Home Blog Page 61

Stunning new Hunter Biden laptop reports reveal major FBI secret

Prudent Politics Staff
-
0
Stunning new Hunter Biden laptop reports reveal major FBI secret

With new reports on Hunter Biden’s laptop being released, more Americans are finding out the truth. And following Hunter’s guilty verdict, more information is being discovered.

But now, stunning new Hunter Biden laptop reports have revealed major FBI secrets.

In a striking display of defiance, not a single one of the 51 former intelligence officials who signed a letter in 2020 suggesting that Hunter Biden’s laptop was likely “Russian disinformation” has retracted their claim, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

This development raises serious questions about the credibility and motivations of these officials, many of whom held high-ranking positions in the intelligence community.

The letter, which played a significant role in shaping public perception during the 2020 presidential election, has now been thoroughly discredited.

It has been revealed that the FBI was in possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop at the time, and it was known to be authentic.

This revelation casts doubt on the motivations behind the letter and suggests a possible coordinated effort to mislead the public for political purposes.

Erika Jensen, an FBI agent and witness in Hunter Biden’s gun trial, confirmed last week that the laptop was genuine and had not been tampered with.

Jensen’s testimony debunked claims that the laptop’s data was hacked or manipulated, or that it was part of a Russian disinformation plot to aid former President Donald Trump’s campaign.

The letter was widely circulated and heavily relied upon by major media outlets and Democratic operatives to discredit the explosive revelations about Hunter Biden’s business dealings found on the laptop.

The New York Post’s Emma-Jo Morris, who initially broke the story, faced significant backlash and censorship from social media platforms, further amplifying the narrative pushed by the former intelligence officials.

CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand amplified the discredited narrative through a story in Politico, which cited the letter signed by the 51 officials.

This narrative was subsequently used by then-presidential candidate Joe Biden during a debate with Trump to dismiss the laptop’s contents as Russian disinformation, reportedly with coordination from current Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Despite overwhelming evidence contradicting their claims, many of the signatories refuse to admit they were wrong.

Former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Fox News that he does not regret signing the letter.

Other signatories, including Ronald Marks, Marc Polymeropoulos, Douglas Wise, Paul Kolbe, John Sipher, Emile Nakhleh, and Gerald O’Shea, maintain that their actions were “patriotic.”

“There continues to be by many a calculated or woefully ignorant interpretation of the October 2020 letter signed by fifty-one former intelligence officials concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop,” their lawyer told Fox News.

He argued that the letter was merely a warning about potential foreign interference, which, while technically true, grossly misrepresented the situation to the American public.

Greg Treverton, former chair of the National Intelligence Council, showed no remorse, stating, “This is very old news. What we said was true, we were inferring from our experience, and it did look like a Russian operation. We didn’t, and couldn’t of course say it was a Russian operation. Enough said.”

Similarly, Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center director, dismissed the scandal, claiming it was “addressed… several years ago.”

Such statements underscore a troubling lack of accountability among those who played pivotal roles in shaping a false narrative that influenced the outcome of a presidential election.

The refusal of these former intelligence officials to acknowledge their mistake undermines public trust in the intelligence community and raises concerns about the politicization of national security.

The Hunter Biden laptop story was not just about the personal failings of a presidential candidate’s son; it was about potential corruption and conflicts of interest that could compromise national security.

The disinformation label effectively suppressed a critical discussion about these issues, shielding Joe Biden from scrutiny during a crucial election period.

As more information comes to light, it is crucial for Americans to remain vigilant and discerning about the sources of their information and the motivations behind them.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Biden goes for broke on ending the Second Amendment

Prudent Politics Staff
-
0
Biden goes for broke on ending the Second Amendment

Joe Biden and the Left want to take away Americans’ right to bear arms. And they will stop at nothing until they’ve done just that.

But now, Joe Biden is going for broke on ending the Second Amendment.

President Joe Biden’s administration is poised to launch an unprecedented assault on American gun owners and the lawful firearms industry, as his tenure faces increasing scrutiny from a frustrated electorate.

With wide-open borders, rising crime rates, and soaring costs of living already burdening Americans, Biden’s latest move targets one of the most fiercely defended constitutional rights: the right to bear arms.

In a glaring example of executive overreach, Biden’s Department of Commerce has introduced an interim final rule that threatens to smother American gun companies with onerous regulations.

This rule aims to prevent civilians in other countries from lawfully purchasing American firearms and ammunition, a move that could cripple the domestic firearms industry while advancing Biden’s globalist agenda.

The new rule requires American firearm manufacturers to adopt new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) for tracking their products abroad.

Although U.S.-made firearms are already marked with serial numbers, this additional layer of bureaucracy is purportedly to enhance tracking.

In reality, it increases compliance costs and reduces revenue for American firearm manufacturers without offering any tangible improvement in tracking capabilities. Serial numbers already suffice for identification, making this new requirement redundant and burdensome.

Moreover, the rule will drastically restrict firearm sales to foreign civilians, but not to foreign governments.

