Many large tech companies lean Left and are overwhelmingly supportive of the Radical Left. But they take it too far when they interfere.

And now, a massive liberal tech company is facing a stunning loss because of their horrific attempts.

On Wednesday, Senator Roger Marshall took a bold stand against Big Tech by calling for the subpoena of Google executives to appear before the Senate Homeland Committee.

Marshall’s demand comes on the heels of Google’s controversial omission of the Trump assassination attempt from its search autocomplete feature, despite showing suggestions for other famous assassination attempts throughout history. This move has sparked outrage among conservatives, who see it as another example of Big Tech’s bias against Republican voices, particularly President Donald Trump.

Marshall, a staunch Trump ally and conservative voice in the Senate, made his frustration known on X (formerly Twitter). In a fiery post, he wrote, “Weeks after the assassination attempt that left President Donald Trump within centimeters of his life, Google is still defending its misinformation, declaring the assassination attempt a ‘hypothetical act of political violence.’ Google’s top executives must come before the Senate Homeland Committee IMMEDIATELY. We are launching a full investigation into Google’s litany of failures & history of suppressing conservative viewpoints. Time for accountability—time for top-down subpoenas.”

Marshall’s statement was accompanied by a letter from Google, in which the tech giant defended its decision to block autocompletes for hypothetical acts of violence against current political figures.

According to the letter, Google’s systems are designed to prevent autocompletes that suggest political violence toward current figures, in contrast to historical figures such as President Truman or Ronald Reagan, for whom autocompletes are allowed.

Google’s letter to Senator Marshall is at the heart of the controversy. The tech company explained that its systems are built to avoid providing search predictions for hypothetical violence involving current political leaders. “As discussed, these protections are not event-specific but rather applied to categories of possible searches,” the letter read.

“As a result, prior to July 13, 2024, it would have been inappropriate for our systems to offer any predictions involving possible assassination attempts on President Trump. In the immediate aftermath of the horrific events in Butler, PA, these systems were still in place and predictions related to the assassination attempt failed to appear.”

Google went on to acknowledge that its systems were “out of date” and claimed to have made adjustments following the incident. However, this admission has done little to quell the anger from conservatives who see this as yet another case of selective censorship.

It’s worth noting that this is not the first time Google has been accused of bias. In fact, accusations of political favoritism have dogged the tech giant for years.

Whether it’s the suppression of conservative news outlets in search results or alleged preferential treatment of liberal media, Google has been a frequent target of criticism from the political right. However, this particular case strikes a deeper nerve, as it involves an assassination attempt on a former U.S. president—a matter of national security and historical significance.

The July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on President Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was a shocking and sobering reminder of the violent political climate we live in today. The would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was apprehended at the scene, but not before firing shots that narrowly missed Trump.

The event left the nation reeling and spurred renewed calls for political unity and civility—yet the omission of this event from Google’s autocomplete search function has raised eyebrows.

In the days following the assassination attempt, Google users began to notice that typing “Trump assassination attempt” into the search bar yielded no suggestions. In contrast, search queries for assassination attempts on historical figures like Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Teddy Roosevelt produced instant results. This glaring omission led many conservatives to accuse Google of intentionally downplaying the Trump assassination attempt in an effort to suppress information unfavorable to their political leanings.

Senator Marshall wasted no time in launching a full investigation into Google’s handling of the Trump assassination attempt in its search engine. In early July, Marshall wrote to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, stating, “Google’s failure to provide suggestions related to the assassination attempt against President Trump on July 13, 2024, as part of its search function is yet another example of censorship against conservative voices and violates the intent of Section 230.”

Marshall’s reference to Section 230, a provision of the Communications Decency Act, is significant. This law has long shielded tech companies from liability for user-generated content on their platforms.

However, it has come under fire from conservatives, who argue that Big Tech companies like Google and Facebook have abused this protection by acting as gatekeepers of information, selectively censoring conservative viewpoints while allowing liberal voices to flourish.

Marshall went on to accuse Google of “willful discrimination” against President Trump and its users. “Google’s omission of suggestions to the most obvious and recent victim of an assassination attempt shows a willful discrimination against President Trump and users of your search engine. Furthermore, Google’s decision to selectively erect hurdles to those seeking to obtain more information regarding one of the most important events in recent American history places you in the role of information arbiter, well beyond the scope of your firm’s purported purpose,” he wrote.

The debate over Google’s handling of the Trump assassination attempt is more than just a conservative grievance—it speaks to the broader concern about the role of Big Tech in shaping the flow of information. For years, conservatives have voiced concerns that Silicon Valley giants are using their platforms to suppress dissenting voices, manipulate political discourse, and stifle free speech. These concerns have only grown in recent years as evidence of bias continues to emerge.

Senator Marshall’s call for Google executives to testify before the Senate Homeland Committee represents a significant escalation in the ongoing battle between conservatives and Big Tech.

If Google is found to have intentionally suppressed search results related to the Trump assassination attempt, it could lead to renewed calls for reforming or repealing Section 230, as well as further investigations into other tech companies accused of similar behavior.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the role of Big Tech in influencing public opinion will be under intense scrutiny. With President Trump already a divisive figure and a favorite target of Silicon Valley elites, any perceived bias against him or his supporters will only serve to deepen the divide between conservatives and the tech industry.

As Senator Marshall continues to press for accountability from Google, the larger question of Big Tech’s role in shaping the political narrative remains front and center. Is this just another case of a “glitch” or outdated system, as Google claims, or is it a deliberate attempt to suppress information that conservatives have a right to know?

Only time will tell whether Google’s executives will face the full force of congressional subpoenas or if this controversy will fade into the background. One thing is clear, however: the battle for control of information is far from over, and conservative voices like Senator Marshall’s are not backing down.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Kamala Harris’s campaign has been a disaster so far. And even the liberal media is picking up on that.

Because now, a major liberal media outlet had confronted Kamala over this important issue.

Vice President Kamala Harris has long been criticized for her media-shy behavior, but the issue has taken on new urgency as the 2024 presidential race heats up. Harris, now a candidate following President Biden’s decision to step aside, has been accused of dodging the press and refusing to offer any concrete policy positions.

In a recent confrontation, CNN’s Jim Acosta directly challenged Harris’s communications director, Michael Tyler, on this very topic, pressing him about her continued avoidance of holding press conferences or engaging meaningfully with the media.

Acosta asked the question that has been on the minds of many Americans: “Would it kill you guys to have a press conference? Why hasn’t she had a press conference?” Tyler, in line with Harris’s trademark nervous laughter when faced with tough questions, chuckled but did little to provide a real answer.

His response mirrored the often vague and evasive responses the Harris campaign has become known for, claiming that Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, have been “busy” holding rallies across the nation.

It’s clear that campaign rallies, where Harris can speak without being questioned or challenged, are a far cry from press conferences. At a rally, she can stand behind a podium, read from a teleprompter, and deliver rehearsed lines that are geared more toward energizing her base than offering any kind of substantive explanation of policy.

Jim Acosta pressed Tyler further, calling out this fact: “Michael, you know a campaign rally isn’t really a press conference… She’s the vice president, she can handle the questions, why not do it?”

That’s the real question—why not? What is Harris afraid of? For a vice president, it is unusual to be so media-averse, especially in an election season when public scrutiny and transparency are crucial to winning the trust of voters.

