Joe Biden and the Radical Left have avoided addressing the border crisis as much as possible. But now, they have done something even worse than addressing it.

And Joe Biden has refused to release critical immigration information that could help protect America.

The Biden administration has refused to disclose data concerning the nationalities of illegal immigrants on terrorist watchlists who have been apprehended by Border Patrol agents in recent years.

This refusal comes despite a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Fox News filed over six months ago.

Bill Melugin, a reporter for Fox News, revealed on Thursday that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had denied his FOIA request, citing privacy and law enforcement sensitivity exemptions.

In a letter to Melugin, CBP stated, “The privacy interests of the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Any private interest you may have in that information does not factor into the aforementioned balancing test.”

Melugin, who has been diligently covering the border crisis, expressed his dissatisfaction on social media platform X (formerly Twitter). “I did not ask for any names, IDs, addresses, anything that would breach privacy, nor did I ask for any law enforcement sensitive information. I simply requested only the nationalities of people arrested on the list, so the public can have an understanding of where in the world they are coming from,” he wrote.

NEW: 6+ months ago, I filed a FOIA request w/ CBP seeking the nationalities of people on the terror watchlist arrested by Border Patrol in recent years. CBP now says they will not turn over that data, citing privacy & law enforcement sensitivity exemptions, telling me:

“The… pic.twitter.com/iMBbiTnmn1

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) May 16, 2024

The CBP response acknowledged that Melugin had only sought information about the nationalities of those on the terror watch list. However, the agency still invoked exemptions irrelevant to the request, such as dates of birth, medical records, phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, and other personal information that was not requested.

Melugin announced his intention to appeal the CBP’s decision, highlighting the ongoing concerns about the transparency of the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis.

Congressional Republicans have repeatedly warned about the potential for terrorists to enter the United States through the unsecured southern border, a fear exacerbated by the administration’s lack of disclosure.

The Biden administration’s stance on border security has been a point of contention since taking office.

The current policies have led to a surge in illegal crossings, thereby compromising national security. The refusal to provide information about the origins of individuals on terrorist watchlists only fuels these concerns.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has been vocal about the risks associated with the administration’s border policies. “The American people deserve to know who is crossing our borders, especially when it involves individuals on terrorist watchlists. The Biden administration’s lack of transparency is unacceptable and dangerous,” Cruz stated.

Similarly, Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) emphasized the need for accountability and transparency. “We need to hold this administration accountable for its failures at the border. The refusal to provide crucial information about the nationalities of those on terrorist watchlists raises serious questions about what they are trying to hide,” Jordan said.

According to recent data, Border Patrol agents have encountered an increasing number of individuals on terrorist watchlists.

However, without clear information on their nationalities, it is challenging to assess the full extent of the threat.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has defended the administration’s approach, stating that they are committed to ensuring national security while also addressing humanitarian concerns.

However, the policies in place are insufficient to protect the American people from potential threats.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The current administration seems to believe that nothing is wrong with letting known terrorists across our border. But a recent incident has everyone worried.

And the White House’s newest suspicious comments regarding a terror attack have people alarmed.

During a briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was questioned about two Jordanian immigrants who attempted to breach the security at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia.

The incident has raised significant concerns about a potential terrorist attack, but the White House declined to provide any specific details or confirm the nature of the incident.

Peter Doocy from Fox News directly asked Jean-Pierre whether the White House considered the incident a failed terrorist attack.

“The deputy director of ICE is telling us that two Jordanian nationals are in removal proceedings now, after posing as Amazon delivery drivers to crash the gates at Quantico. Does the White House think this might have been a failed terrorist attack?” he inquired.

Jean-Pierre responded in a suspicious and questionable manner saying, “So going to be really mindful, these two Jordanians that you’re speaking of remain in ICE custody and given that it is an active law enforcement matter, so I would have to refer you to ICE. I just can’t dive into this because again, this is a law enforcement matter,” she stated.

WH press sec on whether the WH views two Jordanian nationals who posed as Amazon delivery drivers to crash the gates at Quantico was a failed terrorist attack:

"This is a law enforcement matter." pic.twitter.com/gxxT1JCWA1

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 16, 2024

According to Potomac Local News, the incident occurred when two men inside a box truck attempted to force their way through the base’s main gate on Fuller Road, just outside Dumfries.

The men posed as Amazon drivers in an effort to gain unauthorized access. Military police quickly intervened, detaining the individuals.

Sources familiar with the investigation revealed more troubling details.

