Ever since the attempt on Trump’s life, there have been many rumors swirling as to what actually happened. And it appears that some of these rumors were true.

Because a shocking new Trump assassination discovery has changed the whole narrative.

In a contentious Senate hearing on Tuesday, Deputy Director of the FBI, Paul Abbate, was intensively questioned by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) regarding the social media accounts potentially linked to Thomas Matthew Crooks, the would-be assassin.

The inquiry centered around two accounts: one espousing right-wing views and the other showcasing left-wing ideologies, with the latter appearing to be more recent.

Senator Blackburn, known for her no-nonsense approach, did not mince words as she sought answers from Abbate. “You had mentioned a social media account that espoused anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic views, but you did not say what platform that was on and what the username was. And this is Crooks that we’re discussing,” Blackburn stated, setting the tone for a rigorous line of questioning.

Abbate responded explaining, “We haven’t fully confirmed yet that the account belonged to Crooks,” without specifying the social media platform in question. This lack of detail did not satisfy Blackburn, who pressed further, seeking clarity on the matter.

The discussion took a significant turn when Blackburn brought up another account. “And then we understand that the Gab account is pro-immigration, pro-lockdown, leftist views. Is that accurate?” she asked.

Abbate acknowledged the existence of the Gab account linked to Crooks but reiterated the uncertainty surrounding its ownership. “With the Gab account, we’re also – though that’s been publicly revealed through the CIO and other things, we’re still working to certify and verify that that’s his account also, but it does have differing points of view, it would appear,” he stated.

Blackburn, undeterred, sought further specifics about the timeline of the Gab account’s activity. Abbate confirmed, “The Gab account, based on my recollection, the comments in there or the messaging is from about 2021.” In contrast, the right-wing social media account was active during the 2019-2020 period.

The revelation of these discrepancies raises numerous questions about the true motivations and affiliations of Thomas Matthew Crooks. The left-wing posts on the Gab account, which have been widely shared across social media, contrast sharply with the earlier right-wing, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic views.

This duality in Crooks’ online presence complicates the narrative surrounding his intentions and potential radicalization. The fact that the FBI has not fully verified the ownership of these accounts adds another layer of complexity to the investigation.

First Name

First

Last Name

Last

Email(Required)

At the outset of the hearing, Abbate mentioned only the social media account with “anti-Semitic and anti-immigration themes,” believed to be associated with the shooter during the 2019-2020 timeframe. This selective disclosure did not sit well with Blackburn, who demanded a more comprehensive account of the FBI’s findings.

This hearing is part of a larger scrutiny of how law enforcement agencies handle digital evidence in high-stakes investigations.

The case of Thomas Matthew Crooks underscores the challenges faced by authorities in verifying online identities and understanding the ideological shifts of suspects over time.

Senator Blackburn’s persistent questioning highlights a growing concern among lawmakers about transparency and accountability within federal agencies. The American public, too, is keenly interested in how such investigations are conducted, especially when they involve potential threats to national security.

The Senate hearing with FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate revealed critical insights into the investigation of Thomas Matthew Crooks.

The contrasting social media accounts tied to Crooks – one right-wing and the other left-wing – illustrate the complexities faced by law enforcement in the digital age.

Senator Blackburn’s determined questioning serves as a reminder that accountability remains paramount in the pursuit of truth.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden’s Department of Justice is beyond corrupt. But they have taken things to a horrific extreme.

Because Biden’s DOJ has attacked a young mother for her religion, and millions are outraged.

In a horrific ruling that has sparked a nationwide debate, thirty-three-year-old pro-life activist Bevelyn Beatty Williams has been sentenced to three years and five months in prison by a Manhattan federal court.

The sentencing comes after Williams was found guilty of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act by protesting outside an abortion clinic in New York City during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Bevelyn Beatty Williams, a Tennessee wife and mother, has been a vocal pro-life advocate and Christian preacher. According to a statement from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Williams was convicted of “interference, including by threats and force, with individuals seeking to obtain and provide” abortions.

Williams’ sentencing has been met with mixed reactions. Millions of Americans argue that she is being punished for exercising her First Amendment rights and standing up for her religious beliefs.

On her fundraising page, Williams expressed her dismay, stating, “I was persecuted as a Christian standing for my beliefs when it comes to life. This is devastating news. Not only is this bond extensive for the accused crime, but she made it very clear in the courtroom that she was going to make an example out of me.”

