The vice president probably wishes she could crawl under a rock. She has a while to ride out this storm.

And now Kamala Harris got a final dose of reality that could send her over the edge.

Kamala Harris’ failed bid to connect with mainstream and non-political media continues to make headlines, as her campaign team revealed this week that the popular YouTube show Hot Ones rejected her request to appear during her presidential campaign. The reason? The show wanted to avoid politics altogether.

Harris aides shared the embarrassing anecdote during an appearance on Pod Save America, where they dissected what went wrong during the campaign.

“Hot Ones, which is a great show, they didn’t wanna do any politics, so they weren’t going to take us or him,” senior adviser Stephanie Cutter admitted, according to the New York Post.

“So that was the issue.”

The show, known for featuring celebrities eating progressively hotter chicken wings while answering questions, apparently didn’t see Harris as a good fit. But it wasn’t just Hot Ones.

Cutter acknowledged that Harris’ team faced similar challenges trying to book other non-political media appearances.

In stark contrast, then-candidate Donald Trump managed to break through on these platforms, leveraging his larger-than-life personality and cultural appeal.

“I don’t think he had the same problem,” said Harris’ campaign manager, Jen O’Malley Dillon.

She conceded that Trump “certainly was able to tap into some cultural elements in ways that we couldn’t.”

Perhaps the most striking comment came from Pod Save America co-host Dan Pfeiffer, who insisted Harris was “better suited” for Hot Ones than any other candidate in history. Pfeiffer took the rejection as a political slight, remarking:

“The idea that it would be more politically problematic to have on Kamala Harris, the sitting vice president of the United States, than Donald Trump, a man who’s been convicted of a crime and tried to violently overthrow the election.”

The Harris team also addressed why their candidate skipped The Joe Rogan Experience, the world’s most popular podcast with a massive young male audience—a demographic where Harris notoriously underperformed.

Despite an invitation, the campaign ultimately passed, and senior adviser David Plouffe floated a bizarre theory about Rogan’s motives.

“So what’s clear is we offered to do it in Austin, people should know that,” Plouffe said. “It didn’t work out. Maybe they leveraged that to get Trump in studio, I don’t know.”

The campaign’s reluctance to engage with Rogan, who boasts a politically diverse audience, now seems like a missed opportunity, especially given Trump’s ability to dominate such cultural spaces.

Meanwhile, Harris’ inability to resonate with non-political platforms highlights a broader problem: her difficulty connecting with everyday Americans outside the D.C. bubble.

Whether it’s being outshined by Trump’s media-savvy moves or being passed over by shows like Hot Ones, Harris’ struggles to connect culturally underscore her campaign’s uphill battle—and her own political challenges.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Freedom of speech and religion are paramount to a free society. But not everyone agrees.

And now this underhanded move to cancel the First Amendment is rattling Americans.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres openly called on governments worldwide Tuesday to adopt a global censorship framework, urging them to “rein in hate speech and disinformation spreading online.”

While the U.N. frames these efforts as a defense against harmful content, critics have pointed out that such actions directly conflict with foundational freedoms, including the First Amendment rights Americans hold dear.

Guterres warned that “unchecked digital platforms” are fueling what he called “the worst impulses of humanity,” allegedly jeopardizing global stability. To counter this, he championed U.N.-backed initiatives like the “Global Digital Compact” to silence speech deemed undesirable.

The timing coincided with UNESCO’s announcement of an “urgent” need to train social media influencers to conform to U.N. speech standards and combat “misinformation,” a move many view as a thinly veiled attempt to control online discourse.

UNESCO has equated unwanted online speech to “insects thriving in the dark” and is leading a global push for censorship regulations. While these initiatives are branded as necessary for combating “hate,” they represent a slippery slope toward suppressing dissent and eroding free expression, particularly in nations like the United States, where the First Amendment protects the free exchange of ideas.

Guterres presented his case during the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations global forum in Portugal, where he listed combating online “disinformation” as a top priority. “We must rein in hate speech and disinformation spreading online,” he proclaimed. “Hate-filled frenzies are perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Misinformation and outright lies are fueling repulsive antisemitism, anti-Muslim bigotry and attacks on minority Christian communities, among others.”