One of the men had crossed the southern border illegally, and the other was on the U.S. terrorist watch list. This alarming information suggests a potential threat that goes beyond a simple security breach.

Capt. Michael Curtis, a spokesman for the base, provided additional context about the incident.

“One of the military police officers noticed the driver, ignoring the direct instructions of the officers, continued to move the vehicle past the holding area and attempted to access Quantico,” Curtis explained.

The potential involvement of individuals with terrorist affiliations highlights the urgent need for robust border security measures and thorough vetting processes for all individuals entering the country.

The Biden administration has faced criticism for its handling of border security and immigration policies.

The southern border has seen a significant increase in illegal crossings since President Biden took office, raising concerns about national security.

Critics argue that the administration’s policies have created vulnerabilities that could be exploited by those seeking to harm the United States.

The refusal of the White House to provide clear answers on the Quantico incident only adds to the growing unease.

The public deserves transparency and assurance that their safety is being prioritized. The potential threat posed by individuals attempting to breach a military base is a serious matter that requires immediate and decisive action.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) voiced his concerns about the incident, calling for a thorough investigation and accountability. “This is a wake-up call for the Biden administration. Our national security is at risk, and we need to take these threats seriously. The American people deserve answers, and we must ensure that our military installations are protected from potential terrorist attacks,” Cotton said.

Representative Michael Waltz (R-FL), a former Green Beret, emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach to national security. “We need to address the root causes of these security breaches. This includes securing our borders, enhancing our intelligence capabilities, and ensuring that our military bases are equipped to handle potential threats. The safety of our nation depends on it,” Waltz stated.

We must not sit by idly while Joe Biden and the Radical Left open up our nation to terrorists.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden and the Radical Left are doing everything they can to get ahead of Donald Trump in fundraising. But not everything is going well.

And Biden has been backstabbed by a major Democrat fundraiser, and people are shocked.

In a surprising turn of events, tech adviser Jacob Helberg, previously a significant donor to Democrat campaigns, has shifted his support towards former President Donald Trump for the 2024 election.

Helberg, who has been a notable figure in Silicon Valley, recently contributed a substantial $1 million to Trump’s re-election campaign, positioning himself as one of Trump’s largest financial backers.

Helberg’s donation marks a significant departure from his previous political affiliations.

Four years ago, he was a key financial supporter of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign.

However, disillusioned with the current administration, Helberg has joined a growing number of high-powered Silicon Valley executives who are now aligning with Trump.

“The social cost of supporting Trump isn’t as great as it was,” Helberg stated, highlighting a shift in perspective within Silicon Valley. Many now recognize that “Trump was right on a lot of make-or-break issues for America.”

Following a report by The Washington Post on his substantial contribution to Trump’s campaign, Helberg took to social media to express his motivations.

“This one’s for Israel,” he posted on X, emphasizing his support for Trump’s strong stance on issues concerning the Jewish state.

This one’s for Israel. 🇮🇱 🇺🇸 https://t.co/YR1lb0aM9Y

— Jacob Helberg (@jacobhelberg) May 15, 2024

Helberg has donated $844,600 to the Trump 47 joint fundraising committee, joining a select group of donors who have maxed out their contributions to the group.

According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings reviewed by The Post, at least 20 other donors had reached the contribution limit to the Trump committee by March.

The alignment between Helberg and Trump is largely driven by their shared views on China.

At a recent meeting at Trump’s Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, both men bonded over the necessity of taking a hardline approach to China, particularly concerning trade, TikTok, and other critical issues.

Helberg’s pivot towards Trump reflects a broader trend among Democratic supporters who have become increasingly disenchanted with President Joe Biden’s tenure.

Many of these former supporters are reassessing Trump’s policies and finding them more aligned with their current priorities.

David Friedman, Trump’s former ambassador to Israel, has observed a notable shift among Jewish donors who were previously skeptical of Trump.

With Biden’s administration showing a perceived tilt away from Israel, these donors are reconsidering their support. Friedman explained, “There is clearly a change going on. People who were never Trumpers or reluctant ‘hold your nose Trumpers’ are telling me that Trump has to win.”

This sentiment was echoed by Democratic mega-donor Haim Saban.

In an email to two Biden aides, Saban criticized the president for his stance towards Israel, especially amidst its ongoing conflict with Hamas. Saban expressed his concerns over Biden’s decision to withhold munitions from Israel, suggesting that it sends a negative message to America’s allies.

“Even beyond Israel, this sends a terrible message to our allies in the region, and beyond, that we can flip from doing the right thing to bending to political pressure,” Saban wrote.

