This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The federal government announced just days ago a special deal for three of the 9/11 terrorists still held in Guantanamo Bay – a proposal to cancel any plans for a trial and consideration of the death penalty for the murders of nearly 3,000 on that day of terror – and just give them life sentences in prison.

Now an investigation has been launched to find out what influence Joe Biden, or presumptive Democrat nominee Kamala Harris, had on that decision.

The White House earlier claimed they were not even aware of the move until it was announced to the public.

But a report in the Daily Mail explained House Oversight Committee chief Rep. James Comer has written to the White House: "That White House officials and you, as President and Commander in Chief, would seek to distance your Administration from this decision is understandable given how absurd it is, but it is far from believable or appropriate."

His letter came with a notification that an investigation is being opened into the Biden-Harris role in the "controversial plea deal" offered to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of the horrific atrocities that day, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attach and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsasi.

Firefighters who lost comrades, people who lost family members and others all have condemned the leniency involved in the plan.

Comer, R-Ky., charged that there is concern over the secrecy involved in the deal, including many details not yet released.

He is requiring a copy of the plea deal, all documents between the White House and Defense Department related to it and all discussions of avoiding the death penalty by August 16, the report said.

WND reported that the substance of the deal is that the terrorists will admit responsibility for the deaths of nearly 3,000 that day, but will be given life sentences and not face the death penalty.

Fox News reported a union representing New York firefighters reports its members are "disgusted and disappointed" with the deal.

"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."

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."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris rallies sometimes are held in gymnasiums and events centers where parts have been blocked off by curtains or dividers.

It makes the crowd, put into a smaller area, appear fuller, even larger.

They are not like the rallies held for President Donald Trump, which attract tens of thousands, many hundreds lining up hours before the event doors even open.

One recent Harris rally was estimated to have attracted only a few dozen people.

But one resident in the Atlanta area, after a Harris rally featuring a popular rap artist was packed, is offering a new explanation for the crowd:

Democrats were paying the homeless to attend.

The woman, on a TikTok video later posted on Rumble by NewsVariable, explained, "They get busloads and they go pick up the homeless people. They offer them food, drink, and a little change to come to the rally so the rallies will look full."

She said, "Fulton County has been doing this for years."

She cited the recent event with a few dozen Harris fans, and said that was "quite embarrassing," and is "not going to do down."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden had to get a word in slamming President Donald Trump when it was announced that a multination prisoner swap had been engineered and that several Americans long held in Russia would be returning home.

It is Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, Radio Free Europe journalist Alsu Kurmasheva and Vladimir Kara-Murza Jr. who were released by Russia.

Gershkovich and Whelan were the highest profile individuals involved, and Gershkovich was sentenced to 16 years in maximum security on claims of espionage, and Whelan had been detained since visiting Russia for a friend's wedding in 2018. He then was convicted of espionage, too.

Published reports noted it was one of the largest prison swaps involving the U.S. or Russia in years.

Altogether, 16 political prisoners and others were released from Russia, while eight Russians held in the U.S., Norway, Germany and other nations were returned.

Trump had commented after announcement that he would have been able to get the Americans freed without giving up anything, and a reporter asked Biden about that.

Biden, who recently was shoved under the bus by the Democrat party whose elites have selected Kamala Harris as his replacement on the 2024 ballot, responded to the question, "Why didn't he do it when he was president?"

But the answer took an awkward turn with a routine fact check.

It seems three of the four being returned to the United States were taken into custody after Trump left his first term as president.

A White House spokeswoman explained that Harris played "a critical role in this diplomacy at a number of key moments."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In news that recommends voters recall President Donald Trump's goal of draining the Washington "Swamp," those unelected but entrenched bureaucrats who make many decisions that cost Americans a great deal, a new report reveals that the "swamp" tax imposed by the Biden-Harris administration is "more than families spend on food, clothing, and education."

A Forbes report said the richest families in America spend some $15,000 a year on groceries – and the Washington Examiner said that's exactly what the "swamp" tax from Joe Biden and Democrat presidential nominee hopeful Kamala Harris costs families.

"As bad as those costs seem, they are likely much higher because the administration changed transparency rules after coming into office, hiding the impact of some regulations, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's annual report on the federal regulatory state, Ten Thousand Commandments," the report said.

Those regulations are costing the nation $2.1 trillion a year.

"Biden's pursuit of various whole-of-government initiatives and transformation of OMB into a cheerleader for, rather than a watchdog over, regulation, I think he can greatly contribute to household costs far worse than what we imagine," explained Clyde Wayne Crews, the author of the report.

