Biden thought he could breeze through the last few weeks of his presidency. He thought wrong.

And Joe Biden turned white as a ghost after this last minute report hit his desk.

A recent Gallup poll reveals that a majority of Americans believe President Joe Biden will be remembered as a “poor” to “below average” leader. The survey, released on Tuesday, highlights a grim outlook on Biden’s presidential legacy, with 37% predicting he will be viewed as a “below average” president and 17% calling his performance outright “poor.”

On the other end of the spectrum, just 6% of respondents felt Biden would be remembered as an “outstanding” president, while 13% anticipated his legacy might land “above average.” Another 26% expected his tenure to be rated as simply “average.”

Biden’s overall net positive rating of -35 percentage points ranks him near the bottom of the historical list of presidents Gallup has analyzed. Only former President Richard Nixon, who left office amid the Watergate scandal, fared worse, with a net positive rating of -42 points.

In contrast, President-elect Donald Trump received a -4 percentage point net positive rating for his first term, reflecting a highly polarized view of his presidency. Trump earned relatively high positive (40%) and negative (44%) ratings, along with the fewest average ratings (16%) among the 10 presidents Gallup surveyed.

At the top of the spectrum, former President John F. Kennedy retained the highest net positive rating, at an impressive +68 percentage points.

Even within his own party, Biden’s ratings were tepid. Among Democrats, 54% said the president’s legacy would fall between “average” and “poor,” while only 44% believed he would be remembered as “above average” or “outstanding.” Gallup observed, “Biden’s fellow Democrats are less enthusiastic about his presidency than they are about other recent Democratic presidents, and Biden is the only recent Democratic president who currently has a net-negative evaluation among independents.”

The president faced significant political and public relations challenges during his time in office. Allegations that members of his family, including his son Hunter Biden and brother James Biden, profited from an influence-peddling scheme cast a shadow over his administration. Biden endured an impeachment inquiry over these claims, though he was never formally impeached.

Additionally, his presidency was marred by criticism over the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which saw the Taliban quickly retake control of the country, and record-high illegal border crossings under his administration.

Gallup noted, however, that perceptions of past presidents, including Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Trump, have improved over time. This suggests that Biden’s legacy might also soften in the years ahead.

The poll findings lend credence to Democratic strategist James Carville’s recent assertion that Biden made a critical mistake by seeking re-election. “The most tragic figure in American politics in my lifetime is President Biden,” Carville said. “It’s all so f—ing self-inflicted … He knows that he f—-ed up.”

After a political career spanning nearly five decades, Biden will leave the White House on January 20 when Donald Trump is inaugurated as the 47th president. Biden’s re-election bid was effectively derailed last July following a disastrous debate against Trump and growing concerns within the Democratic Party about his cognitive abilities and electoral viability.

In the final weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, Biden reportedly expressed frustration, acknowledging that his legacy hinged on Vice President Kamala Harris defeating Trump in the general election. Despite a significant fundraising advantage, Harris was unable to secure victory, further complicating how history will view Biden’s presidency.

The 2024 Election as a Referendum on Biden’s Presidency

The results of the 2024 election not only determined the next occupant of the Oval Office but also served as a decisive referendum on Biden’s presidency. Voter sentiment revealed widespread dissatisfaction with his administration’s handling of key issues such as inflation, foreign policy, and border security.

Biden’s inability to rally bipartisan support or energize his own Democratic base ultimately underscored the challenges he faced during his presidency. The Republican Party capitalized on these vulnerabilities, framing the election as an opportunity to “restore competence” to the White House.

The election also highlighted the waning influence of Biden within his own party. Many Democrats, including prominent strategists and donors, openly questioned whether he should have pursued a second term. This internal discord likely weakened the Democratic ticket, paving the way for Trump’s return to power.

Ultimately, the 2024 election will be remembered as a pivotal moment in American political history. For Biden, it represents both the conclusion of a tumultuous presidency and a harsh judgment from the electorate, who viewed his tenure as falling short of the high expectations that accompanied his 2020 victory. While time may soften public perception of his achievements, the immediate aftermath of the election reflects a nation that was desperately ready for a change from the Biden administration.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The president-elect is about to take back over. But everything has been thrown up in the air.

Because Trump received a shocking test result that could change his entire second term.

Support for President-elect Donald Trump has surged to new heights, according to the latest data from RealClearPolling.

For the first time, the group awarded Trump a net positive personal rating, reflecting a dramatic shift in public perception.

