This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The FBI's stunning armed SWAT-style raid on President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home is coming back into the news, with plans by his lawyers for a $100 million lawsuit that charges that agency, under the administration of Joe Biden, attacked him with "clear intent to engage in political persecution."

The fact that it was a political move is almost without doubt, as the same bureaucracy had let Joe Biden off the hook for the same violation – reportedly keeping government papers, although there were differences.

Trump, as president, had the authority to declassify papers as he wished; Biden's offenses were from his time as senator and vice president, and he did not have the same authority.

Further, the special counsel investigating Biden for having government secrets in his personal offices, his home, even a relatively unsecured garage in a stash next to a classic car, recommended against formal criminal charges because of Biden's declining mental capacities.

But the bureaucrats also let former Vice President Mike Pence off the hook for similar circumstances, making it even more clear that Trump was a political target.

A report at RedState explains Trump's legal team is preparing the $100 million lawsuit against the Department of Justice for the actions on Aug. 8, 2022.

Trump attorney Daniel Epstein has filed a notice to sue the Justice Department. The Justice Department has 180 days from the date of receipt to respond to Epstein's notice and come to a resolution. If no resolution is made, Trump's case will move to federal court in the Southern District of Florida, the report explained.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

For a married California couple with $200,000 in income, seeing Kamala Harris installed as president would cost nearly $9,000.

That's $9,000 in money would disappear into the vast hole that is the federal government.

It's because she wants to trash President Donald Trump's tax cuts, which he wants to continue,

A Florida single with $100,000 in income would lose nearly $4,200.

A Missouri single with $75,000 in income would lose $3,400.

A New York head of household with $400,000 in income would say goodbye to more than $2,800.

At this link, check your own prospects.

The website address first was reported by the Daily Mail, which said it comes from a large PAC supporting President Trump's campaign.

Variables include income, state, marital status, age and number of children or dependents.

And it accuses Harris of an "assault on the Trump tax cuts."

Harris, meanwhile, is known for being in favor of much more spending as long as it's the government doing the spending. She cast the necessary tiebreaking vote to approve Joe Biden's mis-named "Inflation Reduction Act," which spent trillions of dollars but essentially ignored inflation.

The report noted, "In the 2020 Democratic primary race, Harris called for a complete repeal of the Trump-era tax reform law passed in 2017."

She said, "On Day One, we're going to repeal that tax bill that benefited the top 1 percent and corporations."

The economy and inflation remains the top concern for voters heading into November's election.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

If voters choose Kamala Harris and Tim Walz to be in the administration for the next four years, there will be an "all-out war" on voters' First Amendment speech rights, warns an editorial from a major publication.

It is the Washington Examiner that says based on their records, "a Harris-Walz administration would declare all-out war on the First Amendment under the guise of fighting 'misinformation.'"

Further, the leftists would "browbeat social media platforms with the threat of antitrust enforcement to censor any information that was inconvenient" for their political party.

Even more, they would "weaponize the Department of Justice to go after not just pro-life demonstrators but any organization, such as the Knights of Columbus, that believes abortion is murder." That's a subject already under review by Congress.

Their threat? Well, the editorial explains, that would be to "use and abuse the full power of the IRS to harass conservative organizations and bully conservative people."

The agenda points actually would be an expansion on similar campaigns that were dictated against Christians and conservatives during the Barack Obama administration, and under Joe Biden.

But it probably would get much worse.

The publication cited Walz's comment revealing his lack of knowledge of the Constitution.

He said, "There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy."

The editorial said that "would be news" to the Supreme Court, which held in 2017 that "speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground" is still protected by the First Amendment.

"Walz's impulse to censor speech he does not like is most definitely shared by his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, who pushed for Twitter and Facebook to censor then-President Donald Trump even before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. In Iowa, on Oct. 19, 2019, Harris told Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, 'This is not a matter of free speech. … This is a matter of holding corporate America and these Big Tech companies responsible and accountable for what they are facilitating,'" the Examiner reported.

"Harris's anti-free speech position was so extreme that even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) pushed back, saying she wanted to kick Trump only out of the White House, not off social media. But politburo secretariat officer Kamala did not back down. 'I'm calling on everyone to join me,' she said."