The Examiner noted his report is "eagerly anticipated" by those who want to cut government rules and red tape – because "it gives an accurate picture of the costs of federal rules and shows how federal bureaucrats have taken over the job of Congress, which is supposed to write regulations."

The CEI said the annual cost of federal regulations and intervention is estimated to be $417 billion on environmental questions, $522 billion on economic rules, $316 billion on tax compliance, $214 billion on health issues, and more.

Stunningly, the report reveals that agencies imposed 3,018 final rules over this year, even though Congress adopted only 68 regulatory laws.

And it identified 97 "economically significant" rules imposed over just the last six months that each cost the nation $100 billion or more, the report said.

And the agenda has been by executive fiat as Biden and Harris "have sidestepped the political division in Congress to get their liberal programs through with executive orders and regulations," the report warned.

Crews continued, "Regulatory compliance costs and mandates borne by businesses result in higher prices, lost jobs, and lower output. Regulations undermine the economic success of American businesses and households and drag down the economy. Congress should intervene and fix this problem."

Trump had set a goal to kill two regulations for every new rule adopted, but the liberal bureaucratic establishment in government worked to block that.

The Examiner noted it's the first such report since the Supreme Court demolished the "Chevron precedent" which called for courts to submit to federal rules decisions by agencies.

Crews noted, "Prior editions of Ten Thousand Commandments have detailed Trump's streamlining effort (2021) and Biden's reversals (2022, 2023) and framed the latter's pursuit of ambitious whole-of-government spending and regulatory initiatives spanning climate, equity, economic, and social matters, as well as an appetite for censorship and surveillance. This 2024 edition sets a new high-water mark of $2.1 trillion. All previous estimates had the annual total cost of federal regulations below $2 trillion. Previous editions also explained why that figure was almost certainly an undercount."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Well-known China expert Gordon Chang has confirmed President Donald Trump is correct when he suggests tariffs are part of the solution of America's business dealing with China.

Trump has suggested if elected, he'd pursue tariffs as high as 60% on Chinese goods being dumped on American shores.

"I can't believe how many people are negative on tariffs that are actually smart people," Trump said just a few weeks ago. "Economically, they're phenomenal."

In a commentary at Gatestone Institute, where he is distinguished senior fellow and advisory board member, Chang pointed out that immediately, "a lot of smart people" have insisted that high tariffs are "horrible."

"Trump is right. Although these levies would increase costs to American consumers, the costs would not be nearly as great as experts say. Moreover, there are other considerations, both economic and national security, favoring raising tariffs now," Chang wrote.

Bloomberg explained, "As president, Trump shattered the long-standing Republican orthodoxy of favoring free trade. He says he'll go further if reelected."

Commentators howled at Trump's idea, claiming that American consumers would pay a price, and Chang said there is some of that impact present.

But, he said that's not the result in the short-term.

"In 2018, Trump imposed additional tariffs on China and analysts warned that prices in America would rise. Smart people in America, however, forgot that China had an incentive to effectively pay the tariffs: The Chinese government and exporters absorbed 75% to 81% of the cost of the additional levies. They did so primarily through the government increasing export and other subsidies and factories accepting lower profit margins."

Trade expert Alan Tonelson said those Trump tariffs "were barely noticed by U.S. businesses or consumers. They certainly did not raise inflation, and they certainly did not cut growth."

China right now is lobbying against any more tariffs, but Chang said ultimately the communist regime will have to pay.

"This is a contest that the United States cannot lose. In short, trade-surplus countries, such as China, cannot prevail over trade-deficit ones, such as America. Last year, America's merchandise trade deficit with China was $279.4 billion," Chang noted.

"China steals each year somewhere in the neighborhood of a half trillion dollars of American intellectual property. Critics of tariffs, whether they make valid points or not about increased costs, have an obligation to say how they would eliminate or reduce this criminal practice through other means."

And, he noted, "The Communist Party of China sees the U.S. as an enemy and seeks the destruction of the American republic. The struggle, in short, is existential. China's regime cannot wage the fight against America without American money. So why should Americans supply the cash to their enemy?"

In China, the regime is dependent on higher exports for economic growth.

"Chinese factories, from all indications, are struggling and need to keep customers. For instance, China's Producer Price Index, which measures factory-gate prices, declined for the 21st consecutive month in June. The Wall Street Journal reports low prices have pushed many factories in China 'to the brink.' With prices declining in China, American consumers will not feel the pinch of new tariffs. Furthermore, there is one more reason why U.S. consumers will not suffer. High American tariffs will encourage factories to move out of China. When they do, any pressure on consumer prices will disappear."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being challenged to confirm that children in America have constitutional rights, too.

This was after a lower court allowed a school unfettered permission to punish kids for their self-expression.