Critics, however, claim that her actions went beyond peaceful protest and constituted harassment and threats against clinic workers and patients seeking medical services.

Determined to fight the ruling, Williams has set up a GiveSendGo fundraiser, seeking to raise $250,000 to support her legal battle.

She has so far raised $62,000 towards her goal. In her appeal to supporters, Williams reiterated her stance, saying, “I was persecuted as a Christian standing for my beliefs when it comes to life.”

Williams, who has a two-year-old daughter, has 60 days to appeal the court’s decision. Her case has drawn significant attention from various pro-life organizations and Christian advocacy groups, who see her as a martyr for the pro-life cause.

They argue that her conviction sets a dangerous precedent for the suppression of free speech and religious expression.

The case of Bevelyn Beatty Williams highlights the ongoing tension between pro-life activists and pro-abortion advocates.

Pro-life supporters argue that the FACE Act is being used to stifle dissent and punish those who oppose abortion on religious and moral grounds.

They contend that peaceful protest and the expression of religious beliefs should not result in lengthy prison sentences.

As Bevelyn Beatty Williams prepares to appeal her conviction, her case will likely continue to draw significant attention and spark heated debate.

The outcome of her appeal could have far-reaching implications for both the pro-life movement and the interpretation of the FACE Act.

For now, Williams remains steadfast in her beliefs and committed to her cause. “This fight is far from over,” she declared on her fundraising page. “I will continue to stand for life and for the rights of the unborn, no matter the cost.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left is just that: Radical. But they have taken things too far with recent internal decisions.

And the DNC’s newest controversial move will have a massive impact on the 2024 election.

In a highly contentious and controversial turn of events, Vice President Kamala Harris has become the sole candidate on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) virtual roll-call ballot for president.

This development, far from being a demonstration of democratic unity, has raised significant concerns about the legitimacy of the process and the motivations behind sidelining President Joe Biden.

Harris’s seemingly effortless rise to become the party’s standard-bearer is fraught with questions. Party insiders, in what appears to be a premeditated maneuver, pushed President Joe Biden aside and installed her unopposed as the presumptive candidate.

This decision has not only shocked many within the party but also raised serious doubts about the transparency and fairness of the nomination process.

“Our Party has met this unprecedented moment with a transparent, democratic, and orderly process to unite behind a nominee with a proven record who will lead us in the fight ahead,” DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison said in a statement Tuesday night.

However, many critics argue that this so-called “transparent” process is anything but, and instead reflects a top-down imposition by party elites.

The DNC’s rules for securing a presidential nomination are designed to ensure only serious candidates with substantial support can compete. A candidate must submit a notarized declaration of candidacy, meet all legal requirements to be president and secure the electronic signatures of at least 300 delegates, with no more than 50 signatures from any one delegation counting toward the minimum.

In a move that many see as orchestrated, the DNC announced that 3,923 delegates had petitioned to nominate Harris, according to reports from the Associated Press. This overwhelming number of signatures has led to suspicions about how this support was mobilized so swiftly and uniformly, raising questions about the influence of party elites in the process.

Despite the early vote to select a nominee, the Democratic National Convention will proceed as planned in late August in Chicago. This event, while typically a formality, will now serve as a critical point for those within the party who feel disenfranchised by the process.

Convention delegates will begin voting on Harris’s nomination on Thursday and conclude by August 5. Critics argue that this expedited timeline is designed to stifle dissent and prevent any potential challengers from mounting a campaign.

As Harris steps into her role as the presumptive Democratic nominee, her campaign strategy is under intense scrutiny. Recently, she attended a campaign rally in Georgia, where she appeared to adopt a new accent, as reported by Breitbart News.

This move drew comparisons to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also adopted a southern accent during her campaign, and was widely criticized for it.

“And, you all helped us win in 2020, and we gon do it again in 2024,” Harris said to the crowd in what seemed to be a Southern accent. “Yes, we will.”

This change in speech patterns has sparked discussions about Harris’s authenticity and ability to connect with diverse voter bases. Critics argue that such tactics are disingenuous and reflect a candidate who is out of touch with everyday Americans.

The Republican Party has been quick to respond to Harris’s nomination. Conservative commentators have highlighted the DNC’s decision to bypass a competitive primary, framing it as a lack of confidence in Biden’s leadership and a sign of desperation within the party.

“Harris’s unopposed rise to the candidacy is a clear indication that the Democrats are in disarray,” said a prominent Republican strategist. “They know that Biden can’t win in 2024, so they’re banking on Harris, despite her lackluster performance as Vice President.”