This selective restriction reflects a fundamental belief held by the Left: that only those in power should have weapons, not the people they govern.

The hypocrisy is blatant as the administration defends this stance by falsely claiming that civilian-exported firearms are more likely to be diverted to black markets than those sold to foreign militaries and police agencies.

Credible analyses consistently show that government stockpiles and illegal imports are the primary sources of guns used in crimes and terrorism, not legally imported civilian firearms.

Simultaneously, Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has launched a new rule that reclassifies occasional gun sellers as professional dealers, subjecting them to complex and burdensome regulations.

This “Engaged in Business” rule significantly expands the ATF’s control over ordinary gun owners and edges closer to establishing a de facto national gun owner registry.

This rule undermines the fundamental right to self-defense by placing additional legal hurdles for Americans who wish to sell or trade firearms.

The expansive regulations will likely discourage legal firearm transactions, pushing them underground and making it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

When the executive branch proposes such overreaching restrictions without congressional approval, they become subject to the federal rule-making process.

During this process, Americans have the right to submit comments opposing the rule, which federal officials must consider. Although the comment period for the ATF’s business rule has closed, the debate over Biden’s firearm export ban is still open.

The Biden administration’s new regulations on the firearm industry are more than just bureaucratic overreach; they are political maneuvers designed to placate a radical base at the expense of constitutional rights.

By targeting the Second Amendment, President Biden demonstrates his willingness to undermine the American people to advance his political agenda.

Conservative lawmakers and Second Amendment advocates are rallying against these unjust regulations.

Efforts are underway to overturn both the Commerce Department’s export restrictions and the ATF’s expanded definition of gun dealers.

Organizations like Heritage Action are mobilizing Americans to submit comments and support legislative action to protect the Second Amendment.

The Biden administration’s actions reveal a clear disdain for lawful gun owners and a dangerous willingness to undermine the Constitution.

As Americans face increasing economic and social challenges, these additional burdens on gun ownership and the firearms industry threaten to erode one of the nation’s most fundamental freedoms.

It is imperative that citizens, lawmakers, and advocacy groups unite to resist these overreaching regulations and uphold the principles of freedom and self-defense that define the American spirit.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Rumors of Democrats’ decision to replace Biden have shocked the nation

Prudent Politics Staff
-
0
Rumors of Democrats’ decision to replace Biden have shocked the nation

There has been widespread speculation that the Democrats will replace Joe Biden. But new evidence has completely exposed their plans.

And new rumors of the Democrats’ plans to replace Biden have shocked the nation.

As President Joe Biden faces the lowest approval ratings of his term, renowned statistician and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver has proposed that Biden dropping out of the race might be the best course of action for Democrats, just five months before the 2024 election.

This suggestion comes as Biden’s approval rating plummets to an all-time low, raising serious concerns about his viability as a candidate.

According to the latest average of polls by FiveThirtyEight, President Biden’s approval rating has dropped to a mere 37.6%.

This dramatic decline has sparked a conversation about the feasibility of his re-election campaign.

Nate Silver, known for his sharp electoral analysis, took to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on Monday to voice his opinion on the matter.

“Biden dropping out of the race is worth discussing — even if, at this point, it would be a big risk for Democrats,” Silver wrote.

He acknowledged the significant risk involved but highlighted that continuing Biden’s campaign could pose an even greater threat to Democratic prospects.

“There’s some threshold below which continuing to run is a bigger risk,” Silver added. “Are we there yet? I don’t know. But it’s more than fair to ask.”

Silver elaborated on his concerns, painting a grim picture of Biden’s re-election chances given the current political climate.

“If I’d told you 10 years ago a president would seek re-election at 81 despite a supermajority of Americans having concerns about his age, and then we’d hit 8% inflation for 2 years, you wouldn’t be surprised he was an underdog for re-election. You’d be surprised it was even close!” Silver stated.

The issue of Biden’s age has been a persistent concern among voters, with many questioning his ability to lead effectively given the numerous challenges the country faces.

This concern is compounded by economic issues, such as prolonged high inflation, which have eroded public confidence in the Biden administration.

Silver’s comments drew criticism from some quarters, particularly from those who felt it was inappropriate to question Biden’s candidacy following Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records in the New York hush money case. One user on X suggested that Silver should also call for Trump to drop out of the race.

“‘Trump should drop out too!’ is such a weird dunk on people who are pointing out that Biden has big challenges,” Silver retorted. “Yes, Trump should drop out! I agree! Biden would lose by 7 points, but I agree, the Republican Party and the country would be better served by a different nominee.”

Silver has been consistent in his argument that Biden’s decision to seek a second term has hurt the Democratic Party’s chances in 2024.

“What’s clearer IMO is that Democrats would have been better served if Biden had decided a year ago not to seek a second term, which would have allowed them to have some semblance of a primary process and give voters a say among the many popular Democrats across the country,” Silver noted.

