It is no secret that the Democrats are up to something. But no one expected them to show the world.

But now, Jill Biden has exposed the Democrats’ secret plan on live TV.

First Lady Jill Biden took center stage on ABC’s “The View,” using her appearance to fan the flames of fear over what might happen if her husband, President Joe Biden, were to lose his re-election bid in November.

The visit highlighted the left’s ongoing anxiety about a potential return of former President Donald Trump to the White House.

Cohost Joy Behar initiated the discussion by dismissing concerns about President Biden’s competency, echoing a familiar defense from the left.

Behar praised Biden, asserting that he was “right on top of it” and “alert” when they met, pushing back against claims that the President is not fit to continue in office.

Joy Behar rages to Jill Biden about how people call Joe Biden mentally and physically unfit for office.
She claims he's "right on top of it," "competent," and "alert" while Trump is "doddering and doesn't remember anything and can't put a sentence together and has brain farts…" pic.twitter.com/kGyDhsyVIr

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 29, 2024

Jill Biden, echoing Behar’s sentiments, defended her husband’s physical and mental fitness, noting that he works out daily.

She countered the criticism of his age by pointing out that Trump, nearly the same age as Biden, does not face the same scrutiny despite some public figures, like comedian Bill Maher, suggesting that Trump presents as much younger than Biden.

Behar, known for her disdain for Trump, took a jab at the former president, describing him as “doddering” and incapable of forming coherent sentences. This comment drew laughter from the audience and highlighted the left’s continuing effort to undermine Trump’s credibility.

The discussion then turned to the importance of debates. Cohost Sara Haines emphasized their significance, suggesting that guardrails should be in place to manage Trump’s conduct.

Notably absent from her remarks was any acknowledgment of the fact that during the first 2020 presidential debate, Biden was the first to interrupt and engage in name-calling, setting a combative tone for the encounter.

The First Lady’s most striking comments came as she expressed deep concerns about the potential implications of a Trump victory, particularly regarding the Supreme Court.

She warned of dire consequences if Trump were able to appoint another justice, reflecting the Democratic Party’s fear of a conservative-majority court reshaping the country’s legal landscape.

“Can you imagine if we put any more Republicans on the Supreme Court?” Biden asked with palpable alarm. “No! We will lose all of our rights! So we’re talking about women’s rights, gay rights … we will lose all our rights and freedoms.”

Her remarks underscore a broader strategy by Democrats to use fear as a tool to rally their base.

The message is clear: a Trump victory would spell disaster for progressive causes and roll back rights that the left holds dear.

This rhetoric is designed to energize Democratic voters by painting a picture of an America on the brink of losing fundamental freedoms if Republicans gain more power.

However, this strategy also reveals a significant weakness. By focusing on fear and negativity, the Biden campaign risks alienating moderate voters who are tired of the hyper-partisan atmosphere and are looking for a positive vision for the future.

Instead of offering concrete solutions to pressing issues like inflation, crime, and border security, the campaign appears to be doubling down on the narrative that a Trump presidency is the ultimate threat to American democracy.

This fear-mongering approach is a diversion from the administration’s failures.

Under Biden’s leadership, the country has faced numerous challenges, from a botched withdrawal from Afghanistan to rising crime rates in major cities, to a border crisis that shows no signs of abating.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left knows that Joe Biden’s White House chances are slim. And they cannot afford to lose any support.

But now, a shocking Democrat betrayal has shattered Biden’s chances.

In a surprising development, President Joe Biden will not have the backing of a key Democrat official in a critical Michigan battleground county as he campaigns for reelection.

This underscores the growing problems Biden faces within his own party just six months before the 2024 presidential election.

Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel, a prominent Democrat in Michigan, revealed to Detroit News columnist Noal Finley on Monday that he does not intend to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Hackel expressed his dissatisfaction with both Biden and former President Donald Trump, saying he cannot support either candidate.

“I don’t have an interest in voting for president, and I feel disappointed by that,” Hackel stated. “I dislike both candidates. All they do is talk negatively about each other, instead of talking about themselves and their ideas.”

Hackel made it clear that he would not campaign for Biden, leaving the decision to the voters of Macomb County.

“I won’t work for him. I’ll let the people of Macomb make their own choice. I’m not voting for anyone just because a political party tells me I have to,” he added.

This revelation from Hackel is particularly concerning for the Biden campaign.

Democrat consultant Adolph Mongo told Finley that Hackel’s decision “hurts Biden” and means “Democrats will have to put a lot more resources” into Macomb County.

Mongo noted Hackel’s moderate stance as a reason for his lack of support for either major party candidate.