The unwillingness to hold press conferences is often seen as a sign of a campaign that lacks confidence in its candidate’s ability to handle tough questions. Harris’s continued silence raises concerns about her readiness to assume the responsibilities of the presidency, should the need arise.

Harris’s reluctance to engage with the media isn’t just about fear of tough questions—it’s about her inability to articulate clear and coherent policy positions. From her time as vice president to her current campaign, Harris has shown a remarkable ability to avoid committing to anything substantial.

Whether it’s on healthcare, immigration, or foreign policy, Harris’s responses have often been vague or contradictory. She has a tendency to give non-answers or dodge altogether, leaving voters wondering where she actually stands.

One of the primary roles of the media in a functioning democracy is to hold politicians accountable, to press them on their views and plans for the country. Harris, however, seems to be avoiding this accountability, preferring to stick to safe environments where she won’t be challenged. The American people deserve better than a candidate who runs from tough questions.

Tyler’s claim that Harris has been too busy holding rallies to meet with the press is not only flimsy but insulting to voters who are seeking real answers. No one is denying that campaign events are a critical part of running for office, but they should not serve as a substitute for press engagement.

Every major candidate in recent memory has managed to hold both rallies and press conferences without issue. If Harris can’t handle balancing both, what does that say about her ability to lead the country as president?

Tyler also assured Acosta that Harris would “absolutely” hold a press conference in the near future and that she has a sit-down interview planned at the end of the month. However, the details surrounding this alleged interview are suspiciously vague. Where will this interview take place? Who will be conducting it? Will it be a softball interview from a friendly outlet, or will it be a serious journalistic inquiry into her campaign’s policies?

These are all questions left unanswered. Until Harris holds a real, open press conference where she faces questions from multiple reporters, these promises ring hollow.

Harris’s media avoidance becomes even more glaring when we consider the fact that it’s been 24 days since President Biden officially exited the race, and yet she hasn’t participated in a formal interview or held a press conference. It’s been almost a month, and the vice president has kept herself insulated from the press, choosing instead to focus on controlled campaign events where she won’t be challenged. What kind of leader is that?

Many in the Democratic Party, particularly those close to Harris, argue that limiting her media appearances is a smart strategy. After all, they worry that her weaknesses could be exposed in a high-pressure setting, and any gaffes or missteps could be used against her by the Trump campaign.

But this kind of media aversion only fuels more doubt about her candidacy. If Harris can’t handle questions from reporters, how is she going to handle foreign leaders, crisis situations, or the endless challenges that come with being the president of the United States?

The tone-deaf response from Harris’s team doesn’t help either. Tyler’s attempt to brush off concerns about her lack of media engagement with a laugh and a vague promise of future press access shows a deep disconnect from the concerns of the American people. Voters want answers. They want to know what Harris stands for, what her plans are for the country, and how she plans to address the key issues of the day.

Instead, Harris’s campaign seems to think they can get away with doing the bare minimum, relying on carefully curated campaign rallies and controlled interviews rather than subjecting their candidate to the real scrutiny that comes with being a serious presidential contender.

It’s no surprise that the Trump campaign is seizing on Harris’s avoidance of the press. Former President Donald Trump has never been one to shy away from the media, and his campaign is quick to point out the stark contrast between Trump’s openness with the press and Harris’s media shyness.

Trump regularly held press conferences, engaged in impromptu media scrums, and even faced hostile interviewers. Whether you agreed with his policies or not, Trump didn’t run from tough questions.

As the 2024 election unfolds, Harris’s reluctance to face the media will continue to be a major issue. Voters deserve to know who they are voting for, and right now, Harris’s media strategy is sending a message that she is either unprepared or unwilling to engage with the tough questions that come with seeking the highest office in the land.

In the end, Kamala Harris’s avoidance of press conferences and refusal to engage meaningfully with the media are troubling signs for a candidate who wants to be president. If she can’t handle the scrutiny now, what does that say about her ability to lead the country?

The American people deserve a candidate who isn’t afraid to face tough questions, someone who will be transparent and accountable. As the election draws closer, Harris’s strategy of hiding from the media will only raise more doubts about her readiness to lead.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Harris campaign is desperately trying to convince the public that America love Kamala. But even their own rally-goers know the truth.

And a shocking development at a Harris rally has sent her whole campaign reeling.

Kamala Harris, the current vice president under Joe Biden and now the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, continues to evade accountability and any serious policy discussions.

At a rally in Phoenix, supporters of Harris were challenged by Turning Point USA’s (TPUSA) Frontlines team to name her accomplishments as vice president. The responses were telling—not because they highlighted a glowing list of achievements but because they revealed the sheer emptiness of her political record.

This should alarm every American who values strong leadership and sound policy, particularly when faced with the prospect of Harris sitting in the Oval Office.

When TPUSA’s Kalen D’Almeida pressed rallygoers on Harris’ policy record, attendees repeatedly fell back on her identity rather than her achievements. One attendee’s response was that Harris’ greatest accomplishment was becoming the first female vice president, especially as a black woman.

This is a point of pride for many on the left, but when pressed for actual policies that make America better, there was only deafening silence.

It’s a troubling trend among Harris supporters—focusing on identity politics over substantive accomplishments. While breaking barriers can be celebrated, what truly matters in leadership is effectiveness, and Kamala Harris’ vice presidency has been marked by failure and incompetence. Yet, supporters seem to overlook these failings, intoxicated by the “vibe” rather than any concrete progress.

Harris has now been the Democratic nominee for three weeks and has yet to release a single policy platform. That’s right, America is watching a potential president coast through a campaign without the public having any idea what she stands for or plans to do.

This isn’t the first time Harris has dodged responsibility. Her entire vice presidency has been marked by a complete absence of real action.

She has failed to lead on crucial issues like the border, economic recovery, and national security. Her supporters at the Phoenix rally couldn’t name a single policy success because there isn’t one.

For example, one attendee, when asked about her favorite Harris policy, responded, “I wish they would tell us more about that.” It’s shocking that even her own supporters have no clue what she’s done.

This is a dangerous reality: a politician aiming for the highest office in the land who has neither articulated a plan nor delivered on her existing responsibilities.

If Kamala Harris is to be judged by her handling of any issue, the border crisis is a glaring failure. Appointed by President Biden in 2021 as the “border czar,” Harris was tasked with addressing one of the most pressing issues in America—illegal immigration. And she failed.

Border crossings skyrocketed during her time in charge, with illegal entries hitting record highs. Yet, Harris refused to visit the southern border to witness the crisis firsthand until the pressure became insurmountable. Even then, it was a half-hearted visit aimed more at damage control than real action.

One attendee at the Phoenix rally dismissed criticism of Harris’ handling of the border, claiming it wasn’t her fault. This is a staggering level of ignorance, considering Harris was given the reins by Biden to tackle the border crisis.

Instead of addressing the problem, she distanced herself from the situation, even laughing off questions about why she hadn’t visited the border by saying, “I haven’t been to Europe either.” This callous and tone-deaf response demonstrates her complete disregard for the American people and the rule of law.

Another rallygoer parroted the far-left’s argument, saying America should “let people come in and do what they like.” This sort of open-border mentality ignores the disastrous impact illegal immigration has on our nation’s economy, security, and social fabric. It also underscores the recklessness of Harris’ policies—or lack thereof.

Her failure to act as “border czar” has endangered countless American communities, and her refusal to take responsibility shows she is unfit for higher office.