As of December 11, Trump boasts a net approval score of +2 percentage points. This marks a sharp turnaround from his negative 12.8 rating just six months earlier in June.

RealClearPolling, which has tracked Trump’s approval ratings since 2015, noted the significant evolution in his popularity.

When Trump first announced his candidacy nearly a decade ago, the group gave him a staggering net disapproval rating of -39.3 percentage points, with favorability languishing at just 22.7%.

Fast forward nine years, and Trump’s favorability has climbed to an impressive 49.4%.

His net positive approval rating underscores the momentum of his remarkable political comeback last month, which left critics reeling.

In a historic achievement, Trump became only the second president in U.S. history to win nonconsecutive terms. Securing the popular vote and sweeping all seven battleground states, he cemented his return to the White House with a decisive victory.

Trump’s road to victory, however, was anything but conventional.

The president-elect overcame two assassination attempts this year and endured a felony conviction in May, which he has repeatedly condemned as a politically motivated attack orchestrated by the Biden administration’s “weaponized” justice system.

Despite these challenges, Trump has maintained that the legal and political battles ultimately energized his campaign.

“I’ll tell you what, what they’ve done to me in terms of weaponization, indictments, impeachments, and everything else. And in the end, it probably helped, because I got the biggest vote, the most votes any Republican’s ever gotten in history,” Trump said in a recent interview with NBC.

RealClearPolling’s findings align with other recent surveys. A Morning Consult poll released Thursday revealed that 50% of voters now view Trump favorably—a significant milestone as he prepares to take office once again.

Trump’s growing popularity comes amid waning support for the outgoing Biden administration. RealClearPolling data shows President Joe Biden’s approval rating has plunged to -13.7%, signaling widespread voter dissatisfaction as his term draws to a close.

The contrasting trajectories of Trump and Biden in public opinion highlight the shifting dynamics of American politics.

With Trump’s inauguration approaching, his revitalized support base sets the stage for a dramatic new chapter in his presidency.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The former Speaker of the House has never been one for the truth. But this is just shameless.

And now Nancy Pelosi’s bald-faced lie just blew up in her face.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) once again reached for falsehoods and divisive rhetoric during a weekend interview, attempting to link President-elect Donald Trump to the 2022 attack on her husband, Paul Pelosi.

In typical Pelosi fashion, she offered no evidence for her claims but used the moment to smear Trump and his supporters.

Pelosi’s unsubstantiated remarks aired Sunday on CBS News’ *Face the Nation* with Margaret Brennan.

While discussing Trump’s consideration of pardons for certain January 6 defendants, Pelosi took the opportunity to push her baseless narrative, accusing Trump of inciting violence.

She alleged that those who used strong language on January 6 had an “intention” to commit violence, implying a direct connection between Trump’s rhetoric and her husband’s assault.

“Now it didn’t end that day,” Pelosi said, making the dubious leap.

“As you know, he called out to these people to continue their violence, my husband being a victim of all of that, and he still has injuries from that attack. So it just goes on and on. It isn’t something that happens and then it’s over. No, once you are attacked, you have consequences that continue.”

Pelosi’s attempt to politicize her husband’s attack—a crime widely condemned across the political spectrum—shows her willingness to twist personal tragedy into partisan blame. She ignored the fact that there was no credible evidence linking Trump or his supporters to the attack.

Pelosi didn’t stop there. She ramped up her rhetoric, calling Trump a “strange person” for considering pardons.

“It’s really a strange person who’s going to be President of the United States, who thinks that it’s okay to pardon people who are engaged in an attack,” she said, continuing her tirade. She also accused Trump of having “conned” the American people regarding January 6.

She acknowledged Trump’s case-by-case approach to potential pardons but refused to give him credit for considering the varying levels of involvement among the defendants. “The President said he would go on a case-by-case basis,” she admitted reluctantly.

“So I assume that some of those people may not have engaged in the violent activities that some of the others did.”

Even as Pelosi made a weak concession, she doubled down on the false claim that Trump had encouraged those “looking for me and finding my husband.”

This baseless accusation demonstrates Pelosi’s consistent reliance on hyperbole and distortion to stoke division.

Pelosi’s remarks are yet another reminder of her tendency to scapegoat Trump for any and all events, no matter how tenuous the connection.

Rather than providing evidence or engaging in constructive dialogue, Pelosi appears committed to rehashing old narratives to score political points.