Harris faces significant challenges as she transitions from Vice President to the Democratic presidential candidate. Her tenure as Vice President has been marked by both achievements and controversies. Critics have pointed to her handling of key issues such as the border crisis and her perceived inability to address them effectively.

Furthermore, Harris’s approval ratings have consistently been lower than Biden’s, raising questions about her electability.

Her supporters argue that she has been an effective advocate for progressive policies, but even within her party, there are doubts about her ability to lead a successful campaign.

As the Democratic Party rallies behind Kamala Harris, the 2024 presidential race promises to be one of the most contentious in recent history.

With the Republicans gearing up for a fierce battle and the Democrats striving to maintain unity, the political landscape is set for a dramatic showdown.

Harris’s ability to navigate this complex terrain will be crucial. She must not only unite the Democratic base but also appeal to independent voters and disillusioned Republicans. Her campaign will need to address the pressing issues facing the country, from economic recovery and healthcare reform to climate change and social justice.

Kamala Harris’s unopposed nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate is a controversial milestone in American politics. Her rise, facilitated by party insiders, has raised significant concerns about the legitimacy of the process and the direction of the Democratic Party. As Harris embarks on this new chapter, the political landscape is set for a tumultuous and uncertain journey.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Harris campaign is reportedly considering people to be her potential VP. And as expected, a lot of the people are terrible.

But this Harris VP contender’s chilling background could mean even more destruction for America.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who has recently emerged as a leading contender for Vice President Kamala Harris’s potential running mate, is now under intense scrutiny.

Reports have surfaced detailing his involvement in launching a spy balloon company funded by Chinese venture capital, a revelation that comes on the heels of the Chinese spy balloon controversy in February 2023.

Before his tenure as a U.S. Senator, Mark Kelly had an illustrious career as an astronaut. However, he also ventured into the private sector, founding World View in 2012, an Arizona-based company originally focused on space tourism via high-altitude balloons.

As technology evolved, so did the company’s mission. According to a spokesperson for World View, the company shifted its focus towards providing remote sensing services for defense, scientific, and commercial purposes.

“Today, our primary business remains providing remote sensing services to the U.S. Department of Defense and her allies by way of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as servicing scientific organizations like NASA, NOAA, and others to better understand Earth from the unique atmospheric layer of the stratosphere,” the spokesperson told Fox News.

The controversy surrounding Kelly stems from World View’s funding history. Shortly after its inception, World View secured venture capital from Tencent, one of China’s largest corporations, in 2013 and again in 2016.

Tencent, founded by some of the wealthiest and most influential figures in China, including “Pony” Ma Huateng, who was listed as the fourth richest man in China last year, has known ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The timing of these revelations is particularly concerning given the recent incidents involving Chinese spy balloons detected over U.S. airspace. Although World View has insisted that Tencent has “zero access, zero input, and zero control” over its operations, the fact that a Chinese-funded company has been involved in technologies capable of surveillance raises significant national security questions.

“The current leadership believed it was a mistake for the company to accept Chinese investment when it did,” World View stated. Yet, this acknowledgment does little to mitigate concerns about the potential influence of Chinese capital on technologies critical to U.S. defense.

Mark Kelly left World View in 2019 to focus on his Senate campaign, placing his financial interests in the company into a blind trust. While he has relinquished direct control, the early funding from a Chinese entity remains a significant point of contention.

Critics argue that Kelly’s involvement with World View, particularly its acceptance of Chinese investment, disqualifies him from consideration as a vice-presidential candidate.

Arizona Republican operative Daniel Scarpinato told the New York Times, “Mr. Kelly has also not faced the harsh spotlight of a national campaign and has potential political liabilities like a high-altitude surveillance balloon company he helped found with Chinese venture capital.”

This controversy casts a shadow over the Biden administration’s vetting process and its broader approach to national security. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have already faced criticism for their handling of foreign policy and defense matters.

The administration’s perceived weakness in China, coupled with a lack of decisive action in countering CCP influence, has left many questioning their commitment to safeguarding American interests.

The Biden administration’s response to the Chinese spy balloon incident in February 2023 was seen by many as lackluster and scary, going so far as to highlight the administration’s lack of care for the US and love for China.

Rather than taking a firm stand, the administration’s approach was characterized by diplomatic platitudes and a failure to deliver substantive actions to deter future espionage attempts.