If Harris truly had a vision for America, she would proudly share it with the country. Yet, she continues to avoid serious interviews and media engagements. Allies close to her have admitted that they are concerned about the potential damage a long-form interview could do to her campaign. In other words, Harris is incapable of handling the tough questions.

This should worry anyone thinking about her as a future president. A leader unwilling to answer for their record is not a leader at all. Since becoming the nominee, Harris has refused to participate in a single policy-focused press conference.

Instead, she prefers pre-packaged, friendly interviews where she can repeat talking points without facing the serious scrutiny that comes with being a national leader.

Why? Because she has no coherent policy positions to defend. Whether it’s on the economy, national security, or the border, Harris offers nothing of value to the American people. Instead, she hides behind identity politics and media softball interviews while her surrogates attempt to sell her to the public based on symbolism rather than substance.

Kamala Harris’ rise to power is not only a reflection of the Democratic Party’s obsession with identity politics, but it is also an indictment of their abandonment of real leadership. Harris is not just an ineffective politician—she is a danger to America.

With no clear policies, an open-border mindset, and a refusal to engage with the media or the public on the issues that matter, Harris has shown she is entirely unfit to lead.

As vice president, she has already failed on multiple fronts, from immigration to foreign policy. As president, she would be a disaster for this country. Americans deserve a leader who will defend their interests, enforce the law, and engage openly with the public.

Harris has proven time and again that she is unwilling and incapable of doing any of these things.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for more of the TRUTH in your news.

Tim Walz has shown that he is scared of everyone. And the American people can see right through his false front.

And JD Vance’s new comments have Tim Walz running to hide in the closet.

The vice presidential debate scheduled for October 1st between Tim Walz and JD Vance promises to be a defining moment in the 2024 election.

On one side, we have Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee, whose leadership in Minnesota has left many conservatives disillusioned and concerned about the direction of the country.

On the other, we have JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, a man who has shown himself to be an unwavering advocate for the people, standing up for traditional values and the preservation of American greatness.

While Walz’s decision to participate in the debate might seem like a bold move, it opens him up to a barrage of questions regarding his failed policies and the deteriorating condition of his home state. This showdown will reveal the stark differences in leadership, vision, and commitment to the people of America.

JD Vance, in contrast, has emerged as a strong conservative voice with fresh ideas and a deep-rooted commitment to ensuring that America thrives under Republican leadership.

Tim Walz, currently the governor of Minnesota, has been nothing short of a disaster for his state. His tenure has been marked by failed leadership, particularly during critical moments that demanded decisive action.

As Minnesota burned during the violent riots following the death of George Floyd in 2020, Walz was nowhere to be found, leaving the state’s residents and businesses in a state of panic and destruction.

His failure to enforce law and order was not just a local crisis but a national embarrassment, showcasing the Democratic Party’s lack of concern for the safety of the American people.

Walz’s approach to governing has been one of weakness and appeasement. Under his watch, Minneapolis has become a symbol of urban decay, with crime rates skyrocketing and businesses fleeing the city due to a lack of public safety.

Instead of protecting law-abiding citizens and ensuring that Minnesota remains a place where families can thrive, Walz has chosen to pander to far-left activists, embracing policies that hurt the very people he claims to serve.

Perhaps most concerning is his track record on economic issues. Walz has presided over an increasingly burdensome tax regime that has driven many middle-class families and small businesses out of Minnesota. His administration has expanded government interference in the private sector while neglecting the needs of hardworking Americans who just want to provide for their families and live in peace.

With inflation hurting the country under President Biden, Walz’s economic mismanagement will likely be one of the key topics JD Vance can seize during their debate.

In contrast, JD Vance has emerged as one of the brightest stars in the Republican Party. Vance, author of the best-selling memoir Hillbilly Elegy and a U.S. senator from Ohio, understands the struggles of ordinary Americans better than most politicians.

His rise from humble beginnings to the U.S. Senate has been fueled by his passion for standing up for the forgotten men and women of this country — the very people Tim Walz and the Democrats have ignored.

Since entering the Senate, Vance has been a strong advocate for policies that promote economic growth, defend American jobs, and preserve our nation’s values. He has fought tirelessly to rein in the excessive government spending that has driven inflation to record highs and has called for a return to fiscal responsibility.

Unlike Walz, whose policies are grounded in big government, high taxes, and a bloated bureaucracy, Vance believes in empowering individuals and families to make their own choices, free from the overreach of Washington, D.C.

Vance’s stance on national security also stands in sharp contrast to the weak and apologetic foreign policy embraced by the Biden administration, of which Tim Walz is a staunch ally. Vance has been a vocal critic of Biden’s botched handling of Afghanistan, as well as the administration’s weak stance on China.

He understands that American strength on the world stage is essential for protecting our freedoms and keeping our enemies at bay.

One of JD Vance’s strongest attributes is his deep connection to the working class. As someone who grew up in a struggling Rust Belt town, Vance knows firsthand the devastating impact of bad policies that neglect the needs of everyday Americans.

His commitment to rebuilding America’s manufacturing sector, securing our borders, and restoring American values makes him a powerful voice for the people. In contrast, Walz represents the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the working class in favor of coastal elites and their progressive agendas.

While Tim Walz took to X (formerly Twitter) to announce his participation in the debate, saying, “See you on October 1, JD,” the reality is that Walz is walking into a political minefield. His tenure in Minnesota is a glaring example of Democratic failures, and JD Vance will not hesitate to call him out on these issues.

Vance, praised by President Trump as having “really stepped up” and doing “a fantastic job,” will likely focus on Walz’s disastrous handling of the George Floyd riots, his inability to control crime, and his tax-and-spend policies that have crippled Minnesota’s economy.

Vance’s strength in this debate will be his authenticity. While Walz has become a typical career politician, aligning himself with the progressive left and its out-of-touch policies, Vance remains a true representative of the people.

His policies are focused on making America stronger, safer, and more prosperous for all. Vance’s clear-headed approach to issues like the economy, crime, and foreign policy will resonate with voters who are fed up with the endless failures of the Democratic Party.

The Trump campaign’s delay in confirming the debate date only adds to the anticipation. When JD Vance steps on the debate stage, it will be a moment for conservatives to showcase how Republican leadership offers real solutions to the country’s most pressing issues — solutions that stand in stark contrast to the failed liberal policies that Tim Walz embodies.

The upcoming debate is not just a clash of two vice presidential candidates — it’s a battle between two very different visions for America. Tim Walz represents the failed leadership of the Democratic Party, a party that has prioritized radical progressive agendas over the needs of everyday Americans. His tenure as governor of Minnesota is a glaring example of the dangerous consequences of Democratic control.

JD Vance, on the other hand, offers hope. He represents a return to common sense, to policies that prioritize American families, secure our borders, restore law and order, and ensure that our nation’s economy grows for all.

When Americans watch the debate on October 1, they’ll see firsthand why Vance is the clear choice for vice president.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Biden administration cannot do anything right. And even their own supporters recognize that.

And now, the Biden administration’s border policies have led to a massive lawsuit in a Democrat state.

The Biden administration’s lax immigration policies continue to wreak havoc on cities across America, with New York City being a prime example of a sanctuary city now overwhelmed by the very policies it championed.

In the latest twist, even private businesses are feeling the strain, as Marriott International, a multinational hospitality group, is suing one of its franchisees in Queens for turning its property into a migrant shelter.