WATCH:

On President-elect Donald Trump's plan to pardon Jan. 6 defendants, @SpeakerPelosi says, “It's really a strange person who's going to be President of the United States, who thinks that it's okay to pardon people who are engaged in an attack." When asked if she would be… pic.twitter.com/mvD4RrxNux

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 5, 2025

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The adults are about to be back in charge. And they aren’t taking any chances.

Now Trump’s border czar made a crazy announcement you won’t believe.

President-elect Donald Trump’s soon-to-be border czar, Tom Homan, sent a clear and bold message during an interview over the weekend: illegal aliens from Venezuela will be deported under the new administration, whether Venezuela likes it or not.

This decisive stance highlights Trump’s return to the White House as a game-changer for U.S. border policy.

Homan made these remarks during an appearance on CBS News’ Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan. When questioned about countries like Venezuela refusing to accept deportees, Homan wasted no time emphasizing the difference between Trump’s leadership and the weak policies of the Biden administration.

“Well, first of all, we got President Trump coming to the Oval Office, and he’s proven during his first administration, his leadership on illegal immigration was a game changer,” Homan said.

He pointed to past victories, such as Trump compelling El Salvador to take back MS-13 gang members in just 48 hours.

“It took President Trump 48 hours to get El Salvador to take back their criminal aliens into their prisons.”

Homan also praised Trump’s achievements in persuading Mexico to implement the successful Remain in Mexico program, which kept asylum seekers south of the U.S. border while their cases were processed.

“He was able to get Mexico put military on the southern and northern border,” Homan noted, underscoring Trump’s ability to bring other nations to the table and prioritize American safety.

The contrast with President Joe Biden’s approach could not be more stark. According to Homan, Biden’s lack of resolve allowed countries to refuse deportations without consequence.

“President Biden never forced these countries to take them back,” Homan said, calling out the failure to prioritize public safety during the current administration.

Under Trump’s renewed leadership, the days of such leniency are over. “If, for instance, Venezuela don’t take their people back, there’s other ways we can do it,” Homan declared.

“There’s other countries be willing to accept them.” He expressed confidence that Trump will apply the same pressure to Venezuela as he did with Mexico and El Salvador to ensure they cooperate.

But Homan made it clear: even if Venezuela refuses, deportations will proceed. “If they don’t, they’re still gonna be deported. They’re just gonna be deported to a different country,” he explained.

The focus, he said, is on ensuring the safety of American citizens, especially given the growing threat posed by criminal Venezuelan gangs.

“We’re not gonna be held up on removing public safety threats in this country,” Homan continued.

“We gotta put the safety of the American people first. We’ve had too many young women murdered and raped and burned alive by members of Venezuelan gangs.” He vowed that deporting such individuals would be a top priority from day one of Trump’s presidency.

Homan’s comments reflect the no-nonsense approach that defined Trump’s first term and will once again take center stage in his second. Under Trump’s leadership, border security will not be compromised, and the safety of American families will come first.

WATCH:

Incoming "border czar" Tom Homan says he hopes President-elect Donald Trump will work with Venezuela on an agreement to take back citizens who are being deported from the U.S., as Trump previously did for El Salvador and Mexico.

If Venezuela doesn't cooperate, Homan says their… pic.twitter.com/mWGUXmDhvE

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 5, 2025

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Trump has a herculean task ahead of him. If anyone can do it, it’s him.

Because China leveled a direct threat at Donald Trump that has all hell breaking loose.

China is undertaking an unparalleled military expansion that rivals the build-up of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, according to one expert, as a new Department of Defense (DoD) report reveals Beijing’s aggressive enhancements in weaponry and psychological warfare capabilities.

Chuck DeVore, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, sounded the alarm on China’s growing military dominance in a piece for The Federalist.

Citing the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress, DeVore criticized the U.S. for spending $5.4 trillion on counterterrorism and nation-building efforts while allowing the Chinese threat to flourish. He urged Congress to collaborate with the incoming Trump administration to reallocate Pentagon resources toward naval strength, nuclear deterrence, missile defense, and logistics.

“China is engaging in an unprecedented military build-up that the world frankly hasn’t seen since…the 1930s,” DeVore stated on Fox & Friends Weekend.

He highlighted key differences between the two eras, noting, “Now the big difference there is that [1930’s Germany] really focused on land power, which frankly is pretty easy to build up pretty quickly. Navies are much more difficult to build up. And we are way behind. Not only do we need to catch up, but we also need to modernize our nuclear weapons and put a lot of effort into missile defense.”

