Home Blog

DHS sends sobering warning to southern border cartels

Prudent Politics
-
0
DHS sends sobering warning to southern border cartels

America is under siege. But we’re fighting back.

And now DHS sent a sobering warning to southern border cartels.

The cartels running drugs and human smuggling operations across America’s southern border are increasingly turning to a new tool: fleets of surveillance drones watching U.S. Border Patrol agents and military personnel. The Department of Homeland Security isn’t backing down, issuing a stark public warning this week after more than 300 hostile cartel drones were detected along the border in just over a month.

According to the Department of War, 378 cartel drones were detected at the southern border between August 22 and this past Thursday. Of those, U.S. forces turned back 75, engaged 15, and captured one. That comes on top of previous reporting that the War Department’s Joint Task Force – Southern Border took down approximately 100 suspected cartel drones in August alone. The scale of this aerial surveillance operation being run by criminal cartels should alarm anyone who still thinks of border security purely in terms of foot traffic and vehicle checkpoints.

DHS isn’t mincing words about what these drones actually represent. In a pointed statement posted on X, the department declared that “hostile surveillance of American personnel ends here,” directing an unusually direct warning straight at the cartels themselves: “To the Cartels, your drones are failing, your tactics are being exposed, and you have no advantage. @CBP and @DeptofWar will keep taking them down.” That’s not the language of an agency playing defense — that’s a clear statement of intent from a government finally treating cartel operations as the paramilitary threat they actually are.

Jeffrey Stalnaker, deputy chief patrol agent for Border Patrol, explained to Fox News exactly why these drones matter so much to cartel operations. Rather than using them primarily for smuggling contraband, cartels are deploying drones mainly for reconnaissance, replacing the human lookouts they once relied on to monitor Border Patrol movements. “They’re watching when our soldiers and our agents are coming into the field, where they’re working, and then that allows them to plan how they’re going to send individuals north from Mexico into the United States illegally, trying to circumvent us between the ports of entry,” Stalnaker said.

In other words, cartels have effectively built their own real-time intelligence network to track American law enforcement movements and time their smuggling operations accordingly. That’s a level of sophistication that should put to rest any lingering notion that these are unsophisticated criminal outfits rather than organized paramilitary operations with genuine tactical capability.

In response, the Department of War and DHS are ramping up their own counter-drone capabilities, deploying detection and interception technology while partnering with private companies to develop new tools specifically designed to counter the growing cartel drone threat. For the past three weeks, the U.S. military has been running exercises in the desert outside Yuma, Arizona, testing an array of new anti-drone equipment ranging from specialized guns to drone-capturing technology and unmanned aerial vehicles of its own.

Brigadier General Jason Rueschhoff, director of operations for U.S. Northern Command, emphasized that American forces are staying ahead of this evolving threat rather than playing catch-up. “We are developing capability at a pace that is keeping ahead of our enemy and that’s really important and that’s what happens here,” Rueschhoff said. That’s an important distinction, because cartel drone tactics are reportedly evolving rapidly, and federal officials have acknowledged that while anti-drone measures at the border have succeeded so far, the cartels aren’t standing still either.

There’s a more ominous dimension to this story too. While officials say lethal cartel drones have not yet been encountered at the southern border, some cartel drones are known to be capable of lethal use, a chilling reminder of how battlefield drone tactics developed in conflicts overseas have steadily migrated into the hands of criminal organizations operating just south of American territory. The FBI has separately warned that battlefield-style drone attacks reaching American soil is “only a matter of time,” underscoring why the current investment in counter-drone technology at the border isn’t merely precautionary — it’s addressing a threat that’s already knocking on the door.

Every drone takedown operation is being carefully coordinated with the Mexican military and border authorities, according to a senior War Department official, specifically to prevent any interference or unintended clashes between forces operating on either side of the border. That kind of binational coordination matters enormously, both for operational safety and for maintaining the broader security relationship between the two countries as cartel violence and technology continue to escalate.

Administration officials have been quick to tout the broader results of this more aggressive posture toward cartel operations. A senior official praised President Trump’s direct use of military force against cartel threats during a recent press call, stating plainly, “The president directed, the Department of War executed, the first ever plan and strategy to use direct military force to defend the homeland from this threat.” The official credited that strategy with producing dramatic results: “The effects have been spectacular, and we’ve seen the largest and steepest reduction in U.S. casualties inflicted by the cartels in American history.”

That claim deserves scrutiny and continued verification over time, but if accurate, it represents exactly the kind of tangible security outcome that years of softer border enforcement policy failed to deliver. Treating cartel drone surveillance networks as a genuine paramilitary threat, rather than a nuisance to be tolerated, reflects a fundamental shift in how the federal government approaches border security under the current administration.

For years, cartels have operated with a level of technological sophistication and operational freedom that should have alarmed policymakers far sooner than it did. The fact that criminal organizations were able to build out drone reconnaissance networks capable of monitoring American federal agents in real time, without triggering a serious military and technological countermeasure until now, speaks to just how far border enforcement had fallen behind the actual threat landscape. DHS’s blunt warning to the cartels this week, backed by real counter-drone capability and a rapidly expanding detection network, is exactly the posture the moment demands.

Key Democrat strategist admits Republicans are better

Prudent Politics
-
0
Key Democrat strategist admits Republicans are better

The Left rarely tells the truth. But this may just be the truth.