Macomb County, located in the southeastern part of Michigan, is the state’s third-largest county by population, with close to 900,000 residents.

It has been a pivotal region in recent elections, with the presidential candidate winning the county in three of the last four elections also winning the state and the White House.

In 2016, Trump won Macomb County by double digits, after former President Barack Obama had secured it in 2008 and 2012 by margins of 8.6 percent and 4 percent, respectively.

However, in 2020, despite Trump carrying the county by eight points, Biden won the state and the electoral college.

Hackel’s refusal to support Biden comes amid increasing dissatisfaction among Democrat voters in Michigan and other critical states. The “uncommitted” movement, which began with the Listen to Michigan campaign, reflects growing discontent with Biden’s handling of key issues like the Israel-Hamas conflict.

This movement has seen over 500,000 Democratic primary voters nationally cast protest votes against Biden, with more than 100,000 of these coming from Michigan alone.

This significant number of uncommitted votes poses a considerable threat to Biden’s reelection prospects.

For context, the 101,430 uncommitted votes in Michigan are approaching the 154,188-vote margin that separated Trump and Biden in the state in 2020.

The potential for these uncommitted voters to stay home in the general election could severely impact Biden’s chances in crucial swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Adding to Biden’s challenges, a Muslim activist group called Abandon Biden has been organizing efforts in Michigan and eight other swing states to prevent Biden from securing a second term.

This group is driven by what they describe as Biden’s enabling of mass civilian casualties in Gaza, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with his foreign policy among certain voter blocs.

The Biden administration faces mounting pressure to address these internal party fractures and regain the support of disillusioned Democrats.

The upcoming months will be critical as the president attempts to unify his base and present a compelling case for his reelection amidst growing dissent and dissatisfaction.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left claims that the DOJ has not been weaponized against Americans. But the facts show otherwise.

And now a top trump prosecutor has been sued for attacking Americans.

New York Attorney General Letitia James faces a new legal challenge this month as she is being sued for her aggressive targeting of pro-life organizations in the state.

The lawsuit, brought forth by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), Gianna’s House, and Options Care Center, accuses James of violating the First Amendment through her legal actions against 11 crisis pregnancy centers and Heartbeat International. These pro-life groups are represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

The crux of the lawsuit revolves around James’ ongoing efforts to suppress the dissemination of information regarding the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) protocol, which pro-life advocates argue is a critical option for women who regret initiating a chemical abortion.

“Many women regret their abortions, and some seek to stop the effects of chemical abortion drugs before taking the second drug in the abortion drug process. Taking supplemental progesterone at that time can often save their baby’s life,” said ADF Legal Counsel Gabriella McIntyre.

“The New York attorney general, however, is doing everything she can to deny women the freedom to make that choice.”

James’ legal actions target a dozen pro-life ministries over their support and promotion of the APR protocol.

This protocol involves administering a prescribed dose of bioidentical progesterone to potentially counteract the effects of mifepristone, the first drug in the abortion pill regimen, thereby saving the unborn child if a woman decides to continue her pregnancy.

Pro-life groups argue that this method is a vital lifeline for women who have second thoughts after starting a chemical abortion.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, highlights the story of a woman who was able to save her baby thanks to the APR protocol after beginning an abortion.

The complaint asserts that despite James’ claims of supporting women’s choice, her actions effectively deprive women of the opportunity to reverse their decision and continue their pregnancies.

“Despite saying that she supports women’s choice, the Attorney General seeks to deprive women who change their mind and want to continue their pregnancies, or who are coerced or tricked into a chemical abortion, of truthful information about progesterone treatment, a safe option that has been used by obstetrician-gynecologists to help maintain pregnancies for decades,” the lawsuit states.

The suit demands that James be barred from applying New York business law in a way that targets pro-life groups advocating for the APR protocol.

“New York is intentionally denying women the freedom to continue their pregnancies by censoring those who promote it. They are forcing women to follow through with an abortion—even if they don’t want to,” said Thomas Glessner, president and founder of NIFLA.

“How does it even remotely make sense to trust women with their medical decisions if you are actively trying to hide scientifically-based information from them? It makes no sense, nor is it legal.”

This lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal and political battles that have ensued since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In the aftermath of this landmark ruling, pregnancy centers across the nation have faced increased scrutiny and attacks from Democrat lawmakers and pro-abortion activists.

Attorney General Letitia James has been particularly vocal and active in her efforts to clamp down on pro-life organizations, arguing that they engage in deceptive practices.

However, many people argue that her actions amount to a politically motivated crusade against groups that provide vital services and information to women in crisis.