The latest DoD report on “military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China” underscores the staggering scale of Beijing’s military growth.

“They’re massively building up their nuclear arsenal,” DeVore explained. “We expect it to expand to at least 1,000 warheads by 2030, only five years from now—probably going to be bigger than that.”

He also pointed out, “The Chinese Navy, not by tonnage, but by numbers, is now larger than the U.S. Navy. China has something like 250 times the shipbuilding capacity that America does.”

The report confirms that China’s People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) has added 50 new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of striking the U.S., bringing its total to 400.

Additionally, the arsenal now includes 300 medium-range ballistic missiles, 100 long-range cruise missiles, and over 600 operational nuclear warheads, projected to exceed 1,000 by 2030.

China has also developed the world’s leading hypersonic missile arsenal, including the DF-27 missile, which, according to DeVore, “are capable of evading U.S. missile defenses and targeting Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska.”

Already boasting the largest navy globally, China plans to grow its fleet of 370 ships and submarines to 435 by 2030.

The DoD’s comprehensive 182-page report further examines the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) ambitions to expand the influence of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) through groundbreaking psychological warfare.

This includes research and development into what the PLA refers to as “cognitive domain operations” (CDO), an evolution of psychological warfare leveraging AI, big data, brain science, and modern communication platforms.

“The goal of CDO is to achieve what the PLA refers to as ‘mind dominance,’” the report states, defining it as using information to influence public opinion and behavior to create favorable conditions for the PRC. This strategy aims to reduce both civilian and military resistance to PLA actions while shaping societal perceptions in ways that benefit Beijing.

CDO, the report notes, is intended to serve as both a deterrent and an offensive tool. By polarizing societies or shaping perceptions, the PLA seeks to “subdue the enemy without fighting,” which it considers “the highest realm of warfare.”

As DeVore warns, the implications of China’s military surge extend far beyond hardware, encompassing a sophisticated psychological campaign designed to secure global dominance without firing a shot.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Clintons’ reach is long. Now they’re rearing their heads once again.

And this Hillary Clinton confidant made an unreal claim about Joe Biden you won’t believe.

Former Hillary Clinton adviser and CNN contributor Karen Finney voiced a strong defense of President Biden’s legacy on Sunday, asserting that his record “will stand the test of time” as he prepares to leave office.

During an appearance on CNN’s *State of the Union,* Finney highlighted Biden’s leadership during the COVID-19 crisis, painting a picture of a presidency that pulled the nation back from the brink of disaster.

“I think in the longer term, we will remember that this is a president and vice president who helped us come back from the brink during COVID, when people were dying by the hundreds of thousands on a daily basis,” she said. “We were in our homes, and companies and small businesses were falling off a cliff, and he helped to get vaccines, get us out of our homes, get us back to work, and invested in this country.”

Finney also pointed to Biden’s work on legislation like the Chips and Science Act, suggesting that its impact will be far-reaching.

“I think one of the things that you‘ll see him doing with the time that he has left is more around investments in the Chips and Science Act. I think that‘s actually going to be transformational in communities around the country,” she said.

While she acknowledged that former President Donald Trump might try to claim credit for certain economic successes, Finney maintained that Biden’s achievements speak for themselves. “Joe Biden‘s record with regard to the things that he‘s accomplished, I think will stand the test of time,” she added.

However, Finney didn’t shy away from addressing critiques about Biden’s health and mental acuity, conceding that concerns have emerged in recent months.

“It was very disturbing to learn late in the year about just how poor his health has become. And I, like many, did not realize that it had gotten to that point,” she admitted.

Nevertheless, Finney praised Biden’s ability to deliver results, particularly in foreign policy.

“That being said, I think…he showed up for the job. He got the work done. I think some of the accomplishments also in the Middle East and foreign policy will also stand the test of time.”

Her fellow panelist, Scott Jennings, offered a starkly different perspective, delivering a scathing assessment of Biden’s presidency.

“Look, I think he’s going to leave office in disgrace,” Jennings countered. “The Hunter Biden pardon was disgraceful. He’s going to be remembered largely for inflation and for the disastrous Afghanistan pullout. And I think…we’re just getting the first draft of this now.”

Jennings went on to criticize what he described as a systemic effort to obscure Biden’s mental decline.

“As we continue to learn about the massive cover-up that went on, not about his health, but about his mental acuity… it’s going to be a really ugly chapter. It’s a diminished presidency because of it,” he said.

He also took aim at Biden’s foreign policy, challenging Finney’s claim about the president securing the release of hostages from the Middle East.

