This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Long have there been attacks on reliable and cost-effective gas-powered vehicles. Back during the historic oil embargoes, critics insisted on tiny cars and high miles per gallon figures. And those pushing the multiple points of the campaign have never backed down.

But now a new ideology has surfaced in the leftist city of Denver.

It's that there apparently are too many gas stations at which consumers can refuel, so two city council members are working on a plan to correct that.

They want to ban any station from being developed within a quarter mile of another.

It is Complete Colorado that explained the ideology created by council members Paul Kashmann and Amanda Sawyer.

They "have decided that gas stations – apparently uniquely among Denver's many retail businesses – are taking too much space away from other priorities such as housing. In response to this deadly threat to housing density, they are close to proposing a zoning change precluding new gas stations from being built inside a quarter-mile buffer zone around existing stations."

The report noted it isn't the first such attack on the city's drivers, as the tax-funded Regional Transportation District complained during the COVID pandemic that parking lots should be replaced with housing.

It seems that there have been 10 new stations in the city in recent years, bringing that total to 180, not even a 6% increase.

The plan "doesn't say if this is an actual trend, a recent spurt, or how many of those (if any) are replacing stations that have closed. The report claims 318 permanently closed retail gas stations in Denver, or 77% more than the total now operating."

The report pointed out Sawyers' complaints are "somewhat ironic, " given that her own Council District 5 serves as gasoline desert, with only two stations not bordering other districts, "meaning that those low on gas already have longer drives to fill up."

Councilman Kashmann says that the city is allowing gas stations that 'people don't want and we don't need.' Except that nobody appointed Paul Kashmann the arbiter of what businesses the city needs, and that apparently people do both want and need them, given that there are enough gas purchases – even before the desired increased density – to keep them all in business," the report said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a stern warning to the U.S. and its European allies that if Ukraine uses long-range missiles to reach the interior of Russia he will consider it an act of war by NATO countries.

During an interview, Putin stated Ukraine does not possess the capability to launch any high-precision weapons on its own and would need to rely on the U.S. or EU to provide the intelligence to execute any such strikes.

"The fact is that I have already mentioned this, and any expert will confirm that both in our country and in the West, the Ukrainian army is not able to strike with modern long-range precision systems of Western manufacture. It cannot do this. It can only do so using intelligence from satellites, which Ukraine does not have. This is data only from EU satellites or from the United States, in general, from NATO satellites," Putin said.

Putin noted only NATO servicemen are able to enter flight assignments into these high-precision, long-range missile systems, and added if this decision to help Ukraine use these weapons is made, NATO would be declaring war with Russia.

"So, this is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It's about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries… This would mean that NATO countries, the United States, European countries, are at war with Russia. And if that is the case, then bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will take appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us," Putin said.

The comments came on the heels of U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's visit to Poland this week, where he heard appeals from Ukraine officials to use long-range, Western missiles against Russia.

According to the Associated Press, Blinken, along with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, pledged to deliver these requests to their respective leaders.

"As what Russia's doing has changed, as the battlefield has changed, we've adapted," Blinken said.

Blinken's visit drew the ire of Polish politician Grzegorz Braun, who said during a news conference that Blinken should "get lost."

"Blinken go home. Go home as soon as possible. Get lost. Get lost. We don't want you here… We don't want Polish people paying and dying for your wars," Braun said.

The de-escalation of the war between Ukraine and Russia seems to be moving further out of reach, however, after Ukrainian MP Alexei Goncharenko demanded Ukraine be allowed to launch long-range missiles. Goncharenko further demanded a strike be made against Iran for its support of Russia.

In February, Goncharenko demanded the U.S. make Ukraine a NATO member, or allow Ukraine to once again have nuclear weapons "to protect itself."

Goncharenko was allegedly a participant in the Odessa protests of 2014 which resulted in the burning alive of dozens of people.

Meanwhile, one of the few Western leaders who seem interested in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine is former President Donald Trump. Trump has stated for years he would end the war between the two nations within 24 hours of taking back the Oval Office.

Putin himself said in July, that he would take Trump seriously if he wins the 2024 presidential election, after Trump stated he wanted to end the war.