In his Silver Bulletin newsletter in February, Silver warned Democrats that Biden was on a trajectory to lose to Trump.

“If you’d asked me a year ago, I would have told you that Joe Biden was a reasonably clear favorite in the event of a rematch against Donald Trump,” he wrote.

However, he pointed out that Biden’s situation had worsened considerably in recent months. “If he were 10 years younger, he might still be a 65/35 favorite,” Silver explained. “But if his campaign is substantially encumbered by his age, he’s probably the underdog.”

The concerns about Biden’s viability are further underscored by recent polling data.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls shows that Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, currently leads Biden in each of the seven battleground states.

This polling advantage for Trump suggests that Biden’s chances of securing a second term are increasingly precarious.

As the 2024 election approaches, the debate over President Biden’s candidacy continues to intensify. Nate Silver’s suggestion that Biden should consider dropping out reflects a broader anxiety within the Democratic Party about the president’s ability to win re-election.

With approval ratings at an all-time low and Trump leading in key states, the Democrats face a daunting challenge.

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

Alarming new development at U.S. border could not be worse

Prudent Politics Staff
-
0
Alarming new development at U.S. border could not be worse

With Joe Biden doing nothing about our border security, the situation has gotten out of hand. And it seems impossible to come back from this newest attack.

As an alarming new development at the U.S. border could not be worse.

In a stunning development, Swanton Sector Border Patrol agents arrested more than 3,000 migrants in May, marking a new record for the sector that patrols the Canadian border with eastern New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

This surge in arrests has brought the fiscal year’s total to over 10,000, setting yet another record for the Swanton Sector.

Unofficial Border Patrol reports reviewed by Breitbart Texas revealed that the 3,000 migrant encounters in May represent the largest number for any month in the sector’s history.

This single month’s total even surpasses the annual totals for any fiscal year prior to the Biden administration, highlighting the unprecedented scale of the current border crisis.

Swanton Sector Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia took to social media to share these alarming statistics.

He noted that the total number of apprehensions for the current fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2023, has already exceeded 10,000.

This figure surpasses last year’s record-breaking total of 6,925 migrant arrests, underscoring the ongoing and escalating challenges faced by Border Patrol agents in this sector.

The dramatic rise in migrant apprehensions within the Swanton Sector has been particularly pronounced since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021.

Since then, agents in this sector have arrested over 18,000 migrants, more than the combined total of all prior years dating back to Fiscal Year 2004. This sharp increase is indicative of broader trends at the U.S. borders under the current administration.

Chief Patrol Agent Garcia highlighted that the apprehensions in April alone exceeded the annual totals of FY21 and FY22 combined, further illustrating the surge.

The increase in crossings at the northern border is a concerning development, as it adds to the already overwhelming challenges at the southern border.

The record-breaking numbers in the Swanton Sector are a direct consequence of the Biden administration’s lenient immigration policies.

These policies have created a de facto open border, encouraging illegal crossings and overwhelming Border Patrol resources.

The administration’s approach has been to reverse many of the stringent measures put in place by former President Donald Trump, including the “Remain in Mexico” policy and the construction of the border wall.

Tom Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has been vocal about the detrimental impact of the Biden administration’s policies.

“What we’re seeing at the border is a crisis of the administration’s own making,” Homan said. “When you signal to the world that our borders are open, you create a pull factor that encourages illegal immigration.”

The surge in migrant crossings has placed an immense strain on Border Patrol resources, particularly in less monitored sectors like Swanton.

Agents are stretched thin, dealing not only with the immediate task of apprehending migrants but also with the long-term consequences of processing and managing these individuals once they are in custody.

The influx has also exposed vulnerabilities in the nation’s border security infrastructure.

Traditionally, the northern border has received less attention and fewer resources compared to the southern border.

However, the recent spike in crossings has made it clear that the northern border is now a significant point of concern.

The unprecedented surge in migrant arrests in the Swanton Sector highlights the ongoing border crisis and the significant challenges facing Border Patrol agents.

With local communities feeling the strain and national security at risk, it is imperative that decisive action be taken to address this escalating crisis.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

NYC mayor investigation brought before grand jury and Democrats are terrified

Prudent Politics Staff
-
0
NYC mayor investigation brought before grand jury and Democrats are terrified

The Left has been doing everything they can to lock up Trump. But now it looks like things have completely backfired on them.

Because the investigation into NYC’s mayor has been brought before a grand jury and Democrats are terrified.

A grand jury has convened to examine evidence in the FBI’s investigation into New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ 2021 campaign fundraising, putting the mayor under intense scrutiny.

Adams responded to the news by telling reporters that he had “no idea” this was happening, expressing his surprise at the development.

Months ago, Adams was en route to Washington, D.C. to urge President Joe Biden to address the border crisis when he had to abruptly return to New York.

The sudden change in plans occurred after he learned that the FBI had raided the home of Brianna Suggs, his top campaign fundraiser, over allegations of illegal foreign contributions from Turkey.

