Tim Walz is a liar and hated by many. But no one was expecting this betrayal.

Because a former Walz associate has stabbed him in the back and exposed him.

The political landscape in America has long been plagued by politicians who put on a façade to appeal to the masses, but few have mastered the art of deception as effectively as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

Once hailed as a champion of the people, Walz has repeatedly shown himself to be nothing more than a fraud and a liar, as evidenced by the recent scathing remarks made by Retired Command Sergeant Major Thomas Behrends.

The exposure of Walz’s military record, or lack thereof, along with his deceptive practices, reveals a man who is not only unfit to hold office but is a disgrace to the very principles he claims to uphold.

Tim Walz has long flaunted his military service as a badge of honor, using it as a tool to garner support and legitimacy among voters. However, as Retired Command Sergeant Major Thomas Behrends recently highlighted in a Facebook post, Walz’s military career is riddled with lies and exaggerations.

Behrends, who succeeded Walz after his retirement from the Minnesota National Guard, did not mince words when he described Walz as a “traitor” and a “military imposter.” These accusations are not baseless; they are grounded in Walz’s own actions and the misrepresentation of his military service.

In his Facebook post, Behrends called attention to the glaring discrepancies in Walz’s portrayal of his military career. A photo of Walz in military uniform was juxtaposed with an image of him dressed in a drag queen outfit, symbolizing the duality of his public persona—one that he wants the public to see and another that reveals who he truly is.

Behrends’ post goes on to describe Walz as a “Traitor, Deserter, Military Imposter,” a man who has been “drug out of his outhouse and into the light” for the American people to see his true colors.

The most damning evidence against Walz is his decision to leave the military just before his unit was deployed to Iraq. In an interview with the New York Post, Behrends lambasted Walz for abandoning his comrades and shirking his duty to his country.

“He had the opportunity to serve his country, and said ‘Screw you’ to the United States,” Behrends stated. This act of cowardice is not something one would expect from a man who now seeks to serve as Vice President of the United States.

The controversy surrounding Walz’s military service does not end with his premature departure from the National Guard. Walz has also been accused of “stolen valor,” a term used to describe individuals who falsely claim military honors or exaggerate their service record.

According to reports, Walz has misleadingly claimed to have retired at the rank of Command Sergeant Major, or E-9, when in reality, he retired as a Master Sergeant, or E-8.

This distinction may seem minor to the uninitiated, but to those who have served in the military, it is a significant misrepresentation of one’s achievements and experience.

Breitbart News uncovered an archived press release from Walz’s 2005 congressional campaign, in which Walz claimed to be a Command Sergeant Major. This claim was later debunked, as it was revealed that Walz had been conditionally promoted to the rank of Command Sergeant Major but did not fulfill the necessary requirements to retain that rank.

As a result, his promotion was rescinded, and he retired at a lower rank. Despite this, Walz continued to present himself as a higher-ranking officer, misleading voters and the public about his true military standing.

This fraudulent behavior is not only a slap in the face to those who have genuinely earned their ranks through hard work and dedication, but it also raises serious questions about Walz’s character and integrity. If he is willing to lie about something as sacred as his military service, what else is he willing to deceive the public about?

Tim Walz’s deceit is not limited to his military record; it extends to his political career as well. As governor of Minnesota, Walz has consistently failed to deliver on his promises and has shown a blatant disregard for the truth.

His tenure has been marked by a series of failures, from his mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic to his disastrous response to the riots that ravaged Minneapolis in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

Under Walz’s leadership, Minnesota has become a state of chaos and division. His inability to maintain law and order, coupled with his pandering to radical leftist groups, has left the state in a state of disarray. Walz’s policies have led to a rise in crime, a decline in public safety, and an exodus of businesses and residents from the state.

Yet, despite these glaring failures, Walz continues to paint himself as a champion of the people, all while ignoring the voices of the very constituents he claims to represent.

Walz’s duplicity is further exemplified by his recent decision to run as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in the upcoming presidential election. By aligning himself with Harris, Walz has shown that he is more interested in advancing his political career than in serving the people of Minnesota.

Harris, known for her own brand of radical leftism and flip-flopping on key issues, is the perfect match for Walz—a politician who is willing to say and do whatever it takes to gain power, regardless of the truth.

The recent revelations about Tim Walz’s military service and his ongoing pattern of deception should serve as a wake-up call to voters. Walz is not the hero he portrays himself to be; he is a fraud and a liar who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of the American people. From his decision to abandon his military unit to his false claims of a higher rank, Walz has shown that he is willing to deceive the public to further his own agenda.

As voters, it is our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. Tim Walz has proven time and again that he is not worthy of the trust placed in him by the people of Minnesota. His record of lies and deceit disqualifies him from holding any position of power, let alone serving as Vice President of the United States.

In the coming months, as the election draws nearer, it is imperative that we, the American people, remain vigilant and informed. We cannot allow politicians like Tim Walz to continue to deceive us with their lies and false promises.

The truth must be brought to light, and those who seek to lead our nation must be held to the highest standards of integrity and honesty.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left is up to something. And up until now, it has been a secret.

But now, Kamala Harris accidentally just told the whole world how she is going to destroy America.

Vice President Kamala Harris, in a speech that should alarm every American concerned about the future of our nation, vowed to push through two highly controversial policies if she becomes president: amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and the imposition of nationwide no-excuse mail-in voting. These policies are not just misguided; they are dangerous and threaten the very fabric of our Republic.