Because key Democrat strategist admitted Republicans are better.

It’s not often you get a longtime Democratic strategist to openly concede that his own party is losing the messaging war, but that’s exactly what happened this week when veteran operative James Carville admitted on his own podcast that Republicans are simply better than Democrats at both building a positive narrative and tearing down the opposition. Coming from the man who coined “it’s the economy, stupid,” that’s about as candid an admission as Democrats are likely to get from one of their own.

The moment came when a listener wrote in to Carville’s “Politics War Room” podcast, co-hosted with Al Hunt, asking a pointed question about the asymmetry in how the two parties talk about each other. Hunt summarized the listener’s frustration bluntly: “He wants to know why the Republicans are so much better than the Democrats at creating boogeymen. Republicans will paint all Democrats with a socialist brush, yet Democrats can’t seem to do the same thing when it comes to racism, antisemitism or corruption, despite the fact that all three are prevalent among Republican members of Congress.”

Carville’s answer was refreshingly honest, even if it came wrapped in some deflection about Republicans supposedly self-destructing without Democratic help. “The gist of the question from our listener is totally correct,” Carville admitted. “And for whatever reasons, I think it’s because we’re more of a coalition. Not only do we not have a consistent negative story to tell about the other party, we don’t have a consistent positive story to tell about ourselves.” He went on to say the party’s hope rests on finding “a really skilled candidate” by 2028 who can finally pull off what the party’s current bench apparently cannot.

Carville summed it up even more starkly: “We’re not as good as they are at the negative, and we’re not as good as they are at a positive.” That’s a remarkable statement from someone who has spent decades inside Democratic campaign war rooms, and it cuts against years of media narratives suggesting Republicans are the ones perpetually struggling with message discipline.

Republican consultant Mary Marslender, a former senior advisor to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, pushed back on Carville’s framing that the parties are simply mismatched in messaging skill, arguing the real explanation is far simpler: Republicans aren’t inventing anything, they’re just describing reality. “It isn’t even close, and it isn’t the disparity Carville thinks it is,” Marslender told Fox News Digital. “When Republicans label Democrats as socialists, it’s not just empty rhetoric; it’s grounded in how many Democrats describe themselves. Recent polling found that 59 percent of Democrats identify as supporters of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).”

Marslender didn’t stop there, laying out exactly what that platform actually contains. “The DSA has openly advocated for policies such as court-packing, sweeping changes to financial institutions, the abolition of capitalism, open borders, eliminating prisons and the Senate, and expanding administrative power. The Democratic Party has embraced socialism, and there seems to be no turning back,” she said. When roughly six in ten Democrats identify with an organization whose platform includes abolishing the U.S. Senate, calling that party “socialist” isn’t a smear campaign — it’s a factual description.

Marslender also took direct aim at Carville’s suggestion that Republicans have already destroyed their own credibility without any help from Democratic messaging. “Carville’s claim is more political spin than reality,” she said. “If Republicans had truly destroyed their own credibility, Democrats would not need Carville’s advice to ‘sit this one out.’ In fact, Carville reveals the Democratic Party’s real problem: they lack both a compelling message and a strong messenger, and are now hoping for a ‘really skilled candidate in 2028.'” She added a pointed rebuttal grounded in the administration’s actual record: “A party that has watched the Trump administration deliver on border security, energy independence, and prioritizing American workers cannot credibly claim that Republicans have already undermined themselves.”

Even voices closer to the political center found plenty to criticize in Carville’s framing. Julian Epstein, a Democratic consultant and former House Judiciary Committee chief counsel, didn’t mince words about what he sees as his own party’s deeper problem. “Some of this is progressive delusion,” Epstein said. “For the last decade, Democrats, in non-stop fashion, have sought to commodify rage by calling Trump a fascist, deriding Trump’s attempt to stop a Nazi movement in the Mideast, and blaming him for a cost-of-living crisis that Democrats mostly authored under Biden’s 20% cumulative inflation. Most of what Democrats do today is name-calling.”

Epstein went further, arguing the party’s struggles run deeper than tactics or talking points. “Democrats’ failure to tell a ‘positive story’ is not a communications problem, it’s a philosophy problem,” he said. “It dismays many of us centrists, but the left’s program today is almost entirely identity grievance and tax-and-spend redistributionist big government, which appeals to, at most, 25% of voters — about the same low number of voters that actually identify as Democrats today.” That’s an extraordinary admission from within the Democratic coalition itself, suggesting the party’s messaging woes aren’t a matter of finding better spokespeople but of confronting an agenda that simply doesn’t resonate broadly with the American electorate.

Epstein even offered a diagnosis that sounds almost conservative in its framing. “Democrats have forgotten how to build,” he said. “They have forgotten that the story of America is one of innovation, invention and discovery, not resentment and big government bureaucracies.” That’s precisely the kind of optimistic, aspirational, pro-growth message that has traditionally defined the American right, and hearing a Democratic insider concede his own party has abandoned that terrain entirely says a great deal about where the two parties currently stand.

To his credit, Epstein didn’t let Republicans entirely off the hook either, noting that the GOP has its own communications struggles around tariff policy and housing affordability. But even that critique underscores the broader point: while Republicans may occasionally fumble their messaging on specific policy details, Democrats appear to be grappling with something far more fundamental, a governing philosophy that a shrinking share of the country actually wants to buy.