The lawsuit stems from Marriott’s claim that Pride Hotel LLC, the franchisee operating the dual-branded Aloft and Element hotels in the Jamaica neighborhood of Queens, breached its franchise agreement by transforming the property into a migrant shelter.

According to Fox Business, Pride Hotel LLC entered a contract with New York City to house illegal immigrants, a deal struck behind Marriott’s back.

In its complaint, Marriott alleges that Pride Hotel LLC not only failed to inform them of the decision but also did nothing to disassociate Marriott’s brand from the shelter. The hotel giant is seeking $2.6 million in damages, claiming “significant harm” to its reputation.

The dispute underscores a larger issue plaguing America’s cities: how sanctuary cities, like New York, are crumbling under the weight of their own policies, harming businesses, communities, and even the migrants themselves.

At the heart of this issue lies a startling revelation—there’s significant money to be made off taxpayer dollars when hotels are converted into migrant shelters.

New York City alone has spent billions of dollars on housing illegal immigrants in hotels and shelters. According to reports, hotels are receiving $156 per night for each migrant-occupied room, with deluxe rooms costing taxpayers as much as $300 a night.

This is nothing short of a billion-dollar industry, all funded by American taxpayers. The price tag for New York City’s border crisis management has ballooned to $4.88 billion, with nearly half of that going toward housing illegal immigrants. Shockingly, 80% of the city’s budget for migrant care goes to shelter costs, mostly funneled to hotels like the one in Queens.

This financial boondoggle is not only a burden on taxpayers but also a dangerous incentive for businesses to cash in on the crisis. Pride Hotel LLC’s decision to house illegal immigrants in its Marriott-branded property may have been motivated by the potential for “lucrative” profits, but at what cost?

The flood of illegal immigrants into the United States has reached unprecedented levels under the Biden administration. Since President Joe Biden took office, at least 25 million illegal immigrants have entered the country, straining resources, disrupting communities, and pushing even liberal cities like New York to the brink of collapse.

For all the promises of humanitarianism, the reality is that the administration’s policies are harming both American citizens and the migrants they claim to be helping.

The influx of illegals has turned sanctuary cities into overwhelmed, chaotic environments where law-abiding residents are forced to foot the bill for services like healthcare, housing, legal aid, and food for migrants.

New York City has gone to extreme lengths to accommodate these migrants, providing prepaid debit cards, free airline tickets to any U.S. destination, and even turning a high school into a shelter.

But these measures do little to address the root cause of the problem—the Biden administration’s refusal to secure the border and implement common-sense immigration policies.

Let’s not forget who else is being harmed here. While New York City doles out taxpayer money to shelter illegal immigrants, the living conditions for these migrants are far from ideal.

The influx has led to overcrowded, makeshift shelters, unsafe environments, and insufficient resources to meet the basic needs of those arriving. It’s clear that these so-called sanctuary cities are ill-equipped to provide the support that illegal immigrants need.

This situation also leaves Americans vulnerable. The surge in illegal immigration has put downward pressure on wages, increased competition for jobs, and strained public services. And with no end in sight to the open-border policies of the Biden administration, cities like New York are stuck footing the bill for Washington’s mismanagement. It’s no wonder that even the staunchest Democrat strongholds are beginning to break under the pressure.

What began as a compassionate stance has morphed into a cautionary tale. Cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have long proclaimed themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants. But with record numbers pouring across the border, these cities are now crumbling under the strain.

The promise of sanctuary is quickly losing its appeal. In fact, Mayor Eric Adams of New York City has gone as far as to plead with President Biden for federal aid, stating that his city cannot continue to absorb more migrants without significant assistance. Despite these cries for help, the Biden administration remains steadfast in its refusal to secure the border or change its policies, leaving cities like New York in crisis.

The situation unfolding in New York City is a microcosm of the broader failure of the Biden administration’s immigration policies. The border crisis is not just a border state issue—it’s a national emergency that is spreading to every corner of the country. From rural towns to urban centers, American communities are being forced to bear the brunt of a border crisis that they did not create and do not support.

For the migrants, Biden’s policies have created a false hope—a belief that they will find safety and opportunity in America, only to be met with overcrowded shelters, inadequate resources, and a system that cannot handle the sheer volume of people entering the country. For Americans, these policies have resulted in higher taxes, reduced services, and an increased sense of insecurity in their own communities.

It’s clear that the Biden administration’s approach to immigration is a disaster for everyone involved—immigrants and Americans alike.

What’s needed is a secure border, sensible immigration laws, and policies that put the safety and well-being of American citizens first.

Without such changes, cities like New York will continue to spiral into chaos, and businesses like Marriott will face even more challenges as they try to navigate a system that rewards bad behavior at the expense of the nation.

As the Marriott lawsuit demonstrates, the fallout from these policies is affecting every aspect of American life. Whether it’s businesses trying to maintain their brand integrity, citizens watching their tax dollars disappear, or migrants stuck in an unsustainable situation, the Biden administration’s immigration crisis is harming us all.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

It seems to have become a common theme that the Left is losing support from within. And even the most Radical groups are deserting.

And now, a radical organization has turned its back on the Left because of their destructive policies.

In recent years, the Left has been relentless in promoting “gender-affirming care” for children and adolescents. Under the guise of inclusion and acceptance, activists and political leaders have made it their mission to mainstream a controversial approach that encourages irreversible medical interventions for minors experiencing gender dysphoria.

The most concerning aspect of this agenda is that the long-term impact of these interventions remains highly uncertain, and many respected professionals in the medical community are raising the alarm.

One of the most significant developments on this front came from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), which represents over 90 percent of plastic surgeons in the U.S. and Canada.

The organization recently voiced serious concerns regarding surgical sex changes for minors, telling Manhattan Institute fellow Leor Sapir that the “existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”

This admission is monumental. For years, the Left has presented “gender-affirming care” as a scientific consensus, branding those who dare to question its efficacy or safety as bigots or worse.

Now, the very professionals tasked with performing these surgeries are expressing doubt, shedding light on the significant risks associated with performing irreversible surgeries on children.

The ASPS has not endorsed any specific guidelines or practices for treating adolescents with gender dysphoria. It has acknowledged that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions.” In simple terms, the long-term consequences of these procedures are unknown.

Yet, despite this glaring lack of data, left-leaning politicians, advocacy groups, and many in the mainstream media continue to push these life-altering treatments on vulnerable minors.

The rush to promote “gender-affirming care” ignores a basic principle of medicine: first, do no harm. These surgeries and hormone treatments can result in permanent changes to a child’s body—changes that cannot be undone if the child later regrets the decision.

We’re talking about irreversible surgeries that alter the chest and genitals, permanently affecting not just the appearance but the entire future of these young people. And yet, the Left seems willing to gamble with the lives of children in their pursuit of ideological purity.

Even more disturbing is the environment of fear that has taken hold within the medical community. Dr. Sheila Nazarian, a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, shared with Sapir that many of her colleagues are concerned about the use of hormones and surgeries on minors but are afraid to speak out.

Why? Because the current political climate makes it nearly impossible for doctors to have a reasonable debate on the issue without facing backlash from activist groups and the Left’s outrage machine.

Nazarian hit the nail on the head when she pointed out that when medical professionals are afraid to discuss treatments—especially for minors—it becomes a serious problem. In a world where disagreement on medical ethics is treated as heresy, doctors are forced into silence, afraid that any opposition to “gender-affirming care” will result in professional ruin.

