Home Blog Page 22

Horrific development in Middle East leads to injury of multiple US troops

Prudent Politics - SA
-
0
Horrific development in Middle East leads to injury of multiple US troops

Joe Biden’s foreign policies are a failure. But no one thought he would allow this tragedy to happen.

But now, a horrific development in the Middle East has led to injury of multiple US troops.

Recent reports of a rocket attack on Al Asad Airbase in Iraq, resulting in injuries to several US personnel, have highlighted the dangerous consequences of the Biden administration’s foreign policy failures in the Middle East.

This latest incident points to the escalating tensions and instability that have characterized the region under President Biden’s watch, leaving America and its allies vulnerable to increasing threats from hostile actors like Iran and its proxies.

According to sources cited by Reuters, two Katyusha rockets were fired at the Al Asad Airbase, a critical military installation in western Iraq. Preliminary reports suggest that multiple US personnel were injured, with some requiring surgery.

The attack highlights the volatile security environment that US forces are currently operating in, a direct result of the administration’s perceived weakness and inconsistent policies in the region.

Senior editor Jack Posobiec of Human Events has reported that five to six Americans were injured in the attack, further stressing the immediate human cost of these policy missteps. While base personnel are conducting a damage assessment, the implications of this attack extend far beyond immediate physical damage.

It raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the Biden administration’s approach to Middle Eastern policy and its ability to protect American interests abroad.

The attack on Al Asad Airbase comes at a time when tensions in the Middle East are at a boiling point. The assassinations of leaders from terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah have provoked vows of retaliation from Iran, a well-known backer of these groups.

The Pentagon has acknowledged the growing threat from Iran, sending reinforcements to the region to prepare for potential attacks on Israel, an important US ally.

Despite these preparations, the administration’s response has been reactive rather than proactive. The lack of a coherent strategy to address the growing Iranian influence and its support for proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah has emboldened these actors.

Multiple reports indicate that an Iranian attack on Israel is imminent, a chilling prospect that could plunge the region into further chaos and violence.

In a recent incident, US Central Command forces intercepted and destroyed an Iranian-backed Houthi missile and launcher in Yemen. While this action was necessary to protect US and coalition forces, as well as merchant vessels in the region, it is emblematic of a broader reactive posture rather than a strategic vision.

Central Command’s statement points to the imminent threat these weapons posed, but it also underscores the lack of effective deterrence that has allowed such threats to proliferate in the first place.

Reports from Stars and Stripes indicate that Iranian-backed Iraqi groups have launched multiple attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria in recent weeks. These attacks are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of aggression that has intensified under the current administration.

The Biden administration’s failure to impose significant costs on Iran and its proxies for these actions has only emboldened them, leading to a dangerous escalation of hostilities.

The Biden administration’s Middle East policy has been marked by a series of missteps and indecisions that have undermined US credibility and emboldened adversaries.

The decision to lift sanctions on Iran early in Biden’s tenure was seen by many as a misguided attempt at appeasement that has only served to strengthen Iran’s hand in the region.

Additionally, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan has been widely criticized for leaving a power vacuum that has further destabilized the region.

The administration’s failure to develop and execute a coherent strategy to counter Iranian aggression and support for terrorist organizations has left America and its allies in a precarious position.

The recent attacks on US personnel and the growing threat of an Iranian strike on Israel are direct consequences of these policy failures.

To address these growing threats, the Biden administration must adopt a more assertive and coherent strategy in the Middle East. This includes reinstating and expanding sanctions on Iran, providing robust support to Israel, and taking decisive action against Iranian proxies throughout the region.

Additionally, the US must work closely with its allies to develop a comprehensive plan to counteract Iranian influence and support for terrorism.

American foreign policy must be grounded in strength and resolve, demonstrating to adversaries that aggression against US interests and allies will not be tolerated.

The safety and security of American personnel and the stability of the Middle East depend on a decisive shift in policy.

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

Joe Biden stunned by recent Supreme Court statement that could halt all of his plans

Prudent Politics
-
0
Joe Biden stunned by recent Supreme Court statement that could halt all of his plans

Joe Biden seems to not care about the law and the way of things. But now, he is being held in check.

And Biden was stunned by a recent Supreme Court statement that could halt all of his plans.

On Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a stern warning to President Biden regarding the administration’s controversial plans to “reform” the highest court in the land.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream, Gorsuch, 56, cautioned Biden to “be careful” with the proposed changes, emphasizing the critical role of an independent judiciary in safeguarding American freedoms.

Justice Gorsuch’s comments come in response to Biden’s recently unveiled SCOTUS reform package, which has garnered enthusiastic support from Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

The package includes several radical proposals: imposing 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, a constitutional amendment to overturn presidential immunity, and the establishment of an enforceable code of ethics for the justices.

During the interview, Gorsuch refrained from diving into the political fray, a testament to his commitment to judicial impartiality. When asked about the court’s stance on potential changes, he replied, “You’re not going to be surprised that I’m not going to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don’t think that would be helpful.”

Instead, he articulated the foundational importance of an independent judiciary, a principle seemingly under siege by the current administration.

Gorsuch elaborated, “The independent judiciary… What does it mean to you as an American? It means that when you’re unpopular, you can get a fair hearing.” This poignant reminder highlights the essence of a judiciary free from political pressures and whims.

“If you’re in the majority, you don’t need judges and juries to hear you, to protect your rights, if you’re popular. It’s there for the moment when the spotlight’s on you – when the government’s coming after you. And don’t you want a ferociously independent judge and jury of your peers to make those decisions?”