What makes this moment particularly notable is that it didn’t come from a conservative pundit or a Republican strategist trying to score points. It came from James Carville, one of the most respected and battle-tested Democratic operatives in modern American politics, openly conceding on his own podcast that his party lacks both a coherent positive vision and an effective way to define its opposition. When your own side’s best-known strategist admits the other team is simply better at this, the rest of the country should probably take that admission seriously heading into what promises to be a consequential 2028 presidential cycle.

Ted Cruz makes an election prediction that will leave you stunned

Prudent Politics
-
0
Ted Cruz makes an election prediction that will leave you stunned

The midterms are coming. And they are coming fast.

And Ted Cruz made an election prediction that will leave you stunned.

Sen. Ted Cruz did not mince words on Monday’s edition of Fox News Channel’s “Hannity.” The Texas Republican laid out a clear warning and a clear path forward for the midterms: Republicans must show up at the polls, or the left will seize the day.

Cruz framed the coming election as the most consequential midterms of our lifetime. The stakes, he said, could not be higher.

Democrats are fired up, unified, and ready to vote in force. That energy, rooted in pure hatred for Donald Trump, gives them an edge if conservatives stay home.

Host Sean Hannity set the stage by pointing to the latest Cook Report. “You know, I look at the latest Cook Report, not exactly conservative, but you know, has a good reputation,” Hannity stated.

“And this is what you have a two-point generic poll difference. Very different situation in 2018 when Republicans lost a lot of seats during Trump’s first term. They said that overall environment changed dramatically as Republicans adopted the gerrymandering strategy of Democrats.”

Hannity then zeroed in on a number that should concern every freedom-loving American.

“Here’s what bothered me in the poll even though I should be happy,” he stated. “Sixty-three percent support capitalism. Socialism is minus 58%. Where’s the other% supporting capitalism? Where are the other 42% that like socialism? That’s a frightening number to me.”

Cruz agreed the landscape is tough:

“Yeah. Look, we are facing a challenging environment. These midterms, I think, are the most consequential midterms of our lifetime. The last two weeks, I think the momentum has been positive. I the convention in Texas was a really strong convention. You and I were there together for it. I think the president did a very good job. Look, for this midterm, it’s entirely a question of turnout. The left is going to turn out.”

The left’s motivation is not subtle. “They’re angry,” Cruz said. “They’re radical. They’re extreme. And they’re unified by hatred for Donald Trump.”

That anger drives their base to the ballot box every time. Republicans cannot match fury with apathy and expect to win.

Cruz spelled out exactly who needs to show up:

“The challenge for us is that we need to get conservatives. We need to get libertarians. We need to get moderates. We need to get just ordinary common-sense thinking people to show up.” Ordinary Americans who still believe in work, borders, and free markets must answer the call.

President Trump just said one thing about Flock cameras that will leave you speechless

Prudent Politics
-
0
President Trump just said one thing about Flock cameras that will leave you speechless

Flock cameras are very controversial. You either love them or hate them.

And President Trump just said one thing about Flock cameras that will leave you speechless.

President Trump made clear on Sunday where he stands on Flock cameras.

He backs the cameras because it gives law enforcement a real edge in the fight against crime.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said:

“I sort of like them because of that, because of law enforcement, but some people don’t. They think it’s an infringement, but I like them.”

The president likely believes that modern policing requires modern tools.

Cameras that track license plates and flag suspicious activity let officers respond faster and smarter.

Opponents frame the technology as an attack on freedom. Trump sees the opposite.

The president has never hidden his preference for order over chaos.

His comment on the plane fits a long pattern of supporting the men and women who keep the peace.

Trump’s position will not satisfy every privacy absolutist.

It will satisfy some of those who expect their government to prioritize catching criminals.

The Trump admin hit with a ruthless attack by Congressman Jeffries

Prudent Politics
-
0
The Trump admin hit with a ruthless attack by Congressman Jeffries

The left despises the Trump White House. That will never change.

And the Trump admin was hit with a ruthless attack by Congressman Jeffries.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries took to the airwaves Thursday and decided the best defense is a wild offense. On MS NOW’s “The Briefing,” the New York Democrat labeled the Trump admin a pack of “extremists” and “radicals.”

That kind of talk lands with a thud when you line it up against what Vice President JD Vance actually said at the Republican midterm convention.

Vance told the crowd, “We’ve got to send a message this November that the country does not belong to the radicals. It does not belong to the bureaucrats. It does not belong to the highest bidder. This country was handed down to us by our parents and their parents before them. We received this national birthright, and we are going to fight for it by electing Republicans this November.”

Those words are straightforward. They talk about inheritance, duty, and keeping the nation out of the hands of people who treat it like a marketplace.

Yet the usual media chorus treated the speech as if Vance had just kicked over a beehive.

Jen Psaki, the former White House mouthpiece now hosting the MS NOW show, piled on.

“I mean, it’s so telling. It’s dark, it’s xenophobic, it’s so many things. What does it tell you that that is the message from the vice president of the United States, just over 50 days from an election?” she said.

Calling a defense of the American birthright “xenophobic” is the kind of stretch that only works if you start from the premise that patriotism itself is the problem.

Vance did not attack any ethnic group. He attacked the idea that unelected officials and well-connected donors get to run the place.