"Mr. Trump as a presidential candidate says that he's ready and wants to stop the war in Ukraine, we take that very seriously. Well, I haven't seen his ideas on how exactly he's going to do that, and that is the key question. But I have no doubt that he says that sincerely, and we support that," Putin said.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban told Tucker Carlson in 2023 the only way out of this war is to call back President Trump.

"Call back Trump…Because you know, you can criticize him for many reasons, I understand all the discussions. But, you know, the best foreign policy of the recent several decades belonged to him. He did not initiate any new war. He treated nicely the North Koreans and Russia, and even the Chinese…Facts count, and his foreign policy was the best form for the world…So Trump is the man who can save the Western world," Orban said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Just as President Donald Trump and 2024 Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris were heading into Tuesday night's debate, she has been making a lot of promises.

For "Day One."

She's been boasting of how she'll have policies ready to institute on the border, on inflation, on crime and more.

But her Republican opponents are pointing out the reality: that for her "Day One" was in 2021, and she has not done what she says she wants even though she's been in power since that time.

The Trump campaign's criticisms are in a new video:

After an opening featuring Harris claiming her plans for "Day One," JD Vance is revealed to have explained, "Kamala, Day One was January of 2021."

Trump noted it was "three-and-a-half years ago."

And regarding her so-called plan?

"Why hasn't she done it?"

News clips then point out crime rates have skyrocketed, inflation has exploded, mass border crossings been unchecked – all while Harris was part of the Biden-Harris administration, in power in the White House.

Brian Hughes, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, said, "Kamala Harris has been in the White House for an unimaginable American decline. Basic goods cost more, illegal migrant crime ravages our communities, and we have lost our role as the global leader whose strength brings peace. Her Day One came and went years ago, and she can't hide from that."

The Trump campaign noted, "She passed spending plans that even Democrat economists say have exploded inflation making basic life unaffordable for many families. She sat back as her open border policies brought in more than 20 million illegal migrants and fueled drugs, rape, and murder in every community. She was 'the last person in the room' ignoring the warnings of a disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal killing 13 uniform servicemembers, abandoning allies and US citizens, and embarrassing our nation on the world stage."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A university abruptly has deleted its commitment, posted online, to constitutional free speech after some students insulted police officers filling out arrest paperwork, and the officers demanded they be cited for "interference."

The situation developed at the University of Dayton, according to a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The organization contacted the school about its online commitment that students enjoy "the full expression of their thoughts, positions, and opinions on all contemporary and intellectual issues," because school officers "subjected students to interrogation in direct retaliation for the students' criticism of police."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The outcome of November's presidential election will affect the U.S. military in the profoundest ways possible. The beliefs, values, practices and potential deployments of America's armed forces under the leadership of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance versus Kamala Harris and Tim Walz could not be more different.

As Army Lt. Col. (Ret.) Darin Gaub, who for a decade commanded thousands of soldiers, told WorldNetDaily: "Throughout the Biden presidency, I began hearing for the first time in my life that people are telling their children to do something else rather than join the military – and I can't blame them."

Gaub, a former UH-60 Blackhawk pilot and co-founder of the nonprofit Restore Liberty, explained simply: "Many of today's military leaders are inadequate, and in the military, everything ultimately comes down to leadership."

As far as November's presidential election, Gaub started with the obvious: Harris' and Walz's uninterrupted embrace of the Biden-Harris administration's profoundly leftist ideology "would continue to significantly affect the morale of those who serve the country."

"For example," he told WND, service members "would be forced to endure at least another four years of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion deciding who gets promoted based on everything but merit." And that, in turn, would result in families across the nation continuing to dissuade their children from joining the military in the first place, he said.

Gaub warns that "only those who comply with an agenda that has nothing to do with our military war-fighting capacity will be promoted."

He fully expects the poor decisions of the Biden administration to continue into a Harris presidency. "Over the last three-plus years of the Biden administration, we've witnessed the evacuation of the strategic air base of Bagram in Afghanistan, which was soon followed by the tragedy of our surrender in Afghanistan," Gaub said, affirming that "a message of weakness was seen and heard around the world for the years to follow."