During a rally in Glendale, Arizona, Harris doubled down on her support for what she calls “comprehensive reform” of the immigration system.

But let’s be clear: this is nothing more than a euphemism for amnesty, a policy that would effectively reward lawbreakers with the ultimate prize—American citizenship.

Harris claimed that the immigration system is “broken” and that comprehensive reform, including strong border security and a pathway to citizenship, is the solution.

However, what she conveniently ignores is that amnesty would immediately flood the labor market with millions of newly legalized workers.

These are workers who, by virtue of their illegal status, are willing to accept lower wages and fewer benefits, putting enormous downward pressure on the wages of American workers—particularly those in the working and middle classes.

Already, under the Biden-Harris administration, we’ve seen millions of American jobs filled by foreign-born workers, while millions of native-born Americans have been sidelined.

According to the Heritage Foundation’s economist E.J. Antoni, all of the job growth under Biden and Harris has gone to foreign-born workers—a category that the Bureau of Labor Statistics admits includes illegal aliens.

This means that American citizens—those who are supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of our nation’s economic growth—are being left behind. Instead, they are forced to compete with a growing pool of cheap, newly legalized labor. This is not just bad economic policy; it’s a betrayal of the American worker.

As if the potential economic damage from Harris’s amnesty plan weren’t enough, she also promised to “finally pass” the Freedom to Vote Act. This legislation would mandate nationwide no-excuse mail-in voting, a policy that has already proven to be rife with potential for fraud and abuse.

Under this plan, every registered voter could request a mail-in ballot without providing any reason. The legislation also mandates the widespread use of drop boxes for returning these ballots and automatic voter registration unless individuals explicitly opt out.

This is a system ripe for exploitation. Consider the case in Cook County, Illinois, where nearly 400 foreign nationals were found on voter rolls since 2007.

Experts have pointed out that providing voter registration at DMV offices—where automatic registration is common—was responsible for this alarming error.

Harris’s push for no-excuse mail-in voting would effectively remove one of the last remaining safeguards in our electoral process: in-person voting. In-person voting, with proper identification, is the best way to ensure that each vote is cast by a legitimate voter and that the integrity of our elections is preserved.

Mail-in voting, on the other hand, opens the door to a range of potential abuses, from ballot harvesting to outright voter fraud.

What is the real motivation behind Harris’s push for these radical policies? It’s simple: power. By granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and pushing for widespread mail-in voting, Harris and her allies in the Democratic Party are attempting to reshape the electorate in their favor.

Amnesty would create millions of new voters who, they hope, will be loyal to the party that granted them citizenship.

Meanwhile, no-excuse mail-in voting would make it easier for them to manipulate election outcomes, ensuring that they remain in power for generations to come.

This is not about compassion or fairness; it’s about consolidating political power at the expense of the American people.

If Harris’s policies are enacted, the consequences for our country would be dire. American workers would see their wages further depressed as they are forced to compete with millions of newly legalized foreign workers.

Our electoral system, already strained, would be further undermined by policies that make voter fraud easier to commit and harder to detect.

Moreover, the very notion of citizenship would be cheapened. Citizenship should be a privilege earned by those who follow the rules, not a reward handed out to those who break our laws.

Yet Harris’s plan would do just that, sending a clear message to the world: If you come here illegally, you will eventually be rewarded with citizenship.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Kamala Harris’s agenda represents a direct threat to the economic well-being of American workers and the integrity of our electoral system. Her policies are not just dangerous; they are an assault on the very principles that make this nation great.

It is up to us to stand up and fight back. We must make our voices heard and demand that our elected officials reject these reckless policies. The future of our country depends on it.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Tim Walz presents a massive threat to the very future of America. And the American people need to know who he really is.

And now, horrific comments from Walz’s past highlight his dangerous plan for America.

In a chilling discovery that underscores the dangers of leftist ideology, current Minnesota Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz once laid bare his shocking belief that children as young as ten years old are capable of choosing their own gender.

This unsettling stance, expressed during a 2017 town hall, has since become the cornerstone of Walz’s radical agenda—one that poses a significant threat to the very fabric of our society.

During a town hall on February 23, 2017, at Minnesota’s Rochester Community and Technical College, then-Congressman Tim Walz made an alarming declaration. Referring to 10-year-old children, Walz stated, “These are children my son’s age—a fourth grader, a 10-year-old—who just wants to go to the bathroom and their identity is they are male or female.”

FLASHBACK: Tim Walz on why he supports allowing children to choose their own gender.

pic.twitter.com/8w7cKXPsVm

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 11, 2024

This statement, made in the context of a discussion about transgender rights, reveals a disturbing disregard for biological reality and a dangerous willingness to impose adult concepts of gender identity onto impressionable children.

At the time, Walz was responding to the Trump administration’s decision to rescind changes made under President Obama to Title IX, which had conflated biological s*x with gender identity under the Civil Rights Act.

The Trump administration’s move was a common-sense return to protecting the rights of women and girls, ensuring that their safety and privacy in schools were not compromised by the radical gender ideology pushed by the left.

Walz, however, was openly critical of this decision, instead advocating for policies that would allow boys who identify as girls to use girls’ bathrooms—a stance that places the safety and privacy of all students at risk.

Walz’s remarks from 2017 are not just words; they are reflective of a broader agenda that he has pursued with zeal since becoming Governor of Minnesota. Under his leadership, Minnesota has become a sanctuary for extreme gender ideology, with policies that actively promote the idea that children should be allowed—and even encouraged—to undergo life-altering gender transitions.