Her censorship schemes date back years, as she used government power in 2019 while attorney general in California to confiscate from conservative nonprofits sensitive IRS documents listing donors.

"In a complete 'coincidence,' Harris's office then posted the private data online, an incident that she claimed was purely accidental. The Supreme Court ruled against Harris, holding that her efforts to intimidate conservative voices by abusing IRS power violated the First Amendment," the warning explained.

Then as senator, she attacked judicial nominees for their religious beliefs, revealed by their membership in the Knights of Columbus.

"The implication of her line of questioning clearly was that merely being a member of a charitable organization that has conservative views disqualified one from public service," it said.

What will be targeted, the publication warned, by a Harris-Walz regime, would be "any information that Democrats don't like."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

America's abortion industry giant, Planned Parenthood, has taken hundreds of millions of dollars over the years from taxpayers for its campaign to destroy the unborn. Of late, it's added to its revenue stream by soliciting those who believe they are transgender and providing "treatment."

Now that agenda may be backfiring, as a 20-year-old woman has accused, in a lawsuit, the megacorporation of pushing her into a gender transition when she was 18, leaving her with lifelong damages.

A report in the Daily Mail noted Cristina Hineman has filed a lawsuit against the organization that is America's largest single provider of abortion and contraception.

The case accuses of Planned Parenthood of giving her testosterone following an evaluation that included a 30-minute consultation with a nurse practitioner.

She charges that her permanent side effects now include hair on the back of her hands and face and constant discomfort.

The report explains Hineman also charges her sexual responses have been changed and a double mastectomy left her chest scarred and "alternately numb and raw."

The report says Hineman went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Hudson, New York, in November 2021 when she turned 18, seeking testosterone after her parents were skeptical about her claim to "gender dysphoria."

"The teenager was reportedly instructed to fill out a consent form for 'masculinizing hormone therapy.' According to medical records, a nurse practitioner noted that Hineman had 'consulted with a mental health provider.' The nurse and Hineman then discussed 'expected changes,' such as growing a beard and body hair and a deepening voice. The two also reportedly discussed that 'changes to fertility may be permanent or reversible,'" the report said.

But only a year into treatments, she discovered her gender was not the root of her issues, and regretted the process. In an interview with Free Press, she said, "I was brainwashed… A lot of people say that adults should be able to do whatever they want."

The report noted that her issues included self-harm, depression, anxiety and autism.

She now considers herself a detransitioner, someone who has acknowledged their sex at birth.

"If you have mental illness that's clouding your view, or you're so misinformed about what gender dysphoria even means, then you cannot consent to such invasive treatments," she explained.

Her action seeks unspecified damages from Planned Parenthood.

Other detransitioners already have announced their lawsuits against others in the transgender business, including individual doctors and Kaiser Permanente.

The Free Press report explained Planned Parenthood now is the nation's leading provider of gender transition hormones.

Her legal fight charges Planned Parenthood with negligence and failure to obtain informed consent. Planned Parenthood is fighting the case.

The Free Press report added, "Her suit comes as the U.S. is increasingly alone in championing hormonal and surgical interventions to swiftly transition gender-distressed young people. A growing list of European countries, including Sweden, Finland, and the UK, are restricting these sometimes irreversible treatments for young people and favoring an approach that encourages therapy to address all the causes of a patient's distress."

And some two dozen Republican-led states have adopted limits on what kind of treatments can be inflicted on minors.

"Treatment without a competent evaluation shouldn't be foisted on you whether you're 15 or 30," said Kevin Keller, a lawyer consulting on detransitioner cases.

"Vulnerability is the issue. If there's no comprehensive screening in place before a medical intervention that's going to have permanent effects," that's a breach of duty, he explains.

The report noted there already is a second lawsuit over the issue against Planned Parenthood, charging the infliction of "great pain and anguish."

Hineman described, "There was no conversation about the actual process of what the hormones are going to do in your body; it's just you take the shot and start becoming more male."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden and Democrats long have claimed that it was an insurrection in January 2021 when Biden was installed in the White House over the protests of many who thought the election was irretrievably tainted.

And they've long blamed President Donald Trump, his supporters, and in fact all Republicans, for that less-than-smooth week in Washington.