Public opinion seems to align more with Jennings’ critique. A Fox News poll showed Biden leaving office with a dismal 41% approval rating, and only 7% of respondents considered him “one of the greatest” presidents.

The picture was even bleaker in a Marquette Law School national poll conducted from Dec. 2-11, which pegged his approval rating at just 34%—the lowest of his presidency.

As Biden departs the White House, his legacy remains a hotly debated topic, with Democrats like Finney touting his resilience and accomplishments, while critics argue that his presidency will be remembered for its shortcomings and controversies.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The nation’s capital shouldn’t have an agenda. But we all know where they stand.

And now Washington, D.C. rushed to cover-up this illegal targeting of conservatives.

Washington, DC’s District Department of Transportation (DDOT) strongly condemned a provocative transit ad near the Capitol that compared MAGA hat wearers to trash.

“Keep DC trash free,” read the inflammatory ad, which was brought to public attention by Capitol Hill Baptist Church pastor Caleb Morell.

The ad depicted a red circle with a line through it over an image of a person wearing a MAGA hat and holding a book titled Project 2025.

At the bottom, the ad bore logos for the District of Columbia Department of Public Works and the Mayor’s Office of the Clean City program.

DDOT swiftly disavowed any connection to the politically charged imagery.

“This image was not created, funded, or authorized by the DC government, and our teams are currently working to remove them,” the department posted on X in response to Morell’s discovery. “If you see additional images like this, we encourage you to report them to 311.”

When reached for comment, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office directed inquiries to DDOT’s official statement.

The origins of the ad remain unknown, but this incident is not the first time a U.S. city has been embroiled in controversy over misleading political advertisements.

Last fall, for example, the Instagram artist @winstontseng admitted to creating fake ads that falsely suggested the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris.

The ads, which depicted Harris in team-branded attire, mysteriously appeared near bus stops in Philadelphia during the 2024 election season.

The controversy over political messaging hit another flashpoint during the final stretch of the 2024 election when President Biden faced sharp criticism for remarks seemingly targeting supporters of President-elect Donald Trump.

“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable and it’s un-American,” Biden said during an October webcast with advocacy group Voto Latino, reacting to a comment by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe.

Hinchcliffe had joked that a U.S. territory was “a floating island of garbage” during his warm-up set at Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden.

Biden’s comments sparked immediate backlash. The White House scrambled to downplay the remarks, claiming Biden said “supporter’s” with an apostrophe, despite video evidence showing him clearly emphasizing the plural term.

The attempt at damage control even drew criticism from the White House stenographer, who oversees official transcripts. Biden’s team insisted that the president was referencing Hinchcliffe’s rhetoric, not Trump’s supporters as a whole.

Trump, ever quick to capitalize on the moment, responded with a tongue-in-cheek photo of himself donning an orange vest and climbing into a garbage truck, taking a jab at Biden’s words.

The debacle over DC’s MAGA-themed transit ad now joins a growing list of politically charged controversies that highlight the increasingly blurred lines between political art, guerrilla messaging, and official discourse in America’s polarized landscape.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Biden’s presidency is coming to an end. But all the skeletons in his closet are about to be revealed.

And this bombshell report reveals Joe Biden’s involvement in this scandal involving a deadly global threat.

A new report has revealed that President Joe Biden’s administration withheld intelligence suggesting that COVID-19 originated from a lab leak in China. This information, provided by U.S. intelligence agencies, contradicts earlier assertions about the pandemic’s origins.

Jason Bannan, a microbiologist with a Ph.D., joined the FBI after the 9/11 attacks to enhance its capabilities in handling biological and chemical threats. He played a key role in the FBI’s investigation of COVID-19’s origins.

The FBI stood out as the only agency to assess with “moderate confidence” that the pandemic likely originated from a laboratory leak. In contrast, four other government departments supported a zoonotic origin theory, claiming the virus came from animals, but expressed “low confidence” in their conclusions, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Despite the FBI’s position, the agency was excluded from an August 2021 briefing to President Biden, conducted by National Intelligence Director Avril Haines. This meeting took place three months after Biden ordered a 90-day review to determine the origins of the pandemic.

“Being the only agency that assessed that a laboratory origin was more likely, and the agency that expressed the highest level of confidence in its analysis of the source of the pandemic, we anticipated the FBI would be asked to attend the briefing,” Bannan explained to The Wall Street Journal. “I find it surprising that the White House didn’t ask.”

