Harris clearly wasn’t thinking when she hit send on this post. Now she’s facing the consequences.

As Kamala Harris has been ripped to shreds over this heartless social media post.

Vice President Kamala Harris came under fire following a social media post in which she shared an image of herself being briefed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Hurricane Helene.

The photograph, intended to showcase the administration’s emergency response efforts, instead caught the attention of eagle-eyed social media users who found peculiar details that fueled criticism.

“I was just briefed by @FEMA_Deanne Criswell on the latest developments about the ongoing impacts of Hurricane Helene. We also discussed our Administration’s continued actions to support emergency response and recovery. I also spoke with @NC_Governor Cooper about the ongoing rescue and recovery efforts in North Carolina,” Harris shared on Sunday evening via social media.

She continued, “Our Administration will continue to stay in constant contact with state and local officials to ensure communities have the support and resources they need. Doug and my thoughts are with all those who lost loved ones and those whose homes, businesses, and communities were damaged or destroyed during this disaster.”

I was just briefed by @FEMA_Deanne Criswell on the latest developments about the ongoing impacts of Hurricane Helene. We also discussed our Administration's continued actions to support emergency response and recovery.

I also spoke with @NC_Governor Cooper about the ongoing… pic.twitter.com/nlZPB0h3mO

— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) September 30, 2024

However, the photo accompanying the post sparked a wave of reactions, including from her political opponents. Among the most vocal was former President Donald Trump, who wasted no time in criticizing the image on X (formerly Twitter).

“Another FAKE and STAGED photo from someone who has no clue what she is doing. You have to plug the cord into the phone for it to work!” Trump wrote.

Social media users quickly chimed in, with one person noting, “The paper is blank and the wired headphones aren’t even plugged into her phone. If you’re going to pretend you’re not AWOL as NC is under water, at least put some effort into it.”

Another user added a tongue-in-cheek comment: “This piece of paper is unburdened by White House pen,” referencing what appeared to be Harris writing on a blank page.

Conservative journalist Mollie Hemingway also weighed in, stating, “This is the most VEEP-like photo ever — pretending to be on a phone call but forgetting to plug in the antiquated earphones while pretending to write on a blank piece of paper instead of actually doing anything.”

“Are her wired earbuds even plugged into her phone?” questioned veteran television journalist Brit Hume.

Former Representative Scott Taylor didn’t hold back either, labeling the image “Fake picture, fake help, fake candidate.”

The controversy surrounding Harris’s post came at a time when she had just wrapped up a weekend of fundraising events in California, reportedly raising $55 million. On Sunday evening, she also held a campaign rally in Nevada before returning to Washington, D.C., on Monday afternoon to visit FEMA headquarters for a briefing on Hurricane Helene’s aftermath.

Kamala goes Full Biden, refusing to take questions on the botched hurricane response as the press is forced out of her staged FEMA briefing pic.twitter.com/RwDs2SoKzY

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 30, 2024

While she remained engaged in political events, Hurricane Helene was wreaking havoc across multiple states, including Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia. The administration’s response was also called into question due to President Joe Biden spending the weekend at his Rehoboth Beach residence in Delaware.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre defended both Harris and Biden, stating during a Monday press briefing, “The president did exactly what a president in this moment needs to do, which is directing his team to take action.” She added that Harris would be visiting FEMA headquarters later that day to continue assessing the emergency response efforts.

Despite the administration’s defense, the critical reactions from the public and political opponents show just how unserious the Biden/Harris administration really is. It’s almost as if they could care less about the natural disaster that’s affected so many Americans.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The world is on fire. You can thank the Biden-Harris administration for a lot of it.

And now Biden prepares for war with a massive deployment order.

The Biden administration’s Middle East strategy continues to falter as the Pentagon announced Monday that the US is sending thousands more troops to the region, while Israel is forced to conduct “ground raids” into Lebanon to target Hezbollah terrorists.

Instead of projecting strength, Biden’s weak foreign policy has emboldened threats like Iran, whose proxy Hezbollah poses a growing menace to the region.

The Pentagon’s vague declaration of adding “a few thousand” troops is part of an ongoing effort that now brings the total US presence in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and other Middle Eastern nations to around 43,000.

But Biden’s administration has yet to articulate a coherent strategy to address Iran’s influence, which looms large over these developments.

One Pentagon official, speaking to the New York Times, said as many as 3,000 troops could be deployed—but how does this number address the escalating aggression from Iran-backed militias?

Deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh tried to spin the deployment as an effort “to further enhance the defense posture of US forces in the Middle East region to deter aggression,” but the reality is this: Iran’s regime, unchecked by Biden’s disastrous nuclear deal attempts, continues to stoke regional instability, leading to an increased risk of wider conflict.

Singh mentioned that the troop increase involves units already in the Middle East, with others being extended, but this reactive approach merely highlights how ill-prepared the administration is to handle rising tensions.

Meanwhile, Biden’s Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group to stay in the region—a move that reeks of desperation more than strategic planning.

The military is also scrambling to boost defensive air support with F-16s, F-15es, A-10s, and F-22 fighter jets.

As Singh explained, the goal is to ensure the protection of US forces, but what about protecting American interests by countering Iran’s growing regional influence? Instead, Biden’s policies have empowered the very regimes that seek to harm us.

This flurry of military deployments comes just as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed its ground incursion into Lebanon.

The IDF, taking matters into its own hands amid the growing Hezbollah threat, stated that “limited, localized, and targeted ground raids” were initiated to destroy Hezbollah’s terror infrastructure, which poses an “immediate threat to Israeli communities.”

These are the consequences of unchecked Iranian influence.

Israel’s actions follow days of intense bombing campaigns in Lebanon, which have already neutralized several top Hezbollah commanders.

Yet, while Israel seeks to protect its citizens from daily rocket attacks, the Biden administration continues to fumble its role, failing to curb Iran’s power in the region.

Israel’s goal remains clear: halt Hezbollah’s terror and restore security to its northern communities—a far cry from the Biden administration’s muddled approach.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

CNN is usually in the back pocket of the Democrats. But they have serious concerns about VP Harris.

As this former CNN employee just went rogue to share this huge Kamala Harris confession.

Kamala Harris’ Cautious Strategy May Backfire, Warns Former CNN Analyst

Vice President Kamala Harris is facing criticism for her cautious campaign strategy, which some believe could jeopardize her chances of defeating former President Donald Trump in November. According to former CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza, Harris’ avoidance of media engagement and her limited discussion of policy could echo mistakes made by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Harris delayed her first sit-down national solo interview until July 21, speaking with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle. During a segment on his YouTube channel, Cillizza suggested that Harris’ reluctance to take risks with the media could become a major factor if she loses to Trump. He compared her approach to that of Clinton’s 2016 campaign, which also shied away from aggressive media exposure.

“I think it might be a winning political strategy,” Cillizza noted. However, he added a stark warning, “If we look back and Kamala Harris does lose this race to Donald Trump — and I think she could — I think we will look back and say they were too risk-averse.”