Jeffries kept the same script going. He claimed the Trump team has “no track record of accomplishment” and “no vision to actually solve the problems that the American people would like the Congress, the president and the vice president to solve.”

Then he added, “So, of course, he turns to trying to divide us further. The reality is, the extremists are the ones who are in control right now. The radicals are the ones who are part of the Trump cartel. They’ve been selling off the government to the highest bidder and unleashing this extraordinary level of corruption that we’ve seen in this country, which is why we’ve promised to begin to hold the crooks accountable starting on day one.”

Notice the pattern. Every time Republicans talk about taking the country back from distant elites, Democrats answer by insisting the real extremists are the people who just won the last election.

It is projection dressed up as analysis.

John Fetterman just showed up at a place that will horrify Democrats

Prudent Politics
-
0
John Fetterman just showed up at a place that will horrify Democrats

Fetterman has drawn the ire of Democrats. This latest move won’t do anything to help that situation.

And John Fetterman just showed up at a place that will horrify Democrats.

Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania stepped outside his party’s usual lines this week and delivered a message straight to Republicans gathered in Dallas.

The Democratic senator appeared via video at the Republican Party’s midterm convention.

Fetterman told the crowd he is a common-sense Democrat. He rejected socialism and what he called an “anti-American way of life.”

In a room packed with Republicans, the Pennsylvania senator chose to speak directly to people on the other side of the aisle.

“A big room of Republicans in Dallas. Yes, I’m Senator John Fetterman, Pennsylvania. Yes, I’m a Democrat,” Fetterman stated in the video.

He did not waste time explaining his presence. “Why am I here talking to you today? Because, well, I’m a common-sense Democrat,” he said.

“I’m always going to stand with America. I’m always going to reject the extremes in socialism and that anti-American way of life.”

Fetterman’s decision to appear at the convention stood out because so few Democrats are willing to criticize the hard-left direction of their own party in front of Republican audiences.

Right Populist voters have watched for years as progressive activists push policies that clash with everyday American values.

Fetterman’s message cut against that trend. He framed his position as simple loyalty to the country rather than loyalty to party orthodoxy.

The senator’s comments on socialism carried extra weight. Across the country, working families have felt the effects of policies that expand government control and weaken private enterprise.

Fetterman put himself on the side of those who see socialism as a dead end.

He also drew a line against anti-American extremism. That phrase captures the anger many citizens feel when they see institutions and cultural figures treating the nation’s history and institutions with open contempt.

Fetterman’s willingness to reject that attitude in front of Republicans showed a rare break from the usual script.

Gavin Newsom just laid out a shocking statement about President Trump

Prudent Politics
-
0
Gavin Newsom just laid out a shocking statement about President Trump

Newsom and Trump are bitter rivals. That will likely never change.

And Gavin Newsom just laid out a shocking statement about President Trump.

California Governor Gavin Newsom is already telegraphing the Democrats’ next move if they claw back the House: another round of impeachment theater against President Trump that even he admits will go nowhere.

On “PBS NewsHour,” Newsom made clear he has little appetite for the process.

Asked by co-host Amna Nawaz whether Democrats should impeach Trump if they win the majority, Newsom replied:

“I don’t — if the facts — wherever the facts lead. And I’m not naive about the politics of that, because it will be a sideshow and a distraction. What I don’t want to do is see another impeachment that amounts to nothing except a virtue signal, and that’s important. I just don’t want a sideshow.”

He insisted Democrats should still follow “wherever the facts lead.”

Yet in the same breath he urged the party to pivot hard to domestic priorities he claims California has already mastered.

Newsom ticked off a list of state programs he wants national Democrats to push instead of another failed attempt to remove Trump from office.

Even while cautioning against a sideshow, Newsom could not resist the familiar Democratic framing.

He declared that accountability must apply “across the board” and that it is “not just Trump,” but also “all the folks that are complicit in this great grift” and “all the folks that are complicit in the rank corruption that is going on in this administration.”

He closed with a broad call for legal consequences: “anyone that’s broken the law, anyone that’s taken advantage of the American people, picked their pocket illegally should be held to account.”

For right-leaning populists, the interview lands as pure political calculation.

Newsom knows the last two impeachments produced no removal and left many voters cold.

Another one risks looking like the same partisan exercise while ordinary Americans care more about prices, wages, and border security than another round of congressional spectacle.

Democrat got schooled on their own moronic law

Prudent Politics
-
0
Democrat got schooled on their own moronic law

It would help politicians if they read the bills they pass. Instead they just vote how their party votes.

And now one Democrat got schooled on their own moronic law.

You’d think someone campaigning to become Georgia’s next governor might have a working understanding of the state’s own criminal justice system. Apparently that’s too much to ask of Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms, who was caught on leaked audio privately telling donors she’s “deeply concerned” about President Trump’s crackdown on cashless bail — all while confidently getting the basic facts of Georgia bail law completely wrong.

The audio, obtained by the Daily Caller, captures the former Atlanta mayor pushing back against Trump’s executive order targeting jurisdictions that have eliminated cash bail requirements for violent offenders. Her stated concern was that ending cashless bail policies would disproportionately hurt poor people. Fair enough as a talking point, except Lance Bottoms went on to make a claim about how the law actually works that simply isn’t true.