Now Biden has admitted that if Trump wins in November, there won't be any peaceful transfer either.

In an interview to be released this coming weekend, with CBS' Robert Costa, he was asked, "Are you confident that there will be a peaceful transfer of power in January 2025?"

Biden said, "If Trump wins, no, I'm not confident at all."

Then he changed his mind, and added, "I mean if Trump loses, I'm not confident at all. He means what he says. We don't take him seriously. He means it, all the stuff about, 'If we lose, there'll be a bloodbath, it'll have to be a stolen election.'

"Look what they're trying to do now in the local election districts where people count the votes, or putting people in place in states that they're going to count the votes, right?"

Biden's response actually didn't make much sense either time, as under the first scenario he would be accusing Democrats of failing to let there be a peaceful transfer. Under the second scenario, if Trump loses and Democrats win, would there then be a violent transfer from the Biden-Harris camp to the Harris-Walz camp?

An online report pointed out that, "Biden said the quiet part out loud before correcting himself."

WND reported earlier that Biden supporter U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., promised there would be "civil war" conditions if Trump wins, as he would try to have the GOP nominee declared ineligible to hold office.

He gave the impression he was planning an "insurrection."

That would be his plans to have Congress deny Trump the presidency should he win in November.

He explained his agenda:

What can be put into the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly and the greatest example going on right now before our eye is Section 3 of the 14th amendment which they're just disappearing with the magic wand as if it doesn't exist even though it could not be clearer what it's stating.

And so they want to kick it to Congress.

So it's going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified and then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions, all because denying justice is not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at each year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection, simply do not want to do their job.

His argument stems from his own interpretation of that section, which states "no person can hold certain offices under the United States or any state if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution but have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, or provided aid or comfort to its enemies."

He has claimed repeatedly that Trump, because others rioted on Jan. 6, 2021, is ineligible for office.

Of course, Trump never has been charged with insurrection, much less convicted. Congress tried twice to impeach and remove him, including once after he already was out of office. And Congress failed both times.

Nonetheless, Raskin has adopted his own interpretation of that provision and insists on its application, to his satisfaction. Raskin is not the only member of Congress who apparently believes that it is within their power to determine a president guilty of a constitutional violation, as Pelosi's partisan January 6 committee largely spent all of its time and millions of tax dollars trying to assemble a storyline that portrayed Trump as guilty of something on that day when a protest turned into a riot.

Online commenters showed that Raskin's arguments were not being considered seriously.

"Raskin has a few missing screws!" said one. Another added, "I also know Raskin is a complete moron that nobody takes seriously as he talks out of his *** more than he talks out of his mouth."

While Democrats often talk about Trump and Republicans and conservatives and January 6 and insurrection, that action by definition is an organized plan to usurp a government, take over its leadership, is economy, its military, its foreign relations and much, much more, none of which was attempted or even planned that day.

Further, without a solid majority of Democrats in Congress, Raskin's agenda likely would not even make it out of committee.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden has been panned by many, including historians, as one of the worst, or the worst president of the United States.

High inflation, a loss of America's reputation around the world, a vast slide into transgenderism and abortion promotions. And they are the highlights of his tenure.

All this exacerbated by an obvious decline in mental faculties, so much so that it was cited by a prosecutor for a reason not to charge Biden with mishandling government records.

But not for ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who tried twice, and failed twice, on impeach-and-remove schemes against President Donald Trump.

She thinks Biden should be on Mt. Rushmore.

The interviewer, Lesley Stahl, looks stunned as Pelosi, discussing Biden's "accomplishments," cited a recent NATO summit and said, "He was in a good place to make whatever decisions. … Top of his game. … Such a consequential president of the United States of America. A Mt. Rushmore kind of president of the United States."

Stunned, Stahl, wonders if Biden really should be there with Abraham Lincoln.

Pelosi: "But you got Teddy Roosevelt up there and he's wonderful. I don't say take him down but you can add Biden."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The revelation that Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, cheated on his first wife and got the family nanny pregnant is igniting an "incendiary" new chapter in the 2024 race for the White House.

Emhoff acknowledged his adulterous affair Saturday, after Britain's Daily Mail broke the story.

