The Radical Left has been lying to the public for years. But now, the truth has come out.

And the White House has refused to answer national security questions and instead are hiding a massive secret.

In recent weeks, a series of campus protests and riots have erupted across United States universities, leading to widespread chaos and significant security concerns.

These protests, ostensibly in support of Palestine and the terrorist group Hamas, have seen participants seize university buildings and create encampments that disrupt normal campus activities.

Notably, these encampments have been coordinated to such a degree that participants across various locations sport matching tents, suggesting organized, professional involvement rather than spontaneous student activism.

This pattern has raised substantial questions about the funding and organization behind these movements, especially with numerous arrests revealing that many involved are not students but external agitators.

During a White House press briefing, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy pressed Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre on whether the Biden administration was investigating the professional orchestration behind these protests.

Inquiring specifically about the uniformity in protest equipment and these events being funded by domestic or foreign entities to sow discord, Doocy highlighted a critical concern about the safety and well-being of campus communities and the integrity of educational institutions.

However, the response from the White House was less than forthcoming.

Jean Pierre deflected these inquiries, stating that such matters were more appropriately handled by local officials and that the federal government, through the DOJ and FBI, would continue to support universities in respect to federal laws but did not commit to investigating the origins and funding of these protests directly.

This non-committal stance from the Biden administration has come under scrutiny, especially given the severity of incidents associated with these protests.

For instance, at Columbia University, protesters not only occupied university buildings but reportedly took multiple facility workers hostage.

Adding to the gravity, one of the protesters identified at Columbia was the spouse of a notorious terrorist previously deported from the U.S. for financially supporting a Palestinian terror group.

Such connections raise profound security concerns and show that these protests are more than mere expressions of campus dissent.

Moreover, the protests have been tainted by overt expressions of antisemitism and endorsements of terror groups, complicating the narrative that these are purely pro-Palestinian peace movements.

When Doocy brought up the administration’s silence on these extreme cases, Jean Pierre responded by reiterating President Biden’s commitment to combating antisemitism and distancing the administration from the violent protests.

Yet, the lack of a proactive federal response to these dangerous escalations remains a point of contention.

The situation on campuses like UCLA, where violent clashes forced the cancellation of classes, further underscores the need for a more robust administrative response.

Yet, despite these disruptions, there appears to be no clear strategy from the White House on addressing the escalating violence and its underlying causes.

The administration’s approach seems reactive rather than preventive, with a possible reluctance to thoroughly investigate or address the ideological and financial roots of the protests due to political sensitivities around the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This has led to concerns that the Biden administration might be prioritizing political correctness over the safety and security of university communities and the broader public.

We must demand more from our elected leaders.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has been abusing the justice system to push its Radical agenda. But now, that could all change.

And now, New York AG Letitia James is facing severe backlash for her political witch hunt, and Democrats are worried.

In a shocking twist, a group of Christian pro-life pregnancy resource centers and organizations, led by Heartbeat International and represented by the Thomas More Society, has launched a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

This action comes in response to what the plaintiffs describe as a series of unconstitutional threats aimed at silencing their advocacy and misleading public statements made by James.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in the Supreme Court of New York in Monroe County, accuses the Attorney General of infringing on the groups’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as violating the New York state constitution.

The dispute began after Attorney General James sent a controversial letter on April 22 to a dozen pro-life ministries, accusing them of “repeated and persistent misleading statements and omissions” in relation to their promotion of the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol.

This protocol, supported by countless pro-life advocates, involves the administration of bioidentical progesterone to potentially reverse the effects of mifepristone—a component of the medical abortion process—if a woman decides against completing the procedure.

The lawsuit argues that James’s actions are part of a broader, politically motivated campaign against pro-life organizations.

“Defendant James has no business interfering with the intimate medical decisions of an expectant mother, who, in consultation with her chosen medical professional, decides to carry her pregnancy to term,” the legal challenge states.

It further contends that such interventions by James are overreaches into personal health decisions and are particularly egregious given the sensitive nature of the issues involved.

Heartbeat International, one of the plaintiffs, plays a significant role in facilitating access to the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol.

