication.

From a conservative perspective, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti expressed confidence and determination in defending the law.

In a statement following the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, Skrmetti said, “We fought hard to defend Tennessee’s law protecting kids from irreversible gender treatments and secured a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion from the Sixth Circuit. I look forward to finishing the fight in the United States Supreme Court. This case will bring much-needed clarity to whether the Constitution contains special protections for gender identity.”

Americans argue that the Tennessee law is essential to safeguard children from making irreversible medical decisions at a young age.

They contend that minors are not equipped to make such life-altering choices and that these decisions should be delayed until adulthood.

The law’s supporters believe that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the health and well-being of its youngest citizens by ensuring that irreversible treatments are not administered without thorough consideration of long-term consequences.

This case carries significant national implications, as approximately 20 states have enacted or are considering similar laws.

A Supreme Court decision in favor of Tennessee could set a precedent, solidifying the legal foundation for states to impose restrictions on gender transition procedures for minors.

Conversely, a decision against Tennessee could undermine these state laws, potentially making it more difficult for states to regulate such medical treatments.

Conservative legal scholars emphasize that the Constitution does not explicitly protect gender identity under the Equal Protection Clause.

They argue that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for it to cover contemporary issues like gender transition procedures.

This case, they assert, is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify the limits of constitutional protections and affirm the states’ rights to regulate medical practices within their borders.

Public opinion on the issue of gender transition treatments for minors is deeply divided.

Many people view these treatments as experimental and potentially harmful, advocating for a cautious approach that prioritizes the physical and mental health of children.

They argue that the increasing number of young people expressing regret after undergoing gender transition procedures underscores the need for stringent regulations.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this pivotal case, the nation will be watching closely.

The outcome will not only affect the legality of Tennessee’s law but also shape the future of similar legislation across the United States.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.