James’ aggressive stance against pro-life groups raises significant concerns about the suppression of free speech and the right of organizations to provide alternative information and support to women.

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

The Biden administration is intoxicated with power. But they’re about to learn a stark lesson.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court’s next big decision has President Biden on pins and needles.

The Biden administration is actively challenging Republican-led states over their immigration laws, arguing these measures are unconstitutional as they encroach on federal authority. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed lawsuits against Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma for enacting laws that empower local police to enforce immigration rules. These states claim they are responding to an unprecedented border crisis, accusing the federal government of failing to enforce immigration laws adequately.

Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma have each passed legislation that makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4), Iowa Senate File 2340, and Oklahoma House Bill 4156 grant law enforcement the authority to arrest illegal immigrants and impose penalties for unlawful presence.

Greg Abbott and Texas are sealing the border wall with concrete. #Texas #Bordercrisis #Immigration #US pic.twitter.com/DpCq8p0dvJ

— Across The Line (@AcrossTheLine11) May 23, 2024

These measures reflect the states’ attempts to protect themselves, as explained by Matt Crapo, a senior attorney with the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI). “Due to the abdication of this administration’s duty to enforce the law, states are trying to protect themselves,” Crapo shared with reporters. “They are trying to do so by mirroring federal law, enforcing the same type of laws if this administration was enforcing the law.”

The Biden administration contends that these state laws are unconstitutional, asserting that immigration enforcement is a federal prerogative. The legality of these state measures may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, with Texas’s SB4 likely to be the first to reach the nation’s highest court.

IRLI has filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting Texas SB4. Crapo mentioned that his organization plans to file similar briefs for the Iowa and Oklahoma laws once those states challenge the preliminary injunctions imposed by federal courts. The brief argues that SB4 “parallels” federal immigration laws without interfering with federal authority over immigration.

However, not all legal experts agree with this interpretation. “SB4 is cruel, inhumane, and clearly unconstitutional,” Kate Melloy Goettel, senior legal director at the American Immigration Council, stated in March.

“All these bills could result in significant civil rights abuses, leading to widespread arrests and deportations by state actors without key federal protections.” Goettel expressed hope that SB4 would be blocked in court to prevent setting a “disastrous precedent.”

The outcome of these legal battles remains uncertain. Art Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies highlighted the unique aspects of the Texas case compared to a 2010 Arizona law that was largely struck down by the Supreme Court. “It’s sort of an open question as to whether the Supreme Court is going to allow Texas to criminalize illegal entry into Texas,” Arthur noted, emphasizing Texas’ argument that trespassing is fundamentally a state crime.

Arthur also pointed out that Texas’ legislation is different from the Iowa and Oklahoma laws, which could lead to varied judicial outcomes. He suggested that the Supreme Court’s decision on SB4 would provide significant insight into the viability of other state laws. According to Arthur, the passage of these state laws reflects genuine concerns rather than political maneuvers, underscoring a perceived failure by the Biden administration to enforce immigration laws.

“Texas’ argument is ‘look, the federal government doesn’t completely occupy the field with respect to this crime because trespassing is an essential state crime and this is basically a trespassing offense,’” Art Arthur shared with reporters.

Illegal immigration has surged to historic levels, with Border Patrol agents reporting over 1,171,000 encounters with illegal immigrants this fiscal year alone. Since President Joe Biden took office, there have been more than six million such encounters. High-profile crimes committed by illegal immigrants, such as the killing of a Georgia nursing student and the attempted breach of the Quantico Marine Base, have further intensified the debate.

Biden’s strategy is very simple:

1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible.

2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state.

That is why they are encouraging so much illegal immigration. Simple, yet effective. pic.twitter.com/B9M5ypUOQB

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 3, 2024

Amid these challenges, Republican state leaders feel compelled to take action. Louisiana state senator Valarie Hodges, sponsor of Senate Bill 388, which would make illegal entry a state crime, stated, “The Biden administration refuses to do their job, so we need to do it.” Her bill proposes penalties of up to one year in prison and a $4,000 fine for the first offense, and up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine for a second offense.

Despite the prospect of legal challenges, Hodges remains resolute. “When the federal government won’t do their job, what course do we have? We’re going to collapse if we don’t do something. I believe we are within our constitutional boundaries to do this.” She added, “Maybe we should sue them for not doing their job.”

The ongoing legal battles between the Biden administration and Republican-led states over immigration enforcement laws reflect a deep divide over how best to address the crisis at the U.S. border. The Supreme Court’s eventual rulings on these cases will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between federal and state authorities in immigration enforcement.