As Senator Mark Kelly’s potential candidacy for Vice President comes under scrutiny, the revelations about his ties to Chinese-funded World View underscore the need for a more stringent vetting process and a robust approach to national security.

We must ensure the Biden administration addresses these concerns head-on, ensuring that individuals with potential conflicts of interest, especially those involving adversarial nations like China, are thoroughly examined.

In a time of increasing global tension, the American public deserves leaders who are transparent, uncompromised, and unwavering in their commitment to national security.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Biden administration claims it cares about the American people. But their actions clearly prove otherwise.

Because a new Biden-Harris proposal sees more money stolen from American taxpayers.

In a move that has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives and concerned citizens alike, the Biden-Harris administration has proposed a new rule that would allow illegal immigrants to access taxpayer-funded college preparatory programs initially designed to assist low-income American citizens.

This controversial proposal is viewed by many as another instance of the administration prioritizing the interests of illegal immigrants over American citizens.

The new rule from the Biden-Harris Department of Education seeks to extend eligibility for federal TRIO programs to include illegal immigrants who qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

These TRIO programs, which were originally intended to support low-income individuals, first-generation college students, and individuals with disabilities, help participants progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to post-baccalaureate programs.

“The proposed changes would expand eligibility to include students without immigration status,” the proposed rule states. This expansion would effectively open the door for DACA recipients, who are in the country illegally, to benefit from programs funded by American taxpayers.

Representative Jim Banks (R-IN) has been vocal in his opposition to the proposed rule, arguing that it would divert essential resources from American citizens to illegal immigrants. “The Biden-Harris administration’s proposal would take college preparatory aid away from American citizens and give it to illegal aliens,” Banks asserted.

He emphasized the need for legislative action to protect the interests of American families, referencing his American Students First Act, which aims to ensure that taxpayer-funded programs are reserved for U.S. citizens.

Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Chairwoman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, also criticized the proposed rule. Foxx highlighted the numerous challenges currently facing students and the education system, including rising costs, a botched FAFSA rollout, and rampant anti-Semitism on college campuses.

“But what is the Biden administration focused on? Siphoning resources away from low-income American citizens by stretching college-prep programs thin to cover illegal immigrants,” Foxx stated.

The proposed rule comes amid the largest surge in illegal immigration in American history, with over 10 million people unlawfully crossing the border during the Biden-Harris administration.

Additionally, an estimated 1.7 million illegal immigrant gotaways have been recorded since January 2021, reflecting the administration’s failure to effectively manage border security.

Public opinion surveys indicate that a growing number of Americans favor reducing immigration and increasing deportations. Illegal immigration has emerged as a critical issue for voters as the November election approaches.

The Biden-Harris administration’s immigration policies, seen by many as overly lenient and ineffective, have contributed to the perception that the administration is not prioritizing the needs and security of American citizens.

Critics argue that the proposed rule to extend TRIO program eligibility to illegal immigrants will exacerbate existing challenges within the education system. By diverting resources away from low-income American students, the administration risks undermining the very purpose of these programs.

The expansion of eligibility to illegal immigrants could strain already limited resources, making it more difficult for American citizens to access the support they need to succeed academically.

Moreover, the proposal raises questions about the administration’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that taxpayer funds are used to benefit American citizens.

By prioritizing the interests of illegal immigrants, the Biden-Harris administration appears to be neglecting its duty to serve and protect the interests of its own citizens.

The Biden-Harris administration’s proposed rule to allow illegal immigrants access to taxpayer-funded college preparatory programs represents a significant shift in policy that has sparked considerable controversy.

Critics, including key Republican figures, argue that this move will divert essential resources away from American citizens, exacerbating existing challenges within the education system and undermining the purpose of federal TRIO programs.

As the nation grapples with unprecedented levels of illegal immigration and the Biden-Harris administration’s perceived failure to effectively manage border security, this latest proposal only adds to the growing list of concerns among American citizens.

The administration’s focus on extending benefits to illegal immigrants, at the expense of American citizens, underscores the need for a reassessment of priorities and a commitment to upholding the rule of law.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left loves fake news. But even many Democrats have to admit, they’ve taken it too far.

Because the Harris campaign is spreading horrific and false claims about Donald Trump.

In a glaring example of political manipulation, the Kamala Harris campaign recently posted a statement suggesting that former President Donald Trump promised to “end American democracy” during a speech last Friday.

This baseless accusation was supported by a heavily edited clip that stripped Trump’s comments of crucial context, misleadingly implying that the GOP nominee seeks to abolish elections altogether.

