The Radical Left has been making horrible policy decisions that hurt American lives. But now, all of that could change.

Because the Biden administration has suffered a major legal blow that could force them to step back.

In a decisive stand against Joe Biden’s Radical and unconstitutional policies, more than two dozen Republican attorneys general have initiated legal challenges against the administration’s new regulations on private firearm sales.

The regulations, which they argue violate fundamental Second Amendment rights, require individuals profiting from gun sales to conduct background checks and obtain a federal firearms license regardless of the selling circumstances.

Leading the charge is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who, together with the Attorneys General from Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah, and organizations such as the Gun Owners of America, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and the Tennessee Firearms Association, has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

They assert that the ATF lacks the statutory authority to enforce such a rule and that the rule infringes upon both the Second and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution.

Paxton expressed his concern, stating, “Yet again, Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to rip up the Constitution and destroy our citizens’ Second Amendment rights. This is a dramatic escalation of his tyrannical abuse of authority. With today’s lawsuit, it is my great honor to defend our Constitutionally-protected freedoms from the out-of-control federal government.”

A separate legal action led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach includes support from a wide coalition of states including Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Kobach criticized the rule for potentially criminalizing ordinary Americans who engage in low-volume firearm sales among family and friends without undergoing federal registration or licensing.

“Biden’s latest attempt to strip away the Second Amendment rights of Americans through ATF regulations will make many law-abiding gun owners felons if they sell a firearm or two to family or friends,” Kobach remarked.

“This rule is blatantly unconstitutional. We are suing to defend the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” he added.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody has also stepped forward with a lawsuit, arguing that the proposed rule stretches far beyond the directives of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA)—legislation passed with some bipartisan support that aimed to enhance background checks and fund state-level “red flag” laws.

“The challenged rule, in fact, goes far beyond the plain text of the BSCA,” says the Florida lawsuit.

“It purports to force thousands of law-abiding gun owners to register as federal firearms dealers and navigate a federal bureaucracy as a precondition to engaging in constitutionally protected activity. The challenged rule is unlawful.”

These lawsuits reflect a growing concern among many Americans that the Biden administration is using federal agencies to encroach upon individual rights and to reinterpret laws without proper legislative oversight.

As these cases progress through the courts, they will not only test the bounds of executive authority regarding gun regulations but also set significant precedents on how far the government can go in regulating private sales of firearms without infringing on constitutional rights.

The outcomes could have profound implications for the future of gun legislation and the protection of individual liberties in the United States.

We cannot sit idly by as the Left steals away our freedoms and forces their Radical agenda on us. The Constitution is in place for a reason, and we must protect that sacred document.

As long as the Radical Left continues to oppress the American people, we will demand justice and accountability.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left controls the media, and everyone knows that. But no one thought things were this bad.

And now, a new interview has unveiled shocking Biden administration propaganda in the media.

In a recent podcast interview that has stirred controversy about the influence that the Left has over media, TikTok creator Farha Khalidi revealed she was compensated to promote what she described as “political propaganda” for the Biden administration.

The revelation highlights a broader trend of leveraging popular online influencers to shape public opinion on political figures and initiatives, raising ethical and transparency concerns.

During her conversation with Richard Hanania, Khalidi disclosed that her involvement was orchestrated by a third-party media company, which acted as an intermediary to facilitate the propagation of political content without direct endorsement as a commercial advertisement.

She described how these arrangements were strategically designed to influence her substantial social media following.

Khalidi’s primary task, according to her account, was to publicly express admiration for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, focusing on her identity as a woman of color.

“The funny thing is they’re, like, ‘Do not disclose this as an ad’ because they [were], like, ‘Technically, it’s not a product, so you don’t have to disclose it’s an ad.’ Because I think they just wanted, like, some edgy girl of color to just tell people — like when they nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, they’re, like, ‘Can you say as a person of color, you know, that you feel reflected?’” Khalidi recounted.

This request aimed to resonate with Khalidi’s diverse audience, potentially generating a positive reception toward Justice Jackson.

However, Khalidi expressed discomfort with the scripted nature of the message she was asked to convey.

“I was doing full-on political propaganda,” she stated, reflecting on the complexity and potential manipulativeness of such campaigns.

The payments for these promotional activities, as Khalidi noted, came from various sources including the Biden administration, Planned Parenthood, and several commercial entities.