"School administrators are state actors who wield extraordinary power over the families of more than 65 million children attending public schools. They must not be allowed to punish children on a whim whenever their hypersensitive political views are offended," explained Dean McGee, a lawyer at the Liberty Justice Center.

The organization has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of student B.B.

"B.B. was in first grade when her California school introduced her to 'Black Lives Matter' – a phrase rooted in the complex, controversial topic of racial discrimination in American policing. Empathizing with a classmate, B.B. drew a picture of their group with the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' [sic], adding 'any life' below it," the legal team explained.

"Conflating the first grader's innocent use of 'any life' with the politicized phrase 'All Lives Matter,' school administrators forced B.B. to publicly apologize, prohibited her from drawing at school, and forced her to sit on the bleachers during recess for weeks. The school never told B.B.'s family about the punishments. When they eventually learned what had happened from another parent over a year later, B.B.'s family sued the school for violating her First Amendment rights."

The lower court dismissed the case, essentially depriving students of that age of constitutional rights.

The Liberty Justice Center's filing warns that "students' constitutional rights are threatened by near-total deference to school administrators, highlighting the harm that can arise from suspensions, public shaming, and other harsh disciplinary methods."

WND had reported when David Carter, a district judge, ruled against students' rights.

The judge noted the student was "too young to have First Amendment rights."

The girl's family filed a lawsuit last year against the Capistrano Unified School District over the deprivation of rights.

They charged, "Students have the right to be free from speech that denigrates their race while at school" and that the girl was not protected by the First Amendment because of her age.

Carter had claimed, "An elementary school … is not a marketplace of ideas… Thus, the downsides of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation."

The report explained that B.B. had given the image to a friend, who took it home, and that the friend's parents were offended by the child's drawing. They complained to the school and demanded action.

Lawyer Caleb Trotter, on behalf of the student, said, "If that view is allowed to survive and spread, the speech rights of countless elementary students around the country could be at risk. That was what concerned me."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris, the probable replacement for the mentally failing Joe Biden at the top of Democrat party's 2024 presidential ticket, has been declared "not welcome" in a major American metroplex.

It is in Harris County, Texas, that her visits are being shunned.

Kamala is not welcome in Houston. pic.twitter.com/B3qcUqnosS

— Harris County GOP (@HarrisCountyRP) July 25, 2024

According to a statement from the Harris County GOP, it's because she is ignoring entirely the major concern of voters there.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In comments that prompted a headline warning about his plans to "end the separation of powers" in the U.S. Constitution and "impose his own rules on the Supreme Court," Joe Biden promised Americans in his final months as president he is calling for the court to be changed up.

Democrats and other leftists and liberals have been enraged by the court over the past couple of years, following President Donald Trump's appointment of three relatively conservative justices, because the decisions have not come down the way they want.

Specifically, they have repeatedly lost their cool over the loss of the federal abortion "right" that had been created in the faulty Roe decision that was overturned.

There suddenly was speculation and discussion about changing the court, even though extreme rulings, to the left, drew no such comments for years that the liberals were the majority.

Packing the court with a bunch of new leftists, demanding individual justices stay out of cases when Congress tells them, and more, we're on the plate.

Now a report from the Epoch News notes that Biden, in a speech this week from the Oval Office, said the Supreme Court changes will be one of the projects on which he'll work for his remaining weeks, others being gun control and fighting global warming.

"And I'm going to call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy, Supreme Court reform," Biden claimed during his speech filled with stutters and stumbles.

The report cited speculation that Biden wants an "enforceable ethics code."

And he wants to be able to get rid of justices after a certain time.

His spokeswoman, Karine Jean Pierre, explained, "The president believes that when you hold a high office, you should be held by a certain ethics and transparency. That's something that the president believes, and so he certainly will continue to do everything that he can. I don't have any policy announcements to make at this moment."

The progressives in Biden's political party already have said they want term limits, they want to pack the court and they want to review what justices do.

Biden earlier set up a commission to look at recommendations, but it failed the progressives, not endorsing the packing scheme and taking a neutral stance on term limits.

Also triggering fear for progressives is that Biden already has suggested that the next president, elected in November, probably will appoint justices to replace several who may retire in the coming years.

MSNBC voiced the concerns of leftists, saying, "To be sure, the number of justices a president appoints can be more a matter of chance than skill, especially when it comes to variables like a justice's health. That unpredictability alone underscores the importance of each election, as Republican appointees Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are in their mid-70s and Democratic appointee Sonia Sotomayor is 70. It's hard to imagine a Republican-appointed justice stepping down voluntarily during a Democratic administration, and vice versa. Of course, that political reality hasn't played out equally across party lines, leading to today's 6-3 Republican supermajority that has delivered significant wins for the Republican Party."