Jor-El Godsey, the president of Heartbeat International, expressed deep concern over the state’s actions, which he views as an aggressive attempt to coerce women into continuing abortions they no longer wish to proceed with.

“New York State laws protect abortionists and abortion on demand up until birth,” Godsey stated. “Now they are targeting those who assist a woman in exercising her right to continue her own pregnancy. It is unconscionable to see the abortion industry and its politicians insist she complete an abortion she no longer wants.”

The pro-life organizations are seeking legal intervention to prevent James from initiating any lawsuits against them based on the accusations made in her April letter.

They are also asking the court to affirm that the notice issued by James violated their constitutionally protected rights.

Peter Breen, Executive Vice President of the Thomas More Society, criticized the actions of the Attorney General as a “political witch-hunt against small nonprofits” that have dedicated over half a century to serving New York’s pregnant women and their children.

Breen argues that James should be supporting these charities rather than attacking them with “outrageously false claims” under laws that do not apply to their noncommercial speech.

The filing of this lawsuit comes in the wake of increased scrutiny and criticism of pregnancy resource centers across the nation, particularly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story and more.

For too long Jack Smith and the Radical Left have been doing everything they can to oppose Trump. But now, they are being held in check.

Because a top official has just dealt a major legal blow to Jack Smith.

House Representative Elise Stefanik has taken a firm stand against the Department of Justice, specifically targeting Special Counsel Jack Smith with an official ethics complaint.

This move highlights a growing concern among Americans about the weaponization of the Justice System to influence electoral outcomes, particularly with regard to the 2024 presidential election.

Filed with the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Stefanik’s complaint articulates a grave concern that Smith is orchestrating an accelerated legal attack against former President Donald Trump with the distinct aim of thwarting his potential reelection.

“It’s obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election and stop the American people from electing Donald Trump,” Stefanik stated, arguing that Smith’s actions could be construed as a deliberate attempt to manipulate the presidential race.

🚨🚨🚨 I just filed an official ethics complaint against Jack Smith with the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility for his illegal election interference.

It’s obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election… pic.twitter.com/lNW4MUz5Oi

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) April 30, 2024

Stefanik, who serves as the House GOP Conference chair, has accused Smith of “abusing the resources of the federal government” in an unlawful manner to disrupt the 2024 presidential election.

She asserts that Smith’s efforts to expedite the federal January 6th case against Trump not only breach explicit Justice Department policy but also flout long-standing legal norms that protect the integrity of the electoral process.

According to the Justice Department’s own guidelines, as Stefanik points out, federal prosecutors are prohibited from timing their legal actions to influence electoral outcomes or to advantage or disadvantage any candidate or political party.

This principle is designed to maintain the impartiality of the judicial process and ensure that justice is administered without political bias or intent.

Despite these clear guidelines, Stefanik argues that Smith sought a trial start date of January 2, 2024, for Trump, which would necessitate an extraordinarily rapid review of extensive evidence—a scenario that seems both impractical and strategically timed before the November election.

“The only reason to push for such an early trial date was to work to get the case tried before the November election,” Stefanik states, suggesting that such a move is indicative of a broader strategy to damage Trump’s electoral viability rather than a pursuit of impartial justice.

Further complicating matters, Stefanik highlighted Smith’s inconsistent legal maneuvers regarding presidential immunity, like an unsuccessful attempt to have the Supreme Court expedite their decision on the matter, only to later oppose a similar request by Trump.

This, according to Stefanik, exposes a tactical approach not aimed at clarifying important legal principles but rather at securing a procedural advantage against Trump.

Moreover, Stefanik accuses Smith of violating the District Court’s stay of proceedings, an order that was meant to pause further legal actions pending appeals.

She detailed instances where Smith allegedly continued to press forward, including the delivery of thousands of pages of discovery and filing motions in court despite the stay, actions she claims clearly contravene professional conduct rules and demonstrate a disregard for lawful court orders.

Through her complaint, Stefanik is not just challenging Smith but is also calling into question the broader implications of his conduct for the rule of law and the integrity of the electoral process.