He expanded on this thought, arguing that the Harris campaign’s strategy seems to be about meeting “a low bar of credibility” and banking on voters simply rejecting Trump, rather than actively choosing Harris. This, Cillizza warned, mirrors Clinton’s assumption in 2016 that Trump’s polarizing persona would drive voters to her by default, even if they were lukewarm about her.

Cillizza drew a direct line between the two campaigns, stating, “That may work. The only thing I will say is it does remind me a little bit of eight years ago … Clinton was risk-averse … They didn’t do all that much on the offensive end; they mostly played defense.” He emphasized that Clinton’s overly cautious approach ultimately contributed to her defeat.

Harris, during her interview with Ruhle, focused heavily on economic issues, particularly calling for the wealthiest Americans and corporations to “pay their fair share” in taxes. However, this message may not resonate with all voters. Pollster Frank Luntz pointed out that voters are growing tired of such slogans and are instead looking for detailed policy solutions, which Harris has yet to deliver.

Cillizza further commented, “So, if Harris loses, I think we might look back and say she should have taken a few more risks. She should have been a little more willing to put herself out there, even though that putting yourself out there does have risk because there’s opportunity in that.”

On Friday, Cillizza added another layer of critique, suggesting that Harris is limiting her media appearances because “she’s not great in those settings,” a possible indication of the campaign’s strategic caution.

According to the RealClearPolling average, Harris currently leads Trump by a slim margin of 2%, a figure that suggests her conservative approach may not be galvanizing voters as effectively as needed.

Analysis of The Harris Strategy

Harris’ strategy appears to center around avoiding missteps rather than making bold moves. While this cautious approach may minimize controversy, it also limits opportunities to define herself beyond being a mere alternative to Trump. Cillizza’s critique highlights the potential risk of relying too heavily on a “not Trump” campaign, especially in a race where voters may seek more dynamic leadership. The challenge for Harris will be balancing safety with a willingness to engage more aggressively, both with the media and voters.

It was recently reported by Axios that Kamala Harris is set for the fewest interviews with the press during the general election season than any Presidential candidate in modern American history.

CNBC's Joe Kernen grilled Harris surrogate Chris Coons on Harris' lack of interviews this am

Harris and Walz have participated in 7 interviews, while Trump and Vance have done over 70 interviews and press conferences@DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/zkAOIOKle4

— Nicole Silverio (@NicoleMSilverio) September 24, 2024

Be sure to check in with Prudent Politics for all the latest American political news and analysis.

The Left doesn’t have much love for the United States. But no one thought they’d go this far.

And now a major liberal news outlet caught aiding and abetting terrorists.

The New York Times is once again facing a storm of backlash after publishing an article that critics say attempts to whitewash the legacy of Hezbollah founder Hassan Nasrallah—a man who championed violence and terror, particularly against Jews, under the guise of “equality.”

In an absurd attempt to soften the image of the notorious terror leader, the article portrays Nasrallah, who openly advocated for Israel’s destruction, as some sort of defender of religious harmony in the region.

The piece, titled “Protesters Mourn Nasrallah’s Death Around the World,” was published on Saturday without a byline and went so far as to describe Nasrallah as a “gifted orator” who supposedly advocated for a unified Palestine where Muslims, Jews, and Christians would live in equality.

It seems the Times has conveniently overlooked Nasrallah’s decades-long record of calling for Israel’s annihilation and his group’s horrific attacks targeting Jews globally.

This shameless attempt to sanitize Nasrallah’s image also highlights how he was “beloved” by Shiite Muslims for providing “social services” in Lebanon.

But this fails to mention that Hezbollah’s so-called “social services” were often a front for their terror operations, designed to entrench their influence and support Iran’s radical agenda in the region.

Nasrallah, killed in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut on Friday, was a co-founder of Hezbollah in 1982 and led the group from 1992 until his death.

Under his leadership, Hezbollah carried out a long list of deadly attacks on Jewish civilians around the world.

One of the most notorious was the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people. The very next day, a plane crash orchestrated by Hezbollah took the lives of 21 more victims, many of them Jewish.

Throughout the 2000s, Hezbollah unleashed waves of suicide bombings within Israel, specifically targeting large gatherings of civilians at restaurants, buses, and other public spaces.

These acts of terror were never about equality or resistance—they were about the cold-blooded murder of innocent people.

Just this summer, Hezbollah launched a rocket strike at a soccer field in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights, killing at least 12 young people, aged between 10 and 20.

Yet somehow, The New York Times expects readers to see Nasrallah as more than just the violent, hate-filled leader of a terror organization.

Social media erupted in response to the article, with one X user summing up the general sentiment: “The Times readership is now down to liberal elites, politicians, Communists and Islamists.”

Another user bluntly asked, “This is so embarrassing. How does anyone take the NYT seriously anymore?” Critics have even accused the paper of “Jihadsplaining,” attempting to turn Nasrallah’s genocidal rhetoric into something resembling a positive message.

Despite Nasrallah’s claims of being merely “anti-Zionist” rather than antisemitic, his infamous quote from a 2004 Times article speaks volumes:

“If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” That’s not equality—that’s a chilling call for genocide.

As of now, The New York Times has yet to respond to the widespread criticism.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The threats to Donald Trump’s life should be unequivocally denounced. But the Left did away with decency long ago.

And now Democrats just made a disgusting announcement about Trump’s assassination attempts.

The Trump campaign didn’t hold back in calling out the latest attack from “Saturday Night Live” (SNL), after its season premiere took an alarming jab at former President Trump with a skit referencing assassination attempts against him.

Once again, the liberal media is showcasing its reckless disregard for the safety and dignity of conservatives.

James Austin Johnson played Trump in the skit’s cold open, referencing a real-life assassination attempt from July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, as he mocked Trump at one of his iconic rallies.

Johnson, doing his best to mockingly impersonate Trump, said, “Where the hell is everyone going? Where are you going? I see you trying to leave, but the doors are locked. Come on back — we’re having fun. We love my rallies, except when someone does the ‘bing, bong, bing, bing, bing’ right at me. You know that happened because of the rhetoric of the radical left? They say that me blaming the Democrats for inciting violence is the pot calling the kettle black.”

The Trump campaign swiftly responded on social media, posting: “There were two assassination attempts against President Trump within a span of seven weeks. @nbcsnl apparently finds that funny. Disgusting.”

And that’s exactly what it is – disgusting. The left-wing entertainment industry now stoops so low as to joke about attempts on the life of a former president who continues to fight for the American people.

The show didn’t stop there, doubling down with their tasteless humor during the “Weekend Update” segment.

Colin Jost, who seems to revel in taking cheap shots at conservatives, made a smug remark after showing a clip of Trump discussing his superior physical condition compared to President Biden.

“I’m starting to worry that bullet got a little more than just the ear,” Jost quipped.

He didn’t let up, even dragging former first lady Melania Trump into the fray, referencing her recent interview.

“Speaking of, Melania Trump gave a rare TV interview this week in which she blamed Democrats for creating conditions that led to Trump’s assassination attempts, which is ridiculous. When Democrats want to take out a presidential candidate, they get the job done,”

Jost added, showing just how far the left is willing to go with their dangerous rhetoric.

