This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Kamala Harris frantically has been changing the wildly liberal positions she's held for years to try to cast herself now as a legitimate candidate for president, nominated by the Democrat party.

She's flip-flopped over and over on guns, fracking, the border and more.

But she doubled down on her liberal ideologies and agendas with her choice of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her vice presidential candidate.

So explains Republican nominee President Donald Trump.

His campaign released a new characterization of Harris and Walz as soon as Harris made her announcement.

The ad explains, "Kamala Harris just doubled-down on her radical vision for America by tapping another left-wing extremist as her VP nominee.

"Tim Walz will be a rubber stamp for Kamala's dangerously liberal agenda, like allowing convicted felons to walk free, embracing anti-American Green New Deal policies, and giving up control of our southern border to criminal aliens and violent drug cartels.

"Kamala Harris and Tim Walz: they're failed, weak, and dangerously liberal."

In a separate campaign email, Trump said Walz would be "the worst VP in history, even worse than Dangerously Liberal and Crooked Kamala Harris – HE'S THAT BAD."

"He'll unleash HELL ON EARTH and open our borders to the worst criminals imaginable.

"He'll rubber stamp Kamala's GREEN NEW SCAM and light TRILLIONS of dollars on fire.

"But the real killer: he's already pulled in MILLIONS in dirty cash to buy the White House!"

Brian Hughes, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, explained, "By picking Tim Walz as her running mate, Kamala Harris not only bent the knee to the radical left, she doubled down on her dangerously liberal, weak, and failed agenda.

"Walz would be a rubberstamp for Kamala to wage war on American energy, continue aiding and abetting an invasion on our border, and embolden our adversaries as the world is brought to the brink of World War III. Americans will reject the Harris-Walz ticket and choose to make American Great Again by electing President Trump!"

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who also had sought the GOP nomination, said on social media, "Harris-Walz: most left-wing ticket in American history. Minnesota was ground zero for the BLM riots of 2020. Harris egged it on and Walz sat by and let Minneapolis burn."

In fact, Walz was running Minnesota's government when the horrifically violent and costly George Floyd riots erupted and burned entire city blocks in his state.

DeSantis continued, "In 2021, Minnesotans were roughly five times more likely to move to Florida than vice versa. They were fleeing a state that, under Gov. Tim Walz, turned its back on law and order, increased taxes, and imposed unscientific coronavirus restrictions, harming children and destroying businesses. Walz is an unbridled leftist, an Ilhan Omar-style Democrat that puts ideology above all else."

Social media even pointed out, immediately, that Walz's wife is a hard-left progressive, demanding that criminals be given "as many chances as [they] need" despite the fact that offends "law and order" Americans.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A video of Kamala Harris trying to explain data storage in 'the cloud' is going viral, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president suggests there's an actual cloud in the sky that holds the information.

In the video, Harris explains: "No longer are you necessarily keeping those private files in some file cabinet that's locked in the basement of the house," she said.

"It's on your laptop, and it's then – therefore – up here in this cloud that exists above us. Right?" she said, holding her hand up in the air and looking skyward.

"It's no longer in a physical place."

The 21-second clip, posted by comedian and filmmaker Eric Abbenante, has already received some 10 million views since it was published Saturday afternoon.

Filmmaker and conservative activist Dinesh D'Souza noted: "Kamala Harris explains cloud storage. If she doesn't make it to the White House, I'm sure MIT is ready to make her a full professor."

Other commenters stated:

"This isn't satire."

"All our data is up there in the cloud – and then when the sun shines through the cloud, our data becomes nice and yellow, like the sun, and like a yellow school bus."

A report at OfficeChai stated: "The U.S. vice president appeared to be laboring under the misapprehension – that's quite common among non-technical people – that cloud storage refers to literally storing data in the clouds.

"This is of course untrue – cloud storage refers to data that's stored in specialized data centers that are very much present on terra firma, not in the skies. And while Harris believes that cloud data is not stored in a physical place, the data is stored in massive data centers that are dotted across the world."