In 2023, a study found that Minnesota had almost 30,000 individuals identifying as transgender, making it the 14th highest trans population in the nation.

This surge is no coincidence. Walz’s administration has enacted laws that make Minnesota a “trans refuge,” a safe haven for minors seeking gender transitions that are banned in other states.

These policies are not just dangerous—they are reckless. They invite vulnerable children from across the nation to come to Minnesota, where they can access irreversible medical procedures without the consent or guidance of their parents.

Walz’s background as a former teacher is often touted as a credential, but it should be seen as a warning. During his time in Mankato, Walz was the faculty advisor for the first gay-straight alliance club at his school—a precursor to today’s “gender and s*xualities alliance” clubs that indoctrinate children into radical gender ideology.

These clubs and the policies they promote have one goal: to normalize the idea that children should question their biological s*x and explore irreversible medical interventions as solutions to normal childhood confusion and discomfort.

With Walz now the running mate for Kamala Harris, his radical views on gender identity are no longer just a Minnesota issue—they are a national concern.

The Biden administration has already demonstrated its willingness to impose radical gender policies on the entire country, reversing the Trump administration’s common-sense Title IX protections and threatening to withhold federal funding from schools that do not comply with its extreme gender ideology.

Trump’s Department of Education, under the leadership of Betsy DeVos, recognized the dangers of Obama’s misguided policies and took swift action to correct them. By restoring the original intent of Title IX, DeVos ensured that girls’ and women’s rights were protected, and that schools were not forced to adopt policies that compromised the safety and privacy of students.

But with Biden in office, those protections have been dismantled, replaced by a regime that prioritizes ideology over the well-being of children.

Tim Walz’s vision for America is one where the most vulnerable members of our society—our children—are subjected to dangerous and experimental ideologies that have no basis in science or reality. His belief that a 10-year-old is capable of choosing their own gender is not just misguided—it is dangerous. Children at that age are still developing, both physically and mentally. To suggest that they can make such a life-altering decision is not just irresponsible; it is abusive.

Parents, educators, and concerned citizens must stand up against this dangerous agenda. We must protect our children from the harmful effects of radical gender ideology and ensure that our schools remain safe spaces for learning, not indoctrination.

The stakes could not be higher—our children’s futures, and the future of our nation, depend on it.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Since Trump was almost assassinated, many Americans have been calling for severe scrutiny into the Secret Service. But no one was prepared for what they would find.

And now, a shocking new recording from the assassination attempt has revealed major Secret Service failures.

The aftermath of the Butler, Pennsylvania rally in July has revealed a startling lapse in security that nearly resulted in tragedy.

Recently released body camera footage from local police has exposed a shocking conversation in which a frustrated officer lambasted the Secret Service for failing to secure a crucial area where an assailant, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was able to fire multiple shots at former President Donald Trump.

The footage, first reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the Secret Service and the coordination between federal and local law enforcement.

In the body camera footage, an officer is heard expressing his frustration with the Secret Service’s handling of security at the rally. The officer, whose identity has not been disclosed, recounted a conversation he had with the Secret Service just days before the event.

“I fcking told them that they needed to post guys fcking over here…I told them that f*cking Tuesday,” the officer said, referring to the building where Crooks ultimately positioned himself to take his shots.

The officer further explained that he had warned the Secret Service about the potential threat and was assured that agents would be stationed at the location. “I talked to the Secret Service guys. They’re like, ‘Yeah, no problem. We’re going to post guys over here,’” he said.

Despite these assurances, Crooks was able to reach the building and fire off eight shots before being neutralized by a counter-sniper who was positioned closer to the stage where Trump was delivering his speech.

The body camera footage also captured a disturbing exchange between officers in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. One officer, arriving at the warehouse where Crooks had been stationed, expressed his confusion and dismay, saying, “I thought you guys were on the roof. I thought it was you. I thought it was you.”

When the other officer responded with a simple “No,” it became clear that no one had been assigned to secure the roof, despite the officer’s earlier warnings.

This breakdown in communication between local police and the Secret Service is deeply troubling, especially given the high-profile nature of the event and the obvious security risks.

The fact that Crooks was able to get into position and fire off eight shots before being stopped is a testament to the gravity of the security lapse.

The revelations from the body camera footage have cast a harsh light on the leadership of the Secret Service. Former Director Kimberly Cheatle, who has since resigned, and Acting Director Ronald Rowe are both facing intense scrutiny over the incident.

Both leaders have claimed that local police were supposed to be securing the building from which Crooks launched his attack.

However, the body cam footage suggests that this was not the case, and that the Secret Service may have failed to adequately communicate or follow through on security plans.

Critics argue that the Secret Service’s failure to properly secure the rally site is indicative of a broader issue within the agency. This incident is not the first time the Secret Service has faced criticism for lapses in security.

Over the years, there have been numerous incidents where the agency’s preparedness and execution have been called into question.

The Butler rally shooting is just the latest in a series of missteps that have raised doubts about the agency’s ability to protect high-profile figures.

The events in Butler serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of complacency in security operations. Despite the officer’s warnings and the clear risks associated with a rally of this magnitude, the necessary precautions were not taken. This failure nearly resulted in a catastrophic event that could have had far-reaching consequences.

The officer’s frustration, as captured on the body camera footage, is palpable and justified. He was doing his job, identifying potential risks and communicating them to the appropriate authorities.

The fact that his warnings were not heeded speaks volumes about the breakdown in security protocols and the need for a thorough review of the Secret Service’s operations.