The statement in question was posted alongside a video snippet from Trump’s address at a Turning Point USA event. The Harris campaign’s post insinuated that Trump was advocating for the cessation of democratic elections.

Our statement on Trump last night promising to end American democracy https://t.co/URjtvFCsg2 pic.twitter.com/KAMPPxDr9E

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) July 27, 2024

However, a review of the full speech reveals a starkly different narrative. Trump was, in fact, discussing the need for robust election integrity, emphasizing measures such as voter ID, paper ballots, and secure voting laws.

In his speech, Trump explicitly stated, “We have to have voter ID, it’s called voter identification,” underscoring the necessity of securing the electoral process.

He criticized the Democrats for their resistance to voter ID laws, asserting, “Now there’s only one reason they do that, they want to cheat… You know in their National Convention when they had their convention they have a voter tag on them bigger than their chest.”

Trump continued, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats who, while requiring ID for their convention, oppose similar requirements for voting. He further emphasized the critical nature of voting, saying, “Republicans must win; we have to win this election — the most important election ever. We want a landslide that’s too big to rig.”

Trump’s remarks were intended to galvanize voter participation, urging Republicans and Christians in particular to vote in unprecedented numbers to ensure a fair and secure election.
He appealed directly to Christians, saying, “Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore; four more years, you know what, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians, I love you. Get out, you got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again; we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

This hyperbolic statement, typical of Trump’s rhetorical style, was clearly meant to emphasize the establishment of a secure voting system that would render future electoral fraud concerns obsolete.

Yet, the Harris campaign chose to distort these words, presenting them as an ominous threat to democracy rather than a call to action for election integrity.

Trump’s speech touched upon several critical issues concerning election security. He advocated for measures such as paper ballots, stringent voter ID laws, and other reforms designed to protect the sanctity of the voting process.

He highlighted the inconsistency of the Democrats, who require strict identification measures for their own events but oppose similar safeguards for public elections.

Trump’s central argument was that the Democrats’ reluctance to implement voter ID laws is rooted in a desire to manipulate the electoral system. He asserted that a secure voting process is essential for the preservation of democracy, not its dismantling. His call for a “landslide that’s too big to rig” was a rallying cry for widespread voter participation to ensure an incontrovertible election outcome.

The Harris campaign’s misleading post is symptomatic of a broader strategy employed by the Biden administration to undermine political opponents through misinformation. By disseminating a manipulated video clip, the Harris campaign aimed to sow distrust and fear among voters, painting Trump as a threat to democracy rather than a proponent of its fortification.

This tactic is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern observed throughout Biden’s presidency. From misrepresenting policy proposals to distorting statements, the administration has frequently resorted to such measures to discredit political adversaries. The aim is clear: to distract from their own policy failures and galvanize their base by presenting a distorted view of the opposition.

The Harris campaign’s recent actions underscore the necessity for vigilance and discernment in political discourse. It is imperative that voters seek out the full context of statements and policies rather than relying on selectively edited clips designed to mislead. The integrity of our democratic process depends on an informed electorate that can distinguish between genuine calls for reform and manipulative political tactics.

In the end, Trump’s message was about ensuring a fair and secure electoral process — a goal that should be shared by all who value democracy. The Harris campaign’s attempt to twist this message into a dire threat is not only disingenuous but a disservice to the very democratic principles they claim to defend.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Biden administration has made it clear that they do not care about the US. But no one thought they would go this far.

And now the Biden administration has been caught bringing terrorists into the US.

Border Patrol agents recently apprehended three Palestinian terror suspects who illegally entered the United States through the southern border. This incident has majorly highlighted the growing concern over the Biden administration’s handling of border security and demonstrates a systemic failure that potentially endangers American lives.

The individuals were part of a larger group of illegal aliens crossing through the San Diego sector. This sector has become a hotspot for illegal entries, with Border Patrol agents increasingly overwhelmed and under-resourced.

The New York Post reports that the Border Patrol lacks the necessary tools to effectively screen and assess the flood of illegal entrants, raising serious questions about national security.

One of the Palestinian suspects had a disturbing image on their phone depicting a masked man holding an automatic rifle. Although the specific terrorist group affiliation remains unclear, the implications are alarming.

A Border Patrol agent, speaking anonymously, expressed frustration and a sense of futility: “I wanted to get into Border Patrol and protect from terrorists. And it’s like, well, I probably let terrorists into the country.” This sentiment reflects the broader dissatisfaction within the ranks of those charged with protecting our borders.