Let’s not forget the grim reality.

Trump barely survived an assassination attempt in July at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

A bullet grazed his ear, and the shooter tragically killed 50-year-old Corey Comperatore, a respected husband, father, and former fire chief of the Buffalo Township Volunteer Fire Department.

Two other rally-goers were critically wounded by the same gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks.

And then, on September 15, Trump faced another assassination threat while golfing in Florida.

Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, was arrested after allegedly pushing the muzzle of an AK-47 through a chainlink fence near the golf course.

Fortunately, Secret Service agents intervened, and Routh was arrested later in Martin County after fleeing the scene.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Tim Walz’s administration in Minnesota has long been under scrutiny. But no one was expecting this.

And a top Tim Walz appointee has been caught trying to overthrow America.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s administration has come under fire as one of his key education appointees, Professor Brian Lozenski, openly advocated for the overthrow of the United States.

The alarming comments were recently brought to light by National Review, raising serious concerns about the radical ideologies influencing Walz’s education policies, especially as the 2024 election looms and scrutiny intensifies around those connected to vice-presidential candidate Walz.

Lozenski, a professor of urban and multicultural education at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, was appointed by Walz to help shape the state’s ethnic studies curriculum through an “implementation framework.” However, recent revelations about his extreme political beliefs have sparked outrage and raised questions about how deeply far-left ideologies are embedded within the educational system in Minnesota and beyond.

In a 2022 Zoom recording discussing his book My Emancipation Don’t Fit Your Equation: Critical Enactments of Black Education in the US, Lozenski outlined his radical views on critical race theory (CRT) and the future of the United States. During the discussion, Lozenski boldly claimed that the United States, as it exists today, is inherently and irreversibly racist and must be “overthrown.”

Lozenski stated: “The United States as constructed is irreversibly racist. So, if the nation-state as constructed is irreversibly racist, then it must be done with, it must be overthrown.” These statements are a direct call for dismantling the nation, aligning with the most extreme elements of CRT ideology. He further clarified that CRT is not just about diversity or storytelling, but is a radical movement aimed at insurrection and overthrowing the current system.

“It’s not about that. It’s about overthrow. It’s insurgent. And we, we need to be, I think, more honest with that,” Lozenski added, sending a clear message that proponents of CRT have far more radical intentions than many in the mainstream are willing to admit.

Lozenski’s incendiary remarks have placed Governor Tim Walz under significant pressure. Walz has positioned himself as a progressive leader, and his embrace of radical ideologues like Lozenski raises serious concerns about the direction of Minnesota’s education system. Appointing someone who openly calls for the overthrow of the United States to a position of influence over education policies reveals the extreme undercurrents within Walz’s administration.

Moreover, Lozenski’s comments are not an isolated incident. Recent reports have also shed light on other far-left figures surrounding Walz. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who Walz appointed to handle the George Floyd case, has raised eyebrows for his outspoken support of radical censorship in Brazil, where the government silenced conservative voices on X (formerly Twitter). Ellison’s apparent support for authoritarian measures in other countries casts further doubt on the democratic values supposedly espoused by the Walz administration.

Additionally, Walz has been linked to a Muslim leader who has shared pro-Hitler propaganda. This disturbing connection, combined with Lozenski’s radical views, paints a troubling picture of the individuals influencing policy decisions in Minnesota. Voters are left wondering how much of these extremist viewpoints are guiding the governor’s decisions, particularly when it comes to shaping the minds of future generations through education.

Brian Lozenski’s comments exemplify the real dangers behind critical race theory, a doctrine that has increasingly infiltrated schools across the country under the guise of diversity and inclusion. CRT, at its core, views the United States as an inherently racist nation, and its proponents argue that the only solution is to dismantle and remake the country.

Lozenski’s honesty about CRT’s true goals is startling, as many of its supporters attempt to downplay its radical underpinnings. “The United States needs to be deconstructed, period,” Lozenski declared in his 2022 remarks. Such statements align with the far-left’s broader effort to tear down the country’s foundational institutions, from the family to the Constitution itself.

What’s even more troubling is Lozenski’s admission that CRT advocates often “lie” to themselves and others about what their movement truly stands for. According to Lozenski, those who claim that CRT is simply about promoting diversity and telling untold stories are not being honest. “We need to be more honest with that,” he said, emphasizing that CRT is fundamentally about challenging and overturning the U.S. system of governance and societal structures.

This level of candor from a Walz appointee is shocking but not altogether surprising. For years, conservatives have warned that CRT is not simply about education or racial justice, but a dangerous ideology designed to undermine the United States from within. Lozenski’s remarks confirm what many have feared: that the left’s agenda in schools is about more than equality—it’s about revolution.

The fact that someone like Lozenski was selected by Governor Walz to help shape Minnesota’s ethnic studies standards is deeply concerning. It shows just how pervasive radical leftist ideologies have become in the educational system. Under the guise of promoting “equity” and “inclusion,” teachers and administrators are indoctrinating students with anti-American rhetoric, teaching them to view their country as irredeemably racist and in need of overthrow.

Minnesota is not alone in this regard. Across the country, states are grappling with the growing influence of CRT in the classroom. Parents and conservative lawmakers have pushed back against the infiltration of these divisive ideas, but their efforts have been met with fierce resistance from left-wing educators and unions.

Now, with figures like Brian Lozenski in positions of power, the battle over education in America has reached a new level of urgency.

Minnesota’s ethnic studies standards, which Lozenski was appointed to influence, could shape the curriculum for years to come. If CRT is allowed to become the foundation of education in the state, students will be taught that their country is fundamentally evil and that the only way forward is through rebellion and dismantling the system. This is a dangerous precedent that threatens to erode the fabric of the nation.

The radicalism surrounding Tim Walz and his administration should alarm every Minnesotan—and every American. By appointing individuals like Brian Lozenski to positions of influence, Walz is signaling that he is willing to embrace far-left extremists who advocate for the overthrow of the United States. This is not just about policy differences—it’s about the very future of the country.

As the 2024 election approaches, voters must ask themselves whether they want leaders who associate with and elevate radicals who believe in the deconstruction of the United States. Walz’s judgment in selecting Lozenski for such an important educational role speaks volumes about the priorities of his administration and the left-wing agenda being pushed in Minnesota.

Conservatives must remain vigilant and continue to push back against these dangerous ideologies. The battle for the soul of America is being fought in classrooms across the nation, and figures like Brian Lozenski represent the frontlines of that fight. The stakes are nothing less than the survival of the country as we know it.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is getting worse and worse at hiding their hatred for all things America. And they have taken things to the extreme.

Because a liberal district has attacked a man for holding to American principles.

A Colorado school district is at the center of a heated legal battle after a former employee filed a lawsuit claiming he was terminated for expressing his pro-American beliefs during a mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado by the legal advocacy group America First Legal, accuses the Cherry Creek School District of violating the First Amendment rights of Patrick Hogarty, a former Dean of Students at Campus Middle School.