The report added Kamala "is not only the American vice president, but also the U.S. government's 'AI czar,' and is tasked with formulating regulations relating to Artificial Intelligence. And the fact that she believes that cloud storage appears to occur in the clouds 'above us' shows that no matter how developed the country, competency – and basic technical literacy – among politicians can be hard to find."

The explanation by Harris even caught the attention of the satire website The Babylon Bee, which posted a spoof news article, headlined: "Kamala Harris Spends Flight Looking For Cloud Where Her Data Is Stored."

The parody indicates:

As she traveled across the country on Air Force 2 this morning, Vice President Kamala Harris surveyed the clouds, wondering which one was storing all of her data.

"It's just so incredible they figured out how to store data in clouds. I wonder which one is mine?" said Harris, scanning the horizon. "Gosh, it could be any of them."

While in-flight, Harris reportedly tried saving data from her laptop onto the cloud to see if she could witness the data being launched into the sky. "Let's try again, let me just press 'save to cloud' here. Did you see anything?? Aw, shoot. I keep missing it!" sighed Harris. "Gee, I wonder how they tell the cloud to send the data back to my laptop? Science is amazing."

According to sources, the enchantment wore off suddenly as Harris became deeply concerned about what happened to her data on sunny days. "Where does it go? What if my cloud floats all the way to China?" asked Harris to bewildered aides. "That could be catastrophic. Call the Pentagon! Why has nothing been done to ensure my cloud stays secure? We must act quickly!"

Kamala Harris Spends Flight Looking For Cloud Where Her Data Is Stored https://t.co/XXvdVud7kg

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 4, 2024

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court is being asked to "rein in" reckless police who are escalating ordinary encounters with citizens to the point they kill someone.

It is the Rutherford Institute that has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a pending case on the topic.

The institute explains, "For instance, an Illinois sheriff's deputy was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing Sonya Massey after she called 9-1-1 for help at her home. A year earlier in Ohio, a pregnant mother was killed by a police officer in a grocery-store parking lot.

"Some federal courts analyze such events under the 'moment-of-threat doctrine,' which has contributed to a climate in which police unnecessarily escalate situations over relatively minor crimes and then respond to the perceived danger with deadly force," the organization said.

In the case Barnes v. Felix, the institute is calling on the justices "to overturn the 'moment-of-threat doctrine,' warning that it encourages police to act recklessly with impunity."

That ideology, the briefing argues, actually is in violation of established Fourth Amendment precedents for determining what constitutes reasonable use of force.

"In an age when police are increasingly militarized, weaponized and protected by the courts, run-of-the mill encounters between police and citizens are now inherently dangerous for any individual unlucky enough to be in a situation where police are inclined to respond to unsubstantiated fears for their safety and perceived challenges to their 'authority' by drawing and using their weapons," said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

He's also the author of "Battlefield America: The War on the American People."

"Unfortunately, this mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be 'neutralized' is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets law enforcement officers beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Equally problematic is the trend in the courts that acquits officers involved in such shootings, letting them off with barely a slap to the wrists," he continued.

The current dispute developed this way, the institute reported:

In the afternoon of April 28, 2016, Harris County Texas Officer Roberto Felix initiated a traffic stop of Ashtian Barnes due to a report by the Toll Road Authority that the license plate number on his vehicle had outstanding toll violations. When asked for proof of insurance, Barnes explained that the car had been rented a week earlier by his girlfriend and the documentation might be in the trunk. The officer claimed he smelled marijuana and ordered Barnes to open the trunk. A few seconds after Barnes opened the trunk, the car's blinker toward the side of the Tollway to which Barnes pulled over turned off for about ten seconds. Once the same blinker turned back on, Felix shouted at Barnes not to move, stepped onto the door sill where the driver-side door was open, and shoved his gun into Barnes's head. At that point, the car started to move, and Felix fired two shots into the car, killing Barnes.

When Barnes's parents sued, contending that Barnes did not pose a threat justifying deadly force, especially because Felix jumped onto the vehicle, the trial court dismissed it.

The 5th Circuit Appeals court affirmed under that now-challenged "moment-of-threat" ideology.

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.