The U.N. chief blamed artificial intelligence for accelerating the spread of so-called “hate speech” and urged countries to adopt global initiatives like the “Global Principles for Information Integrity” and the “Global Digital Compact.” These frameworks, however, go beyond targeting genuine threats—they propose granting the U.N. power to regulate what people can say online, a stark contradiction to the constitutional protections Americans enjoy.

“The proliferation of hate and lies in the digital space is causing grave global harm,” Guterres said when introducing the Compact in 2023. “This clear and present global threat demands clear and coordinated global action. We don’t have a moment to lose.” The Compact includes measures to control online conversations and enforce “accountability criteria” on digital platforms, even suggesting a role for the U.N. in policing disinformation during elections—a direct attack on the free speech principles enshrined in America’s Bill of Rights.

UNESCO has similarly intensified its efforts, focusing Tuesday on social media influencers, whom it accuses of failing to “fact-check” their content rigorously.

“The low prevalence of factchecking highlights their vulnerability to misinformation, which can have far-reaching consequences for public discourse and trust in media,” UNESCO said, pushing for mandatory media literacy programs to align influencers with its guidelines.

In parallel, UNESCO launched its “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change” at the G20 summit, a program co-sponsored by Brazil’s leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The initiative aims to suppress dissenting opinions on climate policy, adding another layer to the global censorship agenda.

Lula, notorious for his aggressive crackdown on conservative voices in Brazil, condemned “denialism and disinformation” at the event.

Under his administration, Brazil has expanded censorship, banning Twitter temporarily until owner Elon Musk complied with government demands and silencing dissent through police raids and harsh court rulings.

The G20’s joint declaration echoed these sentiments, citing the dangers of “misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and other forms of online harms.” It called for stricter regulations on digital platforms, all while ignoring the inherent dangers of governments deciding what constitutes “truth.”

Critics argue these U.N. initiatives signal a coordinated effort to undermine free speech worldwide, posing a direct threat to Americans’ First Amendment rights. The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect free expression, even if it is controversial or unpopular. Granting the U.N. or any global body authority to control speech represents a chilling precedent, opening the door to authoritarian overreach.

As Guterres concluded his speech, he called for “strengthening global governance,” asserting, “In these turbulent times, too many people are convinced that differences must define us. But the most powerful force of all is the recognition that we are more united by our common fate than divided by our distinct identities.”

His remarks, however, offer little comfort to those who see such global censorship as a direct assault on the freedoms that define democratic societies.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left has plenty of bad actors in their ranks. But rarely is it put on display for all to see.

And now a leading Democrat was caught using taxpayer funds for this egregious action.

The Democrat mayor of Frederick, Maryland, has announced plans to use taxpayer dollars to help migrants fight deportation under President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, a move that has sparked sharp debate within the community.

Mayor Michael O’Connor committed to creating a “Legal Advocacy Fund” to assist migrants facing deportation, stating the funds would come from his budget.

He explained the goal was to provide legal support for those impacted by Trump’s proposed mass deportation efforts.

“Ensuring they have the legal support they need to stand strong and remain in this community they have chosen to call home,” O’Connor said.

According to Fox Baltimore, the mayor plans to allocate the money to “organizations already providing similar legal services,” enabling them to expand their reach and assist more individuals.

Facing criticism for his proposal, O’Connor’s office emphasized that the fund would be available to “any resident in our community.”

“This fund will provide resources to community partners for Frederick residents who may be harmed by policies from the new administration, ensuring they have the legal support they need to stand strong and remain in this community they have chosen to call home,” the mayor’s office clarified.

“This could support any resident in our community, and while we will never get everyone to agree on everything, working to support residents who may be fearful through trusted community partners is worth advocating for,” the statement continued.

Reactions from Frederick residents were mixed.

“I believe a lot of immigrant people also contribute to the country,” resident Rita Darko told Fox Baltimore, while admitting she felt “torn” about using taxpayer money for migrant legal aid.

Rachel Pett, another local resident, was more critical. “I don’t like the idea. I’d rather our taxpayer money go towards American citizens,” she said.

Ryan Head echoed her concerns, adding, “You break the law, it’s just what happens. Nobody helped me pay for my attorney fees when I break the law. So, why should we be paying for theirs out of taxpayer money?”