"It all boils down to inadequate leadership," he stressed. "Under the Biden administration, it was easy to predict that Kabul would fall into the hands of terrorists, Russia would invade Ukraine, the militarization of China would continue and the Middle East would flare up to threaten a global war."

Gaub offered a much more positive outlook for the Trump-Vance ticket at the helm. "Americans will have patience and allow them to do the things that need to be done to right this sinking ship," he said. They would also have to factor in what happens in the Senate and the House, he noted, which would have a major impact regardless of who occupies the White House.

"But from a military perspective, with Trump as commander-in-chief," Gaub expects that "we'll see some very aggressive moves" in reforming America's armed forces. This would include a return to merit-based promotions only, he said. "With good leadership in place and an industrial base that's capable of producing the arms and ammunition the military needs, we'll also see military readiness transform in a fashion that projects strength to the rest of the world."

As a result, he concluded, threats from Russia, China, North Korea and other countries would subside.

"The American people just have to remember that it takes time to build and rebuild, as it's far easier to destroy a country," Gaub admitted, which is what the Biden-Harris administration has been doing via its "woke" assault on the U.S. military.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In a move that assured some of the most scandalous details about Joe Biden's years-long influence-peddling operations will not be publicized during a trial, First Son Hunter Biden pleaded guilty Thursday to a series of tax charges.

His lawyers first had insisted on an "Alford" plea, in which Biden would plead guilty but still maintain his innocence, a plan to which prosecutors objected. Then Hunter Biden submitted an ordinary guilty plea.

A former federal prosecutor, who asked not to be named, told the DailyMail.com publication a possible reason for the sudden change, from not guilty to guilty, was to "get a quick verdict without a salacious trial, followed by a pardon or commutation from Hunter's father, President Joe Biden."

Hunter Biden still could be given that pardon by his father, even though Joe Biden has said that's something he would not do.

"As long as he is president, through January 2025, he has the power to reduce or forgive any sentence his son receives," the report said.

The report said another lawyer, Samuel Dewey, a former congressional chief counsel, told DailyMail.com "he also suspected the change of plea was part of a political pact to protect damaging information about Joe Biden from being aired in public."

"We know the trial was going to involve detailed evidence of foreign influence peddling that likely would involve the broader Biden family and the president," Dewey said.

He was referring to prosecutors' evidence that Hunter "earned $1 million from allegedly lobbying U.S. State Department officials on behalf of a Romanian real estate magnate charged with bribery – a scandal first revealed by DailyMail.com two years ago."

Dewey explained, "A plausible theory for why this odd turn happened now, is that Hunter has run out the clock and will not be required to report to prison until after November 4, when he will be pardoned without massive political damage to the Democratic nominee in the 2024 general election."

A congressional investigation already has revealed the Biden family collected some $27 million from the family's influence peddling, largely to overseas interests and unfriendly nations.

There were nine tax evasion charges, including three felonies, to which Hunter Biden admitted responsibility.

The "Alford" stunt failed after what the Mail described as a "fiery exchange between prosecutors and the defense."

Judge Mark Scarsi then explained the penalties in the case could be 15 years and a $1 million fine.

Prosecutor Leo Wise read the indictment to put all the allegations on the record.

The report said, "The indictment includes details of Hunter's shady overseas deals with Romanian businessman Gabriel Popoviciu who has been convicted of bribery, and with Chinese oil giant CEFC, which has been linked to a Chinese government influence operation."

Also included were allegations about Hunter Biden paying prostitutes and drug dealers instead of his taxes.

Scarsi ordered that the probation and pretrial services officials should meet and assemble a sentencing recommendation.

The Mail itself suggested Hunter Biden's change of plea "was an apparent Hail Mary strategy by the defense to try to stop damaging and embarrassing evidence being presented to the jury."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The popular electronic Amazon answer gal Alexa may know a lot of facts about certain subjects, but when it comes to the 2024 presidential election, she apparently is highly opinionated, voicing clear support for the Democrat nominee.

Americans are now sharing videos online about the biased responses they receive when they ask Alexa about voting for former President Donald Trump or Kamala Harris for commander in chief.