The Democrats’ drive to alter the composition and functioning of the Supreme Court has been evident since the tenure of President Trump, who appointed three justices, thereby shifting the court’s balance.

These appointments led to significant judicial decisions, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the presidential immunity ruling in Biden’s January 6 case against Trump, which left the Democrats reeling.

Rather than respecting the court’s decisions, Democrats have resorted to attacking the institution itself, showcasing a disturbing lack of regard for the separation of powers.

President Biden, who initially opposed such reforms, has now seemingly capitulated to the far-left wing of his party. His proposed reforms are a transparent attempt to undermine the judiciary’s independence and reshape it to align with his administration’s agenda.

This shift is particularly troubling given Biden’s earlier stance against court-packing and judicial interference, a stance he has now abandoned in favor of political expediency.

Despite the administration’s fervor, the likelihood of these reforms passing is minimal. The proposals require bipartisan support, which is virtually non-existent in today’s polarized political landscape.

Even among Democrats, there is considerable skepticism about the wisdom and feasibility of such drastic changes. The reforms, therefore, appear to be more of a political stunt aimed at placating the progressive base rather than a serious attempt at judicial improvement.

Biden’s proposals are nothing short of an assault on the Constitution and the rule of law. The imposition of term limits on Supreme Court justices, for instance, undermines the lifetime appointment system designed to ensure judicial independence.

This system protects justices from political pressures and allows them to make decisions based solely on legal merit rather than political considerations.

Similarly, the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn presidential immunity is a thinly veiled attempt to target political adversaries. This amendment could open the door to endless legal harassment of sitting presidents, undermining the executive branch’s ability to govern effectively.

The push for an enforceable code of ethics, while seemingly benign, is another attempt to exert political control over the judiciary.

The Supreme Court already adheres to high ethical standards, and the introduction of an external code risks politicizing judicial conduct and decision-making.

Justice Gorsuch’s warning to President Biden serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of an independent judiciary.

The Democrats’ proposed reforms threaten to erode the foundational principles of American governance, turning the Supreme Court into a political battleground rather than a bastion of justice.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Radical squad members shocked by massive lawsuit that could end their political careers

Prudent Politics
-
0
Radical squad members shocked by massive lawsuit that could end their political careers

Members of the Radical Left are always getting themselves into trouble. But unfortunately they are rarely caught or punished for it.

But now, “squad” members have been shocked by a massive lawsuit that could end their political careers.

Three prominent members of the progressive congressional “Squad”—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Jamaal Bowman—are embroiled in a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit, brought forth by a group of students, alleges that these lawmakers “incited and encouraged” the chaotic and violent protests against Israel at Columbia University earlier this year.

The protests, which took a radical anti-Israel stance, saw the campus quad overrun with demonstrators chanting inflammatory slogans, burning Israeli flags, hurling rocks, and occupying Hamilton Hall.

The situation escalated to such a degree that law enforcement had to intervene, much to the chagrin of the involved congressmembers.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, known for her incendiary rhetoric, vehemently criticized the police for breaking up the unruly demonstration.

In a tweet on April 30, she ominously warned, “If any kid is hurt tonight, responsibility will fall on the mayor and university presidents,” labeling the police involvement as “a nightmare in the making.”

This irresponsible and inflammatory statement highlights a pattern of behavior from the “Squad”—fomenting unrest and then decrying the necessary actions taken to restore order.

Ocasio-Cortez’s remark, far from promoting peace, added fuel to an already volatile situation, jeopardizing the safety of students and law enforcement alike.

The lawsuit, filed anonymously by five students—including two Jewish students—paints a harrowing picture of the protest. The plaintiffs describe the “Gaza Encampment” as an act of “extreme and outrageous conduct,” blatantly illegal and in direct violation of university rules.

They recount a terrifying atmosphere where they were harassed, followed, physically blocked, intimidated, and bullied by the protesters.

In a particularly chilling account, one Jewish student told the New York Post, “During the protests, I witnessed numerous offensive and antisemitic signs and messages, including antisemitic skunk posters with the Star of David.” He further recounted an incident where he was singled out for wearing a yarmulke, confronted by a protest leader who physically shoved him when he refused to move. This kind of targeted harassment is a stark reminder of the deep-seated antisemitism that pervades such radical movements.

The court papers filed by the students encapsulate the gravity of the situation: “In a civilized community, one does not call for the obliteration of a major metropolitan area, praise terrorists, or threaten death and destruction upon our classmates and their families, friends, and coreligionists.”

This statement underscores the sheer extremity and danger of the rhetoric and actions promoted by the protesters and, by extension, the lawmakers who supported them.

Ilhan Omar, whose own daughter was arrested at the Columbia encampment while protesting as a Barnard student, adds another layer of complexity to this case. Omar’s history of controversial statements and actions regarding Israel has long been a point of contention.

Her involvement in this protest, directly and through her daughter, further cements her position as a polarizing and divisive figure who appears to prioritize radical activism over responsible leadership.

Jamaal Bowman, another member of the “Squad,” also finds himself implicated in this lawsuit. His support for the protest and criticism of law enforcement’s actions illustrate a worrying trend among these progressive lawmakers: an apparent endorsement of chaos and disruption under the guise of social justice.

This not only endangers students but also undermines the very principles of law and order that are fundamental to a functional society.

The lawsuit also accuses Ocasio-Cortez, Bowman, and Omar of trespassing on Columbia University’s campus in April, participating in the encampment despite access being restricted to those with student IDs.