The complaint alleges that Hogarty was pressured by the school district to “embrace race-based ideologies” during a DEI training held on January 18, 2024. When asked about his experience as a white American citizen, Hogarty responded by saying he identifies as “an American who believes the U.S. is the greatest country in the world.” This statement, according to the lawsuit, was met with accusations of “racist undertones” from the district’s equity director, who reported Hogarty to the school principal.

What followed, according to the complaint, was a series of retaliatory actions that eventually led to Hogarty’s termination. In March 2024, the district eliminated Hogarty’s position, citing “budgetary reasons.”

Hogarty, however, contends that this was a pretext for punishing him for his politically incorrect views. When he pushed back against the justification for his layoff, Hogarty was placed on administrative leave for “unprofessional conduct.”

America First Legal, a conservative legal advocacy group, is leading the charge in Hogarty’s defense, claiming that his termination represents a clear-cut violation of his First Amendment rights. “Cherry Creek School District blatantly violated the First Amendment rights of our client when they terminated him because his pride in the United States of America did not align with the district’s political ideology that America is a systematically racist nation,” said Ian Prior, America First Legal senior advisor, in a press release.

This case raises serious concerns about free speech in America’s public schools and the increasing dominance of ideological conformity enforced by school administrations. It highlights the broader trend of educators and school staff being forced to submit to progressive views on race and identity or face professional consequences.

Hogarty’s experience is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. Across the country, teachers, staff, and even students who express conservative or patriotic viewpoints have found themselves facing disciplinary action under the guise of promoting “diversity” and “equity.”

At the heart of this issue is the growing influence of DEI programs that, under the banner of inclusion, seem to promote a narrow ideological orthodoxy that discourages dissenting views. These initiatives, often promoted by activist groups, have become standard in many school districts. While their stated goal is to promote racial and social justice, they often operate as tools of ideological indoctrination, punishing anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing narrative.

In the case of Patrick Hogarty, his expression of pride in being an American and his belief in the greatness of the United States were apparently unacceptable in the context of a DEI training that, like many others, focused on framing the U.S. as a nation defined by systemic racism. Rather than engage in a meaningful discussion about differing viewpoints, the Cherry Creek School District allegedly chose to silence and punish Hogarty for his opinion.

The irony of this situation is palpable. DEI programs are often presented as tools to create inclusive environments where all voices are heard and respected. Yet, in practice, these programs are increasingly being used to marginalize and silence those who express patriotic or conservative viewpoints. Hogarty’s lawsuit paints a picture of a school district more interested in enforcing a particular ideological narrative than in fostering genuine diversity of thought.

By accusing Hogarty of harboring “racist undertones” simply for expressing pride in his country, the district’s equity director demonstrated the extent to which DEI programs have been weaponized to quash any dissent from progressive orthodoxy. The lawsuit alleges that Hogarty was fired not because of budgetary concerns, as the district claimed, but because his views did not align with the district’s political agenda.

This tactic—using administrative reasons as a cover for political retribution—is not unique to Cherry Creek. Across the country, conservatives and patriots have been subjected to similar forms of retaliation. Teachers who refuse to embrace critical race theory, parents who speak out at school board meetings, and students who express conservative values have all faced consequences for challenging the left-wing narrative that dominates much of America’s educational system.

The outcome of this lawsuit has significant implications for free speech in the educational system. If Hogarty’s lawsuit succeeds, it could set a precedent that protects the First Amendment rights of educators and school staff from being trampled by DEI-driven agendas.

It could send a powerful message to school districts across the country that political and ideological diversity must be respected, and that Americans should not fear losing their jobs simply for expressing pride in their country.

On the other hand, if Cherry Creek School District is allowed to get away with terminating Hogarty for expressing a viewpoint that contradicts the district’s political ideology, it could embolden other school districts to double down on their efforts to enforce ideological conformity. Educators across the country would be forced to either submit to the progressive agenda or risk losing their careers.

This lawsuit also raises broader questions about the role of public schools in shaping the political and ideological views of their staff and students. Should schools be spaces where open debate and free expression are encouraged? Or should they be places where ideological conformity is enforced, and dissenting voices are silenced?

For conservatives, the answer is clear: Schools should be places where free speech and open debate are protected, and where individuals are free to express their views without fear of retribution. Hogarty’s case is a reminder that those values are under attack, and it is up to Americans to defend them.

The case of Patrick Hogarty is emblematic of a broader struggle over free speech in America’s educational system. As DEI programs continue to proliferate, they are increasingly being used to enforce ideological conformity and punish those who dare to express pro-American or conservative views.

Hogarty’s lawsuit against Cherry Creek School District is not just a fight for his own First Amendment rights—it is a fight for the rights of all Americans who believe that they should be free to express their beliefs without fear of losing their jobs.

America was founded on the principles of free speech and open debate. Those principles are under attack in today’s schools, but they are worth fighting for. Patrick Hogarty’s case is a reminder that, no matter how powerful the forces arrayed against them, Americans must continue to stand up for the values that make this country great.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left hates the Supreme Court. And they won’t rest until it is either destroyed or on their payroll.

But now, Democrats have joined forces to destroy the US Supreme Court.

Ever since President Donald Trump successfully shifted the ideological balance of the Supreme Court with the appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, Democrats have been threatening to pack the court with additional justices.

This latest move took a significant step forward when Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would not only enlarge the Supreme Court but also grant unprecedented control over it, particularly by making it more difficult to overturn decisions made by previous justices.

The Washington Post reported that Wyden’s bill also proposes “auditing” judges in a move that Republicans are calling an outright attempt to politicize and control the judiciary.

Wyden and his Democratic colleagues are selling this bill as a way to “democratize” the court, but Republicans see it for what it is: a power grab aimed at securing a liberal agenda at a pivotal moment in American history.

The United States is facing a series of national crises, from a border that is under siege by tens of millions of illegal immigrants to the unprecedented political division across the country. And in the midst of this chaos, Democrats are seeking to change the rules of the game by fundamentally altering the structure of the Supreme Court.

Wyden claims that his goal is to make the court more popular with the public and restore its luster, which he says has been tarnished by political infighting. “It’s not an atomic secret that the process for selecting justices is politicized,” Wyden told The Washington Post.

“You’ve got this thoroughly politicized process resulting in a Supreme Court that now frequently issues sweeping rulings to overturn laws and upend precedents. We are proposing a way to restore some balance between the three branches of government.”

But let’s be clear: This isn’t about restoring balance. It’s about controlling the Supreme Court. Wyden’s bill seeks to expand the number of justices from nine to 15 over the next 12 years, which would allow Democrats to gradually stack the bench with liberal judges who will ensure that their agenda is upheld at every turn. Wyden argues that such a long transition would prevent one party from dominating the process, but anyone can see that this is a thinly veiled attempt to dilute the conservative majority Trump established during his presidency.

The real frustration for Democrats is that the Supreme Court, thanks to Trump’s appointments, has become a formidable conservative force, handing down rulings that have limited the overreach of the federal government, protected religious freedoms, and upheld Second Amendment rights. Democrats know they can’t win on these issues in the court of public opinion or through legislation, so they are resorting to the most extreme tactic possible: changing the court’s composition to secure favorable rulings.