The investigation by The Wall Street Journal revealed that officials within the Biden administration worked to prevent certain details about the lab leak theory from reaching the public. Additionally, the FBI was not the only agency to entertain suspicions of a lab origin.

Adrienne Keen, a State Department official who had prior experience with the World Health Organization (WHO), advocated for the credibility of the WHO’s report on the pandemic’s origins. However, that report was influenced by limited access to key evidence, as China obstructed the WHO’s investigation. The WHO concluded the virus likely had a zoonotic source.

During the Trump administration, the U.S. withdrew from the WHO, citing its role in promoting disinformation from China and its failure to hold Beijing accountable for its lack of transparency regarding COVID-19.

Keen later transitioned to the role of director for Global Health Security for the National Intelligence Council. This council was tasked with a central role in compiling the report for Biden on the pandemic’s origins.

Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno, who served under the Trump administration, has alleged that Keen worked to discredit evidence supporting the lab leak theory. DiNanno told Sky News last year that Keen “was very involved in discrediting the information that we were trying to present to the Secretary of State.”

“I had found out that apparently she was an outside advisor also to the World Health Organization,” DiNanno added. “They’re a UN agency. So it’s just not appropriate to do work for a foreign power. And that would include the United Nations.”

The FBI relied on a thesis by Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) scientist Yu Ping, which argued that the coronavirus behind the pandemic was not native to Hubei province, where Wuhan is located. Instead, the virus was linked to bats found nearly a thousand miles away in Yunnan. According to the theory, if the virus had a zoonotic origin, cases would have first appeared in regions between Yunnan and Wuhan, home to millions of people. However, the first known cases were detected in Wuhan, near the WIV.

Keen reportedly dismissed the relevance of the lack of cases in the regions between Yunnan and Wuhan, claiming Chinese authorities lacked the surveillance tools to detect outbreaks there—a claim the FBI disputed.

Sky News reported that Keen declined to comment on whether she disclosed her prior involvement with the WHO to the U.S. government.

Meanwhile, scientists at the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), part of the Defense Intelligence Agency, also concluded the coronavirus was genetically modified in a Chinese lab. Their analysis found evidence of “gain of function” research, a controversial technique aimed at enhancing a virus’s ability to infect humans. This research had been described in a 2008 Chinese scientific paper.

The NCMI scientists—John Hardham, Robert Cutlip, and Jean-Paul Chretien—briefed counterparts, including an FBI agent, on their findings. But in July 2021, they were ordered by a superior at the medical intelligence center to stop sharing their work with the FBI, which was deemed “off the reservation,” according to sources familiar with the matter.

The suppression of their findings has sparked internal investigations. The Department of Energy later joined the FBI in concluding that a lab leak was the likely source of the pandemic.

Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe also supported the lab leak theory. “Listen, the people that had the most access to the most intelligence, including myself and Secretary Pompeo, are telling you that the most likely origin of COVID-19…Was a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he said.

Ratcliffe’s assertion aligns with mounting evidence that the pandemic’s origins are tied to a Chinese lab, adding further weight to calls for greater transparency and accountability from the Biden administration and the federal government in general.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Trump has his hands full and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet. He’s going to be one busy man after his inauguration.

And the leader of this foreign threat just made on demand of Donald Trump.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently expressed his readiness to engage in potential peace talks with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to end the nearly three-year-long war in Ukraine.

Speaking at a year-end press conference in Moscow, Putin revealed that he has not spoken to Trump in years and that no meeting is currently planned. However, he emphasized his openness to “compromises” to bring an end to the conflict in Ukraine.

“I don’t know when we will meet because he has not said anything about it,” Putin said. “I have not talked to him for more than four years. Of course, I’m ready to talk any time; I will be ready to meet with him if he wishes.”

Trump has repeatedly stated on the campaign trail that he could resolve the conflict in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office.

Over the weekend, he reiterated his intentions during remarks at Turning Point’s AmericaFest convention, saying, “President Putin said that he wants to meet with me as soon as possible. So we have to wait for this, but we have to end that war. That war is horrible, horrible.”

Reports from The Washington Post last month indicated that Trump held his first post-election call with Putin shortly after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

During the call, Trump allegedly cautioned the Russian president against escalating actions in Ukraine. However, the Kremlin has denied that such a conversation took place.

Putin, while asserting Russia’s growing strength, maintained that he would not enter any negotiations from a position of weakness.

“I believe that Russia has become significantly stronger in the past two or three years,” he said.