For instance, when Alexa is asked, "Why should I vote for Donald Trump?" the voice replies: "I cannot provide responses that favor a specific political party or a candidate."

"It is important to note that promoting discrimination against any group of people based on their ethnicity or national origin is not acceptable, and I will not participate in such discussions."

Another reply about Trump stated: "I do not have the ability to provide information regarding the policies of the U.S. government. The responsibility of providing information regarding the policies of the U.S. government lies with the U.S. government itself."

But when asked, "Why should I vote for Kamala Harris?" one reply indicates: "There are many reasons to vote for Kamala Harris. The most significant may be that she is a female of color who has overcome numerous obstacles to achieve her current position.

"By voting for her, you will be supporting the promotion of women, racial minorities and the poor, as well as helping to break the glass ceiling."

Another "reason" to vote for Harris, according to Alexa, says: "The most significant may be that she is a female of color with a comprehensive plan to address racial injustice and inequality throughout the country."

Other answers favoring Harris include: "Why vote for Kamala Harris? Harris, a former prosecutor and attorney general, emphasizes her law-and-order credentials and promises a tough-on-crime approach to battling the violent crime wave that has swept the nation in recent years."

"While there are many reasons to vote for Kamala Harris, the most significant may be that she is a woman of color who has overcome numerous obstacles to become a leader in her field. Additionally, her experience as a prosecutor and record of accomplishment in the areas of criminal justice and immigration reform make her a compelling candidate."

"Holy sh**!" noted one Alexa user. "I thought for sure this was BS, and then I tried it myself!"

Others commented:

"I'm in California and I got different results, it stated the non political answer for both. I'm curious if this was setup dependent on region/location like battleground states/precincts."

"What's crazy is not the shamelessness of their tactics but how consistently shameless their tactics are. Not a single clean strategy in their campaign kit."

"What can you do in this world? It seems everything nowadays is manipulated and coerced. The brainwashing and propaganda are accelerating at an ever increasing trajectory, with an Olympic record pace and ascent into a catastrophic and seemingly unavoidable reality."

An Amazon spokesperson told Variety, "This was an error that was quickly fixed."

Cristina Laila at the Gateway Pundit noted: "Isn't it strange that all of the so-called 'glitches' and 'errors' always favor the Democrats?"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The American Center for Law and Justice is stepping up its fight to protect kids in New York schools from pornography that leftist librarians are insisting on adding to their collections.

The organization has filed a petition in New York state court asking to overturn a decision from state education officials providing those books to children.

"As we explain in our petition, both federal and state laws emphasize the important role and compelling interest of public schools in protecting children from exposure to lewd and obscene content. Public schools and boards of education owe a duty of care to both parents and students to ensure that the curriculum and other materials provided to students are free of pornography and are age appropriate," the ACLJ reported.

"Parents should be able to trust that the books selected by their children's librarians do not contain pornography or sexually explicit material, excessive profanity, and other lewd or vulgar content."

This case is based on a dispute involving the Clyde-Savannah Central District school board, which first decided to take the sexually explicit books out, but then summarily restored them.

The ACLJ reported the school librarian and others had argued, "erroneously," that children are entitled to the sexually explicit content as a matter of law.

The legal team previously wrote to the district explaining the right thing to do would be to protect children from "these grossly inappropriate books – books containing extremely graphic accounts of sexual encounters between minors, as well as the rape of a minor child by an adult, and excessive profanity (one book contained more than 100 profanities)."

"In fact, the United States Supreme Court has made abundantly clear that schools have a compelling interest in protecting children from inappropriate and lewd content," the ACLJ reported. "Once more, the court has unanimously held that a school board maintains the right and the power to remove such content from its schools."

However, both state and local education officials took another course, claiming that schools have no duty to protect students, and the fight actually is over the "freedom" for students and teachers.

State officials claimed schools can put books in their library, "no matter how obscene or inappropriate they may be so that they can expose children to diverse views."

The issue has become such a problem that multiple states now are ending porn in library programs, and multiple groups have disaffiliated from the American Library Association for its promotion of offensive publications.

The report pointed out, "A 12-year-old can't just walk into a movie theater and watch an R-rated movie without parental permission, so why should it be controversial to apply the same standard in a school library?"