“I am deeply concerned,” Lance Bottoms told donors in the recording. “I saw that President Trump is signing an executive order on cash bail bond. We want meaningful reform.” Nothing unusual so far — that’s standard progressive messaging on criminal justice reform. But then she kept talking, and that’s where things went sideways for a woman hoping to become the state’s chief executive.

“That has everything to do with who has money to pay to get out,” Lance Bottoms continued. “That doesn’t have anything to do with rising crime. You’re not letting felons sign cash bail bonds. Those are low level misdemeanors for people who, you gotta assume if I can’t renew my tag, then I probably can’t pay a bond either.” There’s just one glaring problem with that entire argument: it’s factually false. Cash bail absolutely does apply to felonies under Georgia law, a basic legal fact codified plainly in the state’s own statutes.

This isn’t some obscure technicality buried in legal fine print that a busy politician might reasonably overlook. This is fundamental, foundational knowledge about how the criminal justice system actually operates in the state Lance Bottoms is asking voters to let her run. If she genuinely believes cashless bail policies only affect people charged with minor misdemeanors, that reveals either a shocking ignorance of Georgia law or a willingness to mislead her own donors about what she’s actually defending.

Context matters here too, and Lance Bottoms’s record on this exact issue as Atlanta’s mayor should give voters serious pause. During her tenure running the city, she signed an ordinance eliminating cash bond requirements for a specific set of low-level offenses like begging, public urination, and public drunkenness. That’s a meaningfully different policy than what Trump’s executive order is actually targeting, which is jurisdictions that have “substantially eliminated cash bail as a potential condition of pretrial release from custody for crimes that pose a clear threat to public safety and order, including offenses involving violent, sexual, or indecent acts, or burglary, looting, or vandalism.”

In other words, Trump’s order is aimed squarely at policies eliminating cash bail for serious violent and dangerous crimes — precisely the kind of offenses Lance Bottoms insisted, incorrectly, weren’t affected by cashless bail debates at all. Whether through genuine confusion or convenient political spin, she’s misrepresenting exactly what’s at stake in this fight to the very donors she’s asking to fund her campaign.

Her record as Atlanta’s mayor deserves scrutiny beyond just this bail ordinance too. Lance Bottoms presided over a significant crime wave during her time running the city, a period that saw violent crime surge in Atlanta even as she pursued criminal justice reforms that critics argued prioritized ideological commitments over public safety outcomes. That track record makes her current confusion about basic bail law even more concerning for Georgia voters trying to assess whether she’s actually equipped to manage statewide criminal justice policy from the governor’s office.

This isn’t the first time Lance Bottoms has raised eyebrows with her comments on crime and justice issues either. During her time as Atlanta mayor, she once described the “symbolism” of hate crime charges as important in a Georgia shooting case, a comment that drew its own share of criticism at the time for seemingly prioritizing political messaging over the substance of actual prosecution and sentencing.

Lance Bottoms will face off against Republican nominee Rick Jackson in the general election on November 3, and this leaked audio hands Jackson’s campaign a genuinely useful contrast to draw for Georgia voters. On one side, you have a candidate whose executive order specifically targets cashless bail policies for violent and dangerous offenders. On the other, you have a candidate who apparently doesn’t understand, or is misrepresenting, how her own state’s bail system actually functions for exactly those kinds of offenders.

Lance Bottoms’s campaign did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment on the leaked audio, which is perhaps understandable given how difficult it would be to walk back a claim this clearly and demonstrably wrong. There’s no spin that makes “you’re not letting felons sign cash bail bonds” an accurate description of Georgia law when the state’s own legal code says otherwise.

For Georgia voters concerned about public safety heading into this fall’s gubernatorial election, this episode raises a legitimate and serious question: if Lance Bottoms doesn’t understand the basic mechanics of how cash bail applies to violent felons under current Georgia law, how can voters trust her to responsibly manage criminal justice policy across the entire state as governor? This is exactly the kind of factual gap between a candidate’s confident rhetoric and the reality of the law that deserves far more scrutiny than it’s likely to receive from a friendly national media eager to move past the story.

As this race heads into its final stretch, expect Rick Jackson’s campaign to make good use of this audio, and rightfully so. Voters deserve a governor who at minimum understands the basic legal framework she’d be responsible for overseeing, and this leaked recording suggests Lance Bottoms still has some serious homework to do before she’s ready for that job.

Ron DeSantis just made a sudden announcement that is raising eyebrows

Prudent Politics
-
0
Ron DeSantis just made a sudden announcement that is raising eyebrows

DeSantis has been a great governor. But now he’s making a new move.

And Ron DeSantis just made a sudden announcement that is raising eyebrows.

While Washington dithers on surveillance reform, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis just did something Congress has failed to accomplish at the federal level for months: he’s actually taking action against the creeping surveillance state. According to a Florida Department of Transportation memo obtained by the Daily Caller, DeSantis has ordered every automated license plate reader camera removed from the state’s highway system within 30 days.

The order, issued Monday, covers Florida’s major interstates, including I-10 and I-75, and represents one of the most aggressive state-level pushbacks against Flock Safety’s controversial surveillance network anywhere in the country. If local law enforcement agencies or Flock itself don’t voluntarily comply within the 30-day window, the memo makes clear the state government will simply remove the cameras itself.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. The order comes amid a wave of growing bipartisan alarm over how these automated license plate readers can be — and already have been — misused by both private companies and law enforcement officers who’ve turned taxpayer-funded surveillance tools into instruments of personal stalking and unauthorized tracking. DeSantis didn’t dance around the concern when pressed on it directly.