Farha Khalidi on how surrogates for the Biden administration tried to pay her to engage in identity politics and sell their message.

A case of racial division as a top-down phenomenon. They're literally buying the TikTok influencers. pic.twitter.com/nJWGvsLlMu

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) April 26, 2024

“I was taking ads by the time I graduated college from, like, the Biden administration, Planned Parenthood and, like, dating apps and stuff. So it was, like, fully financially sustaining me,” she explained, shedding light on how political groups and other organizations are increasingly turning to influencers as a viable channel for their messaging.

Khalidi revealed her interaction with a white individual from the media company who initially reached out to her.

She criticized the approach taken by the individual, who seemingly attempted to connect with her on the basis of shared racial identity.

“Yeah, they’re basically, ‘As, like, another black person, can you just say that you feel reflected by Ketanji?’ I’m like, ‘No, I’ll talk about Ketanji’s background and her accomplishments,’ but you know what I mean? I’ll never — I’m not gonna say, like, the corny stuff, even if it was a brown person emailing it to me,” Khalidi said, expressing her refusal to adhere strictly to the script provided, opting instead to focus on Justice Jackson’s qualifications and achievements.

This situation underscores a growing trend where Radical Left politicians and advocacy groups harness the power of influencers to reach a broader and often younger demographic with their propaganda.

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

It is well known that the Left controls the media, and most of what comes out is heavily biased. But now, more proof has been discovered.

And a shocking new House development has revealed concerning media bias in major publications

In a striking move that underscores the ongoing political tension surrounding media bias in the United States, House Republicans have formally requested Katherine Maher, the newly appointed CEO of National Public Radio (NPR), to testify before Congress.

This call for testimony stems from serious allegations regarding the network’s left-leaning bias, potentially setting the stage for a significant showdown on Capitol Hill.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a Republican Representative from Washington, spearheaded the request through a detailed letter addressed to Maher.

This communication invites Maher to appear before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on May 8.

The intent is to address various claims concerning NPR’s editorial direction on hot-button issues such as politics, COVID-19, transgender topics, audience demographics, and the organization’s internal diversity.

The letter articulated the Committee’s apprehensions about the trajectory of NPR under its recent leadership, stressing that as a public entity funded by taxpayers, NPR holds a duty to provide balanced and impartial news coverage that resonates with and reflects the broad spectrum of American viewpoints, not merely those of a select, ideologically driven audience.

The controversy gained momentum following explosive accusations from Uri Berliner, a veteran editor at NPR, who criticized the network last month for veering too far left, eroding trust with its American audience.

Berliner’s allegations led to his suspension and subsequent resignation, during which he expressed his inability to continue in an environment where his perspectives were marginalized by what he described as the divisive approaches of the new CEO.

Complicating matters further, Maher has faced backlash for her past remarks and social media activity, which have painted her as highly critical of former President Donald Trump and supportive of President Joe Biden, alongside other liberal causes.

In response to the outcry, Maher defended herself in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, dismissing the criticism as a “bad faith distortion” of her views.

The GOP’s letter to Maher underscored the concerns ignited by Berliner’s departure, noting allegations that all of NPR’s editorial staff in Washington, D.C., were registered Democrats.

It also highlighted troubling comments by Maher on managing misinformation and balancing free speech with editorial responsibility, suggesting that her personal political biases might be influencing NPR’s journalistic integrity.

In their correspondence, McMorris Rodgers and other Republican committee members challenged Maher to demonstrate how she plans to restore neutrality and credibility to NPR’s operations.

They requested detailed information about the political affiliations of NPR employees, among other internal matters, with a deadline set for May 14.

The letter from the House Republicans reflects a broader discourse on the need for media outlets, especially publicly funded ones, to avoid partisanship.

“In your own words, ‘slowing down a little bit and bringing the conversation in, listening with sincerity, debating with respect, consulting widely, and weighing difficult decisions with candor,’ might be what NPR needs to rebuild the damage to its reputation and credibility,” the letter stated, quoting Maher’s previous statements on effective communication.

As this situation unfolds, it remains unclear whether Maher will comply with the request to testify. NPR has not yet commented on the letter, but the implications of this request are significant, highlighting the critical scrutiny public broadcasters face regarding their editorial choices.

This incident comes amid renewed calls from many Americans to cut federal funding for NPR, arguing that taxpayer money should not support an organization that potentially harbors a partisan bias.