It’s an alarming situation when medical professionals who should prioritize patient safety feel pressure to conform to a political narrative rather than engage in open, evidence-based discussion.

Another critical issue is how surgeons often defer to mental health professionals and endocrinologists when it comes to determining whether minors should undergo irreversible surgical procedures.

While these professionals certainly play a role in treating gender dysphoria, relying solely on their recommendations can lead to dangerous outcomes. As Nazarian points out, this approach reduces surgeons to mere technicians, ignoring their ethical duty to consider the full picture when determining if a surgery is truly in the patient’s best interest.

“We are not highly trained technicians,” Nazarian stressed. “We are physicians with responsibility for the health and well-being of our patients. We can get input from other clinicians, but ultimately the responsibility for determining medical readiness lies with us. That means that we have to examine all the data and studies available to us.”

Her message couldn’t be clearer: medical professionals have a duty to ensure they are doing what is in the best interest of their patients, not simply following orders from other clinicians who may not fully understand the risks of these surgeries.

Outsourcing judgment on such a significant decision is not just irresponsible; it’s reckless.

While the Left in America continues to champion “gender-affirming care,” much of the international medical community is taking a more cautious approach.

Countries like Sweden, Finland, and the UK have reevaluated and significantly restricted the use of these interventions on minors, emphasizing the need for a more measured approach based on scientific evidence rather than ideology.

The American medical establishment has been slow to follow suit. But as Dr. Nazarian pointed out, the international debate on youth gender medicine is far ahead of where we are in the United States.

European countries are increasingly recognizing that the long-term benefits of such drastic interventions are questionable at best. Many have decided to prioritize psychotherapy and other non-invasive treatments rather than rushing children into life-altering surgeries and hormone therapies.

At the core of this debate is a fundamental question: should we allow children to make irreversible decisions about their bodies, decisions they may later regret? The Left’s answer is a resounding yes, ignoring the fact that minors are not equipped to fully understand the consequences of such drastic actions.

By pushing “gender-affirming care” without sufficient evidence or long-term data, the Left is endangering the health and well-being of vulnerable children.

As Dr. Nazarian aptly stated, “You can’t help people by ignoring the reasons they want to go under the knife.” Surgeons have a responsibility to ensure that the decisions they help facilitate are made in the best interest of the patient, both in the short and long term. When it comes to children, the stakes are even higher.

Allowing minors to undergo life-altering surgeries based on feelings that may be fleeting or influenced by external pressures is not just irresponsible—it’s dangerous.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics where we bring you the truth in the news.

Tim Walz is being presented in the media as a man of the people. And Democrats want Americans to believe these lies.

But now, one of Tim Walz’s constituents has spoken out and exposes the horrifying truths they are hiding.

Governor Tim Walz, who likes to present himself as a champion of the people, has shown his true colors through a recount of his draconian Covid-19 lockdown policies, revealing an authoritarian streak that has crushed small businesses and curtailed personal freedoms.

One tragic example of this can be seen in the case of Lisa Hanson, a former small business owner who was sentenced to 90 days in jail for defying Walz’s excessive Covid-19 mandates.

Her story is not just about one woman’s fight for her livelihood—it is a window into the broader harm caused by Walz’s reckless policies and a symbol of the destructive overreach that has defined his governorship.

Lisa Hanson, once the proud owner of The Interchange Wine & Coffee Bistro in Albert Lea, Minnesota, saw her life upended by Governor Walz’s oppressive Covid-19 lockdown orders.

Her small business had thrived for eight years before the pandemic, serving as a vital part of the local community, a place where friends and neighbors could gather, enjoy a meal, and share a cup of coffee. Like countless other small business owners, she initially complied with Walz’s orders, trusting that the restrictions were necessary to protect public health.

But as the lockdown dragged on, Hanson noticed a troubling trend—liquor stores, strip clubs, and big box stores were allowed to stay open, deemed “essential” by the governor, while her beloved bistro and other mom-and-pop shops were forced to close. This hypocrisy did not go unnoticed.

As Hanson said in a recent interview with Fox News, “He shut down a lot of the mom-and-pop shops, those folks that were just trying to make a living and provide a great product and a great service. In contrast, he allowed big box stores, etc. to stay open. Really incredible, an incredible use of tyranny against the people.”

Hanson’s words cut to the heart of the matter. Walz’s lockdowns didn’t just hurt businesses; they crushed the dreams and livelihoods of everyday Minnesotans.

Small business owners like Hanson were the backbone of their communities, yet they were treated as expendable under the governor’s heavy-handed orders.

Governor Walz’s actions during the pandemic reveal a man who is out of touch with the needs and concerns of regular Minnesotans. He claims to be a leader for the people, but his policies have consistently proven otherwise.

The lockdowns were not based on fairness or public safety—they were about picking winners and losers. Big corporations got to stay open, making millions in profits, while small businesses were left to wither and die.

Hanson eventually defied the orders, reopening her business in December 2020 in a brave stand against the tyranny of Walz’s administration.

For this, she was harshly punished, facing multiple misdemeanor charges, a $1,000 fine, and a 90-day jail sentence. Ultimately, she served 60 days in jail, but the damage was done—her business was destroyed, her livelihood gone.

“I can never have that time back,” Hanson said in the interview. “My business is gone. After everything that happened, Tim Walz and Keith Ellison destroyed my business. They wrecked my life.”

Hanson’s story is not an isolated incident. Under Walz’s leadership, thousands of Minnesotans have faced similar struggles, as the governor’s policies repeatedly favored the interests of the elite over the needs of regular people.

Walz’s administration claimed to be focused on public health, but the selective enforcement of his lockdowns—allowing certain businesses to thrive while others were left to fend for themselves—exposed the hollowness of that claim.

What’s most disturbing about Walz’s tenure as governor is the way he has trampled on basic freedoms. Lisa Hanson’s case demonstrates just how far Walz is willing to go to silence dissent and punish those who refuse to bend to his will. When Hanson reopened her business, she wasn’t just fighting for her livelihood—she was standing up for the rights of all Minnesotans to make their own choices and live their lives without fear of government overreach.

“This man would like to take your rights away,” Hanson warned. “He will take your rights away. Because what happened to me could have happened to anybody. What happened to me will happen to you.”

These are chilling words, but they ring true. Walz’s Covid-19 policies were not just misguided—they were a direct assault on our freedoms. His lockdowns were arbitrary and unfair, leaving small businesses to crumble while the politically connected were allowed to operate freely. The heavy fines and jail sentences for those who dared to defy him, like Lisa Hanson, only underscore his authoritarian tendencies.

Walz’s actions during the pandemic were a warning to all who believe in limited government and personal liberty. His policies took away the freedom of Minnesotans to earn a living, provide for their families, and make decisions about their own lives. What’s more, his decisions were anti-democratic, undermining the foundational principles of our country by concentrating power in the hands of the government at the expense of the people.

Tim Walz presents himself as a man of the people, but his record shows that he cares little for the average Minnesotan. His policies during the pandemic prioritized big corporations and special interests over small businesses and working families. He has shown time and again that he is willing to sacrifice the well-being of his constituents in order to pursue his own political agenda.

Lisa Hanson’s ordeal is just one of many examples of Walz’s callous disregard for the people he is supposed to serve. He forced her business to close, threw her in jail, and left her family to suffer—all for daring to defy his draconian orders. And while Hanson has bravely spoken out, how many others have been silenced by fear of reprisal?