A subpoena has been served to at least one individual connected to Adams. When asked about the grand jury, Adams stated, “I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer. I’m Eric Adams — the mayor! Ex-cop!”

He further added, “They don’t tell me stuff. Let it follow the process … Speak to the counsel. The counsel will explain to you the normal process.”

Although Adams has not been formally accused of any wrongdoing, his campaign has been under federal investigation since allegations surfaced that the Turkish government illegally funneled money into his campaign.

The investigation also seeks to determine whether Adams pressured the FDNY to expedite permits for a new Turkish consulate that had previously failed safety inspections.

The grand jury is reportedly reviewing evidence to potentially issue subpoenas, as per a report by the New York Post.

When the grand jury’s involvement was first reported, a spokesperson for Adams neither confirmed nor denied its participation in the investigation.

“City Hall has said since the beginning that it will cooperate fully with this review — and it has by making individuals available to discuss any details necessary in order to reach a just and timely conclusion,” the spokesperson said.

The investigation has led to federal raids on the homes of multiple associates of Adams.

This includes Cenk Ocal, who worked on the mayor’s transition team and is a former Turkish Airlines executive. Brianna Suggs, Adams’ top campaign fundraiser, also had her home raided and searched.

According to the search warrant, authorities were looking for evidence related to the theft of federal funds, wire fraud, conspiracy to steal federal funds, and wire fraud conspiracy.

The implications of these searches suggest a broad and serious investigation into the financial dealings surrounding Adams’ campaign.

The news of the grand jury and the ongoing investigation have significant political ramifications.

Mayor Adams, who has styled himself as a reformer and crime-fighter, now faces questions about the integrity of his campaign operations and his administration’s transparency.

Many Americans argue that this situation underscores a troubling pattern of corruption and foreign influence in American politics, highlighting the need for stricter campaign finance laws and oversight.

They point to the allegations against Adams as a prime example of how foreign entities might try to sway American elections through illegal contributions.

Mayor Adams has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has emphasized his willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Legal experts, however, suggest that the presence of a grand jury indicates a serious inquiry that could lead to significant legal challenges for Adams and his associates.

If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence, it could result in indictments and a lengthy legal battle for the mayor and his campaign team.

The convening of a grand jury to investigate Mayor Eric Adams’ 2021 campaign fundraising efforts marks a critical juncture in this high-profile case.

The allegations of illegal foreign contributions from Turkey and the subsequent federal raids have cast a shadow over Adams’ administration and raised serious questions about campaign finance practices.

As the investigation unfolds, the political and legal landscape in New York City could be significantly impacted.

Adams’ response and the eventual outcome of the grand jury’s findings will be closely watched by both his supporters and critics.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

New liberal policies have forced thousands of Americans from their jobs and homes

Prudent Politics Staff
-
0
New liberal policies have forced thousands of Americans from their jobs and homes

The Left is full of politicians who care nothing about this country or its citizens. And they seem to be doing everything they can to destroy this great nation.

And new liberal policies have forced thousands of Americans from their jobs and homes.

Since the implementation of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s $20 minimum wage law in April, the state’s restaurant industry has been hit hard, with nearly 10,000 jobs being slashed.

Struggling franchises have been forced to cut labor costs and raise prices to survive the costly wage increase, leading to mass layoffs and a significant decline in consumerism.

Tom Manzo, president and founder of the California Business and Industrial Alliance, spoke to Fox News, highlighting the disconnect between state lawmakers and the real-world consequences of their policies.

“California businesses have been under total attack and total assault for years,” Manzo said. “It’s just another law that puts businesses in further jeopardy.”

He revealed that since Governor Newsom signed AB 1287 into law, which took effect on April 1, nearly 10,000 restaurant industry workers have lost their jobs.

A number of well-known restaurants, such as McDonald’s, Burger King, and the iconic In-N-Out Burger, have been forced to raise prices to offset the increased labor costs.

These chains have also had to reduce employee hours and invest in automation technology to keep their operations afloat.

“You can only raise prices so much,” Manzo explained. “And you’re seeing it. People are not going to pay $20 for a Big Mac. It’s not going to happen.”

Manzo also criticized the notion that fast food jobs should be long-term, high-paying careers. “Fast food is a starter industry,” he said. “You get a job as a kid working in a fast food restaurant and you learn some good work ethic and that takes you into life.”

This perspective underscores the traditional view of fast food employment as an entry-level opportunity rather than a career path.

The first major casualty of the new wage regulation was Rubio’s California Grill, renowned for its fish tacos.

Just one month after the law took effect, 48 of its approximately 134 locations were closed due to the state’s “increasing cost of doing business.” On Wednesday, the chain filed for bankruptcy, marking a significant blow to the industry.

Similarly, Fosters Freeze, another fast food chain, closed its Fresno location, citing financial difficulties in meeting the new wage requirements.

These closures reflect a broader trend of financial strain and instability among California’s restaurant businesses.

The economic repercussions of the minimum wage hike are evident in the pricing strategies of major fast food chains.