O’Connor’s pledge follows a broader trend of Democrat mayors across the U.S. vowing to resist Trump’s immigration policies. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, for example, made headlines with dramatic rhetoric opposing deportations, claiming:

“You’d have 50,000 Denverites there. It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right? You’d have every one of those Highland moms who came out for the migrants. And you do not want to mess with them.”

Johnston later walked back his comments following backlash from Republicans, including Trump’s incoming border chief.

He clarified that Denver would not actively enforce federal immigration laws but encouraged his constituents to protest against the administration’s policies.

As the debate over deportations intensifies, O’Connor’s fund highlights the growing divide between Democrats’ opposition to Trump’s immigration plans and concerns from taxpayers about how their money is spent.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Trump is already making waves abroad. He’s poised to make America respected again.

And you won’t believe which foreign leader came begging to Donald Trump on his knees.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wasted no time reaching out to President-elect Donald Trump on Monday night, hours after Trump issued a fiery statement threatening steep tariffs on Canada over border security concerns.

“Shortly after Trump’s post, Trudeau contacted Trump, and the two leaders spoke by phone,” Bloomberg reporter Brian Platt revealed.

“According to a source, they talked border security, and it was a ‘constructive call.’ Trudeau pointed out that the issues at the Canadian border are minuscule compared to the US/Mexico border.”

Trump’s statement earlier in the day signaled an aggressive stance on trade and border security, targeting Canada, Mexico, and China with proposed tariffs as part of his crackdown on illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

“As everyone is aware, thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before,” Trump stated.

“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders.”

He added:

“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long-simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!”

The threat sent shockwaves across Canada, with provincial leaders urging swift action from Trudeau.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took to X, formerly Twitter, warning of the economic fallout:

“A 25 per cent tariff would be devastating to workers and jobs in both Canada and the U.S. The federal government needs to take the situation at our border seriously. We need a Team Canada approach and response—and we need it now. Prime Minister Trudeau must call an urgent meeting with all premiers.”

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith echoed Ford’s concerns but acknowledged Trump’s underlying grievances.

“The incoming US @realDonaldTrump administration has valid concerns related to illegal activities at our shared border. We are calling on the federal government to work with the incoming administration to resolve these issues immediately, thereby avoiding any unnecessary tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S.,” Smith posted.

She also sought to reassure Trump about Alberta’s energy sector, emphasizing its secure operations:

“Fortunately, the vast majority of Alberta’s energy exports to the U.S. are delivered through secure and safe pipelines which do not in any way contribute to these illegal activities at the border. As the largest exporter of oil and gas to the U.S., we look forward to working with the new administration to strengthen energy security for both the U.S. and Canada.”

Trudeau’s quick response to Trump’s tariff warning highlights the high stakes for Canada as it grapples with a potential trade battle under the incoming U.S. administration. Whether the phone call helps cool tensions remains to be seen.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Swamp is alive and well, for now. But how deep it all runs is further than most expected.

And now a US Senator exposed a massive government cover-up that could change everything.

The federal government is sitting on a mountain of documents about high-risk gain-of-function biological research, but according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), it’s refusing to make them public—even though they could hold the key to understanding the origins of COVID-19.

“What we’ve discovered is there’s a treasure trove of information about dangerous research all collected, sitting in one spot,” Paul told *The Post* in an exclusive interview.

Paul believes these files could reveal critical details about how COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China, and whether U.S. funding played a role. He’s optimistic that the incoming Trump administration will be more cooperative in exposing the truth.

“We’re nearing the beginning of the real investigation because come January, with a friendly administration, we think we’re going to get all of this information,” he said.

Since 2012, the U.S. government has been collecting data on risky research practices, including gain-of-function research, which involves enhancing viruses to make them more dangerous for study. Paul’s office learned from a whistleblower that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has been privy to this information for years, reviewed biannually under the “U.S. Government Policy of Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern.”

According to policy documents, this oversight process monitors research that could “pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety… or national security.”

To Paul, this confirms that officials knew how risky gain-of-function research was long before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many experts have linked COVID-19 to gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The controversy deepened when it was revealed that U.S. funds were funneled to the lab. The National Institutes of Health granted EcoHealth Alliance $4 million to study bat coronaviruses at Wuhan, according to a House investigation.

“Many people insist that EcoHealth Alliance conducted gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That is categorically untrue,” EcoHealth Alliance said in response to the allegations, claiming the studies involved bat coronaviruses that couldn’t infect humans.