"During my first marriage, Kerstin and I went through some tough times on account of my actions," Emhoff said in a statement provided to CNN.

"I took responsibility, and in the years since, we worked through things as a family and have come out stronger on the other side."

The nanny is identified as Najen Naylor, 47, who was a teacher at a a pricey private school for one of Emhoff's children.

"I'm kind of freaked out right now," Naylor told the Daily Mail when approached at her home in the Hamptons on Long Island, New York.

The British paper reported: "A close friend with direct knowledge of the affair and pregnancy told DailyMail.com that Naylor did not keep the child – though her social media shows a video of a mysterious baby girl named Brook in 2009, the year the baby would have been born.

"Another friend, Stacey Brooks, who mothered twin boys around the same time as Naylor was expecting, also did not deny any of the claims – but said she would not divulge further information without Naylor's permission.

"The incendiary news is said to be causing panic in Harris' campaign, just as she has overtaken Donald Trump in several polls and as she ramps up her final push to win over voters in November."

"Emhoff, 59, and movie producer ex-wife Kerstin, 57, ended their 16-year marriage in 2009 when she discovered the affair, the sources said. Their daughter Ella was 10 and son Cole was 15 at the time."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In what George Washington University law professor and constitutional expert Jonathan Turley calls "the most dangerous movement in our history," Americans more and more are starting to believe in radical censorship of speech.

At this point, polling shows that more than half say the First Amendment goes too far in protecting free speech and there's even a movement afoot to change that constitutional protection so that people have the right to speak, but also have the right "to be shut up."

In an online column he notes he addresses the "global anti-free speech movement" in his book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage."

"It is in my view the most dangerous movement in our history due to an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces. That fear was amplified this week with polling showing that years of attacking free speech as harmful has begun to change the views of citizens," he explained.

It's all the rage in academia, he said, so it now is "not surprising to see the new Knight Foundation-Ipsos study revealing a further a decline in students' views concerning the state of free speech on college campuses. The study shows that 70 percent of students 'believe that speech can be as damaging as physical violence.' It also shows the impact of speech codes and regulations with two out of three students reporting that they 'self-censor' during classroom discussions."

Nearly two out of three on campus say, "[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive."

And worse, where it used to be 78% a few years ago, now only 54% of students say colleges should allow students to be exposed to speech even if its "offensive."

And, he noted, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found 53% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights."

Forebodingly, 40% now "trust" the government to censor speech.

"We have created a generation of speech phobics who are willing to turn their backs on centuries of struggle against censorship and speech codes," he noted.

Leaders of the movement include University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade who has called free speech the "Achilles Heel" of the nation, and Joe Biden, who has claimed corporations that don't censor are "killing people."

It is Mary Anne Franks, of George Washington University, who is pushing for a rewrite of the First Amendment, so that would demand speech conflicts "be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons."

But he explained Antifa has been one of the "most dangerous" censorship groups around.

"Antifa continues to attack those with opposing views and anti-free speech allies continue to 'deplatform' speakers on campuses and public forums. 'Your speech is violence' is now a common mantra heard around the country.
Faculty continue to lead students in attacking pro-life and other demonstrators."

In fact, he cited one Antifa activist whose ideology is: "You have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

They are admitting the responsibility for the murders of nearly 3,000 people in America, but they are being let off with life sentences.

That's the substance of a deal the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration is reaching with several of the 9/11 terror attack terrorists, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.

And it's not getting a good reaction from multitudes of the victims, from family members of those murdered to members of the New York Fire Department, which lost dozens of its brothers and sisters in the attack.

Fox News reports a union representing New York firefighters reports its members are "disgusted and disappointed" with the deal sparing Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attach and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsasi.

They have been held at Guantanamo Bay for years already, since their capture for the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.

A letter sent to families of victims bluntly informed them, "In exchange for removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment, these three accused have agreed to plead guilty to all of the charged offenses, including the murder of the 2,976 people listed in the charge sheet."

That was from Rear Adm. Aaron Rugh, the chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions, and was documented by the New York Post.