According to a recent report from Kalinowski Equity Research, Taco Bell raised menu prices by 3 percent, while Starbucks added 50 cents to every menu item since the law took effect.

A Lending Tree survey revealed that 78 percent of consumers now view fast food as “luxury” purchases due to the steep price increases.

This shift in consumer perception has further compounded the industry’s challenges. As prices rise, fewer people are willing to spend on what was once considered an affordable meal option.

The result is a vicious cycle where higher costs lead to reduced demand, which in turn exacerbates financial difficulties for businesses already struggling to cope with the wage hike.

The law’s impact underscores the importance of considering the broader economic context and the potential unintended consequences of such policies.

Governor Newsom and state lawmakers are out of touch with the realities faced by business owners and workers alike.

The fallout from California’s $20 minimum wage law serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of economic policymaking.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

CNN’s recent Trump trial announcement has America stunned

Prudent Politics Staff
-
0
CNN’s recent Trump trial announcement has America stunned

The Left is not backing down from its goal of destroying this great nation. But now, things have taken a major turn.

And CNN’s recent Trump trial announcement has America stunned.

In a remarkable development, CNN’s top legal expert Elie Honig has stated that the criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in Georgia may completely disintegrate following the recent postponement of the case.

Honig, a seasoned Senior Legal Analyst and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, made these observations after a Georgia appellate court decided to halt the proceedings this week.

“It’s over. Let’s be realistic. It’s not happening before the 2024 election. It’s not happening in 2024. It’s maybe not happening at all,” Honig asserted. His comments highlight the significant legal and procedural hurdles that now loom over the prosecution’s case.

The charges against Trump stem from his alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, a state that played a critical role in President Joe Biden’s victory.

The indictment, brought forth by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, accused Trump and several of his associates of conspiracy and racketeering.

However, the appellate court’s decision to take up the case and halt the district court’s proceedings has cast serious doubt on the future of these charges.

Honig emphasized the unusual nature of the appellate court’s decision to pause the case.

“The appeals court, we can never predict what they’re going to do. But there’s some things we know for sure. Number one, they didn’t have to take this case, the appeal, and they chose to. The other thing is they didn’t have to pause the district court,” he explained.

He further elaborated that the trial court judge had initially planned to continue proceedings while the appeal was underway.

“The trial court judge specified, while you all are doing that, I am going to continue holding proceedings in this trial court,” Honig noted. However, the appellate court overruled this decision, signaling that they are taking the appeal “very seriously.”

If Trump and his co-defendants succeed in their appeal, it could mean the end of the case. “If Trump and the defendants prevail in this appeal, this case is essentially toast,” Honig predicted.

This would not only be a significant legal victory for Trump but also a major blow to the efforts of District Attorney Fani Willis, who has been criticized for her handling of the case.

Honig also pointed out that if the case is dismissed, former Trump officials who have already pled guilty might retract their pleas.

This would add another layer of complexity and embarrassment to the already beleaguered prosecution.

A critical element of the defense’s appeal is the conduct of District Attorney Willis. Honig highlighted that Willis’ comments outside of court have been deemed “legally improper” by Judge Scott McAfee.

“There is a separate issue that Trump and the other defendants are going to raise that I think is a bigger deal, which is Fani Willis’ inappropriate comments about the case outside of court,” Honig said.

Judge McAfee’s recognition of these comments as “legally improper” but his failure to act on them provides a strong argument for the defense.

“The defense is going to argue to the Court of Appeals, if the prosecutor makes, quote, ‘legally improper’ statements that impair the constitutional rights of the defendant, there needs to be a remedy for that,” Honig asserted.

This development comes at a crucial time as Trump seeks to solidify his position for the 2024 presidential election.

The former president has repeatedly described the charges against him as politically motivated, a sentiment echoed by many Americans.

The postponement of Trump’s Georgia trial and the appellate court’s decision to review the case have injected new uncertainty into the legal battles surrounding the former president.

Elie Honig’s analysis underscores the fragile nature of the prosecution’s case and the possibility that it could fall apart entirely.

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

Leading Democrat makes shocking media demands that violate Constitutional rights

Prudent Politics
-
0
Leading Democrat makes shocking media demands that violate Constitutional rights

The Radical Left does not care about the rights of Americans. But this new violation has shocked everyone.

And a leading Democrat has made shocking media demands that violate Constitutional rights.

In an incendiary rant this week, Democrat strategist James Carville took aim at the legacy media, urging them to adopt an even more biased approach in their reporting on former President Donald Trump.

Carville’s comments came in response to a recent statement by New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn, who asserted that the newspaper aims to maintain fairness and avoid becoming “a propaganda arm for a single candidate.”

“People say Trump is going to be the Republican nominee and we got to cover it, and Biden’s the Democratic nominee and we cover this. And if there’s something bad about Biden, of course, we’ve got to print it,” Carville said on Thursday.