As we look to the future, Minnesotans must remember the lessons of the past. Governor Walz’s authoritarian policies and disregard for personal freedoms are not just a relic of the pandemic—they are a threat to the very fabric of our democracy.

If we allow leaders like Walz to continue down this path, our rights and liberties will continue to erode, and the American dream will slip further out of reach for hard-working people like Lisa Hanson.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Harris campaign is floundering as countless “allies” move to distance themselves. But this most recent loss could be the worst one yet.

Because a major California leader has shocked the Harris campaign with a stunning betrayal.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign took a hit recently after Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux blasted the campaign for using his image in a political ad without his consent. In a fiery statement, Sheriff Boudreaux, who has dedicated over 37 years of his life to law enforcement in California, made it crystal clear that he does not endorse Harris in any capacity.

The boldness of Harris’ campaign to use his likeness without permission speaks volumes about her approach to politics: more focused on optics than substance.

But the controversy surrounding this ad is just the tip of the iceberg. Harris’ tenure as Vice President, particularly her role as the Biden administration’s so-called “border czar,” has been an unmitigated disaster.

Harris has had 3.5 years to address the crisis at the southern border, and what has she done? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Illegal border crossings have surged to catastrophic levels, drug cartels continue to thrive, and human trafficking is rampant.

Yet, the Vice President remains curiously absent, unwilling or unable to tackle the issue head-on.

The idea that Kamala Harris was ever serious about solving the border crisis is laughable. Appointed by President Joe Biden as the face of the administration’s efforts to “fix” the southern border, Harris has failed spectacularly.

Border states continue to face the brunt of illegal immigration, overwhelming their resources, and threatening the safety of American citizens. Harris, meanwhile, has either avoided visiting the border or engaged in half-hearted, photo-op visits that do little to address the real issues.

Sheriff Boudreaux’s criticism perfectly encapsulates Harris’ approach: all “smoke and mirrors.” Her focus is not on fixing the problem but rather on crafting a narrative that makes it seem like she’s doing something.

But the reality is clear to anyone paying attention: Kamala Harris is more concerned with posturing for the camera than ensuring the safety of American citizens.

In fact, when Harris was California’s Attorney General, she was given the chance to combat the cartels and tackle illegal border crossings. Instead, she merely used the platform for self-promotion.

Sheriff Boudreaux recalls Harris’ visit to the Central Valley in 2014 when a multi-national drug operation with ties to Mexican drug cartels was taken down by local authorities.

Rather than acknowledging the hard work of those on the ground, Harris swooped in to take credit for the operation, barely acknowledging the local law enforcement officers responsible for the arrests. According to Boudreaux, she didn’t even bother to shake hands or offer a word of thanks to those who did the heavy lifting.

This incident reveals what we’ve known all along: Harris cares more about her image than about actually addressing the critical issues facing this country. She is a career politician who is more focused on political expediency than on serving the people.

After nearly four years of failure, why should Americans believe that Harris would do anything different if given more power? The truth is, they shouldn’t. Harris has proven herself to be ineffective and out of touch with the needs of the American people.

As Vice President, Harris has had ample opportunity to show leadership and competence, but she has failed to rise to the occasion time and time again.

Her track record speaks for itself: under her watch, the border crisis has worsened, crime has spiked in cities across the country, and American communities have been left to deal with the consequences of her inaction. Harris has had 3.5 years to prove her worth, and she’s accomplished nothing.

Meanwhile, Americans continue to suffer. Southern states, in particular, have been overwhelmed by the influx of illegal immigrants crossing the border. The strain on local resources is enormous, with many border towns struggling to provide basic services to their citizens.

Crime rates have soared as drug cartels exploit the porous border to traffic narcotics into the U.S., contributing to the opioid crisis that continues to ravage American communities.

Compare this failure to the leadership of President Donald Trump. During his time in office, Trump made border security a top priority, implementing policies that significantly reduced illegal crossings and put pressure on the cartels.

Trump recognized the importance of a secure border for national security and worked tirelessly to build the border wall, despite fierce opposition from Democrats and the mainstream media.

His administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy helped stem the tide of illegal immigration by ensuring that asylum seekers waited in Mexico for their cases to be heard, rather than being released into the U.S.

Trump’s actions on the border were not just about securing the southern border; they were about ensuring the safety and security of the American people. He knew that a weak border would lead to chaos, and he did everything in his power to prevent that from happening. The results speak for themselves: under Trump, illegal crossings plummeted, and the border was more secure than it had been in decades.

Contrast that with Kamala Harris, who has done nothing but exacerbate the problem. Her so-called leadership on the issue has been nonexistent, and her track record as Vice President is a stark reminder that she is not fit for the job. Harris had the chance to prove herself capable, but she has failed at every turn.

It’s clear that Kamala Harris is not interested in fixing the problems at the border or working to make America safer. Instead, she is focused on crafting a narrative that makes her look like a tough leader when, in reality, she is anything but. The American people deserve better than this.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Harris campaign is a failure. And they are giving Trump all sorts of ammo.

And now Donald Trump was just handed a major win by the Harris campaign.

As former President Donald Trump boldly steps up to the plate, ready to engage in three separate debates, Vice President Kamala Harris seems to be dragging her feet, casting doubt on her willingness to face Trump head-on. This reluctance, perceived by many as fear, is creating a stir across the political landscape, highlighting the stark contrasts between the two candidates.

Former President Trump, never one to shy away from a challenge, has agreed to participate in three crucial debates leading up to the 2024 election.

The debates, scheduled for September 4 on Fox News from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 10 on ABC with David Muir at Philadelphia’s historic Independence Hall, and September 25 on NBC News with Lester Holt in Grand Rapids, Michigan, are seen as pivotal moments in the race.

Trump’s eagerness to engage directly with Harris in these debates underscores his confidence and his desire to expose what he and his supporters see as the failings of the Biden administration, of which Harris has been a key player.

The Trump campaign, in a statement to The Epoch Times, made it clear that Trump is prepared to make solo appearances if Harris refuses to participate in the Fox and NBC debates.

Vice President Kamala Harris, on the other hand, appears hesitant to commit to all three debates. While she has agreed to the ABC debate on September 10, her reluctance to confirm her participation in the Fox and NBC debates has raised eyebrows.

Harris’s response to questions about the additional debates has been vague at best, saying, “I am happy to have that conversation about an additional debate for after September 10.”

This apparent hesitation has fueled speculation that Harris and her campaign are deeply concerned about facing Trump on such a prominent stage.

The possibility that Harris might avoid these debates altogether only adds to the perception that she is intimidated by the former President’s formidable presence and debating skills.

Adding to the drama is President Joe Biden’s sudden and shocking withdrawal from the race following his disastrous performance in a June 27 CNN debate with Trump. Biden’s inability to effectively counter Trump’s arguments, coupled with a failed assassination attempt against Trump on July 13, led to mounting pressure for Biden to step aside.

On July 21, Biden announced he would not seek re-election but would finish his term, endorsing Harris as his successor.

Harris’s rise to the top of the Democratic ticket was not the result of overwhelming popular support or a clear vision for the future but rather a necessity borne out of Biden’s collapse.

As such, Harris’s campaign is now under intense scrutiny, and her reluctance to face Trump in multiple debates could be seen as a sign of weakness.