Her actions reflect a significant portion of American citizens who see these legal battles as part of a larger pattern of politicization within federal agencies, perceived by many as an effort to undermine conservative leaders and influence political outcomes under the guise of legal proceedings.

We cannot allow the Left to get away with this madness any longer.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has prioritized illegal immigrants over US citizens for far too long. And now, they have made a critical error.

Because a new DHS discovery has unveiled a disgusting truth that Democrats are scrambling to cover up.

Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has openly admitted that the hundreds of thousands of immigrants flown into the U.S. under the controversial ‘parole’ program are considered “inadmissible.”

This acknowledgment comes amidst the revelation that over 45 major American cities have been receiving immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela through this initiative.

Bill Melugin of Fox News reported on data obtained from the DHS, which was compelled by a subpoena from the House Homeland Security Committee.

The DHS documentation clearly states, “All individuals paroled into the United States are, by definition, inadmissible, including those paroled under the CHNV processes.”

This stark admission highlights a terrifying aspect of the Biden administration’s approach to handling the surge of migrants from other countries.

The parole program, initially launched for Venezuelans in October 2022 and subsequently expanded in January 2023 to include Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Cubans, allows 30,000 individuals each month to enter the U.S., granting them work permits and two-year residency permits.

As of the end of February 2024, this policy has resulted in over 400,000 foreign nationals entering the country.

This mass parole initiative is part of a broader strategy that DHS Secretary Mayorkas has described as a “safe and orderly way to reach the United States,” supposedly designed to reduce the number of illegal border crossings by nationals from these countries.

However, the program has been shrouded in controversy, particularly due to instances where immigrants admitted under this policy have later been involved in criminal activities.

Incidents like this underscore the massive risks associated with just admitting any immigrants regardless of whether they have undergone any sort of legal process or not.

Many Americans are outraged because the parole program circumvents immigration laws and processes, posing a challenge to U.S. security and immigration control.

The DHS’s own admission that these individuals are “inadmissible” underlines this point, suggesting a legal gray area that could have far-reaching implications for the integrity of U.S. immigration policy.

The policy’s impact is particularly pronounced in cities like Miami and Fort Lauderdale, where the largest numbers of these immigrants have settled.

Miami alone has received 91,821 immigrants under this program, followed by Fort Lauderdale with 60,461, and New York City with 14,827.

The influx into these communities raises questions about the capacity of local infrastructure to support such rapid increases in population, including concerns related to housing, healthcare, education, and public safety.

Moreover, the Biden administration’s framing of the parole program as a model for international migration management has attracted skepticism.

While Mayorkas asserts that it has helped to stem the flow of illegal border crossings and that other countries view it as a model, the reality of its implementation and outcomes paints a completely different picture.

This program’s strategic and humanitarian merits are debatable, particularly when set against the backdrop of broader challenges facing the U.S. immigration system, including overwhelmed border facilities and stretched resources.

Many Americans argue that solutions should strengthen rather than bypass existing legal frameworks, ensuring that safe and legal immigration is managed in a way that keeps America safe.

The ongoing scrutiny of the Biden administration’s immigration strategies will likely intensify as policymakers and the public grapple with these complex issues.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left and Joe Biden have completely opened this country up to illegal immigration. But now, the courts are pushing back against their Radical policies.

And a new immigration court decision in border state has dealt a major blow to the Left.

George Alan Kelly, a 75-year-old Arizona rancher, will not face a retrial for the alleged murder of Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea, a 48-year-old illegal immigrant found dead on his property near Nogales, Arizona.

After an intense four-week trial that concluded with a jury deadlock earlier this month, Santa Cruz County prosecutors have decided not to pursue the case further, citing the “unique circumstances and challenges” that prevented a unanimous verdict.

Cuen-Buitimea, a Mexican national who had a history of multiple deportations from the United States, was trespassing on Kelly’s ranch with a group of other suspected illegal immigrants on January 31, 2023.

Kelly, who has consistently maintained his innocence, was charged with second-degree murder but argued that he only fired warning shots in defense of his property and did not fatally shoot Cuen-Buitimea.