He also highlighted the political implications within the U.S., stating, “Let’s not forget that there are more Jewish voters who care about Israel than [Muslim] voters who care about Hamas.”

Saban’s remarks underline the growing dissatisfaction among many Democratic donors with Biden’s foreign policy, particularly concerning Israel.

This dissatisfaction is driving a reassessment among donors who are now considering Trump as a viable alternative for 2024.

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

Joe Biden is known as a complete liar. But now, he has been caught in an issue so big that there is no escape.

And Biden has gone back on his previous lies and is now in a world of trouble.

President Joe Biden is reportedly preparing an executive order to shut down the U.S. southern border if daily encounters exceed a 4,000-a-day threshold.

This potential move contradicts Biden’s previous claims that he couldn’t take unilateral action on the border without Congress.

The New York Post first reported the executive order, which is strikingly similar to a provision in an immigration bill that failed to pass the Senate in February.

That bill included a mechanism for the president to close the border if encounters averaged 4,000 per day over a week, with mandatory closure triggered at 5,000 per day or a single-day spike to 8,500.

Despite the White House’s continuous blame on Congress for the ongoing immigration crisis, claiming that legislative action is necessary, this executive order indicates that Biden does have the authority to act on the border issue.

Republicans have long argued that the president already possesses the necessary authority to address the border crisis without waiting for Congress.

Public opinion on Biden’s handling of the border is overwhelmingly negative, as illegal immigrants continue to pour into the country.

According to a New York Times/Sienna poll released this week, immigration ranks as the second most important issue for voters in swing states.

However, Biden’s approval rating on immigration is abysmally low, sitting just over 33%, with a disapproval rating around 63%, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average.

In 2019, Jeh Johnson, who served as Homeland Security Secretary during the Obama administration, stated that a daily average of 1,000 encounters would overwhelm Border Patrol.

At 4,000 per day, Johnson declared the situation a “crisis.” Reflecting on his time in office, Johnson described how he monitored apprehension numbers daily.

“I’d look at them every morning, it’d be the first thing I’d look at. And I probably got too close to the problem, and my staff will tell you if it was under 1,000 apprehensions the day before, that was a relatively good number, and if it was above 1,000, it was a relatively bad number, and I was gonna be in a bad mood the whole day,” Johnson said at the time.

“On Tuesday, there were 4,000 apprehensions. I know that a thousand overwhelms the system. I cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like, so we are truly in a crisis.”

Biden’s potential executive order suggests a significant policy shift, acknowledging the severity of the border situation, which his administration has downplayed.

The president’s reluctance to act until now has exacerbated the crisis, leading to a surge in illegal crossings and overwhelming local communities and resources.

The administration’s handling of the border has been marked by inconsistency and mixed messages.

Initially, Biden reversed many of Trump’s successful border policies, such as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed.

This reversal led to a sharp increase in border encounters, as migrants perceived a more lenient stance from the U.S. government.

Republicans have criticized Biden’s open-border policies, arguing that they incentivize illegal immigration and compromise national security.

They contend that the administration’s failure to enforce immigration laws has created a humanitarian and security disaster at the southern border.

The Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis has not only undermined public confidence but also strained relationships with key allies.

The recent revelation that Biden is considering an executive order to shut down the southern border suggests a belated acknowledgment of the crisis’s severity.

However, critics argue that this action comes too late and fails to address the root causes of the problem.

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

Biden has been trying to play Americans and steal our money. But now, he has been caught red-handed lying and things just got worse.

And Biden has suffered a massive loss as top Republicans force his hand.

In a decisive move to ensure military aid to Israel, Republicans in the U.S. Senate have filed legislation aimed at overriding President Joe Biden’s pause on arms shipments.

The pause was implemented by the Biden administration due to disagreements with Israel’s military strategy.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) spearheaded the introduction of this legislation, which mirrors a similar bill circulating in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

This legislation seeks to bypass the Biden administration’s halt on arms sales to Israel, ensuring that the previously approved military aid continues unabated.

The White House, meanwhile, has been actively lobbying against the bill, with House Democrats also working to derail it.

The Senate version of the bill is expected to face significant opposition in the upper chamber.

The Biden administration justified the pause in arms shipments as a means to pressure Israel into reconsidering its planned incursion into Rafah.

Rafah, the last Hamas stronghold in the Gaza Strip, is believed to be harboring terrorist leadership and approximately 133 hostages.

Cotton’s legislation includes a clause that would cancel the salaries of any Biden administration officials at the State Department or Pentagon who attempt to prevent arms shipments to Israel.