This allegation further demonstrates their blatant disregard for rules and regulations, emphasizing their role in exacerbating the situation.

This case highlights a broader issue with the “Squad” and their brand of radical progressivism. Their actions and rhetoric often seem more focused on creating discord and division rather than fostering constructive dialogue and solutions.

By encouraging and supporting these disruptive protests, they not only threaten public safety but also undermine the democratic principles they claim to uphold.

The actions of Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Bowman during the Columbia protests reflect a troubling pattern of behavior: inciting unrest, demonizing law enforcement, and disregarding the rule of law. These are not the actions of responsible leaders but rather of agitators more interested in grandstanding than governance.

As the lawsuit progresses, it will undoubtedly shed more light on the true nature of the “Squad” and their impact on our society.

For now, it stands as a stark reminder of the dangers of radicalism and the importance of holding our elected officials accountable for their actions.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Liberal Senator’s shocking Harris comments have exposed the Democrat party’s secrets

Prudent Politics
-
0
Liberal Senator’s shocking Harris comments have exposed the Democrat party’s secrets

The Radical Left has many deep, dark secrets. And they are trying to hide them all before election season.

But a liberals senator’s shocking comments about Harris have exposed her dark secrets.

In a recent appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Dana Bash, California Senator Laphonza Butler addressed the growing concerns about Vice President Kamala Harris’ shifting positions on several key issues.

This discussion has reignited debates about political integrity and consistency within the Democratic Party, with many conservatives pointing to these flip-flops as evidence of the party’s lack of firm principles.

During the interview, Bash confronted Butler with a straightforward question: “What do you think that voters should think when she has reversed herself on several issues in the last four years?” Butler’s response was predictably diplomatic: “I think that voters should think that she’s a human being who learns new things every single day.”

This response, attempting to humanize Harris, glosses over the more profound issue at hand: the apparent opportunism that underlies these reversals. Let’s delve into some of the most glaring examples of Harris’ policy flip-flops.

During her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris voiced support for the “defund the police” movement, a stance that resonated with the far-left faction of her party.

However, as public opinion shifted and crime rates soared, Harris quickly distanced herself from this radical position. This change is not a reflection of “learning” but rather a calculated move to align with the shifting winds of public sentiment and electoral necessity.

Harris also initially advocated for decriminalizing border crossings, a stance that alarmed many conservatives and moderates concerned about national security and the rule of law.

As the vice president, she has since moderated her view, recognizing the political and practical implications of such a policy. This reversal, again, seems more about political survival than genuine evolution in thinking.

Another significant flip-flop is Harris’ stance on Medicare for All. Initially a supporter, Harris has since retreated from this position, likely due to the realization that the policy’s radical nature could alienate a substantial portion of the electorate.

The move away from Medicare for All is a clear indication of Harris’ willingness to abandon core principles for the sake of political expediency.

One of the most notable reversals has been on the issue of fracking. In 2020, Harris unequivocally supported banning fracking, stating there was “no question” about her stance. However, with the 2024 presidential race looming and the importance of fracking to swing states like Pennsylvania, Harris has attempted to revise her position.

Former President Donald Trump has capitalized on this flip-flop, repeatedly highlighting it at his rallies. “She wants to ban fracking,” Trump declared at a recent rally in North Carolina. “You’re going to be paying a lot of money. You’re going to be paying so much. You’re going to say ‘bring back Trump.’”

In response to Trump’s comments, a Harris campaign spokesperson attempted to deflect, labeling Trump’s claims as false and accusing him of distracting from his own policies. However, the damage was done, and the inconsistency in Harris’ stance was laid bare for all to see.

Senator Laphonza Butler’s role in defending Harris’ flip-flops is noteworthy. As a rising star in the Democratic Party, Butler’s defense of Harris seems less about genuine belief in Harris’ evolving positions and more about maintaining party unity and protecting a fellow Democrat.

Butler’s assertion that Harris is simply “learning new things” does little to address the concerns of voters who value consistency and transparency in their leaders.

Harris’ and Butler’s actions are emblematic of a broader issue within the Democratic Party: a willingness to say anything to get elected, regardless of previous commitments or statements.

This lack of steadfastness undermines the trust that voters place in their elected officials and raises serious questions about their true convictions.

Harris’ flip-flopping on critical issues such as policing, border security, healthcare, and energy policy reveals a politician who is more concerned with political survival than with upholding consistent, principled positions. This pattern of behavior is troubling, especially for a candidate seeking the highest office in the land.

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

Potential Harris VP pick’s past has come back to haunt him

Prudent Politics
-
0
Potential Harris VP pick’s past has come back to haunt him

Kamala harris is going to pick her Vice president any day now. And one of the potential pick’s has some dark secrets that Democrats are trying to cover up.

And a potential Harris VP pick’s past has come back to shunt him, and America is shocked.

Potential running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris, Josh Shapiro, has recently tried to distance himself from a “controversial” op-ed he penned in college. In the piece, Shapiro criticized Palestinians and identified himself as a volunteer for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), sparking a wave of backlash and skepticism.

Back in 1993, Shapiro wrote an op-ed titled “Peace Not Possible” that harshly critiqued the Oslo Accords and questioned the Palestinian capacity for peace and self-governance.

“Despite my skepticism as a Jew and a past volunteer in the Israeli army, I strongly hope and pray that this ‘peace plan’ will be successful,” Shapiro wrote.

He continued with a sharp assessment, claiming, “Palestinians will not coexist peacefully” with Israelis and arguing that they “do not have the capabilities to establish their own homeland and make it successful even with the aid of Israel and the United States. They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own.”