In the wake of this incident, there have been growing calls for accountability within the Secret Service. The American people deserve to know why this lapse in security occurred and what steps are being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.

It is not enough for the agency to simply move on from this event without a thorough investigation and a commitment to addressing the underlying issues that allowed it to happen.

The Secret Service is tasked with one of the most important responsibilities in the country: protecting the nation’s leaders.

When they fail in that mission, the consequences can be dire. The Butler rally shooting should serve as a wake-up call for the agency and a reminder that there is no room for error when it comes to the safety and security of the country’s highest officials.

As the investigation into the Butler rally shooting continues, it is crucial that all aspects of the incident are thoroughly examined. This includes not only the actions of the Secret Service but also the communication and coordination between federal and local law enforcement.

The failure to secure the building from which Crooks fired his shots was not just a minor oversight; it was a fundamental breakdown in the security process that nearly cost lives.

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

Ever since Joe Biden dropped out of the race, people have been wondering when Harris and Trump will debate. But it seems Harris is scared.

And Kamala Harris has stunned the nation with her newest debate promises.

In a political landscape where transparency and public engagement are paramount, Vice President Kamala Harris’s decision to commit to only one of the three proposed debates with former President Donald Trump has raised eyebrows and questions about her willingness to engage with the American people.

The move, which came after Trump announced his agreement to three debates, has sparked criticism and fueled speculation about Harris’s readiness to lead.

On Thursday, Trump confirmed that he had agreed to three debates: one on September 4th with Fox News, another on September 10th with ABC, and a final one on September 25th with NBC. These debates were set to provide voters with a clear comparison between the two candidates on a national stage, yet Harris has only committed to the September 10th debate.

When pressed by reporters about whether she would participate in all three debates, Harris responded vaguely, “I am looking forward to it,” before quickly pivoting to confirm her attendance at only one debate.

Kamala says she is “looking forward to debating Donald Trump” on September 10, but doesn’t respond when asked about the other two debates.

pic.twitter.com/y7Uy6PHXAr

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 8, 2024

This non-committal stance from Harris is not just puzzling; it’s a disservice to the American electorate. In a time when voters are seeking clarity and direct answers from those who wish to lead the nation, Harris’s reluctance to fully engage in these debates signals a concerning avoidance of public scrutiny.

Debates are not merely political theater—they are an essential component of the democratic process, providing a platform for candidates to present their visions, challenge their opponents, and answer the tough questions that the American people deserve to have answered.

Harris’s hesitation to commit to all three debates fits into a broader pattern of avoidance that has marked her campaign since she became the Democratic nominee for president.

In the nearly 20 days since her elevation to the top of the ticket, Harris has failed to hold a single press conference. This is a striking departure from the norm, particularly for a candidate who is now vying for the highest office in the land.

Moreover, Harris has largely avoided engaging with the press, taking only a handful of questions from reporters and refusing to give any interviews. Instead, she has relied on carefully crafted stump speeches, delivered repeatedly without the challenge of follow-up questions or unscripted moments.

This controlled approach may be designed to keep her on message, but it also raises serious concerns about her willingness to engage with the media and, by extension, the American people.

Reports indicate that Harris has provided off-the-record briefings to the reporters traveling with her, but these behind-the-scenes interactions are no substitute for the transparency and accountability that come with public press conferences and interviews.

The American people deserve to hear directly from their candidates, to see them challenged on their policies, and to judge their responses in real-time. By avoiding these opportunities, Harris is denying voters the chance to fully assess her fitness for office.

Harris’s reluctance to engage in multiple debates is particularly troubling given the circumstances surrounding her ascension to the Democratic ticket. The September 10th debate was originally agreed upon by Trump and Joe Biden, who was then the Democratic presidential candidate.

However, with Biden’s abrupt removal from the ticket and Harris’s subsequent elevation, the dynamics of the race have fundamentally changed. Despite this significant shift, Harris has insisted that Trump stick to the debate schedule originally set for Biden.

This insistence on maintaining the previous debate schedule, while simultaneously refusing to commit to the other two debates, suggests a lack of confidence in her ability to face Trump on an equal footing.

If Harris truly believes in the strength of her policies and her ability to lead, she should welcome the opportunity to engage in multiple debates, where she can present her case to the American people and directly contrast her vision with Trump’s.

Harris’s reluctance to engage in more than one debate and her avoidance of the press beg the question: What is she hiding? Is she concerned that her policies will not stand up to the scrutiny of a national audience? Or is she simply unwilling to face the tough questions that inevitably come with a rigorous campaign?

Whatever the reason, Harris’s strategy of avoidance does not inspire confidence. The American people are looking for a leader who is willing to engage openly and honestly, who is not afraid to face challenges head-on, and who is prepared to answer the difficult questions that come with the territory of being president.

By refusing to fully engage in the debate process and by avoiding the press, Harris is sending the opposite message.

Debates are a cornerstone of the democratic process. They offer voters a unique opportunity to see candidates interact with one another, respond to criticisms, and clarify their positions on critical issues.

For many voters, debates are a key factor in deciding which candidate to support. By participating in debates, candidates demonstrate their commitment to transparency, accountability, and the democratic process.

Harris’s decision to sidestep two of the three proposed debates undermines this process. It deprives voters of the chance to see her challenged on her policies and to witness how she handles direct confrontation.

In a race as consequential as the 2024 presidential election, the American people deserve more than carefully scripted speeches and limited engagement. They deserve a candidate who is willing to stand up, face the opposition, and make the case for why they are the best choice to lead the nation.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is doing everything they can to push their agenda on America. But people are fighting back.