This stringent measure underscores the GOP’s commitment to ensuring that Israel receives the military support it needs.

Over 20 Republican senators have co-sponsored the bill, including prominent figures such as Rick Scott (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX).

In a statement to the Washington Free Beacon, Senator Cotton criticized President Biden’s stance, highlighting a perceived double standard in U.S. foreign policy.

“Joe Biden has sanctioned Israelis and placed an arms embargo on Israel while giving sanctions relief to Iran with no arms embargo for Iran. This bill will ensure that our Israeli allies continue to receive the support that they need to defeat Hamas while making clear that any official who supports this embargo will be doing so without a paycheck,” Cotton asserted.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre responded to the legislative push, emphasizing the administration’s opposition.

“We strongly, strongly oppose attempts to constrain the president’s ability to deploy U.S. security assistance consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives,” Jean-Pierre told reporters.

The House version of the bill was introduced over the weekend and has garnered support from the chamber’s Republican majority.

Despite efforts by Democratic leaders to persuade their members to oppose the bill, some Democrats, such as Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), have voiced support.

Torres told Axios, “I have a general rule of supporting pro-Israel legislation unless it includes a poison pill—like cuts to domestic policy.”

Following significant backlash over the decision to pause the weapons shipments, the Biden administration made a notable concession.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House notified Congress of its intention to proceed with over $1 billion in new weapons deals for Israel.

This package includes $700 million in tank ammunition, $500 million in tactical vehicles, and $60 million in mortar rounds.

The Republican effort underscores a commitment to robust support for Israel, while the Biden administration’s stance highlights their hypocrisy and lack of commitment to US allies.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left has a history of stealing money from Americans in order to push their agenda on the world. But no one expected things to go this far.

And Biden’s newest policy decision uses taxpayer money to push disgusting agenda on kids.

In a move that has sparked outrage among millions of Americans, the Biden administration is repurposing a federal program designed to help children in the foster care system transition to adulthood and redirecting taxpayer dollars to fund efforts by children to transition into the opposite gender.

This policy shift exemplifies the administration’s prioritization of left-wing gender ideology over the health and safety of our children.

President Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced that federal taxpayer dollars can be spent on purchasing “personal items” that support “a youth’s expression of their gender identity.”

The funds, originally intended to help children in the foster care system adjust to adult life through education, housing, and employment services, can now be used to purchase items related to “supporting a youth’s expression of their gender identity.”

LGBT non-profit organizations have eagerly embraced Biden’s policy guidance, interpreting it as permission to purchase garments such as chest binders, used to flatten a girl’s breasts, and packers, prosthetic p*nises, with federal dollars.

Representative Jim Banks (R-IN) voiced strong opposition to the administration’s policy, describing it as an unsettling obsession with the personal lives of children.

“Bureaucrats in the Biden administration seem obsessed with the personal lives of vulnerable children—it’s creepy,” he said.

“When Secretary Becerra testifies tomorrow, House Republicans must make him answer for his attacks on parents’ rights and his attempts to push harmful gender procedures on minors.”

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a former dean at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, also criticized the policy, arguing that giving children these sorts of items puts them on a path toward “irreversible harm.”

Goldfarb, who now runs Do No Harm, an organization that opposes the politicization of medicine, warned, “The great risk of fostering so-called affirming care is that it almost certainly will lead to medicalization, such as the use of puberty blockers and s*x-altering hormones.”

“We know that the vast majority of children who have gender dysphoria if supported through psychological counseling and psychiatric care, will go through puberty and live their lives in the gender that conforms to their s*x. To give them various devices to promote social transition is a step in the path to irreversible harm in the vast majority of these children,” he continued.

He emphasized that children experiencing gender dysphoria need legitimate support, not interventions that push an ideological agenda and put them on the path to medicalization.

“These children are extremely vulnerable and do need support services,” Goldfarb said. “But support services designed to implement a particular gender ideology that medical evidence has not shown to produce positive emotional or psychiatric outcomes should not be supported by the government.”

Prominent Democrats have continuously advocated for policies that make it easier for children to attempt to transition into the opposite s*x.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) faced criticism for earmarking $400,000 in taxpayer funds to an LGBTQ youth organization that offers minors binders, packers, and even prosthetic breasts.

President Joe Biden’s executive order in 2022 aimed to “address the significant disparities that LGBTQI+ youth face in the foster care system” and combat “efforts to suppress or change an individual’s s*xual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

This move further highlights the administration’s commitment to leveraging federal bureaucracy in service of left-wing agenda items.