The defense’s narrative resonated with the majority of the jury, leading to a 7-1 decision in favor of acquittal.

“I’m just so happy for them. We got the right answer,” Kelly’s defense lawyer, Kathy Lowthorp, remarked following the announcement that there would be no retrial.

She also indicated that the trial had taken a significant toll on Kelly, suggesting he is likely to move away from the area due to the stress and negative attention the case has attracted.

This legal outcome has stirred significant reactions on both sides of the border.

Santa Cruz County prosecutor Mike Jette had argued during the trial that Kelly unnecessarily escalated the situation, despite not observing any weapons among the group of trespassers.

Conversely, Mexico’s consul general in Nogales, Marcos Moreno Báez, expressed disappointment over the decision not to retry the case, citing a lack of justice for Cuen-Buitimea’s family and critiquing the trial’s portrayal of migration issues.

The decision not to pursue a retrial reflects a broader debate on the current illegal immigration crisis which has been a major topic of American politics, especially in border states like Arizona.

Many conservatives view the outcome as a vindication of the right to protect one’s property and safety, particularly under circumstances where border enforcement is perceived to be insufficient.

Indeed, this case underscores the challenges ranchers and property owners face on the U.S.-Mexico border, where illegal crossings are frequent and often lead to dangerous confrontations.

For many, Kelly’s situation highlights the need for more robust border security measures and more explicit legal protections for those who find themselves defending their property against illegal trespassers.

The Kelly case may also have broader implications for U.S. immigration policy and the ongoing debates surrounding the rights of property owners versus the treatment of migrants.

While every individual, regardless of citizenship status, deserves fair treatment under the law, there is also a strong argument to be made that the rights of American citizens to secure their property must be firmly upheld.

The resolution of this case leaves open many questions about the balance between national security, individual rights, and the complexities of immigration enforcement.

As the United States continues to grapple with these issues, the story of George Alan Kelly serves as a poignant reminder of the real-world impacts of policy and the often personal nature of the national discourse on immigration.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has been forcing their agenda on the world for years. But now, all of that is about to change

Because a bipartisan movement is underway that has the Left nervous.

A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has raised serious concerns about the credibility of the International Criminal Court (ICC), warning that the court risks undermining its standing if it proceeds with arrest warrants for Israeli officials.

These warrants would be in response to Israel’s military actions against Hamas following the October 7 massacre.

Reports suggest that the ICC may be considering arrest warrants for key Israeli figures, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.

This development comes amid a contentious backdrop of international relations, where the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the ICC are frequently questioned by several major nations, including the United States, Russia, China, and India.

A senior Biden administration official emphasized to Axios that the United States does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction in this matter and opposes any ICC investigations into Israeli actions.

The sentiment reflects a broader skepticism about the ICC’s actions, which some U.S. officials and lawmakers perceive as overreaching.

This skepticism has prompted some U.S. lawmakers to draft legislation aimed at sanctioning ICC officials involved in the investigation into Israel.

These proposed sanctions highlight the growing tensions between the ICC and the United States over issues of sovereignty and international law.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has vocally opposed the ICC’s potential moves, asserting Israel’s right to self-defense and criticizing the ICC’s actions as a threat to democracy and an affront to all countries fighting terrorism.

“The threat to seize the soldiers and officials of the Middle East’s only democracy and the world’s only Jewish state is outrageous,” Netanyahu stated. “We will not bow to it,” he affirmed, declaring Israel’s determination to continue its defense efforts against what he described as genocidal terrorists.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson called the potential ICC actions “disgraceful” and “illegitimate,” arguing that such moves would undermine U.S. national security interests and could set a dangerous precedent that might affect American political leaders, diplomats, and military personnel.

Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) and Representative Ritchie Torres (D-NY) also expressed their disapproval on social media, emphasizing the potential damage to the ICC’s judicial and moral standing and criticizing the perceived injustice of targeting Israel for defending itself against Hamas attacks.

It would be a fatal blow to the judicial and moral standing of ICC to pursue this path against Israel.