Fast forward to the present day, Shapiro’s spokesperson Manuel Bonder has been working overtime to manage the fallout. Bonder’s statement to the Times of Israel sought to soften the narrative, explaining that Shapiro’s involvement with the IDF was merely a high school service project.

“While he was in high school, Josh Shapiro was required to do a service project, which he and several classmates completed through a program that took them to a kibbutz in Israel where he worked on a farm and at a fishery,” Bonder explained. “The program also included volunteering on service projects on an Israeli army base. At no time was he engaged in any military activities.”

As Shapiro is now positioned as a potential VP candidate for Kamala Harris, the timing of this resurfaced op-ed couldn’t be worse. It raises significant questions about his consistency and authenticity.

Can voters trust a man who, when confronted with his past, attempts to dismiss it with a nonchalant, “I was 20”? This dismissive attitude doesn’t instill confidence, especially in an era where transparency and accountability are paramount.

Shapiro’s past comments starkly contrast his current political stance. At a recent press conference, Shapiro declared, “I have said for years, years before October 7, that I favor a two-state solution — Israelis and Palestinians living peacefully side-by-side, being able to determine their own futures and their own destiny.” This significant shift from his earlier hardline stance raises eyebrows and begs the question: Which Shapiro should voters believe?

Kamala Harris’s potential selection of Shapiro as her running mate is undoubtedly a strategic move. As the governor of Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, Shapiro could be instrumental in securing not just Pennsylvania but also other Rust Belt states like Michigan and Wisconsin. However, his controversial past and his inconsistent stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might jeopardize this strategy.

Within the Democratic Party, there is a vocal pro-Palestinian faction that may view Shapiro’s past involvement with the IDF and his previous comments as a betrayal. This internal division could lead to dissatisfaction and decreased voter turnout among the party’s progressive base. Some Democratic pundits have even suggested that Shapiro’s Jewish heritage could be a contentious point within this context, potentially alienating segments of the party’s voter base.

Shapiro’s flip-flopping is emblematic of a broader issue within the Democratic Party — a lack of principled consistency. Shapiro’s attempt to rewrite his past in light of current political convenience is a disservice to voters who expect honesty and integrity from their leaders.

Human Events senior editor Jack Posobiec expressed this sentiment succinctly, “I, for one, would never disparage someone’s military service. Josh Shapiro should be proud of volunteering in the IDF and wear his uniform with pride. In fact, he should even show us all his pride by walking out at Chicago in it!”

Posobiec’s statement underscores a critical point: Shapiro should own his past instead of running from it. His reluctance to do so suggests a deeper issue of character and reliability. If he cannot be forthright about his history, how can he be trusted to make transparent decisions in the future?

Shapiro’s current predicament highlights the political tightrope he must walk. On one hand, he must appease the pro-Israel lobby and Jewish voters by acknowledging his past involvement with the IDF.

On the other hand, he needs to placate the pro-Palestinian faction within his party, which demands a more critical stance on Israel’s policies. This balancing act is not just challenging but potentially impossible, risking alienation from both sides.

As Kamala Harris prepares to announce her VP pick, likely at an upcoming rally in Pennsylvania, Shapiro’s political future hangs in the balance. His attendance at the rally has been confirmed, but whether he will address the controversy head-on remains to be seen.

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

Biden’s recent economic disaster could send America into a massive recession

Prudent Politics
-
0
Biden’s recent economic disaster could send America into a massive recession

Joe Biden and the Radical Left like to claim their economy is good. But reality could not be further from it.

And now, Biden’s recent economic disaster could be the end for America

In a concerning development for the U.S. economy, the Department of Labor reported that employers added a mere 114,000 workers to their payrolls in July, significantly below economists’ expectations of 180,000 jobs.

Concurrently, the unemployment rate jumped to 4.3 percent, up from the expected 4.1 percent. These disappointing figures suggest that the U.S. economy may be on the brink of a recession, casting a shadow over the Biden administration’s economic policies.

The July employment report paints a troubling picture. The addition of 114,000 jobs is not only below expectations but also insufficient to keep pace with population growth.

Private payrolls fared even worse, increasing by just 97,000. This anemic job growth is a stark reminder of the fragility of the current economic recovery.

The rise in the unemployment rate to 4.3 percent is particularly worrisome. This increase brings the three-month average 50 basis points above the lowest three-month average over the past 12 months, crossing the threshold known as the “Sahm Rule.”

Historically, triggering the Sahm Rule has indicated the beginning of a recession. Although Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has cautioned against taking this as a definitive indicator, the historical precedent cannot be ignored.

Adding to the concerns are the sluggish wage growth and reduction in work hours. Average hourly wages rose by only 0.2 percent in July, falling short of the 0.3 percent increase expected by economists.

On a year-over-year basis, average hourly earnings are up 3.6 percent, down from 3.8 percent last month and marking the smallest gain since May 2021. This deceleration in wage growth further highlights the challenges facing American workers.

The average workweek also ticked down to 34.2 hours from 34.3 hours. While this may seem like a minor change, it reflects a broader trend of reduced working hours, which can have significant implications for overall economic productivity and worker income.

The dismal jobs report and lower-than-expected wage growth are likely to influence the Federal Reserve’s upcoming decisions on interest rates.

With the economy showing signs of slowing down, there is growing speculation that the Fed may consider cutting interest rates at its September meeting.