Paul questions whether the Wuhan research was flagged for review under the policy. “Here’s the question: If they think it’s dangerous enough that they’re sending it up to the White House so they can oversee it, was the Wuhan research sent up?” he asked.

If so, these documents could expose not only the pandemic’s origins but also which U.S. health officials approved funding for Wuhan’s experiments.

On Monday, Paul sent letters to OSTP Director Arati Prabhakar, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and President Biden, requesting unredacted copies of classified reports on dual-use research oversight. He also demanded preservation of all related documents and communications.

For years, Paul has pressed federal agencies for transparency about COVID-19’s origins but has faced stonewalling. “It’s been the opposite of anybody cooperating with us,” he said, lamenting that documents are heavily redacted.

Paul suspects the lack of transparency could be an attempt to obscure government culpability in supporting dangerous research. “We know that the research [at Wuhan] was reviewed,” Paul said. “What I’ve always wanted from the beginning is, I want the discussion… Show us the discussion. That’s not classified, that’s not secret, it’s not like nuclear bombs or something.”

He also hopes to determine whether Dr. Anthony Fauci, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, had a hand in approving the Wuhan funding.

“It’s not just for culpability,” Paul said of his push for the documents. “I want to see what’s broken about the safety process of overseeing this, and this is an argument for why we need legislation to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

In July 2024, Paul introduced the Risky Research Review Act to establish an independent Life Sciences Research Security Board to oversee high-risk research and prevent future pandemics.

Now, with the prospect of a more cooperative Trump administration, Paul is optimistic about finally obtaining the crucial information. “We’re very hopeful that we’re gonna get it all, and so I think we’re on the cusp of uncovering what happened with COVID,” he said.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Schiff is well known for his lies about Donald Trump. But now he’s telling all.

And Adam Schiff finally admitted something that is raising eyebrows.

California Senator-elect Adam Schiff isn’t holding back when it comes to the Democratic Party’s disastrous performance in this month’s election, placing the blame squarely on the party as a whole for Vice President Kamala Harris’ stunning defeat.

Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, host Kristen Welker confronted Schiff with his overly optimistic prediction just weeks before the election, when he confidently claimed Harris would win “overwhelmingly.”

Now, Schiff admitted that while Harris had a chance, the party faced insurmountable challenges.

“I think Joe Biden’s decision to step aside and pass the torch is the right decision,” Schiff said.

“It gave us a chance to win, not a guarantee. I thought she could win. I thought she could win in all the battleground states.”

Schiff attributed President-elect Donald Trump’s victory to what he called an “anti-incumbent wave” sweeping the nation, which he said worked against both progressives and conservatives.

He pointed to the party’s association with the status quo as a major liability.

“That was too much to overcome. I think the principal issue is the economy,” Schiff explained.

“And over years and decades, it has gotten more and more difficult for people working full-time to make a living. Until we resolve that challenge to the economy, we may find the presidency is easier to get than it is to keep.”

Welker pressed Schiff on whether he agreed with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who recently blamed President Biden for dooming the party by staying in the race too long before bowing out.

Schiff sidestepped directly criticizing Biden but acknowledged broader failings within the party.

“Look, I think the entire Democratic Party bears the responsibility,” Schiff responded.

“Myself included. And the former president…they mounted an effective campaign. You have to give them credit for that. The challenge we have is we need to put forward a bold vision of how we’re going to move the economy forward, make the economy work for every American. To me, the existential question is if you, working hard in America, can you still earn a good living, and too many people doubt that that’s possible.”

Schiff’s remarks come amid a period of intense soul-searching for Democrats, as party leaders scramble to explain Harris’ loss.

Some blame Biden for clinging to the race too long, while others fault Harris herself for failing to effectively address Biden’s perceived mental decline.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders pointed a finger at the party’s abandonment of the working class, while other Democrats have criticized the party’s embrace of “woke” progressive ideologies, which they argue alienated middle-class, blue-collar voters.

Former President Barack Obama has also faced scrutiny, with reports suggesting he worked behind the scenes over the summer to push Biden out of the race—efforts that may have sown division within the party.

As Democrats look ahead, Schiff’s remarks signal the need for a hard reset.

With finger-pointing rampant, the party must reckon with its identity crisis and redefine its platform to reconnect with voters who have turned their backs on its message.