“But if something comes up that is, can’t say good about Trump, but more favorable to him, like the Elie Honigs and the Fareed Zakarias of the world, that’s one way to look at it. We just tell the truth and let the people decide. Or, at times when the country is in great peril or the moral imperative is so significant, you don’t do that.”

Carville’s remarks reveal a deep-seated belief among some on the left that traditional journalistic standards should be abandoned in favor of more openly partisan coverage.

This sentiment starkly contrasts with the principles of objective journalism, which aim to provide balanced and unbiased reporting so the public can make informed decisions.

Carville lambasted Kahn for suggesting that The New York Times should strive for impartiality. “Now you have Joe Kahn, the new editor or publisher, whatever he is at The New York Times, saying, ‘We’re just going to cover this down the middle. We’re going to cover what it is,’” Carville continued.

“I don’t think that’s the role of the news media at a time when the entire Constitution is in peril. I don’t have anything against slanted coverage. I really don’t … I would have something against it at most other times in American history, but not right now. F*** your objectivity. The real objectivity in this country right now is we’re either going to have a Constitution or we’re not.”

The Democrat strategist’s outburst underscores the extreme polarization in American politics, where the mainstream media is increasingly seen not as impartial observers but as active participants in the political arena.

Carville’s call for more biased coverage reflects a growing desperation among Democrats who view the Trump movement as an existential threat.

Carville also criticized the media’s coverage of the criminal charges against President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and the alleged bias of the judge in Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial.

“I can’t tell you that these are bad people. They’re extremely naive people who have no idea what’s at stake in this election,” he said.

“So I think we need slanted coverage, more slanted coverage, and I think we got to recognize the threat that this guy and the MAGA, not just him, the entire MAGA movement, from Alito and Trump on down is a serious, clear and present danger to the existence of the Constitution in the United States. And I mean that.”

Carville’s remarks are emblematic of the broader strategy employed by many on the left: to delegitimize Trump and his supporters by any means necessary, including the abandonment of journalistic objectivity.

This approach has led to a media landscape where bias is not just tolerated but encouraged, as long as it serves the perceived greater good of combating Trump and the MAGA movement.

Such a strategy, however, is fraught with risks. By openly advocating for biased coverage, Carville and others undermine the credibility of the media and erode public trust in journalism.

This erosion of trust is dangerous, as it can lead to a public that is increasingly skeptical of all news sources, making it harder for citizens to distinguish between fact and propaganda.

Moreover, the call for biased reporting ignores the fact that many Americans are deeply concerned about the very issues Carville dismisses.

The criminal charges against Hunter Biden, for instance, are seen by many as a legitimate matter of public interest, not merely a distraction.

Similarly, concerns about judicial bias and the integrity of the legal system are not confined to one side of the political spectrum.

James Carville’s call for the media to abandon objectivity in favor of more openly partisan coverage reflects a dangerous trend in American politics.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Garland’s recent comments have shocked even his own allies

Prudent Politics
-
0
Garland’s recent comments have shocked even his own allies

AG Garland has been in hot water recently. And it seems like he is doing nothing to change that.

But now, Garland’s recent comments have shocked even his own allies.

In a striking demonstration of double standards within the Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland recently refused to comply with congressional subpoenas demanding the audio recording of President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. Garland’s justification was that he did not believe the subpoenas were “legitimate.”

This decision starkly contrasts with the treatment of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who is set to begin a prison sentence for his refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena issued by the January 6 Committee.

In May, Garland made headlines when he refused to turn over the audio of Biden’s interview to the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees.

“The Justice Department is a fundamental institution of our democracy,” Garland stated. “People depend on us to ensure that our investigations and our prosecutions are conducted according to the facts and the law and without political influence.” He asserted that the committees’ request for the audio file was not legitimate and that complying with it would “harm our ability in the future to successfully pursue sensitive investigations.”

Garland defended the DOJ’s stance by citing Biden’s “protective assertion of privilege,” which he claimed justified withholding the audio from Congress.

Despite the Judiciary and Oversight Committees voting to hold Garland in contempt, the measure has yet to be approved by the House, leaving the issue unresolved.

During a congressional hearing in June, Garland reiterated his position, describing the request as “illegitimate” and criticizing Republicans who threatened to hold him in contempt.

He maintained that there was no bias in the justice system, a statement that many Americans find increasingly difficult to believe given the disparate treatment of high-profile figures like Bannon.

Bannon, a political commentator and former Trump adviser, has faced severe consequences for his noncompliance with a congressional subpoena.

The January 6 Committee had summoned Bannon to provide a deposition and produce documents related to the events leading up to the storming of the Capitol.

Bannon argued that the requested documents were protected by executive privilege, a claim stemming from former President Trump’s assertion of privilege over the materials.

Despite his defense, Bannon was charged with contempt of Congress in November 2021. Garland, at the time, highlighted the DOJ’s commitment to the rule of law:

“Since my first day in office, I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law, and pursues equal justice under the law.” This stance led to Bannon’s indictment, reflecting what Garland described as the department’s “steadfast commitment to these principles.”