Despite these pressures, Berliner has opposed defunding NPR, citing respect for the integrity of his former colleagues and his desire for the organization to continue producing impactful journalism.

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

Joe Biden has not been popular in the eyes of most of America. But now, people are speaking out.

And Joe Biden was just attacked by a top Republican leader and everyone is shocked.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has voiced strong opposition to President Joe Biden’s proposal to resettle Palestinians from Gaza in the United States, a plan that has stirred significant controversy amid ongoing global conflicts.

DeSantis’s remarks came after reports surfaced that several federal agencies are exploring options to facilitate such resettlements, contingent upon cooperation from other nations, notably Egypt.

During a press conference on Wednesday, Governor DeSantis expressed disbelief at the President’s intentions, suggesting that such a move would not align with U.S. interests.

Our view in Florida on Biden’s reported plan to import people from the Gaza Strip is no. pic.twitter.com/gAaTOI2X76

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) May 1, 2024

“That is not in this country’s interest,” DeSantis stated, pointing to the overwhelming support for terrorism among the Palestinian population according to him, and their general animosity towards the United States.

DeSantis’s comments reflect a broader concern among conservatives who argue that importing individuals from a region so deeply embroiled in violent conflict could lead to the transplantation of foreign hostilities onto American soil.

“What we’ve seen over there — and we’ve seen the reflections in our own society of people out protesting in favor of Hamas terrorists, these are people that cooked babies in ovens while they were r*ping the baby’s mothers, executing elderly people — we forget about what happened that day on October 7,” he said, referencing the horrific acts attributed to Hamas.

The Governor articulated a stark vision of the potential consequences of such resettlements, suggesting that they could exacerbate domestic tensions and contribute to societal unrest.

He called the activism seen on college campuses, which often sympathizes with Palestinian causes against Israel, a “sickness” that complicates domestic affairs.

Governor DeSantis emphasized the importance of assimilation and support for American foundational values among new arrivals to the U.S., criticizing the Biden administration’s approach as misguided.

“And so I think part of what we need to do to unify the country going forward is to have people that actually want to assimilate into America, that actually believe in our founding principles, not people that just want to replicate a lot of these blood feuds that we see in other parts of the world,” he remarked.

His administration’s stance is clear: Florida does not support the federal resettlement plan for Palestinians.

“So our view in Florida on bringing in people from Gaza is no, we do not want to do that here in the state of Florida,” DeSantis declared, positioning Florida against the backdrop of national debate on immigration and refugee policy.

Governor DeSantis’s firm stance against the resettlement of Palestinians in Florida underscores the challenges the Biden administration faces in implementing its Radical immigration and foreign policy agenda amid such divided public opinion.

Joe Biden and the Radical Left have seemingly done everything they can to destroy our nation’s national security especially when it comes to illegal immigration.

We cannot allow them to get away with this reckless madness any longer.

We must hold our elected officials accountable for all of their actions, and we must vote for leaders who will put the needs of the nation first instead of foreign terrorist sympathizers.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden and the Radical Left have made the lives of countless Americans miserable. But now, all of that is about to change.

Because Trump’s newest election promises have Biden and the Left running for help.

During a campaign stop in Waukesha, Wisconsin, former President Donald Trump outlined a stark contrast between his economic policies and those of the current administration, promising a resurgence of prosperity under his potential second term.

Addressing a packed crowd, Trump took the opportunity to critique President Joe Biden’s handling of the economy, pointing to a series of policy failures that have led to extreme financial hardship for American families.

Trump’s rally speech, delivered on a day off from his trial in New York City, was charged with commitments to dismantle Biden’s economic strategies—dubbed “Bidenomics”—and to reinstate his own, which he refers to as “MAGAnomics.”

Trump: "On Day 1 of my new administration we're going to throw out Bidenomics and we're going to replace it with MAGAnomics." pic.twitter.com/61VWNH08Wm

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 1, 2024

The cornerstone of his message was a pledge to reverse the economic downturn and implement policies aimed at boosting growth and reducing inflation.

“Last week, we saw numbers showing clearly that the economy is crashing—with GDP growth plunging by more than 50 percent in the first quarter of this year. We now have BIDEN STAGFLATION—which spells the DEATH of the American Dream,” Trump told his supporters.

He linked the economic decline directly to Biden’s policies, which he claims have suffocated the middle class with high taxes and mismanagement.