Whether the party can recover in time for future elections remains an open question.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The GOP is set to clean house. And it isn’t going to be pretty for everyone.

Now the D.C. Swamp is freaking out after Republicans moved to abolish this agency.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) took a bold step Thursday in introducing legislation to abolish the Department of Education, delivering on a long-held Republican vision and aligning with President-elect Donald Trump’s commitment to overhaul the federal role in education.

The bill, aptly named the “Returning Education to Our States Act,” seeks to transfer key functions of the Department of Education to other federal agencies, restoring control over education policy to state and local governments.

Rounds emphasized that local communities—not distant Washington bureaucrats—are best equipped to make decisions for their students.

“The federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic department that causes more harm than good,” Rounds said in a statement.

“We all know local control is best when it comes to education. Everyone raised in South Dakota can think of a teacher who played a big part in their educational journey. Local school boards and state Departments of Education know best what their students need, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”

Created under President Jimmy Carter in 1979, the Department of Education centralized federal influence in a way many conservatives view as detrimental to student success. Rounds’ bill proposes reverting to a pre-1979 system, decentralizing education programs and placing them in agencies better suited to manage them:

• Disability programs would transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services.
• Career training initiatives would shift to the Department of Labor.
• International research and training programs would fall under the State Department.
• Student loans and grants would become the responsibility of the Department of the Treasury.
• American Indian education programs would move to the Department of the Interior.

President-elect Trump campaigned on a promise to “drain the government education swamp” and put an end to taxpayer dollars being used to promote ideological agendas in schools.

Earlier this week, he named Linda McMahon as his choice for Secretary of Education, highlighting her focus on school choice and parental rights.

“As a strong supporter of school choice and parental rights, there is no one better to expel the woke agenda in our education system and put our children first,” Trump said of McMahon.

Republicans have long advocated for the elimination of the Department of Education, a pledge first championed by President Ronald Reagan.

With unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House come January, Rounds’ legislation has its best chance yet of becoming law.

“For years, I’ve worked toward removing the federal Department of Education,” Rounds said.

“I’m pleased that President-elect Trump shares this vision, and I’m excited to work with him and Republican majorities in the Senate and House to make this a reality. This legislation is a roadmap to eliminating the federal Department of Education by practically rehoming these federal programs in the departments where they belong, which will be critical as we move into next year.”

While Democrats are unlikely to back the measure in the current Senate, Republicans remain optimistic that this long-overdue reform is on the horizon.

The push to end the Department of Education is more than a symbolic gesture—it’s a commitment to returning education to the hands of parents, teachers, and local communities, where it belongs.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Donald Trump and his allies aren’t holding back. They’re ready to enact a much needed overhaul of the federal government.

And the upcoming Trump administration unveils a new plan to squash this evil Leftist group into the ground.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy revealed their strategy Thursday to address federal overspending, focusing on expenditures they argue are misused or unauthorized by Congress—including funds allocated to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government, Musk and Ramaswamy outlined their approach to curtail wasteful spending. “Skeptics question how much federal spending DOGE can tame through executive action alone,” they wrote. “They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.”

The two continued by explaining how DOGE, short for the “Department of Government Efficiency,” could help reduce overspending even without relying on the contested interpretation of the 1974 statute. “DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.”

The DOGE plan is part of a broader effort endorsed by former President Donald Trump, who recently announced Musk and Ramaswamy as co-leaders of the proposed department.

Trump praised their commitment to streamlining government operations, saying, “Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.”

Planned Parenthood in the Spotlight

Planned Parenthood, long a focus of federal funding debates, received $670.4 million in government funding last year, up from $633.4 million the previous year. The organization also reported $2.3 billion in net assets and $1.9 billion in total revenue, according to its latest annual report.

While best known for its abortion services—392,715 abortions were performed by Planned Parenthood between 2021 and 2022—the organization has also expanded its “gender-affirming” healthcare offerings. In 2022, 45 affiliates across the U.S. provided hormone therapy, with some sources suggesting the organization may be one of the largest providers of transgender healthcare in the country.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, noted in a 2017 interview, “It’s possible they’re the largest provider of trans health in the country. We don’t know for sure. But it’s certainly among the biggest, if not the biggest.”