Calling on @POTUS to intervene as part of the administration’s ongoing commitment to Israel. pic.twitter.com/tPXDxhh9nw

— Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) April 29, 2024

Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) highlighted the inconsistency in the ICC’s prosecutorial decisions, noting the court’s failure to address significant atrocities in other regions such as Syria, Sudan, and Tigray.

“Instead, the ICC apparently considers warrants on Israeli leaders for legitimate self-defense. Such a decision would be outrageous, and I condemn it,” Sherman stated.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) went further, suggesting that any move by the ICC to target Israeli officials would align the court with what he called “genocidal terrorists,” undermining its credibility irreparably. Cruz called for strong U.S. sanctions against the ICC should it proceed in this manner.

The bipartisan response underscores a rare unity in U.S. politics regarding the support for Israel and the opposition to terrorist groups and any support for them.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story and more.

Harris may go down as the least likable vice president in history. It’s not hard to see after moments like these.

And a humiliating video of Kamala Harris proves what everyone knew.

On Drew Barrymore’s daytime talk show Monday, Vice President Kamala Harris was asked if she could become the country’s mother.

What that exactly means? Nobody has any clue. But it didn’t stop the aging Hollywood actress from asking.

“I’ve been thinking that we really all need a tremendous hug in the world right now,” Barrymore said, “but in our country, we need you to be Mamala of the country.”

“Yeah,” Harris said, chuckling.

Political observers took to social media to lampoon the exchange.

“Drew Barrymore is gaslighting, NO ONE wants Kamala Harris to be ‘Momala’ for the country,” ACT for America chairman Brigitte Gabriel wrote Monday on X.

“Howard Stern refers to Joe Biden as the ‘Father of the Country.’ Drew Barrymore says Kamala needs to be our ‘Momala’. Who exactly is in a cult? These people aren’t looking for a leader they’re looking for surrogate parents,” Fox News host Will Cain wrote.

According to author Oli London, “Drew Barrymore participates in cringe-worthy and fawning display with Kamala Harris.”

Is this possible? Could a society delve into such an infantile orgy of mediocrity that this is considered compelling? @DrewBarrymore was someone whom I adored in "The Wedding Singer." Now she's ruined it for me! As far as the Cackler @KamalaHarris, well… https://t.co/H7eNYuSqnl

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) April 29, 2024

“Is this possible?” Canadian academic Gad Saad inquired about the conversation between Harris and Barrymore in response to London’s X post.

“Could a society delve into such an infantile orgy of mediocrity that this is considered compelling?”

Harris also discussed with Barrymore the necessity of never allowing “anybody take your power” and being intentional in recognizing “what is in your power” before moving on to remarks about her laugh.

Harris made waves by chuckling in answer to questions on the border crisis and the value of female leadership.

“You were asking me earlier about what it means to be like the first woman,” she added.

“And you know, it’s funny because people still gotta get used to this, right?”

Barrymore reportedly told Harris that she liked the vice president’s laugh.

Well, Barrymore is certainly in the minority.

Only 38.5% of Americans approve of Kamala Harris’ job in the White House according to FiveThirtyEight polling averages.

Compare that to Joe Biden at 39.5%, and she’s doing even worse than him – though not by much.

No one wants a “Mamala.” We want an economy that works for Americans, an immigration system that isn’t rewarding illegals, and an end to endless wars.

Stay tuned to the Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left continues to prioritize illegal aliens of US citizens. But now, they have gone a step too far.

Because NYC’s newest immigration move has residents overrun by crime and despair.

In the heart of New York City’s bustling Williamsburg neighborhood, a high-end hotel once known for its boutique charm has been converted into a shelter for illegal immigrants, marking a significant shift in its operation and the surrounding community.

Hotel Le Jolie, located near the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and just blocks from McCarren Park, has ceased its traditional hospitality services to accommodate families amidst an overwhelming influx of illegal aliens.

Since May last year, Hotel Le Jolie, previously celebrated on platforms like TripAdvisor for its distinctive appeal, has redirected its resources to serve as a sanctuary for those who have entered this country illegally.