Highlighting the financial strain faced by ordinary Americans, Trump criticized Biden for promising to end the Trump-era tax cuts, which, according to Trump, helped many Americans achieve better financial stability.

“A single individual earning $75,000 a year will see an almost $2,000 tax hike; and a family of four earning $165,000 a year will see a nearly $3,000 tax hike under Biden’s plan,” he stated, emphasizing the burden on families already living paycheck to paycheck.

Trump’s speech also touched on job creation, accusing the Biden administration of inflating employment numbers with part-time and low-quality jobs, many of which are held by illegal immigrants, according to Trump.

He contrasted this with his own record, claiming, “When I left office, we handed Crooked Joe the fastest economic recovery ever recorded, the stock market was at a record high, the price of gasoline was $2 dollars per gallon, the 30-year mortgage rate was at a record-low 2.65 percent, and we had NO INFLATION.”

Moreover, Trump criticized the Biden administration for what he sees as reckless spending, particularly criticizing the American Rescue Plan and other large expenditures like the Inflation Reduction Act and infrastructure bills, which he labeled as wasteful.

“They spent trillions of dollars on the Green New Scam, all wasted money. Joe Biden’s economic plan is to make CHINA RICH and America Poor,” Trump declared, asserting that his own economic plan would prioritize American prosperity and lead to historical national wealth.

Amidst rising living costs, Trump provided specific examples of inflation under Biden, noting significant price increases in everyday items such as chicken, baby food, eggs, and gasoline.

He pledged to tackle what he calls the “50 percent Biden inflation tax” by cutting unnecessary spending and reversing Biden’s green energy initiatives, which he criticized as a “Green New Scam.”

Trump concluded his speech with a rousing call to action, urging his supporters to vote for a return to policies that prioritize American workers, energy independence, and economic growth.

“We are going to DRILL, BABY, DRILL,” he exclaimed, promising to end what he described as Biden’s war on American energy.

The American people must take back the power from the corrupt Left, and we must vote for leaders who will put our nation first.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has been lying to the public for years. But now, the truth has come out.

And the White House has refused to answer national security questions and instead are hiding a massive secret.

In recent weeks, a series of campus protests and riots have erupted across United States universities, leading to widespread chaos and significant security concerns.

These protests, ostensibly in support of Palestine and the terrorist group Hamas, have seen participants seize university buildings and create encampments that disrupt normal campus activities.

Notably, these encampments have been coordinated to such a degree that participants across various locations sport matching tents, suggesting organized, professional involvement rather than spontaneous student activism.

This pattern has raised substantial questions about the funding and organization behind these movements, especially with numerous arrests revealing that many involved are not students but external agitators.

During a White House press briefing, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy pressed Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre on whether the Biden administration was investigating the professional orchestration behind these protests.

Inquiring specifically about the uniformity in protest equipment and these events being funded by domestic or foreign entities to sow discord, Doocy highlighted a critical concern about the safety and well-being of campus communities and the integrity of educational institutions.

However, the response from the White House was less than forthcoming.

Jean Pierre deflected these inquiries, stating that such matters were more appropriately handled by local officials and that the federal government, through the DOJ and FBI, would continue to support universities in respect to federal laws but did not commit to investigating the origins and funding of these protests directly.

This non-committal stance from the Biden administration has come under scrutiny, especially given the severity of incidents associated with these protests.

For instance, at Columbia University, protesters not only occupied university buildings but reportedly took multiple facility workers hostage.

Adding to the gravity, one of the protesters identified at Columbia was the spouse of a notorious terrorist previously deported from the U.S. for financially supporting a Palestinian terror group.

Such connections raise profound security concerns and show that these protests are more than mere expressions of campus dissent.

Moreover, the protests have been tainted by overt expressions of antisemitism and endorsements of terror groups, complicating the narrative that these are purely pro-Palestinian peace movements.

When Doocy brought up the administration’s silence on these extreme cases, Jean Pierre responded by reiterating President Biden’s commitment to combating antisemitism and distancing the administration from the violent protests.

Yet, the lack of a proactive federal response to these dangerous escalations remains a point of contention.

The situation on campuses like UCLA, where violent clashes forced the cancellation of classes, further underscores the need for a more robust administrative response.

Yet, despite these disruptions, there appears to be no clear strategy from the White House on addressing the escalating violence and its underlying causes.