“But, you also have to say, okay, how could this be misused? And how could a private company misuse the data, but also law enforcement? We know there was an officer in Florida who was using the LPR data to track like an ex-girlfriend or something like that,” DeSantis said, referencing exactly the kind of abuse that’s turned privacy advocates across the political spectrum against Flock’s expanding camera network.

Florida’s move already appears to be triggering a broader retreat from Flock-style surveillance at the local level. Sheriff’s departments in Putnam, Liberty and Franklin counties all announced they’re ending their own license plate reader programs following DeSantis’s announcement, suggesting the governor’s action is having a real effect beyond just the state highway system itself.

It’s worth noting the limits of the order too, since DeSantis’s directive only applies to roads falling under the State Highway System. That means cameras could still legally remain in place on city and county roads unless Florida’s legislature acts to expand the restriction during its next legislative session. Still, for a governor who has repeatedly emphasized his support for law enforcement, this represents a meaningful check on a surveillance technology that’s expanded with remarkably little oversight or public debate in communities across the country.

The Florida Department of Transportation memo also makes clear this isn’t just a temporary pause — FDOT will be denying any future permit applications for these camera systems going forward, at least under the current administration’s policy. That’s a significant statement of intent from a state that’s often been at the forefront of pushing back against government overreach on a range of issues.

DeSantis was characteristically blunt when asked about the broader surveillance concerns during a Wednesday press conference at Florida International University in Miami, describing the current state of automated license plate reader deployment as simply “out of control.” Coming from a governor who’s spent years positioning himself as tough on crime and supportive of law enforcement, that kind of language carries real weight and should put pressure on other red-state governors to take a serious look at their own states’ surveillance camera deployments.

To be clear, DeSantis hasn’t turned into some kind of civil libertarian overnight on law enforcement issues broadly. He’s been careful to frame this as a targeted response to a specific and growing problem rather than blanket opposition to police having effective investigative tools. “I think people are right to be concerned,” DeSantis said, striking a balance between supporting legitimate law enforcement needs and pushing back against a surveillance apparatus that’s expanded well beyond what most Floridians probably realize is tracking their daily movements.

DeSantis has consistently argued that the ultimate solution to these surveillance concerns needs to come from the state legislature rather than executive action alone, and he’s repeatedly called for a comprehensive artificial intelligence bill of rights that would establish clearer, permanent guardrails around how these tracking technologies can be deployed and used. That’s a meaningful distinction, because it acknowledges that his current executive order, however welcome, isn’t a permanent fix.

That temporary nature of the order is worth emphasizing, since a future Florida administration could simply reverse this decision after DeSantis leaves office in January. Conservatives who want to see this kind of surveillance rollback made permanent should be pushing Florida lawmakers hard to codify these protections into state law before DeSantis’s term ends, rather than relying on executive memos that a different governor could undo with the stroke of a pen.

This move lands at a moment when lawmakers across the country, including a growing number of congressional Republicans, have been raising increasingly urgent concerns about the expanding reach of automated camera networks and the artificial intelligence systems increasingly layered on top of them to track and identify vehicles with startling precision. Yet as reported previously, not a single bill currently sits before Congress that would actually ban this kind of technology outright at the federal level, leaving states like Florida to lead where Washington has so far refused to act.

DeSantis’s willingness to take concrete executive action, rather than simply issuing statements of concern, sets a real example that other conservative governors would do well to follow. Whether Florida’s legislature steps up to make this rollback permanent, or whether the next occupant of the governor’s mansion quietly reverses course and lets Flock cameras creep back onto Florida’s highways, remains an open question. For now, though, Florida drivers can rest a little easier knowing their movements on the state’s major interstates aren’t being tracked and logged by a private surveillance company with a documented history of abuse.

Marco Rubio excoriated Congress for this inexcusable move they just made

Prudent Politics
-
0
Marco Rubio excoriated Congress for this inexcusable move they just made

Washington, D.C. moves at a snail’s pace. It’s crazy.

And now Marco Rubio excoriated Congress for this inexcusable move they just made.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio isn’t waiting quietly for House Republican leadership to find the political will to act. This week Rubio pressed the House to move forward on a sweeping Senate-passed Russia sanctions bill, arguing the legislation would give President Trump valuable leverage at exactly the moment Vladimir Putin’s economy is showing real signs of strain from the pressure already in place.

The bill in question cleared the Senate in an overwhelming 86-11 vote before senators left for their August recess, a rare show of bipartisan unity in an otherwise gridlocked Congress. Since then, it’s been sitting in the House, waiting for Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leadership to schedule a vote that, as of this week, still hasn’t materialized.

Rubio made his case directly this week, telling reporters it would be “valuable for the president to have these tools available to him.” He didn’t stop at simply advocating for the bill’s substance either — Rubio took direct aim at House Democrats, accusing them of withholding additional tariff and sanctions authority from the president even while publicly claiming to support Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. It’s a pointed critique, and not an unfair one, given how much of the current holdup traces directly back to Democratic objections over specific provisions in the Senate-passed text.