And now, a Republican Governor has dealt a massive blow to the Left’s Radical Agenda.

This week, Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia made a decisive move to bolster the state’s election security, removing more than 6,300 non-citizens from the voter rolls. This action is part of a broader effort led by Youngkin to ensure the integrity of Virginia’s elections—a move that has sparked both praise and controversy.

On Wednesday, Youngkin signed an executive order directing the Virginia Department of Elections to remove non-citizens who may have either intentionally or inadvertently registered to vote.

This effort didn’t stop there; the state also identified and removed 79,867 deceased voters from the rolls and flagged voters who had moved out of state.

Youngkin’s message was clear: Virginia is taking election security seriously, and every legal vote must be counted without being diluted by illegal or ineligible votes.

Youngkin’s approach to election security is being framed as a bipartisan issue—one that transcends party lines and focuses on the fundamental principle of American democracy: fair and accurate elections.

“The Virginia model for Election Security works. This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue, it’s an American and Virginian issue,” Youngkin stated, emphasizing that the integrity of elections should be a concern for all citizens, regardless of political affiliation.

However, the issue is far from nonpartisan. Critics argue that these measures may disproportionately affect minority communities and could be part of a larger strategy to suppress voter turnout among groups more likely to vote Democrat.

Proponents, on the other hand, see these actions as necessary steps to protect the sanctity of the ballot box in an era where trust in the electoral process has been eroded.

The removal of non-citizens from the voter rolls was accomplished by cross-referencing data from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with information from the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration.

This effort was part of a comprehensive data-sharing agreement that Virginia entered into with seven states, allowing for a broader sweep of voter rolls and ensuring that only eligible voters are registered.

Interestingly, Virginia is one of only three states that require those registering to vote to provide their full nine-digit Social Security number, a measure that undoubtedly facilitated this extensive review. This requirement is something that other states might struggle to replicate, given varying voter registration laws and the pushback against what some see as overly intrusive requirements.

Youngkin’s election security measures come on the heels of significant changes to Virginia’s voting procedures, implemented by a Democrat-controlled legislature. These changes included extended early voting periods and expanded mail-in voting, measures that Republicans have criticized as opening the door to potential voter fraud.

Youngkin, while acknowledging the reality of these voting methods, has insisted on increased security measures, including 24/7 monitoring of drop boxes and stricter controls on absentee ballots.

For example, under the new executive order, absentee ballots in Virginia can only be counted if the last four digits of a voter’s Social Security number and their year of birth match the voter’s record in the statewide voter registration system.

Additionally, absentee ballots can only be mailed out upon a voter’s request—a move aimed at curbing unsolicited mail-in ballots, which some Republicans argue are prone to abuse.

The implications of these actions extend beyond Virginia. With election security a hot-button issue across the country, other states may look to Virginia’s model as a blueprint for their own efforts to secure the vote. However, the success of such measures will likely depend on the political landscape of each state and the specific legal frameworks in place.

The use of paper ballots, as mandated by Youngkin’s executive order, is another significant aspect of Virginia’s election security plan.

The shift away from electronic voting systems provides a tangible, verifiable record of votes cast, addressing concerns about potential vulnerabilities in electronic voting machines.

The order also gives Virginia’s Attorney General full authority to enforce election laws, a provision that could lead to increased legal action against individuals or organizations deemed to be in violation of election regulations.

Governor Youngkin’s actions in Virginia reflect a growing trend among Republican-led states to tighten election security in response to concerns about voter fraud and election integrity.

Many Americans argue that these actions are necessary to restore confidence in the electoral process, particularly in a time when distrust in government institutions is at an all-time high.

Secure elections are the cornerstone of democracy and ensuring only eligible voters participate is a non-negotiable part of that security.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Typically the media takes the side of the Radical Left. So you know things are really bad when even the media sides against them.

And now, Democrats have suffered a massive loss after the media betrays them and exposes their dark secrets.

Just over two weeks after Vice President Kamala Harris ascended to the top of the Democratic Party’s 2024 ticket, the media has reluctantly started to turn its attention to the pressing questions surrounding her newly-selected running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

The move comes amid growing concerns about the authenticity of Walz’s self-described military career, raising significant doubts about his credibility.

During a recent segment, CNN tackled the controversy head-on, shedding light on allegations that Walz had embellished his 24-year service in the Minnesota National Guard.

For years, Walz has carefully crafted an image of a seasoned military man, a narrative that has played well in the political arena. But now, as the stakes rise with his elevation to the national stage, those claims are coming under scrutiny.

One of the most damning allegations against Walz is the accusation of “stolen valor,” a term used to describe individuals who falsely claim military service or exaggerate their experiences to gain respect or advantages.

The accusation stems from comments Walz has made over the years, where he suggested that he had been in combat situations—claims that are not backed by evidence.

In one instance, Walz reportedly told a group that he had carried weapons in a fighting situation. As anyone familiar with the military knows, there is a stark difference between serving during a time of war and actually engaging in combat where lives are on the line. The evidence, or rather the lack thereof, strongly suggests that Walz has never been in such a position.

The controversy gained further traction when a video clip, posted by Kamala Harris’ campaign, began to circulate on social media.

In the clip, Walz attempts to leverage his military background to advocate for an assault weapons ban and stricter gun control measures.

The problem? Walz seemed to imply that he had personally carried such weapons in an active war zone—a statement that raised more than a few eyebrows.