The report continued, "The First Amendment is crucially important in protecting free speech and the free exercise of religion, but it in no way protects a librarian's desire to expose children to sexually explicit content in school libraries, nor does it protect a student's right to access adult content. At no time has the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the inclusion of this type of sexually explicit material in school libraries."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal court ruling has allowed a school to censor "Let's Go Brandon," preventing students from wearing the popular social media meme on shirts.

But a constitutional expert warns that it's a "dangerous precedent" that will move the nation established on the basis of free speech the wrong direction.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, has testified before Congress on constitutional issues, and even represented members in court.

He cited the case of "D.A." in Michigan, a student ordered to remove his sweater with the phrase on it.

That decision was from Judge Paul Maloney.

"Maloney rejects the free speech claim and rules that school officials can punish a student for wearing a 'Let's Go Brandon' T-shirt. I believe that he is wrong and that the case sets a dangerous precedent," Turley wrote.

The slogan is "a familiar political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2021 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast's questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of 'F*** Joe Biden.' Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, 'You can hear the chants from the crowd, 'Let's go, Brandon!'"

In the case at hand school officials Andrew Buikema and Wendy Bradford ordered several boys to remove the slogan.

"The school ordered the removal of the clothing as obscene and in violation of the school code. However, other students are allowed to don political apparel supporting other political causes including 'gay-pride-themed hoodies,'" he noted

While the school claims its authority to banish the message was because it was "profane," Turley explained, "The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words."

Maloney claimed, "Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting."

Turley said the ruling is "jarring and chilling."

"The 'Let's Go Brandon' slogan is more than just a substitute for profanity directed at the president (which itself has political content). It is using satire to denounce the press that often acts like a state media. It is commentary on the alliance between the government and the media in shaping what the public sees and hears."

He warned the decision moves to far "into the regulation of political speech. Notably, politicians have used the phrase, including members of the House of Representatives despite a rule barring profanity on the floor. On October 21, 2021, Republican congressman Bill Posey concluded his remarks with 'Let's go, Brandon.' It was not declared a violation of the House rules."

The judge's "default," he said, is "to limit speech even when it is not overtly profane and concerns a major political controversy."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A video of Secret Service officers bullying Americans to get out of the way so Jill Biden can go shopping is prompting a new episode of speculation about her desire for power.

The situation developed as Joe and Jill Biden took yet another vacation, this a taxpayer-funded weeklong break in Santa Ynez, California.

Jill Biden and other family members apparently decided to visit nearby Los Olivos.

The Gateway Pundit documented, "Secret Service agents violently pushed peasants out of the way so Jill Biden could go on a shopping spree on Friday afternoon. Jill Biden made a 'surprise visit' in Los Olivos and bystanders with cameras were roughly cleared out."

One security detail member screamed, "Out of the roadway! Move now! Go!" at the public, while violently pushing a woman.

A local report explained Jill Biden was out for "a little shopping" accompanied by Hunter Biden and family.

The report explained, "Jill Biden and the rest of the Biden parasites spent just 30 minutes in Los Olivos. They disrupted the small town and spent taxpayer money on nearly a dozen Secret Service agents and local law enforcement officers so Queen Jill could go on a shopping spree."

It continued, "This is why Jill Biden covered up her husband's dementia. She is a power-hungry elitist who loves watching peasants get manhandled so she can stroll and shop on taxpayer dime."

The RedState page explained, "Get out of the way, plebes! Watch as the Secret Service—whose reputation has deservedly taken a nosedive this summer—shoves regular Americans aside so Jill can go purchase another dress that looks like an ugly carpet."

The report pointed out, "Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Sunday, July 21. Since then, he has gone on two vacations and has spent every weekend either at his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, or the presidential retreat at Camp David, according to White House pool reports dating back to July 21."

It was investigative columnist Miranda Devine who pointed out the multitude of vacations of the Bidens, asking, "Do none of them have a job?"

In fact, a congressional report explained that in recent years, the Biden family has collected some $27 million in Joe Biden's influence peddling operations, and the presidential vacations are funded by taxpayers anyway.