Wyden’s plan doesn’t stop with simply adding more justices. It would make it harder to repeal decisions made by previous courts by requiring a two-thirds majority in both the Supreme Court and the circuit courts of appeals to overturn an act of Congress. This is an outrageous power play that would shield liberal legislation from future conservative courts and enshrine leftist policies into law, regardless of public opinion or the democratic process.

One of the most dangerous aspects of Wyden’s proposal is the introduction of judicial audits. According to the bill, Supreme Court justices would be required to submit to an annual audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), with the findings published for all to see.

Additionally, nominees would have to release three years of past tax returns in order to be eligible for confirmation. This would subject the highest court in the land to the whims of partisan bureaucrats and set a dangerous precedent for future political interference.

What’s worse is the bill’s provision that would allow two-thirds of the justices to force another justice to recuse themselves from a case. This could be easily abused by a liberal majority to remove conservative justices from critical cases, further tipping the scales of justice in their favor. Wyden’s bill also mandates that justices release all of their legal opinions, including those related to emergency rulings, stripping them of the confidentiality necessary to deliberate sensitive cases without political pressure.

Democrats are trying to frame these measures as necessary reforms to increase transparency and accountability in the judiciary, but Republicans know better. This is nothing more than an attempt to weaponize the court against political opponents and undermine its independence.

The concept of court packing is not new. It was famously attempted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s when he sought to expand the Supreme Court to pass his New Deal legislation. His plan was ultimately rejected by Congress, with many members of his own party recognizing the dangerous precedent it would set.

The Supreme Court was meant to be an independent branch of government, free from political manipulation, and any attempt to pack the court with partisan judges threatens the very foundation of our democracy.

In fact, Democrats themselves have acknowledged the dangers of court packing in the past. When Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016 and refused to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, then-Senator Joe Biden argued that court packing was not the answer. Now, with Trump’s conservative appointees on the bench, Democrats have conveniently changed their tune.

Wyden’s bill also proposes expanding the number of federal judicial circuits from 13 to 15, adding another 100 district court judges and 60 appellate judges. This would ensure that liberal judges have a greater influence across the country, not just at the Supreme Court level. Wyden argues that this expansion is necessary because other democracies, such as Canada, have larger high courts. However, this argument fails to take into account the unique structure of the United States government, which was carefully designed to balance power between the three branches.

The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court, but for more than 150 years, that number has remained at nine. The current system has worked for generations, and any attempt to change it would be an unprecedented and dangerous move.

Wyden’s bill is not about restoring balance or “democratizing” the court, as he claims. It is about stacking the judiciary with partisan judges who will rubber-stamp the radical left’s agenda. By expanding the court, making it harder to repeal liberal decisions, and subjecting justices to audits and political pressure, Democrats are trying to transform the Supreme Court into a tool of their own making.

Republicans must stand firm against this assault on our Constitution and fight to protect the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court was established to interpret the law impartially, not to be a pawn in the Democrats’ game of political chess. As Wyden and his colleagues push forward with this dangerous scheme, the American people must remain vigilant and reject any attempt to undermine the very foundation of our democratic system.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

During a time when Trump’s life is in such danger, you’d think that the Democrats had learned to control their rhetoric. But instead, it seems the opposite is happening.

Because Biden has made a bizarre threat towards Trump on live TV.

In a shocking and highly inappropriate moment on The View this week, President Joe Biden indulged in a tasteless joke that compared former President Donald Trump to a bug.

The segment, meant to poke fun at the 2024 GOP frontrunner, quickly turned into an embarrassment for the Biden camp, revealing just how unserious the current administration is about addressing real threats against their political opponents.

During the Wednesday broadcast, co-host Whoopi Goldberg made an off-the-cuff remark comparing Trump to a pesky insect. “He was like a bug, he just kept being there,” Goldberg quipped while making buzzing noises and mimicking a bug flying around.

Instead of responding with maturity or focusing on the actual political climate, Biden joined in, slapping the desk in a gesture that pretended to squash the imaginary Trump “bug.” The move was met with laughter from the liberal-leaning audience and hosts alike.

Whoopi compares Trump to a bug, Biden pretends to kill the bug

pic.twitter.com/0dPk7LHtde

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) September 25, 2024

The incident highlights an alarming trend: the outright disdain from the Left toward Trump has veered into dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric, one that trivializes the rising threats to his life and safety.

As Biden and the hosts of The View made light of Trump’s presence in the political arena, serious threats and assassination attempts against the former president go underreported, dismissed, or outright ignored by much of the mainstream media.

It’s easy for Biden and the Left to make jokes, but the fact remains that Trump has been the victim of two assassination attempts in just the last few months. These incidents are no laughing matter, yet the media coverage has been surprisingly muted.

Instead, we’re treated to lighthearted moments on shows like The View, where the threats against Trump’s life are conveniently ignored or worse, turned into punchlines.

The most recent attempt came in September, when 58-year-old Ryan Routh, a Democratic activist, was accused of plotting to assassinate Trump while he was at one of his properties. Routh allegedly camped out on the perimeter of a golf course where he intended to carry out his deadly plan.

Even more disturbing, the United States Secret Service (USSS) admitted that they had not conducted a thorough search of the area because Trump’s golf game was not on his official schedule. This level of negligence in protecting a former president is astonishing, and yet the mainstream media has barely whispered about it.

To make matters worse, this wasn’t the first time Trump’s life had been in danger this year. In July, at a rally in Butler, PA, the Secret Service again failed to alert Trump about an active shooter in the vicinity. This clear lapse in protocol raises troubling questions about the agency’s commitment to protecting the former president, especially considering the heightened threats against him.

The casual attitude toward the dangers Trump faces doesn’t stop at television hosts like Goldberg. Biden himself has adopted increasingly inflammatory language when discussing Trump, labeling him as a “threat to democracy” and someone with “no social redeeming value.” This kind of rhetoric isn’t just political banter; it fuels the flames of division and gives tacit approval to those who might take matters into their own hands.

When Biden was asked on The View about Trump’s claim that his rhetoric had inspired these assassination attempts, he simply brushed it off, calling Trump an “unusual president” and continuing with the same tired talking points about how Trump doesn’t believe in democracy or the rule of law. What Biden failed to address was the real issue at hand: the rise in politically motivated violence, especially against Republicans.

Biden: Trump is the “most unusual president”

pic.twitter.com/Vb5EgtQF7b

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) September 25, 2024

It’s important to remember that this isn’t just some isolated event or the result of fringe figures. The Democratic Party, from its leadership down to its most vocal members, has normalized violent and hateful rhetoric aimed at Donald Trump and his supporters. Just last year, Kamala Harris was caught joking about killing Trump, and other prominent Democratic lawmakers have continually referred to him as a “threat to democracy.”

When high-ranking officials and politicians openly speak about Trump as if he’s a danger to the very fabric of America, it’s no surprise that some extremists take this rhetoric as a call to action.