Planned Parenthood’s shifting priorities come amidst changes in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. According to Melanie Israel of the Heritage Foundation, the organization has announced layoffs and plans to pivot resources toward services like STD testing, contraception, and gender-affirming care.

A Divisive Debate

The op-ed’s publication coincided with President Joe Biden awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

Biden commended Richards for her work advancing reproductive rights, stating in an X post, “Through her work to lift up the dignity of workers, defend and advance women’s reproductive rights and equality, and mobilize Americans to exercise their power to vote, she has carved an inspiring legacy.”

Richards, who led Planned Parenthood from 2006 to 2018, is credited with significantly increasing the organization’s abortion numbers during her tenure.

According to the Washington Stand, the annual number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood rose by nearly 70,000 under her leadership, with an estimated four million unborn lives lost during her tenure.

Musk and Ramaswamy’s plan reflects an emerging conservative push to reexamine federal funding priorities, particularly with the notorious abortion mill that is Planned Parenthood.

Taxpayer funds should certainly not be going to an organization that ends the lives of countless unborn children. It’s past time for the government to cease funding with this evil group.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Biden isn’t in his right mind. But even he should know this looks bad.

Because Joe Biden set the White House on fire with one stunning action.

President Joe Biden’s decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Cecile Richards, the former head of Planned Parenthood, has sparked fierce backlash from pro-life advocates, who condemn her legacy as one defined by millions of abortions under her leadership.

Richards served as Planned Parenthood’s president from 2006 to 2018, a tenure during which nearly four million abortions were performed according to a fact sheet from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which analyzed the organization’s annual reports.

At a White House ceremony on November 20, Biden praised Richards for her “absolute courage,” calling her a champion of freedom. On social media, he lauded her as a leader who “fearlessly leads us forward to be the America we say we are — a nation of freedom.”

He added in a post on X: “Through her work to lift up the dignity of workers, defend and advance women’s reproductive rights and equality, and mobilize Americans to exercise their power to vote, she has carved an inspiring legacy.”

Pro-life voices, however, strongly disagreed. Lila Rose, president of Live Action, blasted the honor in a post on X:

“Cecile Richards presided over the abortions of 3.9 million babies as president of Planned Parenthood. She belongs in jail. Not in the White House receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.”

Richards, who succeeded Gloria Feldt as Planned Parenthood president, earned a reputation for turning the organization into what she proudly called the “largest kick-butt political organization.”

Yet, under her leadership, non-abortion health services declined, while both abortions and taxpayer funding saw sharp increases.

Reports from Live Action revealed that Planned Parenthood’s annual government funding surged by 67% during Richards’ tenure, jumping from $336.7 million in 2006 to $563.8 million in 2018. Simultaneously, the annual number of abortions rose by nearly 15%, climbing from 289,750 to 332,757.

Her presidency also became embroiled in controversy. The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) accused Planned Parenthood of illegally selling fetal organs, a scandal that erupted after a CMP video showed Dr. Deborah Nucatola, a medical director for the organization, casually discussing the harvesting of fetal organs during abortions.

Richards later apologized for Nucatola’s “tone,” though the allegations continued to cast a shadow over her leadership.

Critics have pointed to numerous other scandals, including allegations of Medicaid fraud, failure to report child sexual abuse, and falsely claiming to provide mammograms.

Live Action also highlighted internal accusations of racism within Planned Parenthood, as well as Richards’ defense of the organization’s founder, Margaret Sanger, despite Sanger’s well-documented white supremacist views.

Pro-life advocates argue that Richards’ legacy is far from the inspiring narrative Biden portrayed. Some went as far as to frame her recognition as a grim reflection of America’s abortion culture.

“She has been given a medal for killing the most number of Americans,” wrote one critic on X.

Carole Novielli, writing for Live Action, echoed that sentiment: “An America that allows and even promotes the killing of innocent preborn human beings is not truly free, nor can it claim to stand for freedom when it unjustly robs children of their right to life.”

While Biden celebrated Richards as a champion of rights and equality, pro-life advocates contend her leadership represents a tragic chapter in America’s history, marked by the loss of millions of unborn lives.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is in hysterics. They don’t control Congress or the presidency anymore.

And now Democrats went fully deranged in Congress for one boneheaded reason.

Congress descended into another bout of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” according to House Republicans, during a heated battle Thursday over legislation aimed at stripping tax-exempt status from nonprofit groups providing material support to terrorists.