So even if Joe Biden is somehow able to hold on to his position in the Oval Office for a second term, he could be looking at starting off with a huge policy loss should the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court bench rule his harassment of Republican states to be unconstitutional.

Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.

Joe Biden is not fit to serve as President of the United States. And it seems that even his supporters understand that.

Because the White House’s shocking remarks leave Americans wondering about Biden’s future.

In a heated exchange on Tuesday, Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy pressed White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on whether the Biden administration is panicking over President Joe Biden’s re-election prospects.

This comes in the wake of a POLITICO article indicating significant anxiety within the Democratic Party about Biden’s chances in 2024.

The POLITICO article, titled “Dems in full-blown ‘freakout’ over Biden,” highlighted the growing concerns among Democrats.

It noted, “One adviser to major Democratic donors keeps a running list of reasons Biden could lose,” reflecting the pervasive fear within the party’s highest ranks.

The article suggested that despite previous confidence, many Democratic officeholders and strategists are now deeply worried about the upcoming election battle with former President Donald Trump.

Doocy’s question to Jean-Pierre was direct: “Are you guys here at the White House in full-blown freak-out mode?”

Jean-Pierre, appearing taken aback and feigning ignorance of the POLITICO article, responded, “What are you talking about? What are you talking about?”

“There’s a — there’s a —” Doocy began, before Jean-Pierre cut him off, “Peter —”

Doocy continued, “— POLITICO story. It sounds like Democrats, outside —” he persisted, quoting the article that cited Biden’s persistently poor polling and the high stakes of the election as sources of Democratic “freakout,” according to a Democratic operative.

DOOCY TIME: “Are you guys here at the White House in full-blown freak out mode?”

KJP: “What are you talking about? What are you talking about?”

Doocy: “There’s a — there’s a —”

KJP: “Peter!”

Doocy: “— Politico story. It sounds like Democrats, outside — the quote is ‘Biden’s… pic.twitter.com/o5bk7Yhlkx

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 28, 2024

Jean-Pierre dodged the question, saying, “So again, I’m really mindful — I’m not going to comment on 2024 election,” and pivoted to discussing Biden’s empathy for the American people, stating, “I will say this — uh — the President has never forgotten where he comes — where he came from, who he is. He understands what the American people are going through as they’re sitting around the kitchen table.”

The POLITICO article painted a grim picture for Biden’s re-election campaign.

It noted that a “pervasive sense of fear has settled in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party over President Joe Biden’s reelection prospects, even among officeholders and strategists who had previously expressed confidence about the coming battle with Donald Trump. … nearly five months from the election, anxiety has morphed into palpable trepidation, according to more than a dozen party leaders and operatives. And the gap between what Democrats will say on TV or in print, and what they’ll text their friends, has only grown as worries have surged about Biden’s prospects.”

This anxiety is compounded by the fact that former President Trump, despite numerous legal battles and controversies, is leading Biden in most battleground states.

The article highlighted that Trump raised significantly more money in April, and the landscape for Democrats may worsen with Trump’s legal issues potentially resolving favorably and Hunter Biden’s trial set to begin in Delaware.

The POLITICO report also revealed that a Democratic adviser to major party donors has compiled a list of nearly two dozen reasons why Biden could lose.

The adviser bleakly remarked, “The list of why we ‘could’ win is so small I don’t even need to keep the list on my phone.”

As Biden’s approval ratings continue to struggle and concerns about his age and cognitive abilities persist, the Democratic Party faces a significant challenge.

The party’s internal conflicts and external pressures are becoming increasingly visible, leading to a lack of confidence among its ranks.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left is doing everything they can to hinder Trump. But they have crossed the line with recent developments.

And a threat against Trump in NY has Americans shocked and worried.

As the high-stakes New York trial against former President Donald Trump approaches its verdict, preparations are being made for an unprecedented scenario.

According to reports, Trump’s Secret Service detail has met with local jail officials to discuss potential arrangements if the former president is sentenced to prison.

This preparation underscores the gravity of the situation, given Trump’s status as a former president entitled to lifelong Secret Service protection.

A CBS News report cites a New York corrections source confirming that Secret Service agents have been in discussions with local New York corrections officials.

The complexity of potentially incarcerating a former president necessitates meticulous planning, as Trump’s Secret Service protection would need to be maintained even behind bars.

This unprecedented scenario poses significant logistical and security challenges.

During a May 6 hearing, Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the case, expressed concerns about the implications of such a sanction.

“I worry about the people who would have to execute that sanction: the court officers, the correction officers, the Secret Service detail, among others,” Merchan stated.