Adding to the gravity of the situation, another apprehended individual was a Turkish national with known ties to terror groups.

The Biden administration’s recent changes to asylum regulations, though intended to manage the influx of migrants, appear to contain loopholes that facilitate the reentry of potentially dangerous individuals.

Border Patrol agents rely heavily on U.S. terror watchlists to flag potential threats. However, the lack of access to international criminal databases severely hampers their efforts.

As one agent lamented, “Knowing who these guys are, we have, like, no access to anything international. We really don’t know.”

In response to the October 7 massacre in Israel, the federal law enforcement agency issued a memo urging heightened vigilance for hostile actors attempting to cross the border from the Middle East.

The San Diego Field Office Intelligence Unit warned that individuals motivated by the Israel-Hamas conflict might attempt to infiltrate the U.S. via Mexico. The memo included details on identifying marks and patches associated with groups like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.

This is not an isolated incident. The number of illegal immigrants flagged on the terror watchlist has soared under the Biden administration.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data reveals a dramatic increase from 26 individuals between 2017 and 2020 to 98 in 2022, and 169 in 2023. These figures paint a stark picture of the growing threat posed by inadequate border security.

The administration’s failure to adequately address border security is not a new criticism. President Biden and his team have repeatedly downplayed the issue, even as public disapproval of their handling of the border crisis mounts. Critics argue that the administration’s approach is not only ineffective but dangerously negligent.

The Biden administration’s response to these failures has been lackluster. Despite the clear and present danger, there has been little meaningful action to bolster border security. Instead, the focus has often been on downplaying the severity of the situation and dismissing legitimate concerns as political stunts.

In light of these recent apprehensions, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of border security protocols. This includes better funding for the Border Patrol, enhanced training, and greater access to international criminal databases. Without these measures, the U.S. remains vulnerable to infiltration by hostile actors intent on causing harm.

The arrest of three Palestinian terror suspects at the southern border is a reminder of the Biden administration’s border security failures. As the number of illegal crossings continues to rise, so too does the risk to national security.

It is imperative that immediate and decisive action is taken to secure our borders and protect the American people from the very real threat posed by terrorist infiltration.

We must hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Harris campaign is doing everything they can to convince America to choose Kamala Harris to be the next President. But instead of appealing to American principles, they are making horrific moves.

And the Harris campaign’s shocking racist move has angered millions of Americans.

On Thursday, a staggering 160,000 white Democrat women participated in a Zoom call aimed at teaching them how to be better allies to Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign. The primary message: shut up and listen to black Indigenous people of color (BIPOC).

This training session, titled “White Women: Answer the Call,” saw prominent liberal celebrities like Megan Rapinoe, Pink, and Connie Britton, among others, urging white women to leverage their privilege to support Harris. This event underscores a troubling trend in the Democratic Party: the manipulation of white guilt for political gain.

From “White Women: Answer the Call” for Kamala Harris:

“If you find yourself talking over or speaking for BIPOC individuals or—god forbid—correcting them, just take a beat and instead we can put our listening ears on.”

pic.twitter.com/7eAUty1OXk

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 28, 2024

The training, led by Arielle Fodor, emphasized the need for white women to remain silent and listen to BIPOC voices. “As white women, we need to use our privilege to make positive changes,” Fodor stated. “If you find yourself talking over or speaking for BIPOC individuals – or God forbid correcting them – just take a beat, and instead, we can put our listening ears on.”

This sentiment was echoed throughout the session, with Fodor and other speakers highlighting the importance of checking one’s “blind spots” and being ready for feedback.

They urged participants to follow BIPOC activists and creators and to share their content. Fodor even suggested that white women should engage in uncomfortable conversations with their “bigoted family members” to further the cause.

Elizabeth Minnella, another leader of the training, introduced her favorite group, “Witches for Harris,” and encouraged activists to send Harris donation links to voters and allies. The call featured appearances from Megan Rapinoe, Pink, and Connie Britton, who joked that they should be called “Karens for Kamala.” Rapinoe, known for her outspoken criticism of America, added a layer of irony to the event, given her past statements.

“Witches for Harris”

The “white women for Kamala Harris” movement is in full effect. pic.twitter.com/WtIiOtFyqZ

— TENET Media (@watchTENETnow) July 28, 2024

The Thursday event was inspired by a previous Zoom call organized by the activist group “Win With Black Women,” which took place shortly after President Joe Biden announced his decision not to seek re-election, instead endorsing Harris.