This transformation aligns with broader city efforts to manage the sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

The New York Post reports that Mayor Eric Adams’ administration has facilitated this transition through a $12.3 million contract awarded to the Brooklyn-based nonprofit St. P.A.U.L.S. Inc.

The organization is now tasked with running a “sanctuary city facility for families with children” at the hotel’s address, 235 Meeker Avenue.

The change has not gone unnoticed by potential guests. Those attempting to book a stay through popular sites like Expedia encounter a notification stating, “This property is closed from May 2, 2023, to December 31, 2024,” categorized under “Renovations and closures.”

This shift from a tourist-friendly hotel to a shelter is indicative of the city’s current response to a massive influx of illegal immigrants during Joe Biden’s immigration crisis.

Before its transformation, Hotel Le Jolie enjoyed generally positive reviews, with few customers leaving dissatisfied.

However, the hotel’s new role has brought to light broader, more complex issues facing the city and the nation.

New York has spent tens of millions of dollars to house migrants in various hotels, a makeshift solution that has resulted in increased reports of drug use, alcohol abuse, and violent incidents—problems that have spilled over into the neighborhoods.

These issues were starkly highlighted in an interview conducted by Turning Point USA’s Savanah Hernandez with Carlos Arrellano, a whistleblower who has worked at the largest hotel-turned-shelter in New York City.

Located a block away from Times Square, this facility has reportedly been a source of considerable turmoil.

Arrellano, with five years of experience in the field, expressed his dismay at the current situation: “I’ve been doing this for five years, and in my five years, this has been the worst experience by far,” he said. “The city of New York does not know what they’re doing, and it’s only going to get worse from here.”

The Department of Homeland Security, initially relying on a temporary team to manage the transition of Hotel Le Jolie and similar facilities, expects St. P.A.U.L.S. Inc. to elevate the quality of services provided to the residents.

This expectation comes amid growing concerns about the adequacy of the city’s infrastructure and resources to handle such a significant and rapid population change.

While the city’s decision to convert hotels into shelters is one that the Left champions, it also raises questions about the sustainability of such measures and the long-term impact on local communities and the migrants they aim to help.

As New York continues to wrestle with these issues, the responses from city officials, nonprofit organizations, and the communities involved will likely be forced to adjust as they are overwhelmed with illegal immigrants.

The transformation of Hotel Le Jolie into a shelter not only serves as simply a temporary bandage for a massive crisis but also as a poignant symbol of the city’s broader struggles with immigration even as they claim to be a “sanctuary city.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has made it clear that they have little to no regard for this nation nor the people who live here. But even so, people were still shocked when they said this.

And a new interview with a top Liberal lawmaker has unveiled the Left’s true intentions.

Representative Jamaal Bowman, a Democrat from New York, has recently expressed his support for resettling Palestinian refugees in the United States and granting amnesty to illegal immigrants residing in the country for extended periods.

During an interview with Yonkers Voice, Bowman revealed his views on these issues, which have stirred considerable debate among policymakers and the public alike.

In the interview, conducted last week and rapidly gaining traction online, Bowman was asked about his stance on allowing refugees from Gaza to seek refuge in the U.S.

His response was unequivocal, as he stated his full support for the measure.

The congressman emphasized the long-standing American tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution, oppression, and violence from regions worldwide, including Palestine and various Central American and Caribbean countries.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman says he “fully supports” resettling Gaza refugees in America.

“We are a land of immigrants”

pic.twitter.com/1EHmimeaC6

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) April 29, 2024

“We are a land of immigrants, and we are a land of asylum seekers,” Bowman said, underscoring his belief in the U.S. as a sanctuary for those who wish.

He added, “They’re coming here to contribute to our economy, which 99.9 percent of them are. We’ve always been a place to open our doors to immigrants coming here. So fully support that. And also, fully support amnesty for the migrants who have been here for quite some time.”

Furthermore, during the same interview, Bowman touched upon controversial topics related to U.S. foreign policy and domestic issues.

He criticized past American foreign policies as being rooted in “racism” and “imperialism” and voiced his support for reparations.