Mohamad El-Erian, of Queens’ College, emphasized on Bloomberg TV that “the market now fully understands that the Fed may be late in starting its cutting cycle.” This statement underscores the urgency for the Fed to take action, yet it also highlights the uncertainty and potential risks associated with such a move.

The latest economic data raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the Biden administration’s economic policies. Despite the administration’s assurances of a robust recovery, the reality appears to be quite different. The sluggish job growth, rising unemployment, and tepid wage increases suggest that the administration’s strategies may be falling short.

Critics argue that the administration’s focus on massive government spending, stringent regulatory policies, and higher taxes are stifling economic growth and job creation.

The ongoing inflationary pressures, driven in part by these policies, have eroded the purchasing power of American families, further compounding their financial struggles.

One of the most pressing issues facing the Biden administration is inflation. Despite the Federal Reserve’s efforts to curb rising prices, inflation remains stubbornly high. The increase in consumer prices has outpaced wage growth, leading to a decline in real incomes for many Americans.

This situation is particularly challenging for low- and middle-income families, who are disproportionately affected by higher costs for essentials such as food, housing, and transportation.

The administration’s policies, including substantial fiscal stimulus and increased government spending, have been criticized for fueling inflation. Critics argue that these measures have led to an overheated economy, with demand outstripping supply and driving up prices.

The latest economic data serves as a stark reminder of the challenges facing the U.S. economy. The Biden administration’s policies have come under scrutiny, and there is growing concern that the current approach may not be sufficient to avert a recession.

It is imperative for the administration to adopt a more balanced and effective strategy to promote sustainable economic growth, create jobs, and ensure the financial well-being of American families.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Legacy media prove their shocking Radical Left connections after this bizarre incident

Prudent Politics
-
0
Legacy media prove their shocking Radical Left connections after this bizarre incident

The mainstream media seems to be controlled by Radical liberals. But up until now, there hasn’t been very much proof.

But now, the legacy media have proved their shocking Radical left connections after this bizarre incident.

In an unprecedented display of media coordination, legacy media outlets CNN and MSNBC have collectively referred to the Trump-Vance presidential ticket as “weird” over 300 times in a single day.

This concerted effort, seemingly designed to undermine the credibility of the Republican ticket, marks a significant shift in the media narrative, reflecting the new messaging strategy of the Democratic Party and liberal pundits.

According to a comprehensive analysis conducted by the Daily Caller News Foundation, both CNN and MSNBC focused intensely on this new talking point on Monday alone.

MSNBC led the charge, using the term “weird” in reference to either Trump or Vance 179 times across various segments. CNN was close behind, with 170 mentions of the term during their broadcasts.

The term “weird” gained traction after Democratic Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota introduced it on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” During his appearance, Walz described the Trump-Vance ticket as “weird,” a label that quickly became a focal point for the media’s coverage.

This coordinated effort by the legacy media highlights their apparent alignment with Democratic messaging, raising questions about journalistic integrity and bias.

MSNBC’s coverage was particularly intense, with hosts and guests repeatedly using the term. Former Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki contributed to the narrative during her show, “Inside with Jen Psaki,” while “Morning Joe” hosts used the term 32 times in a single segment.

John Lemire, an MSNBC host, emphasized the point by stating, “You know, I think that my colleagues are pointing out the obvious. That the agenda, the way they talk to people, the way they address people, it is bizarre. It’s weird. It is weird.”

Similarly, CNN’s coverage featured frequent mentions of the term “weird” in relation to Trump and Vance. Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) added to the narrative on CNN, remarking, “I don’t think Kamala Harris is going to pick anyone as weird and creepy as JD Vance.”

The legacy media’s adoption of this new talking point appears to be part of a broader Democratic strategy as Vice President Kamala Harris takes the lead in campaigning against the Trump-Vance ticket. With President Biden’s age and health becoming increasingly scrutinized, Harris’s campaign has focused on framing the Republican ticket as out of touch and unconventional.

J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate for Vice President, has been a particular target for Democrats and their media allies. Since his selection as Trump’s running mate, old clips of Vance have resurfaced, providing fodder for media attacks.

In one such clip, Vance referred to many of the nation’s leaders as “childless cat ladies” who are “miserable at their own lives.” This comment has been seized upon by Democrats, who have used it to bolster their “weird” narrative.

The media’s relentless use of the term “weird” raises significant questions about the role of journalism in political discourse. Rather than providing balanced coverage, legacy media outlets appear to be participating in a coordinated campaign to discredit the Trump-Vance ticket.

This strategy not only undermines the credibility of the media but also contributes to the growing polarization of the American political landscape.

As the 2024 presidential campaign intensifies, it is crucial for media outlets to maintain their integrity and provide fair and balanced coverage.

The coordinated effort to label the Trump-Vance ticket as “weird” highlights a troubling trend of media bias and underscores the need for greater accountability in journalism.

The American public deserves a media landscape that prioritizes truth and objectivity over partisan talking points.

As viewers and readers, we must remain vigilant and critical of the information presented to us, ensuring that we are informed by facts rather than manipulated by coordinated narratives.

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

Secret Service whistleblower uncovers horrific truth about attempt on Trump

Prudent Politics
-
0
Secret Service whistleblower uncovers horrific truth about attempt on Trump

Many Americans have strong suspicions regarding the Secret Service and its role in Trump’s attempted assassination. But no one expected this proof.

Because now, a Secret Service whistleblower has exposed the horrific truth about the attempt on Trump’s life.

A whistleblower has exposed severe lapses within the Secret Service (USSS) that nearly resulted in the assassination of former President Donald Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13. These revelations raise serious concerns about the agency’s competence and dedication to protecting one of America’s most influential leaders.