The event aimed to galvanize white Democrat women to support Harris’s campaign, leveraging their guilt and privilege as political tools.

Following the success of the white women’s Zoom call, a similar meeting for white Democrat men, titled “White Dudes for Harris,” has been scheduled. This move illustrates the broader strategy of the Harris campaign: utilizing identity politics and white guilt to rally support.

This development raises several questions about the state of the Democratic Party and its reliance on identity politics. The call’s directive for white women to remain silent and listen instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue reflects a troubling trend of division and exclusion.

By focusing on race and guilt, the Harris campaign risks alienating potential supporters who feel manipulated rather than inspired.

Neutrality and Balance
The approach taken in this Zoom call may not be the most effective way to achieve these goals. Encouraging silence and compliance rather than open dialogue and mutual understanding could foster resentment and division.

It is essential to consider whether such tactics truly serve the cause of justice or merely perpetuate a cycle of guilt and obligation.

The “White Women: Answer the Call” Zoom call highlights a critical issue within the Democratic Party’s strategy for the upcoming election.

By leveraging white guilt and emphasizing silence over dialogue, the Harris campaign risks furthering division rather than unity. It remains to be seen whether these tactics will succeed in galvanizing support or if they will backfire, alienating potential allies in the process.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Even though the election is still months away, Democrats are already scrambling and making massive mistakes. And those mistakes have cost them majorly.

Because now, Democrats have just handed Trump a massive election win already.

In a remarkable shift in the political landscape, former President Donald Trump is leading Vice President Kamala Harris in four out of five crucial swing states, according to one of the first major polls conducted since President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race.

Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee, trails Trump in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, while both candidates are tied in Wisconsin.

Poll Results: Trump’s Lead in Swing States

The poll, conducted by Emerson College Polling between July 22-23, revealed the following results:

Arizona: Trump leads Harris 49% to 44%.
Georgia: Trump is ahead with 48% to Harris’s 46%.
Michigan: Trump holds a slight lead at 46% to 45%.
Pennsylvania: Trump is ahead with 48% to Harris’s 46%.
Wisconsin: Trump and Harris are tied at 47%.

The sample size for three of the five swing states was 800 voters, while Pennsylvania had 850 voters surveyed and Wisconsin had 845. The margin of error in the poll was ±3.4% for the three states with 800 voters and ±3.3% for Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Among the top issues influencing voters in these states are the economy and immigration, both areas where Trump has historically polled better compared to Joe Biden.

Executive Director of Emerson College Polling, Spencer Kimball, noted that while Harris saw a slight increase in support compared to Biden, the shift has not been significant enough to close the gap with Trump.

“Young voters have shifted toward Harris: her support compared to Biden increased by 16 points in Arizona, eight in Georgia, five in Michigan, 11 in Pennsylvania, and one in Wisconsin since earlier polling this month,” Kimball said. However, despite these gains among younger voters, Trump continues to maintain a strong lead overall.

President Biden’s decision to step down from the race has dramatically altered the dynamics of the 2024 presidential election.

Biden had been losing support among young voters, particularly over his handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict and other contentious issues.

This erosion of support appears to have somewhat stabilized with Harris stepping into the spotlight, yet it remains insufficient to overcome Trump’s lead in key battleground states.

According to the Real Clear Politics polling average, Trump leads Harris nationally by just under two points. This national lead, coupled with his advantage in critical swing states, underscores the formidable position Trump holds as the 2024 election approaches.

From a conservative perspective, these poll results signify a potential resurgence for Trump and the Republican Party. Trump’s ability to lead Harris in states that were pivotal in the 2020 election demonstrates his enduring appeal and the effectiveness of his policies, particularly on economic and immigration issues.

The economy, a cornerstone of Trump’s previous administration, continues to resonate with voters who have felt the pinch of inflation and economic uncertainty under the current administration. Trump’s promises to restore economic stability and growth are likely playing a significant role in his favorability.

Immigration remains another critical issue where Trump’s policies have garnered support. The Biden administration’s handling of the southern border has been widely criticized, and voters appear to be leaning towards Trump’s tougher stance on immigration as a solution to the ongoing crisis.

As the election campaign progresses, it will be crucial for Harris to address the economic and immigration concerns that are currently bolstering Trump’s lead.

Meanwhile, Trump and his team are expected to capitalize on these issues, further solidifying his support base and potentially expanding his lead.