His remarks are indicative of his broader critique of historical U.S. international relations, particularly concerning Africa.

Aside from his policy positions, Bowman has gained notoriety for his dramatic actions in Congress, such as pulling a fire alarm to delay a vote.

Recently, he was also misled by a parody account into inviting a fictitious “Gaza rabbi” to host a fundraiser, an incident that highlights the naiveness of the Left.

Bowman’s stance on these issues reflects a progressive viewpoint that aligns with the broader Radical Left.

His advocacy for refugees and illegal immigrants is part of a larger debate regarding change in the immigration process, border security, and America First politics.

As debates over immigration and foreign policy continue to evolve, Bowman’s outspoken views are likely to influence discussions within the Democratic Party and the Radical Left.

The Left has no care for this nation, but instead spends all of their time focusing on foreign terrorists, and illegal immigrants, and sending stolen taxpayer dollars overseas.

We must not allow this to continue any longer, and we must elect leaders who will put the needs of the nation first.

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

Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump have had an interesting past. But now, a shocking new development could change everything.

And Donald Trump’s new election meeting with DeSantis has Democrats horrified and supporters excited.

Recent reports state that Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump met in private on Sunday to talk about cooperating in the next election.

The encounter took place in Miami, Florida, and was arranged by Trump friend and DeSantis associate Steve Witkoff, a real estate broker. Witkoff was present during the meeting also.

According to the New York Times, Witkoff owns Shell Bay, a golf club and development, where the three men “met alone in a private room.”

According to the source, DeSantis wants to regain his status as a serious contender in the 2028 presidential election, while Trump needs his assistance with fundraising to match President Joe Biden’s contributions.

According to POLITICO, the meeting marked a “pivotal turn” that “could help restore” the two parties’ relationship prior to the primary season.

During the primary, the former president attacked DeSantis often. In response, the governor intensified his criticism of Trump as the contest intensified.

Both men’s comments after DeSantis withdrew from the race and backed Trump suggested that animosity still existed.

Following his announcement to friends and funders earlier this month that he would be holding a fundraiser for the former president at a private retreat, DeSantis called the gathering on Sunday.

Texas businessman Roy Bailey said, “I will follow the governor’s lead and I will do anything that he or President Trump ask me to do to help him win this election.”

“I know where there are DeSantis supporters all over Texas and all over the country that will want to help President Trump,” he added.

He claimed that DeSantis is “committed to helping Trump in any and every way,” which is a major win for Conservative Americans who are joining together to stop the oppression of the Left.

Bailey added that “If we can unlock and motivate our donors for Trump and put more fuel in his tank, that’s what we want to do, and that’s what we need to do to make sure [President Joe] Biden is not reelected.”

According to the source, DeSantis’ unwavering support for Trump’s campaign is a huge advantage for him because “DeSantis’ finance committee is full of fundraisers with massive networks” who can provide financial contributions.

This meeting comes at a critical time in which the Radical Left is doing everything they can to stop Trump from raising support on the campaign trail.

The Left is keeping Trump trapped in a courtroom where he is unable to raise money or resources for his re-election campaign which is exactly what the Left wants.

We cannot allow the Left to divide us even further, and American patriots must join together to stop the oppression of the Left.

Joe Biden and the Left cannot stand against us all, and we must take to the polls to make our voices heard.

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

The Left has weaponized the justice system in ways that most people cannot imagine. And they thought they were so well protected that they didn’t see this coming.

Because in a new shocking development, the Supreme Court is questioning the legitimacy of Jack Smith in prosecuting Trump.

Ever since Donald Trump entered the political scene, the Left has been doing everything they can to oppose him and stop him from taking office.

They have accused him of various things that have been proven false, they have slandered and attacked him publicly, and they have even used the justice system to prosecute him.

Most recently, it has been the weaponization of the justice system by Joe Biden and the Radical Left that has Americans outraged.

Many people are also concerned that if the Left can use the justice system to go after their political rivals, what is to stop them from going after American citizens who simply disagree with them?