The explosive allegations came to light in a letter from Senator Josh Hawley to Acting USSS Director Ronald Rowe. “A whistleblower has alleged to my office that the Secret Service Counter Surveillance Division (CSD), the division that performs threat assessment of event sites before the event occurs, did not perform its typical evaluation of the Butler site and was not present on the day,” the letter reads.

This omission is nothing short of scandalous. The CSD is tasked with identifying and mitigating potential security threats outside the secure perimeter.

According to the whistleblower, the absence of the CSD on the day of the rally allowed a gunman to get dangerously close, armed with a rangefinder, a device that could have enabled a deadly attack on Trump.

Senator Hawley’s letter implicates Acting Director Rowe in directing significant cuts to the CSD’s manpower, reducing the division’s capacity by twenty percent. “You did not mention this in your Senate testimony when asked directly to explain manpower reductions,” Hawley stated, highlighting an attempt by Rowe to cover up these reckless decisions.

The whistleblower further alleged that agents who were part of the threat assessment team had been sounding alarms about security vulnerabilities for months before the rally.

These warnings, evidently ignored by Rowe and his leadership team, culminated in the near-tragic event.

Senator Hawley’s demands are clear and urgent. He has requested that Rowe provide materials concerning his “personal involvement in revising, updating, or otherwise changing Secret Service policies and personnel related to CSD” by August 8. This includes records that could reveal the rationale behind the detrimental cuts to the threat assessment team.

The Senate hearing earlier this week saw Rowe facing rigorous questioning from Senator Hawley and other lawmakers. Their inquiries underscore the gravity of the situation and the need for an exhaustive investigation into the Secret Service’s actions.

In his opening statement at the Senate hearing, Rowe could not hide his failure. “I went to the roof of the AGR building where the assailant fired shots and laid in a prone position to evaluate his line of sight. What I saw made me ashamed. As a career law enforcement officer, and a 25-year veteran with the Secret Service, I cannot defend why that roof was not better secured,” he admitted.

Rowe’s admission is a glaring indictment of the Secret Service’s readiness and effectiveness. His acknowledgment of the failure to secure a critical vantage point is a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that can exist even within the most elite security organizations.

These revelations have profound implications not only for the Secret Service but also for the safety of former President Trump and other high-profile figures.

The potential for internal mismanagement, particularly concerning threat assessment and resource allocation, is a significant cause for concern.

For Trump, the incident is a stark reminder of the relentless threats he faces. It also raises serious questions about the security measures in place for future events. The need for a thorough review of the Secret Service’s protocols is undeniable.

The public and lawmakers must demand transparency and accountability from the Secret Service.

The allegations from the whistleblower suggest a severe breakdown in security protocols that could have had catastrophic consequences.

It is imperative that Acting Director Rowe and his team be held accountable for these dangerous lapses. The safety of our leaders and the integrity of the Secret Service depend on it.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Liberal state betrays Biden administration after suffering for long enough

Prudent Politics
-
0
Liberal state betrays Biden administration after suffering for long enough

Democrats are starting to turn their backs on Joe Biden because of his atrocious policies. And many of them are speaking out against the current administration.

And a liberal state has betrayed the Biden administration after suffering for long enough.

A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) warns Massachusetts is facing a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions.

The state’s sanctuary policies under Governor Maura Healey, which provide extensive taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal immigrants, are pushing the state towards financial ruin.

The report, authored by Jessica Vaughan, highlights the severe economic burden these policies impose on Massachusetts taxpayers and predicts a looming “fiscal time bomb.”

According to the CIS report, approximately 355,000 illegal immigrants currently reside in Massachusetts, with 50,000 arriving since 2021 alone.

These individuals are eligible for a variety of welfare programs, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, public education, health care, and public safety.

The report estimates that the cost of these services, coupled with emergency housing and other benefits, runs into hundreds of millions of dollars annually​​.

Vaughan points out that Governor Healey has expressed hope that the Biden administration will provide federal funding to cover some of these costs. However, she predicts that such support will be temporary and insufficient to sustain the state’s financial health in the long run.

As federal funding diminishes, Massachusetts will be left to shoulder the increasing burden alone, creating a precarious fiscal situation for the state​​.

The report underscores the broader implications of Massachusetts’ sanctuary policies. The state not only covers welfare benefits but also incurs significant costs related to incarcerated illegal immigrants.

The report notes that Massachusetts spends over $27 million annually on incarcerating illegal immigrants and could face an additional $112 to $166 million per year if proposed policies to extend healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants are enacted​​.

Vaughan’s analysis is stark: “These migrants represent a looming fiscal disaster for taxpayers in Massachusetts,” she stated. “Even if they are working, they are not equipped with skills and education to avoid being a drain on public coffers.”

This sentiment is echoed by many who argue that the state’s generous welfare benefits attract more illegal immigrants, exacerbating the fiscal strain​​.

Governor Healey has acknowledged the escalating crisis. In June, she sent a delegation to the border to dissuade further illegal immigration, stating that Massachusetts was at capacity.

However, critics argue that her efforts are too little, too late. The state’s commitment to maintaining sanctuary policies and providing extensive benefits to illegal immigrants has already set the stage for a fiscal catastrophe​​.

The sanctuary policies of Massachusetts, like those of other states, were initially conceived to protect vulnerable immigrant populations and provide them with essential services. However, the influx of illegal immigrants and the associated costs have far exceeded initial projections.