In contrast, former President Donald Trump has pledged to fire bureaucrats who might otherwise stonewall his policy priorities, promising to push back against such ideologically driven initiatives.

We must not allow the left to continue this madness, and we must stand up for the protection of our children.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

As Radical protests anti-America protests have erupted across the country, many people have been worried about the consequences. But no one was ready for this.

And Radical protestors could cost Americans hundreds of thousands and people are outraged.

Portland State University’s Millar Library is facing staggering repair costs estimated between $750,000 and $875,000 following a destructive siege by members of Antifa, which left the library severely vandalized and forced its closure.

The incident has sparked significant concern regarding campus security and the financial burden of repairing extensive damages.

The university’s library, a central hub for student learning and resources, became the target of Antifa activists who forcibly occupied and extensively damaged the facility.

According to reports from KATU 2, the library will likely remain shuttered until the fall to allow for thorough cleanup and repairs, with graffiti removal efforts having commenced two weeks prior.

A PSU Media Relations Manager provided a financial estimate for the repairs, stating, “The rough estimate is $750,000. That’s for repairing damages and restoring the library. That could increase or decrease by about $125,000.”

This initial estimate does not account for additional costs related to the replacement or repair of damaged technology and furniture, adding further financial strain on the university.

The damage to the library was extensive:

Activists spray-painted graffiti across walls and windows, rearranged furniture to form barricades, and left floors littered with paint, trash, wood pallets, and abandoned tents.

Interior glass walls were shattered, computers and other technological equipment were vandalized, and various fixtures were ripped from walls, evidencing a high level of premeditated destruction.

The university has insurance and is pursuing a claim to help offset the considerable costs of the repairs.

However, the incident raises significant concerns about the long-term implications for campus safety and the financial impact of such destructive actions.

The siege began when Antifa members took over the library, prompting Portland State University to announce a campus closure on April 30.

Law enforcement intervened on May 3, resulting in at least two arrests.

Police reported that their progress through the building was severely hindered by the numerous barricades erected by the occupiers, complicating the retaking and subsequent securing of the library.

This event is not an isolated incident but part of a troubling pattern of behavior by radical groups that target educational institutions to push their Radical political agendas.

Such actions not only cause physical damage but also significantly disrupt the educational environment, creating a climate of fear and uncertainty among students and faculty alike.

The financial repercussions of these acts are considerable. The substantial repair costs burden university budgets, diverting funds from educational programs and resources that directly benefit students.

Moreover, the psychological impact on the university community can be profound, affecting academic performance and deterring future enrollment.

As Portland State University grapples with the aftermath of this siege, questions about campus security measures and the response to such incidents come to the forefront.

The university community and stakeholders must engage in serious dialogue about strengthening security protocols and ensuring that campuses remain safe spaces dedicated to learning and personal development.

The incident at PSU’s Millar Library serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges that educational institutions face in maintaining a secure and conducive learning environment.

It underscores the need for effective security measures and the importance of community resilience in the face of attempts to undermine educational institutions through violent political expressions.

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

Joe Biden seems set on destroying this great nation. And he has started with our borders.

And a new border county report has unveiled terrifying crime movements.

Since President Joe Biden’s inauguration, Kinney County, Texas, a region close to the U.S.-Mexico border, has witnessed an astronomical rise in criminal charges, jumping by an alarming 5,000 percent.

This drastic increase, from merely 134 charges in 2020 to a staggering 6,800 in 2022, starkly highlights the escalating border crisis and its profound impact on local communities.

Kinney County, like many other border areas, has been disproportionately affected by policies stemming from the Biden administration, which have led to significant shifts in border security and immigration enforcement.

During a hearing conducted by the House Budget Committee focused on the border crisis, Kinney County Attorney Brent Smith offered a distressing overview of the situation that his jurisdiction faces daily.

Smith explained that the dramatic spike in criminal charges began in 2021, shortly after President Biden implemented several executive orders that drastically altered the operational landscape for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

These orders effectively dismantled a series of robust border security measures previously in place, clearing the path for drug cartels and human traffickers to exploit the border to their advantage.

“Immediately following the revocation of these critical border security policies, criminal enterprises, particularly cartels, capitalized on the newfound vulnerabilities at our border,” Smith stated.

“They effectively imposed their own lawless ‘policies’ designed to optimize their criminal activities, profoundly affecting our community’s safety and security.”

In 2021 alone, criminal charges in Kinney County soared to 2,708 and further surged to 6,800 by 2022. Although there was a slight reduction to 5,826 charges in 2023, the numbers remain alarmingly high, straining local law enforcement and community resources beyond their limits.