The administration’s approach seems reactive rather than preventive, with a possible reluctance to thoroughly investigate or address the ideological and financial roots of the protests due to political sensitivities around the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This has led to concerns that the Biden administration might be prioritizing political correctness over the safety and security of university communities and the broader public.

We must demand more from our elected leaders.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has been abusing the justice system to push its Radical agenda. But now, that could all change.

And now, New York AG Letitia James is facing severe backlash for her political witch hunt, and Democrats are worried.

In a shocking twist, a group of Christian pro-life pregnancy resource centers and organizations, led by Heartbeat International and represented by the Thomas More Society, has launched a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

This action comes in response to what the plaintiffs describe as a series of unconstitutional threats aimed at silencing their advocacy and misleading public statements made by James.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in the Supreme Court of New York in Monroe County, accuses the Attorney General of infringing on the groups’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as violating the New York state constitution.

The dispute began after Attorney General James sent a controversial letter on April 22 to a dozen pro-life ministries, accusing them of “repeated and persistent misleading statements and omissions” in relation to their promotion of the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol.

This protocol, supported by countless pro-life advocates, involves the administration of bioidentical progesterone to potentially reverse the effects of mifepristone—a component of the medical abortion process—if a woman decides against completing the procedure.

The lawsuit argues that James’s actions are part of a broader, politically motivated campaign against pro-life organizations.

“Defendant James has no business interfering with the intimate medical decisions of an expectant mother, who, in consultation with her chosen medical professional, decides to carry her pregnancy to term,” the legal challenge states.

It further contends that such interventions by James are overreaches into personal health decisions and are particularly egregious given the sensitive nature of the issues involved.

Heartbeat International, one of the plaintiffs, plays a significant role in facilitating access to the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol.

Jor-El Godsey, the president of Heartbeat International, expressed deep concern over the state’s actions, which he views as an aggressive attempt to coerce women into continuing abortions they no longer wish to proceed with.

“New York State laws protect abortionists and abortion on demand up until birth,” Godsey stated. “Now they are targeting those who assist a woman in exercising her right to continue her own pregnancy. It is unconscionable to see the abortion industry and its politicians insist she complete an abortion she no longer wants.”

The pro-life organizations are seeking legal intervention to prevent James from initiating any lawsuits against them based on the accusations made in her April letter.

They are also asking the court to affirm that the notice issued by James violated their constitutionally protected rights.

Peter Breen, Executive Vice President of the Thomas More Society, criticized the actions of the Attorney General as a “political witch-hunt against small nonprofits” that have dedicated over half a century to serving New York’s pregnant women and their children.

Breen argues that James should be supporting these charities rather than attacking them with “outrageously false claims” under laws that do not apply to their noncommercial speech.

The filing of this lawsuit comes in the wake of increased scrutiny and criticism of pregnancy resource centers across the nation, particularly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

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

For too long Jack Smith and the Radical Left have been doing everything they can to oppose Trump. But now, they are being held in check.

Because a top official has just dealt a major legal blow to Jack Smith.

House Representative Elise Stefanik has taken a firm stand against the Department of Justice, specifically targeting Special Counsel Jack Smith with an official ethics complaint.

This move highlights a growing concern among Americans about the weaponization of the Justice System to influence electoral outcomes, particularly with regard to the 2024 presidential election.

Filed with the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Stefanik’s complaint articulates a grave concern that Smith is orchestrating an accelerated legal attack against former President Donald Trump with the distinct aim of thwarting his potential reelection.

“It’s obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election and stop the American people from electing Donald Trump,” Stefanik stated, arguing that Smith’s actions could be construed as a deliberate attempt to manipulate the presidential race.

🚨🚨🚨 I just filed an official ethics complaint against Jack Smith with the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility for his illegal election interference.

It’s obvious to any reasonable observer that Jack Smith is trying to interfere with the 2024 election… pic.twitter.com/lNW4MUz5Oi

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) April 30, 2024

Stefanik, who serves as the House GOP Conference chair, has accused Smith of “abusing the resources of the federal government” in an unlawful manner to disrupt the 2024 presidential election.

She asserts that Smith’s efforts to expedite the federal January 6th case against Trump not only breach explicit Justice Department policy but also flout long-standing legal norms that protect the integrity of the electoral process.