And the report noted the Supreme Court itself could strike down "reforms reportedly backed by Biden like term limits and an enforceable ethics code."

NPR noted that changes would need to be made by a constitutional amendment, an unlikely scenario, or congressional action, an equally unlikely scenario now with the GOP in the majority in the U.S. House.

Recently, leftists have tried to push to the scandal level some actions by conservative justices, but they had been silent in years gone by when a leftist, the late Ruth Ginsburg, openly blasted a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, while sitting as a justice.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Democrats and other radicals for a long time have been donating money to Joe Biden's campaign for re-election. Now he won't be on the party's ticket in November, and it appears there are complications, under federal law, for Democrats simply to say now that Kamala Harris, or someone else, is their candidate and transfer the cash.

It's because of the federal law that states, "If the candidate is not a candidate in the general election, all contributions made for the general election shall be either returned or refunded to the contributors or redesignated …, or reattributed …, as appropriate."

The dispute already has triggered a complaint to the Federal Election Commission by GOP nominee President Donald Trump's campaign.

The Democrats are accused of violating campaign finance laws, for making moves to transfer the $91.5 million left in Biden's campaign coffers to Harris.

The law had been posted online by Sean Cooksey, the chairman of the FEC, who cited Section 110.1(b)(3).

The Washington Examiner reports that Republican lawmakers already are considering whether to bring legal challenges to the Democrats' schemes.

The report said, "Holzman Vogel partner and campaign finance expert Steve Roberts told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday that the 'FEC issue is very much live' due to the entirely unprecedented nature of Biden's withdrawal."

He's already working on behalf of clients to challenge the Democrat flip-flop.

"There are frankly a few different angles that are worth pursuing here. The one in my mind that stands out the most is that they shouldn't even have the opportunity to figure out what to do with the money because it should be refunded to the donors in the first place."

Cooksey charged that Democrats are trying to silence him for simply citing federal law. That claim came when Rep. Joseph Morelle, D-N.Y., wrote to "clarify a possibly misrepresentation" of FEC law, responding to Cooksey's concerns.

"All I did was quote federal regulations. Why are Democrats afraid of the law?" Cooksey said.

He expects challenges both before the FEC and in the courts.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former President Donald Trump has promised to end the reign of dangerous Mexican drug cartels and outlined plans on foreign policy, during an interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters and Trump's running-mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio.

During the interview, Trump stated it was "absolutely" on the table to destroy Mexican drug cartels if the election goes in his favor this November, despite Mexico being the U.S. largest trading partner.

"Absolutely…Mexico is going to have to straighten it out fast, where the answer is absolutely. They're killing 300,000 people a year with fentanyl coming in, and China, by the way, will do what they have to do. They're gonna do it just like I had to deal with President Xi…They [China] were gonna give the death penalty to anybody sending fentanyl our way, and that was part of my negotiation, " Trump told Watters.

Trump added China never carried through with these plans, because the Biden administration did not enforce it.

"You know, China has the death penalty for drug dealers…and I said, 'they're drug dealers'…he [Xi] agreed with me. Death penalty for drug dealers, the death penalty for people that send fentanyl into our country, and that would have made a big difference," Trump said.

Trump noted the Biden-Harris administration is "soft" on China, and as a result, almost 100% of fentanyl has Chinese origin and is then smuggled over the U.S. southern border by the cartels.

"Mexico is going to be given a very short period to police their border. I'm sure they're going to do not well, and then you're going to see the action start, and you know what's gonna happen? We're gonna have a lot of people living," Trump said.

Trump pointed out that not only is fentanyl killing people, but it's also destroying the lives of those who are addicted to it, their families, and the community.

"Even if there's no death, they're destroying families. The families are decimated and they're destroyed," Trump said.

It is well known Vance's mother was addicted to illicit drugs, and Watters asked how his mother was able to beat her addiction.

"You know, she just kept getting back on the horse. I know a lot of families struggle with addiction. I think my message is there is hope on the other side of addiction, you just have to keep on at it, and she's getting close to 10 years clean and sober," Vance told Watters.

Vance added if his mother had been addicted to fentanyl 20 years ago, she would not be here today.

"It's funny that people accuse us of being bombastic for saying the cartels, we need to go after them. What about American citizens who are losing their lives by the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands because we won't do something about the cartels? That's what's reckless," Vance told Watters.

Vance noted he believes the Mexican government wants Trump to do something about the cartels because it is destabilizing Mexico too.

"$14 billion coming to the cartels, and that was a couple of years ago, it's probably more today. They're not gonna be a real country anymore. They're gonna become a narco-state unless we get some control over this," Vance said.