The bill, once sailing through Congress with bipartisan support, hit a wall of resistance following Donald Trump’s recent election victory. Democrats, now wary of granting additional powers that they fear Trump could misuse, reversed their earlier backing of the measure.

“With Trump’s election, the conditions have changed,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who supported the bill in committee. “The dangers of granting additional power to him are far outweighed by any benefits from this bill.”

Despite the backlash, the bill narrowly passed the House on a 219-184 vote, with 15 Democrats joining nearly all Republicans. However, its future in the Senate looks uncertain as Democratic opposition grows and time runs short in the legislative calendar.

Republicans were quick to slam the Democrats’ flip-flop, accusing them of letting Trump hysteria cloud their judgment. Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), a key sponsor of the bill, blamed the shift on “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

“By the way, there’s no vaccine and no cure that we know of right now for that, which is obvious from what we’re seeing,” she quipped.

The legislation targets nonprofits funding terrorism, with Republicans arguing it’s outrageous for taxpayer money to indirectly support such activities.

“If a nonprofit organization is funding terrorism, you lose your tax-exempt status,” said Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He cited a U.S. nonprofit that funded a journalist working with Hamas who held a hostage in his home, yet still retains tax-exempt status.

The bill empowers the Treasury Department and IRS to revoke tax exemptions for nonprofits providing material support to terrorist groups, closing a loophole that currently applies only to the terrorist organizations themselves. Protections are included for hostages, ensuring they aren’t penalized for missing tax filings while in captivity.

A previous version of the bill passed the House overwhelmingly in April on a 382-11 vote and cleared the Ways and Means Committee unanimously on September 11. But last week, 144 Democrats blocked it on the expedited calendar, and this week that opposition swelled to 183.

Rep. Jason Smith called the reversal “insanity,” while Democrats pointed to Trump as a key factor in their opposition.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who initially supported the measure, said she now fears Trump could misuse the law. “Republicans are fixated on giving unchecked powers to the Trump administration,” she said, adding that Trump could target environmental groups as “ecoterrorists” or shutter hospitals providing “reproductive care.”

Rep. Donald Beyer (D-VA), another early supporter, admitted he was swayed by advocacy groups’ concerns. “We have all woken up to the potential, not just because of Donald Trump but because the nonprofits that could be affected by it are aware of its impact,” he said.

Critics of the bill include heavyweights like the ACLU, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, and CAIR, which dubbed it the “nonprofit killer bill.”

“This bill dangerously weaponizes the Treasury against nonprofit organizations and houses of worship — Christian, Jewish or Muslim — that dare to support Palestinian and Lebanese human rights or criticize Israel’s genocidal actions,” said Robert S. McCaw, CAIR’s government affairs director.

The ACLU accused Republicans of choosing “fear over freedom,” while opponents argued the bill lacks safeguards, leaving nonprofits vulnerable to abuse by a president or Treasury secretary.

Republicans countered that the bill includes protections, such as allowing nonprofits to remedy violations, appeal designations, or challenge them in court.

For now, the bill’s fate hangs in the balance, with Democrats’ resistance raising questions about whether bipartisan cooperation on anti-terrorism measures can survive the shadow of Trump’s presidency.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left has been caught. Now their strategy is to deflect over and over again.

And now Senate Republicans are in an uproar after this top Biden official refuses to testify.

FBI Director Chris Wray and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas came under bipartisan fire Thursday after they declined to publicly testify before the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Instead, the Biden administration officials sought a classified, closed-door briefing—an unusual request that outraged lawmakers from both parties, who said it undermines government transparency and breaks long-standing precedent.

Mayorkas was set to face tough questions, particularly over allegations that FEMA instructed workers to bypass homes displaying support for Donald Trump during disaster relief efforts in Florida.

At least 20 homes were reportedly skipped, prompting Republican senators, including Rand Paul (KY) and Katie Britt (AL), to demand accountability from the DHS chief.

Committee Chair Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) sharply criticized the request to avoid public testimony, calling it “without merit” and unprecedented.

“Americans deserve transparent, public answers about the threats we face. Secretary Mayorkas and Director Wray’s refusal to speak publicly about their department’s work will only increase the concerns that many Americans have about our nation’s security at a challenging time, flout the Committee’s efforts to conduct responsible oversight, and will deal a serious blow to trust in our government,” Peters said.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) did not hold back, calling for Wray’s resignation and urging immediate Senate action.