This acknowledgment highlights the extraordinary nature of the case and the potential fallout from a prison sentence for Trump.

While the prospect of Trump serving jail time remains uncertain, the judge has previously threatened incarceration over violations of a gag order placed on Trump.

The unprecedented nature of sentencing a former president complicates potential outcomes.

Former Manhattan prosecutor Duncan Levin suggested that Merchan could opt for a less severe sentence, such as home confinement and probation, allowing Trump to maintain some level of public engagement, including access to social media and the ability to conduct interviews.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has assured the public that the city is prepared for any outcome. “Our amazing commissioner is prepared for whatever comes on Rikers Island,” Adams stated.

He emphasized that the Department of Corrections is equipped to handle even the most unusual situations, citing the example of handling high-profile inmates like Harvey Weinstein. “In this business, particularly around law enforcement, we have to adjust to whatever comes our way,” Adams added.

The case, brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, charges Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

These charges stem from actions taken in 2016, which under normal circumstances would be classified as misdemeanors and subject to the statute of limitations.

However, Bragg elevated the charges to felonies by alleging that the falsifications were connected to another crime.

In a controversial decision, Judge Merchan ruled that the jury does not need to agree on what the other crime was, only that another crime was committed in conjunction with the falsified records charges.

This ruling has sparked significant debate and concern. Critics argue that it sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the principle of specific and clear charges in criminal cases.

As the trial nears its conclusion, the nation awaits the verdict with bated breath.

The outcome could set a historic precedent and will undoubtedly be a defining moment in the ongoing saga of Donald Trump’s legal battles.

Regardless of the verdict, the case has already highlighted significant challenges and questions about the intersection of law, politics, and the unprecedented situation of prosecuting a former president.

Since the weaponization of the justice system by the Biden administration, Americans have been worried. But now, they are more than worried… they are scared.

And Biden’s shocking Trump trial lies have turned the nation against him.

The Biden White House and the Biden-Harris campaign have consistently stated that the criminal trials against former President Donald Trump are not political and do not represent a weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ). They maintain that the DOJ operates independently.

However, on Tuesday, the Biden campaign staged a conspicuous political event outside the New York City courthouse where Trump has been facing charges of falsification of business records.

Speaking to the press, campaign communications director Michael Taylor attempted to deflect attention from the courthouse proceedings, stating, “First of all, let me say this first and foremost, we’re not here today because of what’s going on over there,” while motioning towards the courthouse.

“We’re here today because you all are here.” He then introduced Biden campaigners, including actor Robert De Niro and two Capitol Police officers who were on duty on January 6, 2021.

Biden campaign spokesman outside NYC courthouse where Trump trial is taking place: "We're here primarily because of the threat that Donald Trump poses to the United States of America and to our democracy." pic.twitter.com/7Toklw939A

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

Taylor then targeted Biden’s chief political opponent, Donald Trump, who currently leads Biden in many swing state polls.

Taylor suggested that Trump was “somewhere fighting for himself,” labeling him an “unhinged, power-hungry, self-centered man” who “rambles.”

He further insinuated that Trump might not “show up” for the upcoming debate, casting doubt on his willingness to confront Biden directly.

When questioned about the independence of the DOJ in its pursuit of criminal cases against Trump, the White House reiterated that President Biden had restored “integrity” to the DOJ by appointing Merrick Garland as Attorney General.

However, a report from The New York Times suggested that Biden had instructed Garland to prosecute Trump, raising concerns about the impartiality of these proceedings.

Despite these allegations, the White House continued to assert that there was no political motivation behind Trump’s prosecution.

The White House press secretary maintained that “It would not be appropriate for us to comment on any ongoing investigations.”

However, this stance did not prevent the Biden campaign from holding a politically charged event outside the courthouse where Trump’s trial was taking place. This move has raised eyebrows and fueled speculation about the campaign’s true intentions.

Tyler justified the campaign’s decision to stage the event by emphasizing the perceived threat Trump poses to the nation and to “democracy.”

He acknowledged concerns that such an event might suggest the Biden campaign and administration have a vested interest in securing a conviction against Trump.

Although the jury has been instructed to avoid media coverage of the case, they have not been sequestered, heightening concerns about potential bias.

Biden spokesperson Tyler reiterated the campaign’s stance, stating that the event was necessary due to the threat Trump poses.

He addressed the optics of staging a campaign event outside Trump’s trial, acknowledging that it could give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

However, the Left continues to make the Trump trial about politics, and they continue to weaponize the justice system against anyone who disagrees politically with them.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.