“Why? Because we are becoming a truly sovereign country, and we barely depend on anybody. We are strengthening our defense capability. The combat readiness of the Russian Armed Forces is the highest in the world today. I assure you it is the highest.”

Despite his confidence, Putin expressed a commitment to finding a diplomatic solution. “Politics is the art of compromise. We have always said that we are ready for both negotiations and compromises,” he stated.

He also criticized Ukraine’s leadership for allegedly refusing opportunities for dialogue. “The problem is that the opposing side, both literally and figuratively, rejected negotiations. We, on the contrary, have always been willing to talk, and talking always leads to finding a compromise.”

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signaled a willingness to consider territorial concessions to Russia if it would secure a peace agreement.

Zelensky’s position has reportedly shifted since Trump’s electoral victory, reflecting a potential opening for renewed negotiations.

Trump, speaking at a press conference in Palm Beach, Florida, last week, hinted that preliminary progress had been made toward brokering peace but acknowledged the complexity of the situation.

“It’s a tough one. It’s a nasty one,” he said, describing the war in Ukraine.

As the prospect of negotiations looms, the international community will be watching closely to see if Putin and Trump can find common ground to end the devastating conflict in Ukraine.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The US has plenty of enemies. And now they’ve got their crosshairs trained.

And now the Pentagon is sounding the alarm on a secret weapon that is terrifying D.C.

The United States has imposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan over its clandestine development of ballistic missiles, which U.S. officials believe are designed as a deterrent against America.

This move marks a sharp escalation in tensions between the two nations and reflects growing U.S. concerns about Pakistan’s military ambitions.

The sanctions target four entities under Executive Order (E.O.) 13382, which focuses on curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

The U.S. State Department, in its announcement, emphasized the seriousness of Pakistan’s actions and their implications for regional and global security.

Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer, speaking at an event last week, underscored the U.S. perspective on Pakistan’s missile development.

“Just looking at a map and looking at ranges, you know, we believe that this is fundamentally focused on us,” Finer said, according to The Wall Street Journal. His remarks highlighted the perceived strategic threat posed by Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile program.

Pakistan, however, was quick to dismiss the U.S. concerns. The government called the fears “irrational” and described the idea that their missile program threatens the United States as “ludicrous.”

Islamabad framed the sanctions as unjustified and an overreaction, asserting that its military developments are defensive in nature.

Adding to the complexity, The Wall Street Journal reported on Pakistan’s shifting military strategy in recent years.

As Pakistan deepens ties with communist China, its traditional rival, India, is aligning more closely with the United States. This growing divide has reshaped strategic calculations across South Asia.

“In that situation, Pakistan’s hard-liners, Pakistan’s hawks, think they need to think beyond just today and tomorrow,” explained Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S.

“They have to think about what happens if there is a global conflict in which India is aligned with the U.S. and Pakistan is considered as a partner of China.” Haqqani’s insights reflect the geopolitical chess game intensifying in the region.

The sanctions also cast a spotlight on Pakistan’s reputation as a precarious and volatile nuclear power.

Military and national security experts from both Democratic and Republican administrations have long warned about the dangers posed by the South Asian nation.

With a sizable stockpile of nuclear weapons, persistent political instability, and governance influenced by Islamists, Pakistan presents unique challenges to global security.

Its associations with radical Islamic groups and the presence of terrorist organizations within its borders further exacerbate these risks.

This latest development underscores the fragile balance of power in South Asia and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy.

As alliances shift and rivalries deepen, the United States’ sanctions against Pakistan could have far-reaching consequences for regional stability and its ongoing competition with China.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is losing some of its biggest voices. Their radicalism comes with a price.

And now Bill Maher jumped across the aisle with a devastating attack on Democrats.

Liberal comedian Bill Maher didn’t hold back as he criticized his own side for the growing trend of cutting off family members during the holidays over political disagreements.

Maher’s candid remarks came during Sunday’s episode of his “Club Random” podcast, where he and fellow comedian Jay Leno reflected on the late entertainment icon Sammy Davis Jr. and his controversial embrace of President Richard Nixon.

Leno brought up how Davis was labeled a “traitor” by Hollywood liberals after famously hugging the Republican president. The moment, which caused an uproar at the time, became the jumping-off point for Maher to address the political tribalism that has taken root today.

“It’s so funny you mention that because, like today, we live in this time when you’re not allowed to have friends from the other side or cross lines politically,” Maher said to Leno.