“Secretary Mayorkas and Director Wray’s refusal to testify publicly today in the Senate is an outrage — and a brazen attempt to avoid oversight for the political abuses at FEMA, the FBI and more. I look forward to Director Wray’s resignation,” Hawley declared.

In a follow-up post, he escalated his criticism:

“This is Mayorkas & Wray giving the middle finger to the American people. They are REQUIRED BY LAW to testify. And now they’re saying it’s good enough to post something on a website? Both are unfit for office. The Senate should subpoena them immediately and hold them in contempt.”

The FBI and DHS responded with statements defending their decision, insisting that a closed-door setting was necessary.

The FBI said its leaders “have testified extensively in public settings about the current threat environment” and argued that “the Committee would benefit most from further substantive discussions and additional information that can only be provided in a classified setting.”

The DHS noted that Mayorkas has already “testified 30 times during his tenure” and maintained that it “takes seriously its obligation to respond to Congressional requests for testimony.”

Despite these justifications, the refusal to testify in public has only fueled suspicions on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers warning that such actions erode public trust and hinder their ability to provide effective oversight at a time when national security and government accountability are under heightened scrutiny.

And why shouldn’t they? These are bureaucrats that should be held accountable to us.

Instead they act as if their kings and we’re just living in their kingdom.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is in panic mode. They can’t seem to agree on anything after losing big time on election day.

And now the Democrat Party is collapsing after the mainstream media completely betrayed them.

A recent New York Times report titled “For Minority Working-Class Voters, Dismay With Democrats Led to Distrust” sheds light on why many minority and working-class voters turned their backs on the Democratic Party and embraced President-elect Donald Trump in the 2024 election.

Traditionally, Democrats have relied on strong support from minority and working-class voters, but Trump shattered expectations by making historic gains among Black, Hispanic, and blue-collar Americans this election cycle.

The Times revealed that interviews conducted over the past year with Latino, Black, and Asian American voters across the nation consistently highlighted a common theme: disillusionment with how the Democratic Party has failed to address their concerns.

Daniel Trujillo, an East Las Vegas barbershop owner, captured this sentiment when he described how he and many of his customers see the Democrats today.

“Democrats flipped,” he told the Times. “They went from being for the working class to, if you’re not college-educated and have money, you’re not worthy.”

Trujillo praised the GOP’s shift in focus under Trump, saying, “The right turned blue-collar and went full border-control, strong-economy and law-and-order. Who doesn’t want that?”

For many voters, the Democratic Party’s warnings about Trump being a “threat to democracy” fell flat compared to more immediate concerns, particularly skyrocketing costs of living.

David Paiz, a 52-year-old maintenance worker in Las Vegas who moved from California to escape high expenses, views Trump’s election as a pivotal moment.

“There’s a lot of things that I want to do, that we want to do for our sons, for their future, to prepare them for success,” Paiz told the Times.

“But with the current administration, I didn’t see that happening. Now that Trump’s going to be our new president, I see a lot more opportunities.”

Other voters expressed similar frustrations, linking their struggles with affordability directly to Democratic leadership. Walter Mendoza, a 30-year-old financial adviser in Allentown, Pennsylvania, emphasized the strain on families like his.

“People can’t afford nothing,” Mendoza told the newspaper. “So I’m voting for somebody who could more manage the country better.”

Mendoza hopes that under Trump’s leadership, Americans will no longer be stuck living paycheck-to-paycheck and will finally be able to enjoy “a couple nice things.”

The Times report also noted that many minority working-class voters found the Democratic Party’s priorities to be disconnected from their daily struggles.

Issues like abortion and debates over transgender rights, they said, seemed irrelevant compared to their immediate needs. Words like “condescending” were used by some to describe the party’s tone.

Trump’s landslide victories in all seven battleground states this election reflect this growing shift. According to a Fox News Voter Analysis, 63% of voters who identified as “falling behind financially” backed Trump over Kamala Harris.

The president-elect also made significant strides with key demographic groups, gaining six points with Hispanic voters and eight points among voters under 30.

For minority working-class voters, Trump’s message of economic opportunity and prioritizing working families resonated deeply, marking a shift that could reshape the political landscape for years to come.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.