The legislation itself is genuinely sweeping in scope. It would impose sanctions on Russian officials, financial institutions, so-called shadow-fleet vessels used to evade existing oil export restrictions, and state-owned energy projects tied directly to funding Putin’s war machine. Perhaps most significantly, the bill would authorize tariffs of up to 100 percent on the five largest purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas, a provision specifically designed to choke off the revenue streams keeping Russia’s invasion of Ukraine financially viable.

Despite the urgency Rubio and others have expressed, House Republican leadership has offered no clear timeline and hasn’t committed to bringing the Senate bill up unchanged. The legislation remains conspicuously absent from the House floor schedule, even as Ukrainian officials make direct pleas to Washington for swift action.

Vladyslav Vlasiuk, one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s top envoys, traveled to Washington specifically to lobby House members on the bill’s importance, meeting with lawmakers from both parties. The Ukrainian Embassy described the meetings as focused on “the importance and urgency” of passing what it called the “bone crushing” sanctions package needed to keep pressure on Moscow and Tehran alike.

Yet House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the panel, told reporters after meeting with Vlasiuk that he still opposes the Senate bill as written, and that he doesn’t expect the House to act on it before the midterm elections at all. That’s a stunning admission given the stated urgency from Rubio, from Senate Republicans, and from Ukraine’s own government representatives directly appealing to Congress for action.

Not every Democrat agrees with Meeks’s go-slow approach. Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, one of the bill’s lead sponsors, has called this a “moment of extreme urgency,” pointing to Russia’s deteriorating economic position as reason to strike now rather than wait. Blumenthal has cited figures showing Russia facing a looming $125 billion deficit, roughly 5 percent of its GDP, alongside a punishing 14 percent interest rate on its national debt — numbers that suggest additional sanctions pressure right now could meaningfully accelerate the economic strain already squeezing Putin’s war effort.

Even some House Democrats who share Rubio’s underlying urgency are pushing back on specific elements of the bill rather than its overall goal. Meeks has argued the tariff provisions could raise prices for American consumers while punishing U.S. allies who happen to still be purchasing Russian energy, and he’s raised concerns that the bill grants Trump too much discretionary authority to waive its provisions whenever he sees fit. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries acknowledged this week that Democrats haven’t yet reached a unified caucus position on the legislation.

But not every Democrat is dragging their feet. House Majority Leader emeritus Steny Hoyer told reporters after his own meeting with the Ukrainian envoy that he wants the House to pass the Senate bill exactly as written, without amendments. “Do I think the bill is perfect? I don’t,” Hoyer said. “But we don’t pass perfect bills here.” Hoyer specifically pushed back against efforts to bundle the sanctions bill together with additional Ukraine assistance legislation, warning that doing so would only slow things down further. “I want to pass it pristine,” he said.

Republicans on the Ukraine-focused wing of the House are similarly frustrated with the delay. Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, made clear he doesn’t want procedural squabbling over the tariff provisions to derail the entire package. “I would vote for it with tariffs, without tariffs,” Fitzpatrick said. “I’m not going to let the tariff piece stop my support for Ukraine.” He argued lawmakers should resist the temptation to let disagreements over secondary provisions block a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support in its core mission. “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” Fitzpatrick said.

Fitzpatrick went a step further, suggesting that Zelenskyy himself should return to Washington and personally lobby House members the same way he successfully did before the Senate’s overwhelming vote in favor of the bill. “He was here for the Senate. He’s got to come for the House,” Fitzpatrick said. “We’re very determined to get that done.”

House Foreign Affairs Chair Brian Mast has offered little clarity on timing, telling reporters simply that the bill “is being examined,” but that the review “is not an examination that’ll be done this week.” With the House expected to return for only a brief session later this month before breaking again for midterm campaigning, and Meeks openly predicting no action before the elections at all, the odds of swift movement appear increasingly slim.

That’s precisely the outcome Rubio is trying to prevent. With Russia’s economy already buckling under existing pressure and Ukraine’s envoys making direct, urgent appeals in Capitol hallways, the argument for striking now rather than waiting until after November grows stronger by the week. Whether House Republican leadership finds the political urgency to match Rubio’s own sense of the stakes remains very much an open question — and every week of delay is a week Vladimir Putin gets to keep operating without the additional financial squeeze this legislation was specifically designed to deliver.

Democrat admits they have to lie to the people to get elected

Prudent Politics
-
0
Democrat admits they have to lie to the people to get elected

Everyone knew this was the case. But rarely do they outright say it.

Now this Democrat admitted they have to lie to the people to get elected.

Every so often a political candidate gets caught saying exactly what conservatives have suspected all along, and this week it happened to Nebraska Senate hopeful Dan Osborn in spectacular fashion. Leaked audio has confirmed what grassroots Republicans in the Cornhusker State have been warning about for months: Osborn knows his real positions are too radical for Nebraska voters, so he’s deliberately hiding them.

The Democratic-backed independent, who’s challenging Republican incumbent Pete Ricketts this November, was caught on tape openly admitting he can’t be honest about his actual views if he wants any shot at winning. Townhall published the recording Sunday, and it’s a remarkable window into how the modern left operates when they think nobody outside their bubble is listening.

“I have people recording me, so I can’t say I want to abolish ICE; I can’t say those words. I’ll be f-cked,” Osborn admitted on the recording. Read that again. A candidate for the United States Senate is on tape acknowledging he actually wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but he’s terms it politically toxic to say so out loud in a state like Nebraska. That’s not moderation. That’s calculated deception.