“I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt,” Walz proclaimed at a campaign event. “I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can do CDC … We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are carried.”

The assertion that Walz carried “weapons of war” into battle was quickly debunked. Jim LaPorta, a respected journalist with a deep understanding of military affairs, offered a swift fact-check.

“Quick fact check: No, Gov. Walz did not spend 25 years in the Army, it’s 24 years, 1 month and 9 days. No, he did not carry a weapon of war in war. In 2003, he deployed to Italy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,” LaPorta clarified.

While the media has finally started to ask some questions about Walz, the broader landscape of legacy media remains conspicuously silent on the deeper implications of his exaggerations.

Even more concerning is the lack of scrutiny directed at Kamala Harris herself, the presidential candidate who, despite rising to the top of the Democratic ticket, has yet to face a single hard question or give a meaningful interview since her promotion.

Harris’ selection of Walz as her running mate appears to be more about optics than substance. After all, how could a candidate who has yet to prove her own electability in a primary setting choose someone with a track record of embellishing the truth?

This raises serious concerns about the Democratic ticket’s commitment to honesty and transparency—qualities that should be paramount in any administration.

This isn’t the first time Walz has been caught bending the truth. Throughout his political career, he has repeatedly tried to paint himself as something he’s not—a battle-hardened warrior who has seen the horrors of war firsthand.

The truth, however, is far less glamorous. Walz served honorably in the Minnesota National Guard, but there is no evidence to suggest that he ever found himself in a combat situation or that he carried the kind of “weapons of war” he now wants to ban.

Walz’s misleading statements are more than just harmless exaggerations; they represent a pattern of deception that should concern every voter. If he’s willing to stretch the truth about his military service to score political points, what else is he willing to lie about? His past comments suggest a politician who is more interested in crafting a narrative than in telling the truth.

The decision by Kamala Harris to choose Walz as her running mate calls into question her judgment as well. If Harris is willing to align herself with someone who has a questionable relationship with the truth, what does that say about her own values? More importantly, what does it say about the direction in which she plans to take the country?

The Democratic Party has long been criticized for its embrace of political correctness and its tendency to put style over substance. Walz’s selection as Harris’ running mate only serves to reinforce those criticisms.

Rather than choosing a running mate based on merit and integrity, Harris seems to have opted for someone who fits a particular narrative, even if that narrative is built on shaky ground.

While the media’s newfound interest in Walz is a step in the right direction, it’s clear that much more needs to be done. Both Walz and Harris should be held accountable for their actions and their words. The American people deserve nothing less.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Ever since harris picked Tim Walz as her VP candidate, many people have been speaking out against him. And some of the accusations are horrific.

But now, Harris’ VP pick has been blasted by a representative from his own state, and people are shocked about why.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has been thrust into the national spotlight, as the vice-presidential pick for Kamala Harris. But rather than being a symbol of leadership or competence, Walz represents the far-left extremism that has come to define the modern Democratic Party.

His possible rise to the national stage should concern every American who values common sense, economic stability, and the preservation of our nation’s core principles.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) didn’t mince words during a recent appearance on Breitbart News Daily, where he described Walz as a “progressive nut bag” and a “gym teacher activist.”

These harsh but accurate characterizations point to the stark contrast between Walz’s radical agenda and the needs of everyday Americans.

Walz, who has governed Minnesota like a liberal ideologue, is far removed from the moderate image he sometimes tries to project. Emmer correctly pointed out that this VP pick is a victory for the most extreme elements of the Democratic Party, specifically the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing that has been pushing the party further and further to the left.

The idea of a Harris-Walz ticket should send shivers down the spine of every American concerned about the future of our country. Both Harris and Walz are ardent supporters of policies that have proven disastrous for working families, small businesses, and the energy sector.

For starters, neither Harris nor Walz have taken a firm stance against the Biden administration’s disastrous handling of the southern border. The unchecked flow of illegal immigration has strained our resources, threatened national security, and exacerbated the fentanyl crisis.

Yet, Walz has remained conspicuously silent, seemingly more concerned with placating his progressive base than protecting the citizens of Minnesota and the rest of the country.

On the economy, Walz is in lockstep with Harris and the Democrats who pushed through the reckless spending spree at the start of the Biden administration. This spending has directly contributed to the highest inflation rates in decades, hurting Americans at the gas pump, the grocery store, and when paying their energy bills.

Walz’s support for these policies shows just how out of touch he is with the economic realities facing American families.

One of the most alarming aspects of a potential Harris-Walz administration is their shared commitment to dismantling America’s energy sector. Both politicians have supported policies that attack fossil fuels, driving up energy costs and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy sources.

Walz’s track record in Minnesota includes championing “green” initiatives that are more about virtue signaling than practical energy solutions, leading to higher costs for consumers without any significant environmental benefits.

This radical agenda is not just bad policy; it’s dangerous. America needs leaders who will prioritize energy independence, support domestic production, and recognize the role of all energy sources—including oil, gas, and coal—in ensuring our nation’s prosperity and security.

Instead, Harris and Walz would rather kowtow to the far-left environmental lobby, even if it means sacrificing American jobs and economic stability.

Tom Emmer hit the nail on the head when he described Walz as a “political activist” rather than a true leader. During his time as governor, Walz has repeatedly chosen activism over governance, prioritizing protests and political stunts over the needs of Minnesotans.

His decision to protest the Republican National Convention rather than fulfill his duties as governor is just one example of his preference for partisan posturing over responsible leadership.