Smith also highlighted the financial burdens these challenges have imposed on local taxpayers.

Kinney County, which typically operates on a modest annual budget of $6 million, has incurred an additional $10.5 million in expenses due to the federal government’s failure to secure the border effectively.

This financial strain is compounded by a significant toll on public safety and community well-being.

“The human cost of this crisis is immeasurable,” Smith continued.

“We have lost residents—tax-paying citizens—who died because emergency services were stretched too thin, attending to continuous human smuggling events rather than being available for local emergencies. These losses are directly attributable to the federal government’s dereliction of duty.”

The situation in Kinney County is a microcosm of the broader national security and humanitarian crisis unfolding at the southern border.

The surge in criminal activity facilitated by lax border policies not only endangers the residents of border counties but also threatens the overall security of the United States.

Smith’s testimony paints a grim picture of a community overwhelmed by the consequences of failed federal policies.

He emphasized that the ongoing violence and lawlessness fostered by these policies are unsustainable for any sovereign nation, particularly for a small Texas county with just over 3,200 residents.

“As long as this administration continues to neglect its fundamental duty to enforce our nation’s laws, every American, not just Texans, is at risk,” Smith concluded.

“The safety and security of our citizens should be the foremost priority of our federal government, and it is high time that this administration addresses this crisis with the urgency it demands.”

The border crisis exemplifies a critical failure of the current administration to uphold its responsibilities, casting long shadows over the safety, security, and financial stability of border communities and, by extension, the entire nation.

As the situation continues to deteriorate, the call for immediate and effective federal action has never been more urgent.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

This year more than most, Democrats are struggling in many states. And they know that they have to win all of them in order to beat Trump in November.

But now, Democrats have suffered a devastating swing state loss.

West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, a stalwart supporter of former President Donald Trump, emerged victorious in the state’s Republican primary, setting the stage for a November showdown where he is expected to capture the Senate seat currently held by Democrat Joe Manchin.

Endorsed by Trump, Justice garnered significant support within the GOP, marking a critical shift in West Virginia’s political landscape as it prepares to replace a moderate Democrat with a staunch conservative.

Justice, whose campaign was also backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and sitting West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito, decisively defeated his closest rival, Alexander Mooney, with a commanding 59.7% of the vote compared to Mooney’s 29.4%.

Mooney, who has served West Virginia in Congress, was unable to overcome Justice’s high profile and substantial campaign infrastructure.

The primary victory for Justice is not just a personal triumph but a significant indicator of the political currents in West Virginia.

Trump’s endorsement played a pivotal role, highlighting Justice’s alignment with the former president’s policies and vision for America.

This alignment resonates deeply in West Virginia, a state that Trump carried by more than a 2-to-1 margin in the 2020 presidential election.

Governor Justice’s potential ascension to the Senate is poised to further solidify conservative influence in a state that has shown increasing Republican leanings over the past decade.

His business background in coal, a critical industry in West Virginia, adds to his appeal among voters concerned about energy jobs and the economic implications of energy policies championed by the Democrats.

Joe Manchin, the current holder of the Senate seat and a centrist Democrat, has often been at odds with his party, particularly on issues related to energy and environmental regulations.

His retirement opens the door for a more consistently conservative voice in the Senate, potentially altering the balance on key legislative debates.

The broader implications of Justice’s primary win extend beyond West Virginia.

With 23 Senate seats up for grabs across the United States, many of which are in states leaning red, the GOP is optimistic about regaining control of the Senate.

The outcome of these races will significantly impact the legislative agenda for the coming years, especially as the Republican Party seeks to challenge Democratic priorities on a range of issues from economic policy to national security.

Manchin’s planned departure from the Senate to focus on uniting Americans in his retirement underscores the divisive political climate that Justice will enter if he wins in November.

His victory in the general election, while likely, is not only about maintaining a seat for the Republicans but also about deepening the conservative reshaping of West Virginia’s political identity.

Governor Justice’s success in the primary reflects a broader trend within the Republican Party, where Trump’s endorsement continues to be a powerful catalyst for candidates.

This trend is evident in the overwhelming support Justice received from GOP voters, who favor his pro-coal stance and his broader conservative platform.

As the general election approaches, Justice’s campaign will likely intensify its efforts to consolidate support among West Virginians who resonate with his message of strong conservative governance and alignment with Trump’s America First policies.

The implications of his potential victory extend beyond state lines, potentially influencing national policy on energy, the economy, and the judiciary through a more solidified Republican front in the Senate.