Imagine if the tables were turned. If Republican leaders or conservative television hosts made jokes about the safety of a sitting Democratic president, the media would be in an uproar. There would be wall-to-wall coverage, condemnations from every corner of the political spectrum, and demands for accountability. But when it’s Trump, the Left not only excuses the behavior, they laugh along.

This is the same double standard we’ve come to expect. Democrats are quick to clutch their pearls when they feel their side is under attack but have no qualms about encouraging hostility toward Trump. The hypocrisy is glaring, but more concerning is the culture of permissiveness around violent language that could have real-world consequences.

Trump’s political resilience, his continued presence on the national stage despite multiple attempts to undermine and silence him, clearly drives the Left into a frenzy. Unable to defeat him in the realm of ideas, they’ve turned to mockery and insults, hoping to dehumanize him in the eyes of the public. But this isn’t just political theater—it’s dangerous.

Much of the blame also falls squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream media. Outlets like CNN and MSNBC spend hours regurgitating anti-Trump talking points, painting him as an existential threat to democracy. This constant barrage of negative coverage isn’t just opinion, it’s a call to action for extremists who might already be on the edge.

In the case of Ryan Routh, the man accused of plotting to assassinate Trump, there’s a troubling connection to the toxic political environment created by the media and the Democratic Party. Routh was a Democratic activist, someone who likely consumed this negative portrayal of Trump daily. When the constant drumbeat is that Trump is a threat that must be eliminated, is it really a surprise when someone takes that message to heart?

The media has a responsibility to cover political figures fairly and to be mindful of the power of their words. Unfortunately, they have largely abdicated that responsibility when it comes to Donald Trump. Rather than calling out the violence and threats against him, they either ignore it or, in some cases, seem to encourage it.

President Biden’s bizarre behavior on The View—comparing Trump to a bug and swatting at the table—wasn’t just a moment of poor taste. It was a revealing glimpse into the mindset of a political establishment that sees Trump as nothing more than a nuisance to be squashed. But as the assassination attempts against Trump have shown, this dismissive attitude has real-world consequences.

Instead of laughing along with the audience, Biden and his administration should be condemning the violence and threats against Trump. The media, too, needs to take a hard look at how their portrayal of Trump may be fueling extremism. If we are to preserve the principles of democracy and free speech, it’s imperative that all threats of violence, no matter who they’re directed at, are treated with the seriousness they deserve.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Democrats have been confident this election cycle. But they may be overly confident.

Because early voting data has the Democrat party in shambles.

Democrats are facing a significant challenge in three critical battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Once a key strength for the Democratic Party, mail-in voting numbers have plummeted in these states, sending shockwaves through the party’s election strategy.

This drop in mail-in ballot requests, which played a major role in securing victories for Democrats in 2020, could spell trouble for Vice President Kamala Harris as she faces off against Republican candidate Donald Trump in what promises to be a tightly contested election.

New data from Decision Desk HQ shows a staggering decline in mail-in voting requests by Democrats in these pivotal states. Compared to the 2020 election, Democratic requests for mail-in ballots are down by 5 percent in Florida, nearly 15 percent in North Carolina, and a whopping 35 percent in Pennsylvania.

This trend has left Democratic strategists scrambling for answers while energizing Republicans who have long emphasized the importance of in-person voting but are now adapting their strategies to capitalize on early and mail-in voting opportunities.

For years, Republicans have been wary of mail-in voting, with former President Trump and many GOP leaders raising concerns about the security and potential for fraud associated with the process. However, the landscape is changing. In response to the Democratic Party’s past success in leveraging mail-in ballots, Republican strategists are urging their base to embrace early voting.

Jimmy Keady, founder and president of the Republican-aligned JLK Political Strategies, told Fox News that he’s encouraged by the shift in Republican voting behavior. “It’s great news that Republicans are starting to early vote,” Keady said. “As Republicans, we have to start getting the base to early vote, to do mail-in ballots, to do these things that we know are safe and secure, to get people out to the polls. The Democrats have done this really well, for years.”

This shift in strategy could prove critical for Republicans in the upcoming election. In the past, Democrats have used early and mail-in voting to build up a substantial lead before Election Day, allowing them to focus their resources on get-out-the-vote efforts in the final stretch. Now, Republicans are beginning to adopt this same approach, and it may just be the key to flipping key battleground states red.

For Democrats, the sudden collapse of their mail-in voting apparatus is alarming. In 2020, mail-in ballots were a critical tool for the Democratic Party, helping President Joe Biden secure wins in battleground states and giving the party an edge in the pandemic-affected election cycle. However, the enthusiasm for mail-in voting appears to have diminished.

In Florida, Democrats have requested 5 percent fewer mail-in ballots compared to 2020. Although Florida is now widely considered a red state, this drop in mail-in ballot requests could signal waning Democratic enthusiasm heading into 2024.

More concerning for Democrats are the numbers coming out of North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In North Carolina, mail-in ballot requests by Democrats are down by almost 15 percent, while in Pennsylvania, the drop is a staggering 35 percent.

This significant decline in early voting participation among Democrats is raising eyebrows, especially considering that the party has heavily relied on these voters to offset potential losses on Election Day. Many Democratic voters in 2020 were motivated to vote early, largely due to fears about COVID-19 and ongoing efforts by the party to cast early voting as a safe and responsible choice. Without that same level of urgency or enthusiasm, Democrats are facing an uphill battle.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has struggled to generate excitement and enthusiasm among voters. Following the Sept. 10 presidential debate, post-debate analysis showed that many believed the moderators, ABC News’ David Muir and Linsey Davis, were biased against Trump, which may have contributed to Harris’ failure to gain any meaningful bounce in the polls.

Despite the favorable media treatment she often receives, Harris is underperforming both Biden and Hillary Clinton in their respective presidential campaigns against Trump. Pollsters have notoriously undervalued Trump as a candidate, failing to capture his actual voting base accurately. As a result, Harris’ performance thus far should be a major concern for the Democratic Party.

Without the early and mail-in voting advantage that Democrats relied on so heavily in 2020, Harris will be even more vulnerable to Trump’s energetic and highly motivated base. In battleground states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where races remain neck-and-neck, every vote will count, and the collapse in mail-in voting could prove to be a major factor in a potential Republican victory.

The ability to get voters to cast their ballots early has always been an essential component of any successful political campaign. The earlier people vote, the more resources a campaign can allocate towards getting out the vote from those who haven’t yet participated. Jimmy Keady explains the benefits: “Campaigns are now sophisticated enough that once you go vote, those [robocalls and mailers] stop. Once a voter goes to vote, that allows resource allocation from that voter to another voter.”

This is a tactic that Democrats have perfected over the years, but it appears that Republicans are catching up. In an election as contentious and crucial as 2024, having a base of early and mail-in votes could make all the difference. Republicans, seeing the decline in Democratic mail-in voting requests, now have an opportunity to capitalize on early voting in ways they hadn’t before.

Even though Florida is now considered a solidly red state, Republicans will need every vote they can muster in states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania. As polls continue to show a tight race between Trump and Harris, building up an early voting base will provide much-needed security and ensure that Republicans are in the best possible position heading into Election Day.