Unlike many other states, Massachusetts provides welfare benefits to illegal immigrants almost immediately, which has contributed to the rapid depletion of state resources​​.

Massachusetts’ situation reflects a broader national debate on immigration and fiscal policy. The Biden administration’s approach to immigration has faced criticism from conservative groups who argue that it encourages illegal immigration and imposes unsustainable costs on states.

As the federal government grapples with its immigration policies, states like Massachusetts are left to manage the immediate financial repercussions​.

The CIS report paints a dire picture of Massachusetts’ fiscal future if current sanctuary policies continue unabated.

With a substantial portion of the state’s budget being diverted to support illegal immigrants, Massachusetts may soon face severe budget cuts in other critical areas or be forced to increase taxes on its residents.

The state’s leaders must weigh the humanitarian goals of their immigration policies against the stark economic realities presented in the report. Without significant policy changes, Massachusetts could indeed be setting itself up for fiscal ruin.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Potential Harris VP pick’s anti-family comments have Americans enraged

Prudent Politics
-
0
Potential Harris VP pick’s anti-family comments have Americans enraged

Harris and the entire Radical Liberals in America seem to hate families. They also seem to hate America.

But now, Harris’s potential VP pick has made shocking anti-family comments that have Americans outraged.

It is no secret that the Left hates America, but even their supporters admit that they take it too far sometimes. And now, transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s recent comments on MSNBC’s “Deadline” have frustrated and angered millions of Americans.

Buttigieg claimed that the Republican Party “long ago sacrificed their claim to be the party of family,” asserting that virtues such as strength, security, and family values have been abandoned by the GOP under the leadership of Donald Trump.

Buttigieg’s statements are not only provocative but also dangerously misleading. His comments reflect a deep-seated bias and a fundamental misunderstanding of the values that underpin the Republican Party.

By attacking the GOP’s commitment to family values, Buttigieg ignores the diverse and complex perspectives within the party, painting a one-dimensional and unfair picture.

Contrary to Buttigieg’s assertions, the Republican Party has consistently advocated for policies that support family values.

Issues such as school choice, pro-life initiatives, and tax policies aimed at benefiting families are central to the GOP platform.

These policies reflect a commitment to creating a society where families can thrive, free from excessive government intervention.

Buttigieg’s remarks about virtue, security, and family reveal a level of hypocrisy. His critique of Trump’s personal indiscretions and alleged weaknesses in foreign policy with figures like Putin and Xi Jinping serves as a distraction from the substantive issues at hand.

Moreover, Buttigieg’s claim that his family would be better off under a Democratic administration overlooks the economic and social policies that many argue have undermined family stability, such as policies promoting late-term abortion and the erosion of religious freedoms​.

First Name
Last Name

The policies promoted by the Democratic Party, which Buttigieg champions, often run counter to traditional family values.

For instance, the push for Radical s*x education and the support for late-term abortions are seen by many as direct attacks on family integrity and the sanctity of life.

Additionally, the economic policies of the Democratic Party, such as higher taxes and increased regulation, have been criticized for stifling economic growth and reducing opportunities for families to achieve financial independence.

Buttigieg’s comments on security, particularly his criticism of Trump’s foreign policy, are also problematic. The GOP has historically been the party of strong national defense and assertive foreign policy.

Accusations of being “rolled” by foreign leaders are politically charged and lack substantive backing when considering the broader context of Trump’s foreign policy achievements, including historic peace deals in the Middle East and the strengthening of NATO​​.

Pete Buttigieg’s comments on MSNBC reflect a biased and inaccurate portrayal of the Republican Party’s commitment to family values.

His remarks serve more as political rhetoric than as a genuine critique of GOP policies.

The Republican Party remains dedicated to promoting policies that support and strengthen families, ensuring that they can thrive in a safe, secure, and prosperous nation.

By focusing on these core values and rejecting the divisive and misleading narratives promoted by figures like Buttigieg, the GOP continues to stand as a defender of the American family.

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

Kamala Harris’ newest campaign promise is the most destructive and Radical one yet

Prudent Politics
-
0
Kamala Harris’ newest campaign promise is the most destructive and Radical one yet

Kamala Harris has constantly terrified Americans with her harmful and horrific campaign promises. But no one was prepared for things to get this extreme.

And Harris’ newest campaign promise is the most destructive and Radical one yet.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s endorsement of reparations for black Americans has resurfaced, raising critical concerns about the implications of such a policy. An unearthed video from 2019 reveals Harris expressing support for “some form of reparations,” a stance that stands in stark contrast to the views of a significant majority of Americans.

According to a 2022 Pew Research poll, 68% of Americans oppose reparations.

“I think there needs to be some form of reparations and we can discuss what that is,” Harris told The Root when asked if “black people should get reparations.”

Kamala Harris’s political record is a testament to her radical leftist agenda, which includes supporting policies that could severely impact the nation’s economy, social structure, and security.

GovTrack’s scorecard ranked Harris as the most liberal senator in 2019, placing her further left than socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Harris herself even admits that she it Radical and extreme as seen in clips like this one:

This extreme positioning caused the New York Times to rate Harris as the least electable of ten possible Democratic nominees. Her endorsement of reparations is just another example of her radical policy proposals.

Harris has consistently backed policies that many conservatives believe are detrimental to the nation’s stability and prosperity:

Illegal Immigration: Co-sponsored legislation to protect illegal immigrants from deportation, supported giving taxpayer-funded coverage to illegal immigrants, and compared ICE to the KKK.
Healthcare: Backed Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation, which would eliminate private health insurance.
Energy and Environment: Supported banning fracking and defended banning offshore drilling.
Law Enforcement: Supported defunding the police and raised money for the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a far-left organization that bails out violent criminals, including those accused of murder and r*pe.