Jim Justice’s primary win is a significant milestone in the political realignment of West Virginia and a bellwether for the national political landscape as Republicans aim to reclaim the Senate.

His alignment with Trump, his business acumen, and his political platform position him as a formidable candidate in a state that is increasingly crucial to the national conversation about America’s future direction.

As November draws near, all eyes will be on West Virginia as it plays a pivotal role in shaping the balance of power in Washington, D.C.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

While countless Americans have been worried that Trump’s criminal charges are politically motivated, the Left has denied it. But all of that has changed.

And now the White House has accidentally admitted to Trump’s trials being politically motivated.

The ongoing trial of former President Donald Trump in New York, which has captivated national attention, was characterized by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre as “related to the 2024 elections.”

This statement has ignited accusations of political motivations behind the trial, especially from conservatives and Republican figures, including House Speaker Mike Johnson.

These developments come amid a tense pre-election climate, raising questions about the fairness and timing of the judicial processes involved.

During a press briefing on Tuesday, Jean-Pierre was asked about the appropriateness of Speaker Johnson’s presence at Trump’s trial.

Her response highlighted the political underpinnings of the trial, noting that it was connected to the upcoming 2024 presidential elections, thereby implying a strategic motive rather than a purely judicial one.

Reporter: "Was it appropriate for Speaker Johnson to show up at the trial of the former president?

WH press sec: "I think the contrast between what we do here and what … Republicans in Congress do … couldn't be more stark." pic.twitter.com/1z1Xwe72VB

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 14, 2024

This acknowledgment has reinforced longstanding concerns among Republicans that the charges against Trump, pursued by both Biden’s Department of Justice and Democrat District Attorneys in Georgia and New York, are intended to disrupt his potential candidacy.

Trump and his allies have consistently labeled the legal actions against him as forms of election interference.

This perspective gained further validation when the White House press secretary linked the trial to the electoral process, thereby suggesting that the trial could be part of a broader strategy to diminish Trump’s political influence ahead of the next presidential race.

“The trials represent election interference,” Trump has declared, a sentiment echoed by numerous Republican leaders, pundits, lawmakers, and Americans.

Jean-Pierre’s recent comments at the press briefing have done little to dispel these assertions, instead providing fodder for those who view the prosecution as a calculated move by the Biden administration to sideline a major political opponent.

The trial, which has now entered its fifth week, centers on allegations made by New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office regarding falsified business records within the Trump Organization.

These records pertain to payments made to attorney Michael Cohen, which Bragg’s office contends were misclassified.

The prosecution has yet to clarify how these actions constitute a felony or prove the intent behind the payments as claimed.

This judicial endeavor occurs against a backdrop where Biden himself was under investigation for possessing classified documents, a charge from which he was absolved, citing his age and sympathetic public persona.

In contrast, Trump faces continued legal challenges, including a separate federal case involving classified documents, highlighting what some perceive as a double standard in legal accountability.

The unfolding of Trump’s trial and the explicit admission by the White House that it is tied to the electoral ambitions of 2024 paints a concerning picture of the use of judicial mechanisms as tools of political competition.

Such developments are likely to fuel further debate about the integrity of the U.S. legal system and its vulnerability to political influence, especially as the nation approaches another presidential election.

The scenario sets a precarious precedent for legal fairness and electoral integrity, prompting calls from across the political spectrum for a reassessment of how legal challenges are used in political warfare.

As the trial continues, it remains a pivotal element of the broader narrative of political rivalry and legal scrutiny that defines today’s political landscape in the United States.

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

The Radical Left activists in this nation have been pushing DEI on everyone for years. But not everyone is ready to give in that easily.

And a major college campus has made an astonishing DEI decision that has liberals worried for the future.

In a move that underscores a growing trend across American universities, the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill’s board of trustees has voted unanimously to significantly reduce the budget of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) department.

The $2.3 million previously allocated to DEI initiatives will now bolster campus police funding, a decision prompted by recent security concerns, including anti-Israel demonstrations.

The decision to redirect funds was made during a special meeting focused on the university’s fiscal management and priorities.

This reallocation could effectively dismantle the existing diversity office, shifting the focus toward enhancing campus safety and addressing immediate security needs.

UNC Chapel Hill is the flagship institution of North Carolina’s public university system, known for its rigorous academic standards and diverse student body.

However, recent weeks have seen the campus become a hotspot for anti-Israel protests, which have escalated to property damage and disruptions, culminating in several arrests.