"On behalf of New York City firefighters, especially the survivors of the September 11th terrorist attack who are living with the illnesses and injuries that were inflicted upon us that day, we are disgusted and disappointed that these three terrorists were given a plea deal and allowed to escape the ultimate justice while each month three more heroes from the FDNY are dying from World Trade Center illnesses," stated Andrew Ansbro, the chief of the FDNY Uniformed Firefighters Association.

9/11 Justice President Brett Eagleson added, "While we acknowledge the decision to avoid the death penalty, our primary concern remains access to these individuals for information. These plea deals should not perpetuate a system of closed-door agreements, where crucial information is hidden without giving the families of the victims the chance to learn the full truth."

The three are accused of providing training, money and other help to the 19 terrorists who hijacked four passenger jets that day and crashed them into the World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

The Washington Examiner reported families of those killed were not happy either.

And Newsweek said the announcement "sparked fury."

"For me personally, I wanted to see a trial," said Terry Strada, head of a group of families of victims, 9/11 Families United.

"And they just took away the justice I was expecting, a trial and the punishment."

Michael Burke, who lost family, told legacy wire service AP it "always been disgraceful that these guys, 23 years later, have not been convicted and punished for their attacks, or the crime."

He continued, "I think people would be shocked if you could go back in time and tell the people who just watched the towers go down, 'Oh, hey, in 23 years, these guys who are responsible for this crime we just witnessed are going to be getting plea deals so they can avoid death and serve life in prison.'"

Sen. Mitch McConnell said the deals were a "revolting abdication of the government's responsibility to defend America and provide justice."

House Speaker Mike Johnson added, "For more than two decades, the families of those murdered by these terrorists have waited for justice. This plea deal is a slap in the face of those families. They deserved better from the Biden-Harris Administration."

National Security Council officials said Biden, who recently "dropped out" of the 2024 presidential race after he exhibited multiple episodes of a declining mental ability, played no role in the decision.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, of New York, said, "Any plea deal with the terrorists responsible for killing thousands of Americans including so many of my constituents is unacceptable. We owe it to the victims, their families and those 9/11 heroes who continue dying today from related illnesses to pursue the death penalty."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris, recently pushed into the Democrats' top ballot slot for this fall by the elites of the party who apparently pushed Joe Biden into the ditch because of his declining mental capabilities, is trying to clean up her record and her agendas to appeal to more voters.

So she flipflopped on an issue. And then flipflopped on another. And flipflopped on a third. And a fourth. All in one day.

It was commentator Alex Berenson who cited her position changes as outlined by the New York Times.

They include that now she no longer wants to ban fracking, anathema to Pennsylvania voters, even though she previously wanted that.

And now she wants money for border security, one of the top issues for American voters this year, even though she essentially ignored her responsibilities as Joe Biden's "border czar" for years already.

And she no longer wants single payer health care, for which she's lobbied in the past.

And finally, she still wants to ban "assault weapons" but has dropped her agenda to forcibly confiscate them from Americans, as she previously had demanded.

"I do like that she doesn't even bother to try to defend her old views, just tosses them when they're no longer politically expedient," Berenson wrote.

But it was reporting at Revolver.news that shredded her for being "the most dangerous kind of politician."

"At her core, she's a Marxist tyrant and a radical left-wing activist. Yet, when the spotlight hits her, she sheds her skin like a snake, adopting the guise of a semi-centrist. But we all know that's just an act. Once in power, Kamala will rip off her semi-centrist mask and reveal her true identity—Kamala Jong Un," the report said.

The article explained, "Her track record is a disaster. This is the woman who championed the wildly dangerous and unpopular 'Defund the Police' movement, and supported a soft-on-crime bail fund that put violent George Floyd rioters, murderers, and sex offenders back on the streets. She's also the same easily duped politician who bought into Jussie Smollett's absurd 'MAGA COUNTRY' story. Kamala is a classic 'finger in the wind' politician, always chasing the popular trend of the moment. Once it loses relevance, she sheds that snake-like skin and transforms into whatever the regime needs next. She's not a real person; she's a creation, and that is terrifying for every single American."

The posting noted that what Harris really was doing in the Senate was to be "dragging us deeper into the abyss of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)."

"Most bills Kamala attached her name to were laced with insane race equity issues, squatter's rights, and a bevy of loony environmental red tape that's been a nightmare for American businesses and workers."