The early polling results following Biden’s exit from the race indicate a challenging road ahead for Vice President Kamala Harris. With Trump leading in four out of five swing states and holding a national lead, the former president is well-positioned as a formidable contender in the 2024 presidential race.

As the campaign unfolds, the focus on key issues like the economy and immigration will likely intensify, shaping the strategies and outcomes for both candidates.

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

The mainstream media loves to spread misinformation. But now, they have crossed a line.

Because the media has been caught red-handed spreading lies about Trump’s VP pick, and people are outraged.

Senator JD Vance, the Vice Presidential candidate alongside former President Donald Trump, has come under a coordinated attack from Democrats and their media allies for his family-centric comments over the past few years.

Vance, known for his staunch pro-family, pro-worker, and pro-middle-class stance, has been unfairly depicted as anti-woman by those who intentionally take his common-sense statements out of context. This orchestrated smear campaign should not deceive anyone.

Vance’s comments, which have drawn ire from liberal media outlets, are rooted in his genuine concern for the declining family values in America. “Why have we let the Democrat Party become controlled by people who don’t have children?” Vance asked, acknowledging the plight of those who wish to have children but are unable to.

“There have always been people like that, who even though they would like to have kids, are unable to have them. Let’s set them aside,” he said. This nuanced view was deliberately overlooked by the media.

ABC headlined their story with “JD Vance slammed for ‘childless cat ladies’ comment,” while NBC followed with “Jennifer Aniston slams JD Vance over ‘childless cat ladies’ comment from resurfaced interview,” and MSNBC’s headline, “Jesus did not have children,” further amplified the controversy.

The Washington Post even roped in “Swifties” to join the chorus of criticism. These outlets intentionally misrepresented Vance’s remarks, aiming to ridicule not only him but also American families who prioritize familial bonds over materialism.

Vance’s remarks at a 2021 talk at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, where he discussed the American Dream and the integral role of the family in American life, have been particularly targeted.

Drawing from his bestselling book, Hillbilly Elegy, Vance highlighted how the family is central to happiness and American values. He criticized the left’s rejection of family values, describing it as “the most pernicious and most evil thing” they have done in this country.

On Tucker Carlson Tonight, Vance elaborated, “What I was basically saying is that we’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.”
He pointed out the irony of prominent Democrats like Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, none of whom have children, yet are leading the party’s future.

“And how is it that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t have a direct stake in it?” Vance asked. “I just wanted to ask that question and propose that maybe if we wanted a healthy ruling class in this country we should invest more, we should vote more, we should support more people who actually have kids, because those are the people who ultimately have more of a direct stake in the future of this country.”

Vance criticized the materialistic lives of those who prioritize career and wealth over family. He noted that many women who forgo having children for their careers often regret this decision later in life, a truth that Democrats avoid discussing.

Instead, they promote staying single and childless, devaluing marriage and motherhood while promoting abortion as a path to freedom.

“These people recognize that they’re unhappy,” Vance said. “They live in one-bedroom apartments in New York City, they’ve played their entire lives to win a status game, they’re obsessed with their jobs, they’re obsessed with their wealth and with their fortunes, and they look at middle American people who are actually pretty happy with their lives and the choices that they’ve made. And they hate normal Americans for choosing family over these ridiculous DC and New York status games.”

Vance’s comment about “miserable cat ladies” has been sensationalized, drawing unnecessary backlash from celebrities like Jennifer Aniston and liberal media pundits. “When somebody calls out that ‘look, if you’re a miserable cat lady, you should not force your misery on the rest of the country, they just get really upset about it,” Vance said. This honest observation has been twisted to paint him as a misogynist, which is far from the truth.

Vance’s core message is simple: family first. He emphasizes that money and status are secondary to the love and responsibilities towards family. This message, once common wisdom in America, has been overshadowed by the liberal agenda promoting careerism and material wealth as the ultimate goals.

Liberals accuse Vance of misogyny, but his advocacy for American families is clear. “We should worry,” he said, “that in America, family formation, our birth rates, a ton of indicators of family health have collapsed.” This crisis impacts not only media personalities but also the future leadership of the country. Vance argues that those with families are better suited to lead because they have a direct stake in the country’s future.

Senator JD Vance’s comments highlight a crucial issue: the decline of family values in America. His advocacy for pro-family policies is essential for the nation’s future. The liberal media’s attempts to smear him are not only unfounded but also a distraction from the real issues at hand. Vance’s pro-family stance is not an attack on women but a call to prioritize what truly matters – the future of American families and, by extension, the nation itself.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.