The stakes for these debates could not be higher. The RealClear Politics average of opinion polls shows Harris edging Trump by a mere 0.5 percent—a razor-thin margin that underscores how volatile the race remains.

Harris is expected to receive a boost in the polls following the Democratic National Convention, scheduled for August 19 to 22 in Chicago. However, any advantage she gains could be easily undone if she fails to perform well in the debates or, worse, if she refuses to participate at all.

For Trump, the debates are an opportunity to solidify his base, appeal to undecided voters, and cast doubt on Harris’s readiness to lead. His confidence in facing Harris in all three debates contrasts sharply with Harris’s cautious approach.

Trump’s strategy is clear: he wants to be seen as the candidate who is unafraid to tackle the tough issues and to take on his opponents directly.

Another aspect of Harris’s campaign that has drawn criticism is her approach to the media. Unlike Trump, who has always been willing to engage with reporters—even those who are overtly hostile—Harris has been notably reticent.

The Trump campaign has slammed her for not answering questions or granting interviews from the media, a move that could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid scrutiny.

Harris’s reluctance to face the press, coupled with her hesitancy about the debates, suggests a campaign that is more focused on controlling the narrative than on engaging with the American people.

This strategy may backfire, as voters often value transparency and accessibility in their leaders. By avoiding tough questions and potentially skipping crucial debates, Harris risks alienating the very voters she needs to win over.

As the election season heats up, all eyes will be on Harris and her decisions regarding the upcoming debates. Will she rise to the occasion and face Trump in all three, or will she continue to avoid the spotlight, raising further questions about her readiness to lead?

Trump, meanwhile, continues to dominate the narrative, positioning himself as the candidate who is unafraid to confront the issues head-on.

His willingness to participate in all three debates, even if it means standing alone on stage, demonstrates his determination to fight for every vote and to expose what he sees as the failures of the Biden-Harris administration.

In the end, the debates could prove to be a decisive factor in the 2024 election. If Harris fails to show up, it will only reinforce the growing belief among many that she is not up to the task of leading the nation. But if she does participate, she will need to bring her A-game, because Trump is clearly ready and eager to take her on.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Voters are fleeing the Radical Left by the thousands. And now, it is obvious where thy are going.

Because stunning new projections show Trump receiving major support from a surprising demographic.

As the 2024 election season approaches, former President Donald Trump is poised to make unprecedented gains among Jewish voters. Historically, Jewish Americans have leaned heavily Democratic, with past Democratic presidential candidates capturing as much as 70 percent or more of the Jewish vote.

However, the tide appears to be shifting, and Trump’s support among Jewish voters is growing, especially in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia.

Trump campaign pollster John McLaughlin recently told The New York Post that President Trump has a chance to win the largest share of the Jewish vote ever. McLaughlin cited the rise in antisemitism and the growing hostility toward Israel among progressive Democrats as major factors driving this shift.

These issues are becoming more critical in an environment where traditional Democratic support for Israel is eroding under the influence of the far-left wing of the party.

Trump’s record on Israel is one of the most pro-Israel in recent history. As President, he moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, a historic and bold move that previous administrations promised but never delivered.

He also recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. These actions demonstrated Trump’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and its status as a key ally of the United States.

In contrast, the Biden administration has shown a concerning ambivalence toward Israel. Vice President Kamala Harris, in particular, has aligned herself with the far-left elements of the Democratic Party, which are increasingly hostile to Israel.

Recently, anti-Israel activists in Michigan claimed that Harris had promised them an arms embargo against Israel, and she has called for an “immediate cease-fire” during Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hamas. Such positions not only undermine Israel’s right to defend itself but also embolden Israel’s enemies, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk.

One of the most troubling developments within the Democratic Party has been the rise of antisemitism, particularly among its progressive wing.

Figures like Representatives Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO), both members of the notorious “Squad,” have been openly critical of Israel and have expressed sympathies for movements that many view as antisemitic.

Fortunately, both Bowman and Bush have recently lost their primary elections, signaling that voters may be growing weary of this dangerous rhetoric.

Nevertheless, the presence of such individuals in Congress highlights the growing influence of the far-left, which increasingly drives the Democratic Party’s agenda. This shift is alarming for Jewish voters, many of whom see the Democratic Party as becoming less and less supportive of Israel.

For decades, American Jews have been a reliable voting bloc for the Democrats, but the party’s abandonment of Israel is causing many to rethink their loyalties.

A recent poll sponsored by the Teach Coalition revealed that Jewish voters are more motivated to vote in New York and Pennsylvania due to rising antisemitism and Israel’s war against Hamas.

In Pennsylvania, 43 percent of Jewish voters now support Trump, a remarkable shift in a state that is crucial for both parties’ electoral strategies. Similarly, a Siena Research Institute poll showed Trump leading among Jewish voters in New York with 50 percent, slightly ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris, who garnered 49 percent of the vote.

These numbers suggest that Jewish voters are increasingly recognizing that Trump, not Biden, is the candidate who will stand up for Israel and protect Jewish communities from the rising tide of antisemitism.

Trump’s policies have consistently demonstrated a commitment to Israel’s security and a strong stance against those who would threaten it, whether they be terrorist organizations like Hamas or far-left radicals in the United States.

Under the Biden administration, Israel’s enemies have been emboldened. Hamas continues its reign of terror, holding over 100 hostages, including eight Americans, and launching rockets into Israeli cities.

The Biden administration’s calls for a ceasefire and its reluctance to fully back Israel’s right to self-defense send a message of weakness to the world.

Moreover, many speculate that Governor Tim Walz was chosen as Kamala Harris’s potential VP pick over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro precisely because of Shapiro’s Jewish heritage.

This speculation, whether accurate or not, only adds to the concerns that the Democratic Party is sidelining Jewish voices and concerns in favor of appeasing its radical base.

Trump’s recent comments during a press conference, where he stated that Jewish people who don’t vote for him should “get their head examined,” may have been blunt, but they underscore a critical point: the Democratic Party, under the influence of its far-left factions, is becoming increasingly hostile to Israel and, by extension, to Jewish Americans who value Israel’s security.

Trump’s policies and actions reflect a deep respect for the Jewish community and a recognition of the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Unlike the Democrats, whose rhetoric and policies have alienated many Jewish voters, Trump has consistently stood by Israel, recognizing it as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East and a crucial ally of the United States.

As the 2024 election draws nearer, the shift in Jewish voter support could be a game-changer for Trump and the Republican Party. With rising antisemitism, the growing influence of the far-left in the Democratic Party, and the Biden administration’s weak stance on Israel, more Jewish voters are turning to Trump as the candidate who will truly protect their interests and stand up for Israel.

In a time when the safety of Jewish communities and the security of Israel are under threat, Trump offers a clear and compelling choice for Jewish voters.

His record speaks for itself: he is a staunch ally of Israel and a fierce opponent of antisemitism in all its forms. For Jewish voters concerned about their future and the future of Israel, Trump is the leader they can trust.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has proven that they are willing to play dirty in order to stay in power. Even if that means attacking their political opponents.

And now, a new direct attack on Donald Trump has Americans worried for their freedoms.

The latest developments in the ongoing saga surrounding former President Donald Trump’s January 6 case represent more than just a legal maneuver; they are a clear and present threat to the democratic process and the future of free elections in the United States.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s agreement to a three-week delay in the case, at the behest of Special Counsel Jack Smith, reveals an alarming trend in the Biden administration’s relentless pursuit of Donald Trump.