Recently, the conversation has focused on the legitimacy of the claims brought against Trump with many people pointing at similar scenarios with Biden yet the corrupt President does not get charged and Trump does.

Most clearly, with the classified docs case, Special Counsel Hur refused to bring charges against Biden because he was an “old man” yet the Left brought the same charges against Trump.

But now, as many Americans push back, higher courts in the US are starting to weigh in on the proceedings, and many of them are upsetting the Left.

And now, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the validity of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment to pursue Donald Trump during the Supreme Court’s hearing on presidential immunity on Thursday.

Whether Trump enjoys constitutional presidential immunity from prosecution for acts taken while in office is at the center of the court’s ongoing deliberations.

According to Fox News, Thomas’ inquiry looked into Smith’s and the Office of Special Counsel’s jurisdiction to file charges against Trump.

Thomas questioned Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, wondering if the president’s counsel had objected to the special counsel’s appointment in the ongoing legal dispute.

Thomas asked, “Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?”

Trump’s lawyer replied, “It points to a very important issue here because one of [the special counsel’s] arguments is, of course, that we should have this presumption of regularity.”

“That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. So we agree with that position. We hadn’t raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal,” he added.

The legal power of Smith to prosecute Trump was also questioned by former US attorneys general Meese and Mukasey in a noteworthy amicus brief that was submitted to the Supreme Court in March.

They contended that, as Smith was never properly nominated and confirmed by the Senate, his role as special counsel does not satisfy the requirements for an appropriate appointment as a federal officer.

They argued, “Neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria.”

“He wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one, by design. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law — whatever one may think of former President Trump or the conduct on January 6, 2021, that Smith challenges in the underlying case,” they added.

The main topic of discussion for the Supreme Court is Trump’s assertion of immunity from prosecution in connection with the events of January 6.

If a court were to rule against presidential immunity, Trump might be held criminally accountable for what he did that day.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for updates on this developing story and more.

The Radical Left is always passing laws that are extremely radical and harmful. But they never expected this to happen.

And a liberal state was betrayed because of their own Radical policies.

A referendum to overturn California’s failed police reform measures has garnered significant support from residents, which lawmakers say is imperative to pass in order to restore public safety across the state.

Proposition 47, which became law in 2014, reclassified several felonies as misdemeanors including retail and property theft, in addition to a wide range of drug possession convictions.

The Democratic law was introduced as an effort to reduce incarcerations.

However, the Radical effort has only significantly increased crime due to a lack of accountability for criminals.

According to the amendments to Prop 47, repeated thefts for individuals who steal less than $950 will be felony charges as long as they have two or more prior theft-related conditions. They are currently considered misdemeanors.

Furthermore, it would allow the total value of stolen property from many crimes to be put together, which could result in repeat offenders being charged with felonies if the total exceeds $950.

Numerous convictions for drug possession that were formerly felonies were also reduced to misdemeanors.

If approved, it will make selling lethal dosages of fentanyl illegal and add it to the list of narcotics that are illegal to possess with a firearm, along with heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

Additionally, drug traffickers may be charged with murder if their actions cause deaths.

This would make it possible to punish dealers more severely if their trafficking caused a fatality or severe damage.

The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act is the name of the amendment that will be presented as an initiative on the state ballot in November.

Since then, the initiative has garnered a great deal of support; Californians have signed over 900,000 petitions in favor of it, significantly beyond the 500,000 signatures needed to be on the ballot.

Progressive lawmakers and district attorneys from both political parties have also endorsed the reform bills.

According to Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho, who backed the initiative, Golden State citizens waited in line for hours to sign the petition.

According to a Fox News report, Ho said, “That’s how popular it is. That’s the sentiment of people, and it’s across all spectrums.”

He added that the push “cuts across party lines and cuts across racial lines, social and economic lines. It’s small businesses, big businesses, everyday people” who are “passionate” about the efforts happening.

This bipartisan support shows just how crippling the Radical Left’s agenda is, and it highlights that even though the media tries to make it seem like Americans love the Left, this could not be further from the truth.

We must learn from the past and we cannot elect leaders who will harm America instead of improving it.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.