According to the Justice Department’s own guidelines, as Stefanik points out, federal prosecutors are prohibited from timing their legal actions to influence electoral outcomes or to advantage or disadvantage any candidate or political party.

This principle is designed to maintain the impartiality of the judicial process and ensure that justice is administered without political bias or intent.

Despite these clear guidelines, Stefanik argues that Smith sought a trial start date of January 2, 2024, for Trump, which would necessitate an extraordinarily rapid review of extensive evidence—a scenario that seems both impractical and strategically timed before the November election.

“The only reason to push for such an early trial date was to work to get the case tried before the November election,” Stefanik states, suggesting that such a move is indicative of a broader strategy to damage Trump’s electoral viability rather than a pursuit of impartial justice.

Further complicating matters, Stefanik highlighted Smith’s inconsistent legal maneuvers regarding presidential immunity, like an unsuccessful attempt to have the Supreme Court expedite their decision on the matter, only to later oppose a similar request by Trump.

This, according to Stefanik, exposes a tactical approach not aimed at clarifying important legal principles but rather at securing a procedural advantage against Trump.

Moreover, Stefanik accuses Smith of violating the District Court’s stay of proceedings, an order that was meant to pause further legal actions pending appeals.

She detailed instances where Smith allegedly continued to press forward, including the delivery of thousands of pages of discovery and filing motions in court despite the stay, actions she claims clearly contravene professional conduct rules and demonstrate a disregard for lawful court orders.

Through her complaint, Stefanik is not just challenging Smith but is also calling into question the broader implications of his conduct for the rule of law and the integrity of the electoral process.

Her actions reflect a significant portion of American citizens who see these legal battles as part of a larger pattern of politicization within federal agencies, perceived by many as an effort to undermine conservative leaders and influence political outcomes under the guise of legal proceedings.

We cannot allow the Left to get away with this madness any longer.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has prioritized illegal immigrants over US citizens for far too long. And now, they have made a critical error.

Because a new DHS discovery has unveiled a disgusting truth that Democrats are scrambling to cover up.

Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has openly admitted that the hundreds of thousands of immigrants flown into the U.S. under the controversial ‘parole’ program are considered “inadmissible.”

This acknowledgment comes amidst the revelation that over 45 major American cities have been receiving immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela through this initiative.

Bill Melugin of Fox News reported on data obtained from the DHS, which was compelled by a subpoena from the House Homeland Security Committee.

The DHS documentation clearly states, “All individuals paroled into the United States are, by definition, inadmissible, including those paroled under the CHNV processes.”

This stark admission highlights a terrifying aspect of the Biden administration’s approach to handling the surge of migrants from other countries.

The parole program, initially launched for Venezuelans in October 2022 and subsequently expanded in January 2023 to include Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Cubans, allows 30,000 individuals each month to enter the U.S., granting them work permits and two-year residency permits.

As of the end of February 2024, this policy has resulted in over 400,000 foreign nationals entering the country.

This mass parole initiative is part of a broader strategy that DHS Secretary Mayorkas has described as a “safe and orderly way to reach the United States,” supposedly designed to reduce the number of illegal border crossings by nationals from these countries.

However, the program has been shrouded in controversy, particularly due to instances where immigrants admitted under this policy have later been involved in criminal activities.

Incidents like this underscore the massive risks associated with just admitting any immigrants regardless of whether they have undergone any sort of legal process or not.

Many Americans are outraged because the parole program circumvents immigration laws and processes, posing a challenge to U.S. security and immigration control.

The DHS’s own admission that these individuals are “inadmissible” underlines this point, suggesting a legal gray area that could have far-reaching implications for the integrity of U.S. immigration policy.

The policy’s impact is particularly pronounced in cities like Miami and Fort Lauderdale, where the largest numbers of these immigrants have settled.

Miami alone has received 91,821 immigrants under this program, followed by Fort Lauderdale with 60,461, and New York City with 14,827.

The influx into these communities raises questions about the capacity of local infrastructure to support such rapid increases in population, including concerns related to housing, healthcare, education, and public safety.

Moreover, the Biden administration’s framing of the parole program as a model for international migration management has attracted skepticism.

While Mayorkas asserts that it has helped to stem the flow of illegal border crossings and that other countries view it as a model, the reality of its implementation and outcomes paints a completely different picture.