This is not just a legal battle—it’s an attempt to interfere with the electoral process and undermine the will of the American people.

In July, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents do indeed possess immunity for official actions taken while in office—a decision that Trump rightfully hailed as a “total exoneration.” This ruling is a game-changer, setting a precedent that fundamentally challenges the basis of the charges against Trump.

The Supreme Court’s decision is clear: a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. This is not just a legal technicality; it is a foundational principle that protects the office of the presidency from politically motivated attacks.

Yet, despite this ruling, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), under the guise of Special Counsel Jack Smith, is continuing its pursuit of Trump.

The delay requested by Smith’s team is nothing more than a strategic move to buy time—time to reassess their position, time to concoct new strategies to keep Trump entangled in legal battles, and time to continue their interference in the upcoming election.

The fact that Judge Chutkan granted this delay should alarm every American who values the integrity of our democratic process.

It’s no secret that the Biden administration has been determined to bring down Trump since day one. From the moment Biden took office, the DOJ has been weaponized to target political opponents.

The appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel is a clear example of this. Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has raised questions about the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment, hinting at a broader scheme within the DOJ to use the legal system as a tool of political warfare.

The charges against Trump hinge on the assumption that the 2020 election was fair and legitimate—a narrative that the mainstream media and the left have aggressively pushed. But millions of Americans still harbor doubts about the integrity of that election.

They see this case as yet another attempt to silence dissent and to prevent any serious investigation into the irregularities that plagued the 2020 election. By pushing these charges, the Biden administration is not just going after Trump; they are going after every American who dares to question the official narrative.

The timing of this delay is no coincidence. With the 2024 election rapidly approaching, the Biden administration is desperate to keep Trump distracted and embroiled in legal battles. They know that Trump remains the most formidable opponent Biden could face in 2024.

They know that Trump’s message resonates with millions of Americans who feel betrayed by the political elite. And they know that if Trump is allowed to campaign freely, he has a strong chance of winning back the White House.

By delaying the case, the Biden administration is attempting to keep the cloud of legal uncertainty hanging over Trump’s campaign. They hope that by dragging out the proceedings, they can weaken Trump’s standing with voters and sow doubt about his candidacy. This is election interference, plain and simple. And it’s a tactic that poses a grave threat to our democracy.

What we are witnessing is not just a legal battle; it’s a battle for the future of America. The charges against Trump are rooted in a deep-seated fear within the political establishment—a fear that Trump represents a movement that threatens their grip on power.

This movement, fueled by the frustrations of everyday Americans who feel ignored and betrayed by their leaders, is a direct challenge to the status quo.

The Biden administration, with its allies in the media and the DOJ, is doing everything in its power to crush this movement. They want to make an example of Trump, to show that anyone who dares to challenge the establishment will be destroyed.

But this is not just an attack on Trump; it’s an attack on the millions of Americans who support him. It’s an attack on the very principles of democracy and free speech.

As we move forward, it’s crucial that we stand up for the principles that make America great. We must reject the Biden administration’s attempts to weaponize the legal system for political gain. We must demand accountability and transparency in our elections. And we must rally behind leaders who are willing to fight for the rights of all Americans, not just the elites.

Donald Trump’s fight is not just his own—it’s a fight for the soul of our nation. The delay granted by Judge Chutkan is a stark reminder that the battle for America’s future is far from over. But as long as we remain vigilant, as long as we continue to demand the truth, and as long as we refuse to be silenced, we can and will prevail.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Kamala Harris has a ton of momentum when Joe Biden dropped out. But now all of that has changed.

And Harris was smacked with a massive campaign loss that could end her run.

A recent Rasmussen Reports survey has sparked new debate about Vice President Kamala Harris’s qualifications, with a significant portion of Americans believing she is nothing more than a “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) hire.” According to the poll, 41 percent of likely U.S. voters think it is fair to label Harris as such.

In contrast, 45 percent do not think the label is fair, and 15 percent remain undecided. This survey not only sheds light on Harris’s perceived qualifications but also on broader public sentiments toward DEI policies in America.

The term “DEI hire” has become a shorthand for accusing someone of being chosen based on identity politics rather than merit. For Vice President Harris, this label has followed her since the moment President Joe Biden selected her as his running mate.

Biden himself stated that his selection criteria included finding a woman of color, which immediately raised questions about whether Harris was chosen primarily for her demographic attributes rather than her qualifications.

Kamala Harris’s track record has done little to dispel these doubts. As Vice President, she has struggled to assert herself as a competent and effective leader. Her inability to articulate coherent responses in interviews, her mishandling of key issues like the southern border crisis, and her overall lack of accomplishments have led many to question her competence.

Critics argue that Harris’s role in the administration has been more symbolic than substantive, furthering the notion that she was chosen to fill a diversity quota rather than to lead.

The Rasmussen survey didn’t just focus on Harris; it also explored the public’s views on DEI policies in general. A key finding was that 27 percent of voters believe it is racist to criticize DEI policies, while 49 percent disagree. This division highlights the growing controversy surrounding DEI initiatives, which have been increasingly implemented in both the public and private sectors.

For many conservatives, DEI policies represent a dangerous trend toward prioritizing identity over merit. The fact that nearly half of likely voters do not see criticism of these policies as racist suggests that a significant portion of the American electorate is skeptical of the DEI agenda.

Among those familiar with DEI policies, 59 percent believe that criticism should not be considered racist, indicating that those who understand these policies are more likely to oppose them.

The survey also reveals stark partisan and gender differences in opinions about DEI policies and Kamala Harris. Among Democrats, 44 percent believe it is racist to criticize DEI policies, compared to just 17 percent of Republicans.

This partisan split underscores the deep ideological divide in the country, where liberals are more likely to support DEI initiatives and view them as essential for promoting equity, while conservatives see them as an overreach that undermines meritocracy.

Similarly, gender differences were apparent. Women were more likely than men to believe it was unfair to label Harris as a DEI hire. This could be attributed to the idea that women, particularly women of color, might identify with Harris’s struggles and see the criticism as a broader attack on their own opportunities and achievements. However, the fact remains that Harris’s tenure as Vice President has been fraught with criticism, much of it well-deserved based on her performance.

The debate over Kamala Harris’s qualifications is a microcosm of the larger battle over DEI policies in America. Critics argue that by focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion, institutions are sacrificing merit and competence.

This has profound implications for the future of the country, as it could lead to a decline in standards across various sectors, including government, education, and business.

For Kamala Harris, the DEI label is more than just an insult—it’s a reflection of the widespread belief that she is not up to the task of being Vice President. Her lackluster performance in office only reinforces this perception. While her defenders may argue that the criticism is rooted in racism or sexism, the reality is that many Americans simply do not see her as qualified for the job.

The Rasmussen Reports survey highlights the growing skepticism among Americans regarding Kamala Harris’s qualifications and DEI policies in general.

As more people question whether Harris was chosen for her skills or her identity, the debate over DEI will likely continue to intensify. In a nation that prides itself on meritocracy, the idea that someone could ascend to one of the highest offices in the land based on anything other than qualifications is deeply troubling.

As we look to the future, it is crucial to consider whether DEI policies are truly serving the best interests of the country or if they are undermining the very principles that have made America great.
Kamala Harris’s tenure as Vice President may very well serve as a case study in the dangers of prioritizing diversity over competence.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics for more of the TRUTH in the news.