This pattern of behavior raises serious questions about Walz’s ability to serve as vice president, a role that requires more than just ideological zeal. It requires the ability to lead, to govern effectively, and to represent all Americans—not just the radical fringe of the Democratic Party.

The selection of Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’s running mate exposes a significant problem for the Democratic Party. By embracing figures like Walz, the party is alienating moderate voters and driving away those who are tired of the endless lurch to the left.

Americans are increasingly rejecting the radical policies of the far-left and are looking for leaders who will prioritize their needs over the demands of special interest groups and ideological extremists.

As Tom Emmer rightly pointed out, a Harris-Walz ticket would be a gift to Republicans. It would make the choice in 2024 crystal clear: a vote for Harris and Walz is a vote for more inflation, higher energy costs, open borders, and a government that prioritizes radical activism over responsible governance.

As the 2024 election approaches, Americans will have a clear choice: continue down the path of economic instability and radical social policies with Harris and Walz, or return to the America-first principles that made our country great under Republican leadership.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left is always willing to stoop to new lows. But this incident highlights just how low.

Because Harris’ VP pick opens their rally with horrific comments aimed at Vance, and Americans are infuriated.

In a recent rally in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, now Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, shocked many with a crude and tasteless joke aimed at his political rival, Senator JD Vance.

Walz’s attempt at humor not only displayed poor taste but also leaned on misinformation, raising serious questions about the Democrats’ campaign tactics and their commitment to truth and decency.

Governor Walz, addressing a cheering crowd, remarked, “I can’t wait to debate the guy,” referring to Senator Vance. He then added, “That is, if he’s willing to get off the couch and show up,” prompting roars of laughter from the audience. Walz, evidently pleased with his quip, continued, “You see what I did there?”

The joke referenced a crude meme that falsely claims JD Vance had s*x with a couch, supposedly citing his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. This meme, widely circulated among progressives, was part of a smear campaign against Vance, exploiting baseless and absurd allegations.

The author of the original hoax revealed to Business Insider that the meme’s widespread acceptance reflected poorly on the critical-thinking skills of the electorate. The ease with which this fake citation was believed and shared highlights a disturbing trend:

The willingness of some individuals and groups to accept and spread misinformation without verification, as long as it aligns with their biases.

Tim Walz’s decision to use such a crude and unfounded joke as part of his campaign rhetoric is deeply troubling. Walz, who is supposed to embody the values of Midwest decency, has instead chosen to descend into the gutter, launching his campaign with a joke that is not only in poor taste but also based on a deliberate lie.

This move is not just a reflection of his own character but also indicative of the broader strategy employed by the Democratic Party.

This incident is not an isolated one. It is part of a broader pattern of behavior from the Democratic Party, which has increasingly relied on misinformation and smear tactics to attack their opponents.

Vice President Kamala Harris, now running with Walz, has herself been involved in several controversies regarding truthfulness and integrity.

The Biden-Harris administration has been criticized for its handling of various issues, from the economy to foreign policy, often opting to deflect blame rather than address problems head-on.

The Democratic Party, under the leadership of figures like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and now Tim Walz, has consistently demonstrated a lack of respect for truth and decency.

The economy is struggling, inflation is rampant, and foreign policy missteps have weakened America’s standing on the global stage.

Instead of addressing these critical issues, the Democrats seem more focused on personal attacks and spreading misinformation about their opponents.

In contrast, the Republican Party, led by figures like Donald Trump and JD Vance, is focused on addressing the real issues facing Americans.

Trump’s America First policies aimed to bring jobs back to the United States, secure the borders, and strengthen the economy. These policies resonated with millions of Americans who felt left behind by the Democratic Party’s elitist and out-of-touch agenda.

Governor Tim Walz’s crude joke at the Philadelphia rally is a stark reminder of the depths to which the Democratic Party is willing to sink in its quest for power.

By relying on misinformation and smear tactics, Democrats are betraying the trust of the American people and undermining the very foundation of our democratic process.

It is crucial for voters to see through these tactics and demand better from their leaders.

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

Joe Biden has been notably silent since he decided not to accept the Democrat nomination. But no one was expecting this discovery.

And new Joe Biden rumors have many Americans wondering what’s really going on.

In a surprising revelation, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted on CNN’s “OutFront” that she has not spoken to President Joe Biden since he decided to step aside from the presidential race.

This lack of communication between two prominent figures in the Democratic Party raises serious questions about the party’s unity and leadership during a critical time for the nation.

During an interview with guest host Dana Bash, Pelosi was asked about her communication with Biden following his decision to pass the torch. When asked if she had spoken with the President, Pelosi’s response was a stark, “No, I have not.” This admission was followed by an almost dismissive comment about the busy schedules of both leaders.

Bash pressed further, asking if Pelosi hoped to speak with Biden soon. Pelosi’s reply, “Yes, I hope to. We’re all busy,” did little to reassure those concerned about the apparent rift. When asked about the state of her relationship with Biden, Pelosi suggested that Bash should ask Biden, adding, “But I hope so.”

This lack of communication is not just a minor oversight; it’s a glaring issue that reflects poorly on both Pelosi and Biden. For a former Speaker and a sitting President to have no dialogue during such a pivotal moment in the party’s history is not only concerning but also ridiculous.

It suggests a level of disorganization and disconnect that should alarm every American who expects competent and cohesive leadership from their elected officials.

Pelosi’s allies, including Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, and Zoe Lofgren, have publicly stated their belief that it was time for Biden to step aside.

