This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In a stunning revelation about how she would like to exercise a dictatorial control over Americans and their ideas, twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has called for jail for those with ideas that differ from hers.

In an interview she was addressing her concerns about those who were "boosting Trump back in 2016."

"But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. Uh. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence…."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

How a man could carry a rifle to within a couple of hundred yards of President Donald Trump on a golf course now is the subject of not one or two, but four investigations by different agencies.

And a key question needing an answer is how the suspect, Ryan Routh, 58, apparently knew of the golf outing, its timing and locations, when that even had not been publicized.

A report from the Washington Examiner notes within hours of the Secret Service spotting a rifle barrel in the golf course bushes and the subsequent arrest of a suspect, the FBI, Secret Service, state of Florida and Congress all had confirmed investigations.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A top U.S. senator says "Kamala Harris promising to secure our border is like O.J. Simpson promising to find the real killer."

The opinion about the Democratic presidential nominee comes from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo.

"We have a wide open border because of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden," Cotton explained.

"She's the one that promised in her first campaign for president that she would decriminalize illegal immigration, that she would grant a mass amnesty, that she would give illegal aliens health care at taxpayer expense. But look what we have under Joe Biden-Kamala Harris with this wide open border. We have gang warfare breaking out in cities across America, foreign gangs taking over apartment complexes or hotels or threatening to do so."

ow you have gangs from places like Venezuela that some law-enforcement authorities are like MS-13 on steroids.

"What President Trump will do, again, is exactly what he did in his first term. He will close the border, he will crack down on illegal alien crime and begin to deport the millions of illegal aliens that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden let into this country."

Bartiromo indicated it was "very disappointing and destructive" to not see "these stories in the mainstream media," and she asked Cotton: "Why is it that we're not getting the true story of the status of this country on the mainstream media?"

The senator replied: "The mainstream media is fully in the tank for Kamala Harris. They're totally united behind trying to stop Donald Trump from returning to the White House. Kamala Harris has a radical, ideological record that she doesn't want to talk about, to the extent she says anything, like she now wants to secure the border or she now supports fracking for oil and gas, it's not a flip-flop, it's not a shifted position, it's a lie. And the media goes along with it."

"Look at what's happened in the situation in Springfield, Ohio," Cotton continued.

"You had a town of about 58,000 Americans, and 20,000 Haitian migrants have flooded into that town in recent years. You don't have to think that they're all bad people or you don't have to think that most of them are bad people to understand the severe strain it puts on the community of Springfield.

"You've got Haitians who don't know how to drive causing accidents all around the roads of Springfield. They're flooding emergency rooms and community health centers, so if your kid breaks his arm, good luck trying to find a doctor.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is now providing his perspective on the state of the 2024 presidential race, and says Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz "is legitimately called Tampon Tim because he's really so far to the left he's almost wacko."

The Republican from Georgia appeared on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, and called Tuesday night's debate between former President Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris a "tag team" with ABC News favoring Harris.

"It was three on one," Gingrich said. "I think she probably did well on style. She did terribly on substance. And every poll shows that.

"Even CNN showed that President Trump was stronger on the economy after the debate than before the debate. And I think in that sense she did not gain any ground, she probably lost ground."

Gingrich says he believes the presidential contest is coming down to "a very simple set of questions:"

"Were you better off under Trump than you are under Biden?"

"Do you believe that Harris is capable of being commander in chief? "

"Do you think that her values are too radical?"

"And when you meet Tim Walz, who is legitimately called Tampon Tim because he's really so far to the left he's almost wacko, and picking him, seemed to me, pushed her even further away from normal Americans."

Gingrich also thinks the race is Trump's to win:

"I think he has a real chance to win it. He came out of the debate stronger than when he went in, and it was ironic, I've written several columns now about the fact that the elites don't get it. Trump was winning.

"They liked Kamala's style. The American people like Trump's substance, and substance beats style when you're picking a president."

The moniker of "Tampon Tim" refers to a law that Walz, as Minnesota's governor, signed last year, requiring public schools to provide menstrual products – such as pads and tampons – to all students including boys in 4th through 12th grades.

NPR reports: "The products are free for students, with the state paying about $2 per pupil to keep them stocked throughout the school year."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Linsay Davis, one of ABC's moderators for this week's presidential debate, bragged in a puff piece by the Los Angeles Times about her as a "rising new star," how she prepared to interrupt and correct President Donald Trump during the matchup with Kamala Harris.

But, stunningly, the profile failed to even note that Davis got her "facts" – which she used specifically to interrupt and correct Trump – wrong.

The network, Davis and David Muir, the other moderator, have come under harsh criticism for the one-sided, biased event they staged. They repeatedly "corrected" Trump while ignoring blatant lies used by Harris.