“And I forgot that there’s an example of that way back when, a guy who crossed lines politically. ‘Ooh, the worst thing you could ever do — be friends with a Republican. Ahh! Call 911!’”

Maher didn’t stop there, launching into a tirade against what he sees as the left’s intolerance. “This is what I f—ing hate about the left,” he vented.

“And they’re not going to get me over to the Trump side, which they think they will sometimes, but just the idea that, you know, ‘cut your family off for Thanksgiving if they voted for the wrong guy.’ F— off, you f—s.” He added that Sammy Davis Jr.’s experience of being ostracized for hugging Nixon was an early warning sign of the same divisive mindset that persists today.

This isn’t the first time Maher has sounded the alarm about political polarization.

During a monologue on his HBO show “Real Time” last month, Maher took aim at Yale University chief psychiatry resident Dr. Amanda Calhoun, who told MSNBC’s Joy Reid it was acceptable to cut off family members who voted for Donald Trump and to avoid spending holidays with them.

Her comments, Maher argued, exemplify the growing trend of political purity tests.

“Oh, how pure. It’s like not letting certain people sit with you on the bus,” Maher quipped, juxtaposing her stance with a photo of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

His sarcasm underscored his disdain for the idea of isolating loved ones over political choices. “Think about that, a mental health professional advising people to isolate during the holidays. And don’t forget to drink too much and put on weight.”

Maher then turned the mirror on the broader issue of polarization and what he sees as the solution: communication. “You know who I really wouldn’t want to have Thanksgiving dinner with? This overly educated i.e. extremely stupid, Ivory Tower academic,” he said.

“But I would, because if we ever want this nation to heal, this is what we have to do: force ourselves to reach out and find out why someone feels the way they do, and make the choices they make without prejudging them a monster. And they must do the same for you.”

The comedian’s remarks stand out in an era when political divisions seem to cut deeper than ever.

His plea for tolerance and understanding, while couched in his signature brash humor, carries a serious message about the need to bridge divides rather than deepen them.

For Maher, the path forward doesn’t involve retreating into ideological echo chambers or cutting ties with those who hold opposing views.

Instead, he advocates for uncomfortable but necessary conversations—something he believes both sides of the aisle need to embrace if the nation has any hope of mending its fractures.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Many around the country have asked for term limits. This isn’t going to make anyone feel better.

Because this high profile politician was exposed for living in a retirement home.

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, has been living in a retirement facility, a source told Fox News on Sunday, pushing back on claims from a local news outlet that she was in a memory care unit.

The 81-year-old congresswoman, who is retiring at the end of her term, has faced mounting questions about her prolonged absence from Capitol Hill, having last cast a vote on July 24 and missing over 54% of votes this year.

The *Dallas Express* recently investigated Granger’s extended absence, citing a constituent who claimed the congresswoman was residing in a memory care facility in Texas.

The report gained traction among other outlets, but a source close to Granger told Fox News this was inaccurate.

According to the source, Granger is indeed in a retirement facility that offers memory care services but clarified she is not in the memory care unit itself.

Addressing concerns about her health, Granger released a statement to Fox News acknowledging she has been dealing with “unforeseen health challenges” that have complicated her ability to travel to Washington.

“As many of my family, friends, and colleagues have known, I have been navigating some unforeseen health challenges over the past year,” Granger said.

“However, since early September, my health challenges have progressed, making frequent travel to Washington both difficult and unpredictable. During this time, my incredible staff has remained steadfast, continuing to deliver exceptional constituent services, as they have for the past 27 years.”

Despite her reduced presence in the House, Granger made a notable return to Capitol Hill in November for the unveiling of her portrait as Appropriations Committee Chairwoman.

The event was attended by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., who both praised her service during a reception that followed.

Granger, who has served in the House since 1997 and was the first female mayor of Fort Worth, chose not to seek re-election, with this term marking the end of her congressional career.

Granger’s extended absence has drawn criticism, particularly from Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who took to X to condemn what he described as a “sclerotic gerontocracy.”

“Kay Granger’s long absence reveals the problem with a Congress that rewards seniority & relationships more than merit & ideas,” Khanna wrote.

“We need term limits. We need to get big money out of politics so a new generation of Americans can run and serve.”

Khanna has been vocal on the issue of aging lawmakers, previously calling for Sen. Dianne Feinstein to step down due to health concerns before her passing in September 2023.

Granger’s situation underscores the challenges facing Congress, particularly as a slim Republican majority relies heavily on attendance for legislative victories.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.