This program’s strategic and humanitarian merits are debatable, particularly when set against the backdrop of broader challenges facing the U.S. immigration system, including overwhelmed border facilities and stretched resources.

Many Americans argue that solutions should strengthen rather than bypass existing legal frameworks, ensuring that safe and legal immigration is managed in a way that keeps America safe.

The ongoing scrutiny of the Biden administration’s immigration strategies will likely intensify as policymakers and the public grapple with these complex issues.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left and Joe Biden have completely opened this country up to illegal immigration. But now, the courts are pushing back against their Radical policies.

And a new immigration court decision in border state has dealt a major blow to the Left.

George Alan Kelly, a 75-year-old Arizona rancher, will not face a retrial for the alleged murder of Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea, a 48-year-old illegal immigrant found dead on his property near Nogales, Arizona.

After an intense four-week trial that concluded with a jury deadlock earlier this month, Santa Cruz County prosecutors have decided not to pursue the case further, citing the “unique circumstances and challenges” that prevented a unanimous verdict.

Cuen-Buitimea, a Mexican national who had a history of multiple deportations from the United States, was trespassing on Kelly’s ranch with a group of other suspected illegal immigrants on January 31, 2023.

Kelly, who has consistently maintained his innocence, was charged with second-degree murder but argued that he only fired warning shots in defense of his property and did not fatally shoot Cuen-Buitimea.

The defense’s narrative resonated with the majority of the jury, leading to a 7-1 decision in favor of acquittal.

“I’m just so happy for them. We got the right answer,” Kelly’s defense lawyer, Kathy Lowthorp, remarked following the announcement that there would be no retrial.

She also indicated that the trial had taken a significant toll on Kelly, suggesting he is likely to move away from the area due to the stress and negative attention the case has attracted.

This legal outcome has stirred significant reactions on both sides of the border.

Santa Cruz County prosecutor Mike Jette had argued during the trial that Kelly unnecessarily escalated the situation, despite not observing any weapons among the group of trespassers.

Conversely, Mexico’s consul general in Nogales, Marcos Moreno Báez, expressed disappointment over the decision not to retry the case, citing a lack of justice for Cuen-Buitimea’s family and critiquing the trial’s portrayal of migration issues.

The decision not to pursue a retrial reflects a broader debate on the current illegal immigration crisis which has been a major topic of American politics, especially in border states like Arizona.

Many conservatives view the outcome as a vindication of the right to protect one’s property and safety, particularly under circumstances where border enforcement is perceived to be insufficient.

Indeed, this case underscores the challenges ranchers and property owners face on the U.S.-Mexico border, where illegal crossings are frequent and often lead to dangerous confrontations.

For many, Kelly’s situation highlights the need for more robust border security measures and more explicit legal protections for those who find themselves defending their property against illegal trespassers.

The Kelly case may also have broader implications for U.S. immigration policy and the ongoing debates surrounding the rights of property owners versus the treatment of migrants.

While every individual, regardless of citizenship status, deserves fair treatment under the law, there is also a strong argument to be made that the rights of American citizens to secure their property must be firmly upheld.

The resolution of this case leaves open many questions about the balance between national security, individual rights, and the complexities of immigration enforcement.

As the United States continues to grapple with these issues, the story of George Alan Kelly serves as a poignant reminder of the real-world impacts of policy and the often personal nature of the national discourse on immigration.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Radical Left has been forcing their agenda on the world for years. But now, all of that is about to change

Because a bipartisan movement is underway that has the Left nervous.

A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has raised serious concerns about the credibility of the International Criminal Court (ICC), warning that the court risks undermining its standing if it proceeds with arrest warrants for Israeli officials.

These warrants would be in response to Israel’s military actions against Hamas following the October 7 massacre.

Reports suggest that the ICC may be considering arrest warrants for key Israeli figures, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.

This development comes amid a contentious backdrop of international relations, where the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the ICC are frequently questioned by several major nations, including the United States, Russia, China, and India.

A senior Biden administration official emphasized to Axios that the United States does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction in this matter and opposes any ICC investigations into Israeli actions.

The sentiment reflects a broader skepticism about the ICC’s actions, which some U.S. officials and lawmakers perceive as overreaching.

This skepticism has prompted some U.S. lawmakers to draft legislation aimed at sanctioning ICC officials involved in the investigation into Israel.