Recently, Harris appears to be walking back some of her radical positions. According to anonymous campaign officials cited by the New York Times, Harris now supports fracking, wants to increase funding for border security, no longer supports mandatory buybacks of assault weapons, and has retreated from advocating for a single-payer health insurance program.

However, Harris and her campaign aides have yet to fully embrace these changes publicly, causing doubt about her true positions.

First Name
Last Name

The proposal for reparations is fraught with complexities and potential harm. Reparations could lead to significant economic strain, creating divisions and resentment among different racial and ethnic groups. It risks reinforcing a victimhood mentality rather than promoting unity and collective progress.

Moreover, the logistics of implementing reparations are highly problematic. Determining eligibility, the amount of compensation, and the method of distribution would require an immense bureaucratic effort.

Such measures could also open the door to further claims from other groups, leading to an unending cycle of reparation demands.

The strong opposition to reparations among the American public, as evidenced by the Pew Research poll, highlights the political risk for Harris and the Democratic Party. Embracing such a divisive issue could alienate moderate voters and strengthen the resolve of conservative opposition. The policy’s unpopularity underscores the disconnect between Harris’s radical agenda and the electorate’s preferences.

Kamala Harris’s endorsement of reparations and her radical policy history raise serious concerns about her suitability for national leadership.

Her fluctuating stances suggest a lack of consistent principles, while her support for divisive and economically damaging policies threatens to harm the nation’s unity and prosperity.

As the 2024 election approaches, voters must scrutinize Harris’s record and rhetoric to make informed decisions about the future direction of the country.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Radical Left prop up known terrorist in horrifying new development

Prudent Politics
-
0
Radical Left prop up known terrorist in horrifying new development

The Left loves violence and terrorism. And they are constantly praising horrific individuals.

But now, the Radical Left is propping up a known terrorist in this horrifying new development.

In an alarming decision, Bisan Owda, a journalist with well-documented ties to a terrorist organization, has been nominated for an Emmy Award by the Television Academy of Arts and Sciences in the News and Documentary category, according to UNMID. This nomination has ignited outrage and serious concerns about the ethical standards of the awards process.

Bisan Owda, while presenting herself as a “filmmaker” from Gaza, has been reported by journalist Eitan Fischberger to be an active member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist–Leninist and revolutionary socialist terrorist organization.

The PFLP is designated as a terrorist group by numerous countries, including the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan, due to its history of violent attacks and its commitment to armed conflict against Israel.

In 2015, Owda took a leading role in a rally celebrating the PFLP’s 48th anniversary, clad in the military uniform of the terrorist group. The event, a blatant celebration of violence, involved young children dressed as terrorists.

Fischberger has detailed Owda’s participation in several other PFLP-affiliated events, reinforcing her deep-rooted connections to this dangerous organization.

Owda’s influence extends far beyond her journalism. With millions of followers on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, she has a significant reach.

Her posts have been endorsed by prominent figures, including Shaun King, who has encouraged his substantial follower base to support her. This endorsement has only served to amplify her controversial messages.

Following the October 7 massacre of over 1,200 Israeli civilians, Owda posted a note in Arabic on social media justifying the violence. “For every action, there is a reaction,” she wrote, implying that the massacre was an expected outcome of long-standing occupation and siege.

Owda has also been at the forefront of spreading false and inflammatory information. She falsely claimed that an Israeli airstrike killed hundreds at the Al-Ahli Hospital, while evidence showed that a misfired rocket from Palestinian terrorists landed in the parking lot.

The actual number of casualties remains unconfirmed, yet Owda’s video irresponsibly declared, “800 people were killed in one airstrike in Gaza.”

Furthermore, Owda propagated the lie that humanitarian corridors established by Israel for Palestinian civilians to evacuate were traps designed to kill those fleeing south. These baseless claims have been widely debunked, yet they continue to fuel hatred and violence.

First Name
Last Name

Despite her blatant terrorist ties and history of spreading misinformation, Owda has been lauded as “an ambassador of goodwill” on ABC News and featured on major outlets like the BBC.

This issue is part of a broader problem. Earlier this year, the United States and other Western countries cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinians.

Refugees after it was revealed that the organization was supporting Palestinian terrorists. Owda’s involvement with such organizations highlights the disturbing nexus between humanitarian work and terrorism.

Owda is not the first individual with terrorist ties to be honored by the journalism industry. In March, The Associated Press won an award for “Team Picture Story of the Year” for a photo depicting the half-naked body of Shani Louk, a German Israeli woman, surrounded by Hamas terrorists.

The photographers, Ali Mahmud and Hatem Ali have been accused of participating in the October 7 attacks, raising further ethical concerns about the integrity of such awards.

The decision to nominate Bisan Owda for an Emmy Award is a stark example of the troubling disregard for ethical standards in the journalism industry.

Owda’s well-documented ties to the PFLP, her role in spreading dangerous falsehoods, and her influence in promoting terrorist ideologies make her an unworthy candidate for such an honor.

As the public scrutinizes this decision, it is imperative that the Television Academy of Arts and Sciences reconsider its stance and uphold the integrity of journalism awards. The nomination of individuals with connections to terrorism only serves to undermine the credibility of the entire industry.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

1...212223...131Page 22 of 131

2024 Copyright © All rights reserved.

Quick Links

Must Read

Popular Articles