In July 2022, Bannon was found guilty and sentenced to 120 days in prison. Although a judge suspended his sentence pending appeal, the conviction was upheld, and he has now been ordered to report to prison on July 1.

Bannon’s attorney, David Schoen, argued that Trump had invoked executive privilege, which prevented Bannon from testifying. Despite this, Bannon was sentenced, showcasing a stark contrast in the application of justice compared to Garland’s protection of Biden.

The disparity between the treatment of Bannon and the protection afforded to Biden has not gone unnoticed.

Many Americans argue that Garland’s refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas regarding Biden’s interview audio, while aggressively pursuing charges against Bannon, highlights a concerning double standard.

This discrepancy raises questions about the impartiality of the DOJ under Garland and Biden’s leadership.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Democrat candidate calls for horrific treatment of Trump supporters

Prudent Politics
-
0
Democrat candidate calls for horrific treatment of Trump supporters

The Radical Left is hiding their hatred for Americans less and less. But no one expected them to take things this far.

And a Democrat candidate has called for the horrific treatment of Trump supporters.

In a stunning revelation during a Zoom townhall meeting, Paula Collins, a New York Democrat running for Congress, suggested that supporters of former President Donald Trump should be subjected to “re-education camps” to help the country recover from what she described as the “MAGA nightmare.”

Collins, who is challenging GOP House Chairwoman and New York Representative Elise Stefanik in the 21st congressional district, made these comments while discussing the future of America post-2024 elections.

“Even if we were to have a resounding blue wave come through, as many of us would like, putting it all back together again after we’ve gone through this MAGA nightmare and re-educating basically, which, that sounds like a rather, a re-education camp. I don’t think we really want to call it that,” Collins stated during the virtual townhall. She added, “I’m sure we can find another way to phrase it,” as reported by Fox Digital.

Following the backlash from her comments, Collins attempted to clarify her statement to Fox Digital.

“We currently have lawmakers, including Rep. Elise Stefanik, who mis-quote or mis-understand the law… Even if MAGA were to be resoundingly defeated, we would need to engage in widespread civics education, which both red and blue voters acknowledge has been slipping in recent years,” she said.

Collins claimed that her goal was to enhance the public’s understanding of civic processes, not to enforce literal re-education camps.

“The goal would be such that regular citizens could understand the process by which the state courts process matters, compared to the federal court circuit, and so forth,” she explained.

The comments sparked outrage among Republicans, with Elise Stefanik leading the charge.

Stefanik, who has been a vocal supporter of Trump and a critic of the recent legal actions against him, condemned Collins’ remarks.

Stefanik described the verdict against Trump in the falsified business records case as “corrupt” and “illegally brought.”

In a statement responding to Collins’ comments, Stefanik said, “Joe Biden and Democrats up and down the ballot are attacking democracy by weaponizing lawfare against President Trump and now threatening ‘re-education camps’ for Trump voters. Joe Biden, Hakeem Jeffries, and Chuck Schumer must immediately condemn this statement.”

Alex DeGrasse, a senior advisor to Stefanik, also weighed in on the controversy.

“This radical New York City Democrat Socialist who literally is renting a bed and breakfast room in NY-21 was caught on tape saying she wants to force Trump voters through ‘re-education camps.’ Everyone knows she will be defeated by Elise Stefanik by a historic margin. This is yet another reason why President Trump, Elise Stefanik, and voters in Upstate and across America will clean the Democrats’ clocks at the ballot box this November,” DeGrasse stated.

Collins’ remarks about “re-education camps” are likely to be a focal point in the campaign, providing fodder for Stefanik and her supporters to rally against extreme and out-of-touch liberal policies.

The idea of “re-education” is particularly incendiary, evoking historical parallels to authoritarian regimes, which is anathema to the values held by many American voters.

As the campaign progresses, it will be crucial for Collins to navigate the fallout from her remarks and attempt to connect with voters in a district that has consistently favored Republican candidates.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Democrats’ newest election moves sees them elect a dead man

Prudent Politics
-
0
Democrats’ newest election moves sees them elect a dead man

Democrats are constantly doing whatever they can to get the edge in elections. But this newest development is shocking.

And the Democrats’ newest election moves sees them elect a dead man.

In an unusual turn of events, a deceased Democrat has won his primary bid to retain his congressional seat in New Jersey after running uncontested.

Ronald Payne Jr., the long-serving congressman for New Jersey’s 10th district, passed away in April at the age of 65 from a heart attack.

Despite his death, Payne’s name remained on the ballot due to the filing deadline for the primary being in March, well before his untimely demise.

Payne, a respected member of the Congressional Black Caucus, held his seat since 2012, following in the footsteps of his father who served the district for 20 years until his own death while in office.

This tragic yet bizarre situation highlights a significant gap in the electoral process, where procedural timelines can result in posthumous victories.

A special election has been scheduled for July 16 to fill Payne’s seat. The Democratic field is already crowded with about a dozen candidates vying for the position.