One of the major obstacles Republicans have faced in adopting early voting and mail-in ballots has been misinformation. Some conservatives have expressed concerns about voter fraud and the security of mail-in voting, but Republican leaders are working hard to reassure their base that these methods are safe and secure.

“Republicans were slow to adopt early voting and mail-in ballots because of concerns about fraud, but the reality is that these methods are secure and widely used,” Keady said. “If we want to win, we need to stop ceding early voting to the Democrats and get our voters to the polls as soon as possible.”

By embracing mail-in and early voting, Republicans can ensure that they don’t leave votes on the table, while also allowing campaigns to focus their resources on getting out the vote on Election Day. The collapse of Democratic mail-in voting is great news for Republicans, but they can’t afford to be complacent. By encouraging their base to vote early, Republicans can counteract any Democratic surge on Election Day and secure victories in key battleground states.

As the 2024 presidential election heats up, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the Democratic Party’s mail-in voting advantage is collapsing. With massive declines in mail-in ballot requests in Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, Democrats are facing an unprecedented challenge in a race that remains razor-thin in battleground states.

For Republicans, this shift presents a golden opportunity. By embracing early voting and mail-in ballots, the GOP can build a solid base of votes and ensure that they are not caught off guard by any last-minute surprises on Election Day.

As Trump continues to rally his supporters and Harris struggles to generate enthusiasm, the collapse of Democratic mail-in voting could very well be the deciding factor in the 2024 election.

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

The Harris campaign is doing everything they can to make sure Kamala sits in the Oval Office. But things are not going well for them.

And recent polling has uncovered a troubling issue for the Harris-Walz ticket.

As the 2024 election heats up, all eyes are on the highly anticipated vice presidential debate next week between Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. In a matchup that pits American principles against progressive policies, the latest polling data reveals a clear advantage for Vance, former President Donald Trump’s running mate, over Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’s counterpart.

Exclusive polling data provided to Breitbart News ahead of its public release shows that voters across the country trust Vance more than Walz on key issues facing the nation, including immigration, national security, the economy, and crime.

The numbers indicate a growing confidence in Vance’s leadership, as well as significant skepticism regarding Walz, particularly due to his reported ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

When it comes to issues that dominate headlines and spark public debate—immigration and national security—Vance has a clear edge over Walz. According to the poll conducted by the Senate Opportunity Fund, 45 percent of likely voters said they trust Vance more on both immigration and national security, compared to just 39 percent for Walz.

This six-point lead is indicative of the growing concerns among Americans about border security, the rise in illegal immigration, and national defense under the Biden-Harris administration.

Immigration, in particular, has been a hot-button issue throughout the Biden presidency, as the administration’s open-border policies have led to a historic surge in illegal crossings, overwhelming border states and creating security risks.

In contrast, Vance has taken a hardline approach, advocating for stricter border controls, increased funding for Border Patrol, and a renewed focus on national sovereignty. His stance resonates with voters who are increasingly concerned about the long-term implications of unchecked immigration, including crime and economic strain.

National security has also emerged as a key concern for voters, especially in the wake of foreign policy blunders such as the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Vance’s clear vision of a strong, America-first foreign policy stands in stark contrast to the weak and indecisive leadership of the Biden-Harris administration.

Vance’s focus on rebuilding America’s military strength, strengthening alliances, and confronting adversaries like China has earned him the trust of voters, while Walz’s record offers little reassurance.

As inflation continues to squeeze American families, it’s no surprise that the economy remains one of the top concerns heading into the 2024 election. Here, too, Vance has a notable advantage over Walz. The poll shows that 45 percent of voters trust Vance more on economic issues, compared to 40 percent who side with Walz.

This five-point lead reflects widespread discontent with the Biden administration’s handling of the economy, particularly the skyrocketing inflation and reckless government spending that have hurt working-class Americans.

Vance has positioned himself as a champion of fiscal responsibility and economic growth. His focus on reducing government regulation, cutting taxes, and promoting pro-business policies has struck a chord with voters who are tired of the stagnant wages and rising costs that have defined the Biden years. Meanwhile, Walz’s embrace of progressive economic policies—such as higher taxes, expansive welfare programs, and government intervention—has left voters skeptical of his ability to manage the economy effectively.

The economic concerns of 2024 are not just about inflation but about the broader question of America’s financial future. Vance’s vision of a thriving economy built on conservative principles of free markets, limited government, and individual responsibility contrasts sharply with the failed policies of the current administration, and voters are taking notice.

Crime is another issue where JD Vance outshines Tim Walz. As crime rates continue to rise in major cities across the country, voters are increasingly looking for leaders who will prioritize law and order. According to the poll, 43 percent of likely voters trust Vance more on crime, compared to 40 percent for Walz, giving Vance a three-point edge on this critical issue.

The spike in violent crime over the past few years has been a direct result of the Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies, including the defund-the-police movement and lenient sentencing guidelines that have emboldened criminals and undermined law enforcement. In contrast, Vance has consistently advocated for law and order, supporting stronger police funding, tougher sentencing for violent offenders, and the restoration of public safety in communities across the country.

Walz, on the other hand, has faced criticism for his handling of crime in Minnesota, particularly in the wake of the George Floyd riots in Minneapolis. His refusal to take decisive action to restore order during those chaotic days, coupled with his support for progressive criminal justice reforms, has left voters questioning his ability to keep Americans safe.

Perhaps the most damaging revelation for Tim Walz is his close relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, which has been uncovered in recent weeks. The Senate Opportunity Fund poll found that a solid majority—54 percent—of likely voters are less likely to trust Walz after learning about his trips to China, many of which were sponsored directly by the CCP. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they were much less likely to trust him, underscoring the seriousness of these allegations.

Walz’s cozy relationship with China raises red flags, especially at a time when China poses the greatest geopolitical threat to the United States. From its aggressive military buildup to its theft of intellectual property and unfair trade practices, China has consistently sought to undermine American interests. The idea that a potential vice president could have such close ties to a hostile foreign government is deeply concerning to many Americans.

Vance, on the other hand, has been a vocal critic of the CCP and has called for a tougher stance on China, including trade policies that protect American workers and national security measures that limit China’s influence in the United States. His unwavering stance against the CCP is yet another reason why voters trust him more on national security and foreign policy.

Americans’ Growing Disillusionment with Harris and the Biden Administration
The polling data also reveals a broader trend of disillusionment with the current administration. Forty-nine percent of respondents said they oppose Vice President Kamala Harris, while only 45 percent expressed support for her. This negative view of Harris mirrors the broader dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s performance, as 67 percent of voters say the country is on the wrong track. Only 26 percent believe that the Biden-Harris administration is moving America in the right direction.

Republicans, buoyed by these numbers, also lead the generic ballot, with 46 percent of voters supporting the GOP and just 41 percent backing the Democrats. This represents a growing rejection of the Democrats’ policies and their handling of key issues like the economy, national security, and crime.