These proposed sanctions highlight the growing tensions between the ICC and the United States over issues of sovereignty and international law.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has vocally opposed the ICC’s potential moves, asserting Israel’s right to self-defense and criticizing the ICC’s actions as a threat to democracy and an affront to all countries fighting terrorism.

“The threat to seize the soldiers and officials of the Middle East’s only democracy and the world’s only Jewish state is outrageous,” Netanyahu stated. “We will not bow to it,” he affirmed, declaring Israel’s determination to continue its defense efforts against what he described as genocidal terrorists.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson called the potential ICC actions “disgraceful” and “illegitimate,” arguing that such moves would undermine U.S. national security interests and could set a dangerous precedent that might affect American political leaders, diplomats, and military personnel.

Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) and Representative Ritchie Torres (D-NY) also expressed their disapproval on social media, emphasizing the potential damage to the ICC’s judicial and moral standing and criticizing the perceived injustice of targeting Israel for defending itself against Hamas attacks.

It would be a fatal blow to the judicial and moral standing of ICC to pursue this path against Israel.

Calling on @POTUS to intervene as part of the administration’s ongoing commitment to Israel. pic.twitter.com/tPXDxhh9nw

— Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) April 29, 2024

Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) highlighted the inconsistency in the ICC’s prosecutorial decisions, noting the court’s failure to address significant atrocities in other regions such as Syria, Sudan, and Tigray.

“Instead, the ICC apparently considers warrants on Israeli leaders for legitimate self-defense. Such a decision would be outrageous, and I condemn it,” Sherman stated.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) went further, suggesting that any move by the ICC to target Israeli officials would align the court with what he called “genocidal terrorists,” undermining its credibility irreparably. Cruz called for strong U.S. sanctions against the ICC should it proceed in this manner.

The bipartisan response underscores a rare unity in U.S. politics regarding the support for Israel and the opposition to terrorist groups and any support for them.

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

Harris may go down as the least likable vice president in history. It’s not hard to see after moments like these.

And a humiliating video of Kamala Harris proves what everyone knew.

On Drew Barrymore’s daytime talk show Monday, Vice President Kamala Harris was asked if she could become the country’s mother.

What that exactly means? Nobody has any clue. But it didn’t stop the aging Hollywood actress from asking.

“I’ve been thinking that we really all need a tremendous hug in the world right now,” Barrymore said, “but in our country, we need you to be Mamala of the country.”

“Yeah,” Harris said, chuckling.

Political observers took to social media to lampoon the exchange.

“Drew Barrymore is gaslighting, NO ONE wants Kamala Harris to be ‘Momala’ for the country,” ACT for America chairman Brigitte Gabriel wrote Monday on X.

“Howard Stern refers to Joe Biden as the ‘Father of the Country.’ Drew Barrymore says Kamala needs to be our ‘Momala’. Who exactly is in a cult? These people aren’t looking for a leader they’re looking for surrogate parents,” Fox News host Will Cain wrote.

According to author Oli London, “Drew Barrymore participates in cringe-worthy and fawning display with Kamala Harris.”

Is this possible? Could a society delve into such an infantile orgy of mediocrity that this is considered compelling? @DrewBarrymore was someone whom I adored in "The Wedding Singer." Now she's ruined it for me! As far as the Cackler @KamalaHarris, well… https://t.co/H7eNYuSqnl

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) April 29, 2024

“Is this possible?” Canadian academic Gad Saad inquired about the conversation between Harris and Barrymore in response to London’s X post.

“Could a society delve into such an infantile orgy of mediocrity that this is considered compelling?”

Harris also discussed with Barrymore the necessity of never allowing “anybody take your power” and being intentional in recognizing “what is in your power” before moving on to remarks about her laugh.

Harris made waves by chuckling in answer to questions on the border crisis and the value of female leadership.

“You were asking me earlier about what it means to be like the first woman,” she added.

“And you know, it’s funny because people still gotta get used to this, right?”

Barrymore reportedly told Harris that she liked the vice president’s laugh.

Well, Barrymore is certainly in the minority.

Only 38.5% of Americans approve of Kamala Harris’ job in the White House according to FiveThirtyEight polling averages.

Compare that to Joe Biden at 39.5%, and she’s doing even worse than him – though not by much.

No one wants a “Mamala.” We want an economy that works for Americans, an immigration system that isn’t rewarding illegals, and an end to endless wars.

Stay tuned to the Prudent Politics.