Part of the bias may have been that Davis is a sorority sister to Harris, and that Dana Walden, an ABC News executive, is a longtime and close friend of Harris.

But in the profile, Davis claims her preparations were because of comments during the first presidential debate, between Trump and Joe Biden, before Democrat elites tossed Biden under the bus and hand-picked Harris, who never got any primary votes, to replace him on the ticket.

She claimed, "People were concerned that statements were allowed to just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate Biden, at the time, or the moderators."

So she said she and Muir divided up topics, and studied them, and, "Davis fully anticipated that Trump's erroneous abortion claim would come up when she questioned him on the issue."

She said, "That was an obvious thing to get on the record."

The puff piece continued, "Davis acknowledged that she and Muir could not nail every misstatement. But they did study each candidate's body of work ahead of time and had an idea of what to expect."

Her blunder happened when she was questioning about abortion, and Trump noted the extremist position of the Democrats, including Harris, in advocating for destroying unborn babies through the ninth month of pregnancy, or beyond.

"There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born," Davis claimed.

The puff piece charged, "Her correction was a response to Trump's claim that the Democratic Party's support of abortion rights includes 'executing' an infant after it's born, something he has repeatedly said on the campaign trail. In an era in which misinformation spreads fast and furious, Davis' real-time fact check cut through the proceedings like a sharp blade."

However, Davis' charge was far from accurate.

Harris own runningmate, Tim Walz, as governor of Minnesota, has imposed a strategy that allows doctors to ignore any medical needs of babies who survive abortion. Then they die. And then Walz made sure such statistics never are collected, so that death toll actually is unknown.

And another prominent Democrat, former Gov. Ralph Northam, openly confirmed on a radio interview that in some cases, a baby is born, and is set aside and comforted. Then there's a discussion involving the mother and doctor about what to do with the child.

A report at the Gateway Pundit elaborated:

"ABC News anchor Linsey Davis revealed in a post-debate Los Angeles Times puff-piece profile how she, ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir and ABC producers schemed to ambush President Trump with 'fact checks' at Tuesday night's presidential debate in Philadelphia with Kamala Harris after watching Trump crush and knock Joe Biden out of the race in their June debate."

But, the report noted, "The fact checking at the debate was one-sided, with Trump being interrupted by Muir and Davis several times with 'fact checks' while Harris was not 'fact checked' once."

She wasn't even corrected when she trotted out the long-proven-as-a-lie claim about Trump's reference to KKK-type activists as "fine people," a wild claim that even leftists in the so-called "fact check" industry have admitted is a blatant lie.

And, the report confirmed, "Davis went viral for a 'fact check' of Trump on abortion, where she falsely claimed it is illegal to kill babies after they are born and then abruptly turned to Harris for a reply without giving Trump the courtesy of a chance to respond."

The debate was so one-sided, one columnist has urged ABC to report the estimated $40 million value of the 90 minutes of airtime as an in-kind contribution to the Harris campaign.

Trump's comment? "The public was not fooled. They saw right through it, Kamala's lies and unprecedented partisan interference of two low-life anchors. They're low lives."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal appeals court has released an opinion that gives free-speech advocates across America a major victory, according to a report from constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley.

He's testified before Congress on fine points of the Constitution, and even has represented members in court. His expertise on the topic is well recognized.

His description of the ruling against the University of Louisville being a "major victory for free speech" came following a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Allan Josephson, who "was subject to adverse actions after he publicly expressed skepticism over some treatments for youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria."

The ruling, Turley pointed out, "deals with qualified immunity and reaffirms liability for denial of free speech protections."

The opinion essentially found that the school was not allowed to claim immunity for having denied Josephson free speech protections.

"Josephson was a professor of psychiatry at the medical school and had success at the school after serving as the Division Chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Louisville for nearly 15 years. He has 35 years of experience in the field," the report said.

His "good standing," however, suddenly vanished when he expressed his opinion on transgenderism that "children are not mature enough to make such major, permanent decisions and that 80-95 percent of children claiming gender dysphoria eventually accept their biological sex over time without such treatment," the report said.

Those are commonly accepted facts supported by studies and surveys.

But the school decided not to renew his contract because his beliefs differed from the politically correct line of thought.

And officials claimed qualified immunity when they were sued.

"The university was seeking protection that would have insulated anti-free speech practices from liability, a dangerous prospect that could have dramatically accelerated the growing intolerance on campuses. The University of Louisville was arguing that they could punish faculty for public statements without fear of liability as state officers," the report said.

The appeals court ruling went another direction.

"Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for two main reasons. First, they argue it was not clearly established that each defendant's conduct, in isolation, was an adverse action sufficient to show retaliation against a professor because of his protected speech. Second, they argue it was not clearly established that the First Amendment protected statements like those Josephson made in October 2017."