Despite Pelosi’s claims of having “hundreds of allies in Congress” and her insistence that these figures made their own judgments, the lack of communication with Biden casts doubt on her influence and the cohesiveness of the party’s leadership.

This situation is just another example of President Biden’s troubling leadership style. From the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan to the ongoing crisis at the southern border, Biden’s presidency has been marred by missteps and a lack of clear direction.

The fact that he hasn’t reached out to Pelosi, one of the most influential Democrats in recent history, is indicative of a broader problem: Biden’s inability to foster unity and communicate effectively within his own party.

Biden’s decision to step aside from the presidential race was itself a controversial move. Many saw it as a tacit admission of his dwindling support and inability to effectively lead the nation.

For Pelosi, a key figure in the Democratic establishment, to be left out of the loop on such a critical decision is not only disrespectful but also strategically unsound.

Nancy Pelosi, despite stepping down as Speaker, remains a powerful and influential figure within the Democratic Party. Her experience and political acumen are invaluable within her own party, yet Biden’s disregard for her input is baffling.

Pelosi’s public admission of not having spoken to Biden not only diminishes her stature but also raises questions about her effectiveness and relevance in the current political landscape.

Pelosi’s handling of this situation has also been less than impressive. By admitting she has not spoken to Biden and offering no substantial explanation, she appears out of touch and sidelined.

This is a stark contrast to the Pelosi of the past, who was known for her strategic acumen and ability to navigate complex political landscapes.

The Democratic Party is facing numerous challenges, both domestically and internationally. In such times, unity and strong leadership are paramount.

The lack of communication between Biden and Pelosi is a glaring example of the disarray within the party’s upper echelons. It’s time for both leaders to put aside their differences and prioritize the nation’s well-being.

For Biden, this means reaching out to key figures like Pelosi and ensuring that there is a cohesive strategy moving forward.

For Pelosi, it means asserting her influence and demanding a seat at the table in critical discussions.

The American people deserve leaders who can communicate, collaborate, and lead effectively.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical left knows that a Trump election is inevitable. But they are terrified at the prospect.

And now, a top Democrat leader has been caught on camera plotting to overthrow Trump.

In a recently resurfaced video from a February 2024 panel discussion, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) speculated that Congress might have to invalidate a potential election victory by former President Donald Trump, even at the risk of inciting “civil war.”

Raskin’s comments have raised serious concerns among Trump supporters, Americans, and advocates of democratic fairness, highlighting a disturbing trend of political maneuvering aimed at undermining Trump’s candidacy.

The video, recorded at the Politics and Prose bookstore in Washington, D.C., captures Raskin predicting that the Supreme Court would block efforts by Democrats to exclude Trump from the ballot in several states using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This section was originally adopted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from holding federal office. Radicals have tried to argue that Trump’s actions constituted “insurrection” under this section, barring him from running for president again.

In March, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against these exclusion attempts, stating that it is Congress, not the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This ruling prompted Raskin to suggest that Congress would need to act if Trump won the election, a notion that raises the specter of “civil war conditions” due to potential backlash from Trump supporters.

Raskin’s history of political opposition to Trump is well-documented. He led the House impeachment managers during Trump’s second impeachment trial and served on the January 6 Committee.

Yet, Raskin himself objected to the 2017 election results, showcasing a blatant double standard. His willingness to entertain the idea of invalidating an election result if Trump wins is deeply troubling and suggests a disregard for democratic principles.

In his remarks, Raskin criticized the Supreme Court for what he perceived as its failure to support progressive causes. He pointed to historical decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson to argue that the Court has often been on the wrong side of justice.

However, his comments ignore the Court’s crucial role in upholding the Constitution and providing checks and balances within the government.

Raskin’s suggestion that the Supreme Court justices are shirking their duties is both misleading and dangerous. His reference to the justices having “great protection” is particularly disingenuous, given the assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022 and the continued protests outside his home.

The Department of Justice’s refusal to enforce laws prohibiting protests outside justices’ residences only adds to the concerning climate of intimidation against the judiciary.

Raskin’s comments reveal a broader strategy among some Democrats to use every possible tactic to prevent Trump from returning to office. By invoking the threat of “civil war” and suggesting that Congress might need to invalidate an election result, Raskin is undermining the democratic process and the rule of law. This approach is not only reckless but also a direct assault on the fundamental principles of American democracy.

Trump supporters see these moves as a desperate attempt to silence a candidate who has consistently challenged the political establishment.

The attempts to bar Trump from the ballot and the discussions of invalidating his potential victory are viewed as transparent efforts to rig the 2024 election. Instead of engaging in a fair electoral contest, some Democrats are resorting to underhanded tactics that threaten the integrity of the democratic process.

In response to Raskin’s alarming comments, it is crucial for Americans to stand up for the principles of democracy and ensure that every candidate has a fair chance to run for office.

This means rejecting efforts to exclude candidates from the ballot based on politically motivated interpretations of the law and standing against any moves to invalidate election results.

The American people deserve a transparent and fair electoral process, free from interference and manipulation. It is vital that Congress respects the Supreme Court’s rulings and upholds the Constitution, rather than succumbing to partisan pressures.

Raskin’s remarks are a stark reminder of the lengths to which some will go to undermine Trump and disrupt the democratic process.

As the 2024 election approaches, it is essential to remain vigilant and defend the principles of democracy. Trump supporters and advocates for electoral fairness must continue to demand justice and ensure that the American people can participate in a free and fair election.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.