New Jersey’s 10th district, encompassing Newark, Hudson, Union, and Essex counties, has been a Democratic stronghold since 1947. In contrast, the GOP candidate Carmen Bucco emerged victorious in the primary, ready to contest the special election.

Across the state of New Jersey, former President Donald Trump ran uncontested in the GOP presidential primary, solidifying his position as the Republican frontrunner.

On the Democratic side, incumbent President Joe Biden secured his party’s nomination, although a notable 41,461 ballots were cast for “uncommitted.”

This significant number reflects a growing dissent among Democrats, particularly those opposed to Biden’s support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

These “uncommitted” votes highlight an internal struggle within the Democratic Party, driven by a faction that vehemently opposes Israel’s defensive actions against Hamas and other militant groups.

This development could signal potential challenges for Biden as he seeks re-election, especially from voters who feel disenfranchised by his foreign policy decisions.

In addition to the congressional race, the New Jersey primary saw Andy Kim winning the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat.

Kim, who has served as the representative for New Jersey’s 3rd congressional district since 2019, is known for his moderate stance and focus on bipartisan solutions. His win sets the stage for a competitive Senate race.

Curtis Bashaw secured the Republican nomination for the Senate seat. Bashaw, a businessman with a background in real estate and hospitality, has positioned himself as a strong conservative voice, emphasizing economic growth, national security, and traditional values.

The upcoming Senate race will likely be a key battleground, reflecting broader national issues and voter sentiments.

The bizarre primary victory of a deceased congressman underscores the need for electoral reforms to address such anomalies.

It raises questions about the efficiency and responsiveness of the electoral process in adapting to unforeseen circumstances.

Meanwhile, the significant “uncommitted” vote in the Democratic presidential primary serves as a stark reminder of the internal divisions within the party.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Noncitizen voting fear becomes reality because of this shocking Leftist move

Prudent Politics
-
0
Noncitizen voting fear becomes reality because of this shocking Leftist move

Many Americans have grown increasingly concerned about the possibility of noncitizens voting. And Radical Leftists have been trying to cover up the truth.

But now, the fear has become a reality because of this shocking Leftist move.

Washington, DC, saw a significant shift in its voting demographic on Tuesday as over 500 noncitizens registered to vote in the district’s local elections.

This change came after the implementation of the Local Resident Voting Rights Act, allowing noncitizens to participate in local elections for the first time.

The Act, which took effect this week, permits noncitizens to vote in local elections provided they have been residents of the jurisdiction for at least 30 days, meet age and competency requirements, and have not registered to vote elsewhere in the United States.

It is important to note that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 continues to prohibit noncitizens from voting in state and federal elections.

The DC Board of Elections facilitated the registration process for noncitizens by allowing them to prove their residency through various documents.

As reported by the Washington Post, as of Tuesday, over 500 noncitizens had taken advantage of this new law and registered to vote in the nation’s capital.

The breakdown of party affiliation among these new voters is telling: 310 registered as Democrats, 169 as independents, and a mere 28 as Republicans. An additional 16 registered with the Green Party.

The local elections saw a total of six City Council seats up for grabs, including Ward 2, Ward 4, Ward 7, Ward 8, and two At-large seats.

These were the only races in which noncitizens were permitted to vote. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens also had the opportunity to vote in a number of primary elections, including those for the U.S. House non-voting delegate, U.S. Senate shadow senator, and U.S. House shadow representative.

DC’s decision to extend voting rights to noncitizens in municipal elections has not been without controversy.

In May, the House of Representatives voted to block the law, but it still needs to pass the Senate before it can be nullified.

This has not stopped a number of politicians at both the state and federal levels from voicing their concerns.

One of the most vocal critics has been Texas Representative Chip Roy, who expressed his disapproval in an interview with the Daily Mail.

“The radical progressive Democrats in the DC city government couldn’t be prouder of the fact that they’re going to have illegal aliens voting in their elections,” Roy said.

“Yet, they want us to believe that it’s going to stop there, and that none of them are going to try — or be encouraged — to illegally vote in federal elections? Give me a break.”

The sentiment shared by Roy is echoed by many Americans who see this move as a slippery slope that could undermine the integrity of U.S. elections.

They argue that allowing noncitizens to vote in any capacity could lead to potential abuses and illegal voting in federal elections.

The fear is that once noncitizens are given a foothold in local elections, it might only be a matter of time before the same logic is applied to state and federal elections.

The fact remains that the majority of noncitizens registered to vote in DC have aligned themselves with the Democratic Party.

This aligns with the broader trend seen in urban areas where progressive policies are more widely accepted.

The disparity in party affiliation among noncitizen voters has further fueled concerns among many that this move is politically motivated to bolster Democratic support in local elections.

The local elections in DC will serve as a litmus test for how this new voting demographic will influence future elections.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

1...606162...159Page 61 of 159

2024 Copyright © All rights reserved.

Quick Links

Must Read

Popular Articles