With the vice presidential debate just days away, JD Vance heads into the showdown with a clear advantage over Tim Walz on the issues that matter most to voters. From immigration to national security, the economy, and crime, Vance has earned the trust of the American people, while Walz struggles to overcome his own political baggage—particularly his ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Vance’s conservative principles, focus on law and order, and commitment to rebuilding America’s economy stand in stark contrast to Walz’s progressive policies and questionable foreign relationships. As voters prepare to cast their ballots in 2024, it is clear that JD Vance is the leader they can trust to guide the nation through these challenging times.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Harris and the Radical Left don’t care about America. But no one expected them to take things this far.

And Kamala Harris has once again proven her hatred for America in a new move.

In a stunning reversal, Vice President Kamala Harris has once again shifted her stance on a fundamental issue, this time calling for the end of the Senate filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade into law. This move represents yet another flip from a position she once adamantly held, raising questions about her consistency, trustworthiness, and commitment to the values she claims to uphold.

The push to end the filibuster—a longstanding Senate tradition that promotes deliberation and bipartisan cooperation—follows a disturbing pattern of political opportunism from Harris, as she seeks to advance her radical agenda at any cost.

Harris’s latest flip-flop, which came during an appearance on Wisconsin Public Radio, is a direct contradiction to her 2017 pledge to preserve the Senate filibuster. During that time, she joined 32 of her fellow Democratic senators in signing a letter that urged the Senate to maintain “existing rules, practices, and traditions” that allow for extended debate.

🚨Kamala wants to abolish the filibuster, but here's the letter she signed as Senator pledging to support the filibuster to ensure the Senate "continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body."

Her word is meaningless.

She'll say anything to get elected. pic.twitter.com/XzDY4ZfJ8S

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 24, 2024

That letter, addressed to then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and then-Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), called for the preservation of what Harris once referred to as the Senate’s “unique role in the legislative process.”

But in classic Harris fashion, she has now thrown that principle out the window, driven by the desire to force her pro-abortion agenda through Congress. As reported by Breitbart News, Harris expressed her desire to eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade, which would strip states of their ability to enact pro-life laws.

“I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe,” Harris said, revealing her willingness to dismantle Senate traditions in pursuit of radical, left-wing policies.

Kamala Harris’s latest reversal on the filibuster is just the latest chapter in her long history of political flip-flopping. Back in 2017, Harris was one of the Democratic senators who praised the filibuster as an essential tool for preserving debate and ensuring that the Senate remained a deliberative body.

At that time, Harris argued that the filibuster was crucial for maintaining the integrity of the Senate and protecting the rights of minority parties to engage in extended debate on legislation.

Yet, as her political ambitions have grown, Harris has increasingly abandoned any pretense of respecting the institution she once vowed to protect. During her failed 2020 presidential campaign, Harris flip-flopped on the filibuster once again, calling for its elimination in order to pass the radical Green New Deal. This was a sharp departure from her previous position, demonstrating her willingness to change her stance on core principles whenever it suits her political goals.

The most troubling aspect of Harris’s flip-flop on the filibuster is that it’s not an isolated incident. Rather, it is part of a larger pattern of hypocrisy and political expediency that has come to define her career. Whether it’s her positions on criminal justice reform, health care, or now the Senate filibuster, Harris has consistently shown that she is willing to change her views depending on the political winds.

In 2010, Harris, then the district attorney of San Francisco, was a staunch defender of law enforcement and a tough-on-crime advocate. She supported policies that disproportionately impacted minority communities, including the controversial practice of truancy prosecution that targeted parents of truant children.

Fast forward to 2020, and Harris had completely reversed her stance, branding herself as a champion of criminal justice reform and aligning with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in calling for police reform and racial justice. The about-face left many wondering whether Harris truly believed in the policies she promoted or if she was simply saying what was politically advantageous at the time.

The same could be said for her stance on Medicare for All. During her presidential run, Harris initially supported the idea of eliminating private health insurance in favor of a government-run system, only to later backtrack when it became clear that such a position was unpopular with moderate voters. This constant flip-flopping has made it difficult for voters to trust where Harris truly stands on important issues, and her inconsistency continues to undermine her credibility.

By calling for the elimination of the filibuster, Harris is not just abandoning her previous position—she is also setting a dangerous precedent that could further erode the deliberative nature of the Senate.

The filibuster exists for a reason: to encourage bipartisanship, protect the rights of minority parties, and ensure that legislation is carefully considered before it becomes law. Without the filibuster, the Senate risks becoming just another rubber stamp for the party in power, with no room for debate or compromise.

Harris’s willingness to throw away this important Senate tradition is particularly alarming in light of her agenda. By eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade, Harris would not only enshrine abortion rights into federal law but also wipe out state pro-life laws, effectively trampling on the rights of millions of Americans who oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds. This is not just about reproductive rights—it’s about whether the federal government should have the power to override the will of the people in states that have chosen to protect life.

One of the most significant implications of Harris’s push to eliminate the filibuster for the sake of codifying Roe v. Wade is the impact it would have on states’ rights. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe, restored the power to regulate abortion to the states. This allowed states to reflect the will of their citizens, whether that meant enacting pro-life laws or maintaining access to abortion services.

By pushing for the federal codification of Roe, Harris is effectively seeking to strip states of their ability to legislate on this issue, imposing a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores the diversity of opinions across the country.

This is a direct assault on the principle of federalism, which has long been a cornerstone of American governance. Harris’s disregard for states’ rights in this matter demonstrates a broader trend within the Democratic Party, where federal overreach is increasingly becoming the norm.

At its core, Kamala Harris’s call to eliminate the filibuster for the sake of codifying Roe is part of a broader radical agenda that seeks to transform America in fundamental ways. From pushing the Green New Deal to advocating for Medicare for All, Harris has shown time and time again that she is willing to adopt extreme positions in order to pander to the far-left base of the Democratic Party.

Her latest flip-flop on the filibuster is yet another example of her willingness to sacrifice long-standing Senate traditions in the name of political expediency.

The American people deserve better than a leader who changes her positions on a whim, depending on what’s politically convenient. They deserve someone who will stand up for the principles of limited government, states’ rights, and the protection of life. Kamala Harris has shown that she is not that leader.

As Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) pointed out on social media, Harris’s reversal on the filibuster is not just a policy shift—it’s a betrayal of the very principles she once claimed to hold. In 2017, she signed a letter calling for the preservation of the filibuster, praising it as a tool for ensuring robust debate in the Senate. Now, just a few years later, she is ready to throw it away for the sake of advancing her radical pro-abortion agenda.

Kamala Harris’s latest flip-flop on the Senate filibuster is emblematic of a broader pattern of political opportunism and inconsistency. Whether it’s her changing positions on criminal justice, health care, or now the filibuster, Harris has shown that she is willing to abandon her principles whenever it suits her political ambitions. Her call to eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade is not only a betrayal of the Senate’s traditions but also a dangerous move that would undermine states’ rights and impose a radical pro-abortion agenda on the entire country.

As the 2024 election approaches, voters should be wary of Harris’s ever-changing positions and consider whether she truly has the best interests of the American people at heart. It’s clear that Harris is more interested in pandering to the far-left than standing up for the principles of federalism, limited government, and the protection of life.