Osborn went on to lay out his cynical electoral math in cold, calculating terms, noting that Nebraska runs roughly 50 percent Republican, 26 percent Democratic and 24 percent independent, and that he’d need to peel off somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of the Republican vote to have any chance of winning. In other words, his entire campaign strategy hinges on convincing a slice of Republican voters that he’s not the radical leftist his own words reveal him to be.

The audio doesn’t stop there. Osborn can be heard mocking the idea of being honest about transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, snapping, “How am I going to do that by f-cking saying, ‘Oh, I love trans people, and they should be able to play in sports!’ f-ck no, Jane, that’s not how I win.” The “Jane” in question is Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, who Osborn was apparently pushing back against as she pressed him to embrace more explicitly progressive positions.

According to reporting from The Plains Sentinel, the audio continues with Osborn telling Kleeb bluntly, “You gotta let me run my race, man. Like, I’m going to say some shit that is going to piss you off, but you gotta know at the end of the day it’s about beating Pete Ricketts.” So there you have it, straight from the candidate’s own mouth: whatever he says publicly during this campaign is calculated theater designed to win an election, not an honest reflection of his actual beliefs.

Kleeb, for her part, didn’t exactly deny any of it. She told The Plains Sentinel that the leaked audio “shows that Dan doesn’t answer to me. He answers to voters” — as if that’s supposed to be reassuring. What it actually confirms is that Osborn and Nebraska Democratic leadership both understand his true positions are unpopular with the very voters he’s courting, and their solution is strategic dishonesty rather than an honest debate about the issues.

Kleeb went further, explaining the party’s calculation for backing Osborn over a traditional Democrat: “We choose a mechanic over the billionaire Ricketts every day.” It’s a populist-sounding line, sure, but it doesn’t change what’s on the tape. Nebraska voters don’t just deserve a candidate with a working-class background — they deserve one who’s honest with them about what he actually believes.

This isn’t Osborn’s first brush with controversy this cycle either. He previously called for “preemptive” mental health checks targeting AR-15 owners, a proposal that raised alarm bells among Second Amendment advocates who see it as a backdoor path toward disarming law-abiding gun owners based on nothing more than the type of firearm they choose to own legally.

Osborn has also faced scrutiny over reports that his daughter allegedly ran multiple pornographic cam-girl accounts, adding yet another layer of controversy to a campaign that seems to generate one uncomfortable headline after another. Osborn’s campaign team did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment on the leaked audio.

The RNC’s research arm wasted no time amplifying the tape, with RNC Research posting the clip on X and framing it as proof that Osborn is, in their words, “too afraid to tell voters what he actually thinks.” Given what’s on the recording, it’s hard to argue with that characterization.

What makes this story particularly damaging for Osborn is that it’s not an opposition researcher’s spin or a selectively edited soundbite open to interpretation — it’s the candidate’s own voice, in his own words, admitting to a calculated strategy of concealment. Nebraska voters heading to the polls this November now have direct evidence, straight from Osborn himself, that the version of him running for Senate is not the version who actually shows up to strategize with his own party chair behind closed doors.

Pete Ricketts, for his part, doesn’t need to manufacture a contrast here — Osborn has done the work for him. Nebraskans who value straight talk and transparency from the people asking to represent them in Washington now have a clear choice: an incumbent whose positions are a matter of public record, or a challenger caught on tape admitting he’s deliberately obscuring his own.

New impeachment warning will leave a chill down Trump’s spine

Prudent Politics
-
0
New impeachment warning will leave a chill down Trump’s spine

Democrats want to oust the president. That’s no secret.

And a new impeachment warning will leave a chill down Trump’s spine.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise is sounding the alarm on what he sees as the Democrats’ clear intent if they seize the House this November.

The Louisiana Republican is warning voters that a Democratic majority would move immediately against President Donald Trump, turning the chamber into a weapon for political payback rather than a place for governing.

Scalise laid it out plainly in a recent Fox News Digital interview. He pointed to the open talk among Democrats about targeting the president the moment they gain power.

In his words: “Democrats aren’t even being shy about it. They’re telling you what they would do. I mean, they’ll impeach the president day one.”

This is not some whispered strategy or fringe fantasy. Scalise is highlighting how Democratic lawmakers and activists have already telegraphed their plans.

They treat the presidency itself as illegitimate when it is held by someone outside their preferred circle. The goal is not oversight. It is removal.

For years, the left has treated Trump as an existential threat to their hold on institutions.

Impeachment has become their preferred tool whenever elections do not deliver the results they demand.

Scalise is reminding the public that this pattern has not changed. If Democrats control the House, the process begins on day one.

Right Populist voters have watched this movie before. The first two impeachments drained time, energy, and public trust while delivering no lasting legal consequence.

Now the same forces are preparing a third attempt the instant they regain the gavel. Scalise’s warning cuts through the usual media fog. Democrats are not hiding their priorities.

Control of the House would hand them the power to launch investigations, issue subpoenas, and force endless votes on articles of impeachment.

The legislative calendar would be rewritten around one man. Policy debates on the border, energy, inflation, and crime would take a back seat to political theater designed to hobble the White House.

123...182Page 1 of 182

2024 Copyright © All rights reserved.

Quick Links

Must Read

Popular Articles