Marty Kotis, the vice chairman of the budget committee, expressed concerns over the current direction of DEI programs, labeling them as sources of “divisiveness, exclusion, and indoctrination.”

He advocated for “more unity and togetherness, more dialogue, more diversity of thought,” rather than what he perceives as a singular focus on identity politics that might not serve the broader student body.

“It’s important to consider the needs of all 30,000 students, not just the 100 or so that may want to disrupt the university’s operations,” Kotis added, highlighting the need for resource allocation that benefits the entire campus community.

Board Chairman David Boliek echoed these sentiments in comments to the Raleigh News & Observer, criticizing what he described as “administrative bloat” within the university.

Boliek emphasized the importance of reallocating funds toward “rubber-meets-the-road efforts like public safety and teaching.”

The tension on campus reached a peak last month during a pro-Palestinian encampment at which participants removed the American flag and replaced it with a Palestinian flag.

This act and the subsequent need to secure and repair property contributed to the decision to enhance funding for law enforcement capabilities on campus.

The funding shift at UNC Chapel Hill is part of a broader reevaluation of DEI initiatives within the UNC system, especially following the Supreme Court’s June decision against affirmative action policies at UNC and Harvard.

This ruling has prompted educational institutions nationwide to reassess their approaches to diversity and admissions policies.

The upcoming vote by North Carolina’s public university system to potentially overturn a 2019 DEI regulation could lead to further significant changes.

If the new policy is enacted, it would take immediate effect, likely resulting in the elimination of numerous DEI positions across the system’s 17 schools.

This pivotal shift at UNC Chapel Hill reflects a broader national conversation about the role of universities in promoting “diversity” and forcing a liberal agenda on students versus ensuring campus safety and free expression of thought.

As the debate continues, the outcomes at UNC Chapel Hill may serve as a guide for other institutions grappling with similar challenges.

The university’s decision to prioritize campus security over DEI programs marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding the idea of pushing a Radical agenda instead of fostering an academic environment and maintaining order and safety on campus.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has completely neglected the nation’s security, and they have tried to cover it up. But now they have nowhere to hide.

And a shocking new report has detailed just how bad our national security really is.

Under the administration of President Joe Biden, the United States has witnessed a historic surge in its foreign-born population, with numbers reaching an unprecedented 51.6 million, which constitutes 15.6% of the total U.S. population.

This significant demographic shift, marked by the largest two-year increase ever recorded, has intensified the ongoing debate over immigration policies and border control.

Recent data from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has revealed a sharp increase in the foreign-born population, growing by 5.1 million since March 2022.

This growth is not only the largest observed in a two-year span but also matches the demographic expansion seen over the nine years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since President Biden assumed office, approximately 6.6 million foreign-born individuals have added to this figure, translating to nearly 170,000 immigrants arriving each month.

The dramatic increase in immigration, particularly illegal immigration, which accounts for about 58% of the growth, comes as Biden’s policies continue to face scrutiny.

The administration’s handling of border security and immigration reform has become a focal point of criticism, especially given that only 46% of the recent arrivals are employed.

This situation poses challenges not only to the labor market but also to social services and integration efforts.

The current state of U.S. immigration policy has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters.

Analysts at CIS warn that if current trends persist, the foreign-born population could escalate to over 82 million by 2040, further straining public resources and social cohesion.

Critics argue that the Biden administration’s lenient policies have encouraged this influx, leading to unsustainable population growth and security concerns.

The political implications of this demographic shift are profound.

President Biden has found himself increasingly at odds with public opinion on immigration, with polls indicating a significant preference for former President Donald Trump’s approach.

According to a recent New York Times poll, Trump leads Biden by 35 points on immigration, with substantial leads in crucial swing states.

The record-high numbers of foreign-born residents under Biden’s presidency highlight a critical juncture for U.S. immigration policy.

As the nation continues to struggle with these challenges because of Biden, the debate continues to polarize the nation.

With upcoming investigations by the House GOP into spikes in illegal immigration from specific countries like China, the issue remains at the forefront of national discourse.

The need for an effective immigration strategy is more pressing than ever, as the U.S. strives to reconcile the ideals of openness with the imperatives of national security and economic stability.

This escalating demographic trend underscores the urgent need for a reassessment of immigration policies to ensure they serve the nation’s interests while maintaining its global humanitarian commitments.

As the situation develops, it will undoubtedly remain a pivotal issue in the upcoming electoral cycles, shaping political debates and potentially redefining the landscape of American politics and society.

The Radical Left has made it clear that they care more about foreigners and illegal immigrants than they do about American citizens. We must demand reform for our border security.

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