The ruling continued, "Resolving Defendants' first argument is not complicated. Defendants argue that Josephson's rights were not clearly established because no court had specifically addressed whether isolated actions against a professor because of his speech were adverse actions. In other words, Defendants believe they can act as they choose until there is a case on all fours. We disagree. As we have explained, 'we do not require an earlier decision that is 'directly on point."

"During the relevant period, it was beyond debate that 'the First Amendment bar[red] retaliation for protected speech.'"

And the ruling said the school's second claim wasn't any better.

"That is because the protected nature of Josephson's speech was also clearly established. 'To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.' … The principle 'must be settled law,'" the opinion said.

"It is, and has been, clearly established that public employees have a right to speak 'on a matter of public concern regarding issues outside of one's day-to-day job responsibilities, absent a showing that Pickering balancing favors the government's particular interest in promoting efficiency or public safety,'" the ruling said.

Turley said the decision is particularly important because he thinks "public universities will be key to any effort to restore free speech values to higher education."

The decision returns the fight to the lower court.

After a Fox News host pointed out that this year's election has featured a lot of issues "that really don't matter all that much," she asked JD Vance, President Donald Trump's chosen vice presidential candidate, what he thought of pop singer billionaire Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris.

Doesn't matter much, he suggested, as she, as a billionaire, doesn't have many of the same concerns ordinary families do, such as the cost of groceries, or the cost of housing.

To Swift, and other billionaires, Vance said, such changes mean little or nothing.

Vance said, "We admire Taylor Swift's music. But I don't think most Americans whether they like her music, are fans of hers or not, are going to be influenced by a billionaire celebrity who I think is fundamentally disconnected from the interests and the problems of most Americans."

He explained, "Look, when grocery prices go up by 20%, it hurts most Americans. It doesn't hurt Taylor Swift. When housing prices become unaffordable, it doesn't affect Taylor Swift or any other billionaire, it does affect middle class Americans all over our country.

"So I think our pitch to women voters is very simple: Donald Trump delivered policies that lowered the price of groceries, that lowered the price of housing and most important, Donald Trump delivered public safety in our country. I've got three little kids. I want my kids to grow up in a country where the neighborhoods are safe enough, the streets are safe enough for them to make mistakes and not have it take their life. You've got little kids who were doing drugs laced with fentanyl … 20 years ago you smoke a joint you get yelled at by your parents. Today, you smoke a joint, it's laced with fentanyl and it might take a teenager's life."

President Donald Trump said he was not a Taylor Swift fan, but pointed out her endorsement was "just a question of time."

After all, she endorsed Joe Biden in the last election and Hillary Clinton when Trump first was elected.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

JERUSALEM – On the 341st day of the Swords of Iron war, Gaza continued to exact an intolerable toll on the Israel's military, following a Black Hawk helicopter crash in the Philadelphi Corridor/Rafah area, in which two soldiers – including the lead pilot – are known to have died.

According to an initial probe into the accident – the army has already confirmed the helicopter did not come under enemy fire – the craft struck the ground instead of touching down as it would normally do. This fact implies two things; the helicopter was both flying at low speed and did not fall from too significant a height.

In spite of this, the Black Hawk was destroyed, leaving two dead, and eight wounded – four critically and four others with more moderate injuries. The combat engineer, whose serious wounding in contact with the Hamas enemy precipitated the helicopter's flight, was one of those subsequently taken for medical evaluation.

The soldiers who were killed were named by the Israel Defense Forces as Sgt. Maj. (res.) Daniel Alloush, 37, from Tel Aviv, and Sgt. Maj. (res.) Tom Ish-Shalom, 38, from Nes Harim.

Both served in the IAF's elite search and rescue Unit 669.

At 12:32 a.m., a Black Hawk helicopter – known in Hebrew as Yanshuf – from the 123rd Helicopter Squadron, carrying soldiers from the 669 Rescue Unit, arrived to urgently evacuate a combat engineer who had been severely wounded by terrorist gunfire in the Gaza Strip and needed immediate hospital transport. Service personnel wounded in the Strip are routinely airlifted to Israel's hospitals, and the site of Black Hawks criss-crossing Israel's skies is a common one. Those soldiers are often airlifted to Soroka in the southern city of Beersheba, although others are treated at various hospitals in the country's center, including Tel Aviv.

Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Tomer Bar ordered the formation of a team to investigate the accident. He also instructed training flights for the Black Hawk fleet to be grounded, although operational flights, such as those to evacuate wounded soldiers will continue without interruption.

This is the first operational incident to occur to the Black Hawk, which has been in service since the mid-1990s. In this war alone the fleet has conducted hundreds of flights in and around the Gaza Strip, and has evacuated some 1,800 wounded soldiers from the field of battle.

The Black Hawk helicopter was famously used to evacuate rescued hostages from their Gaza captivity, including Noa Argamani in June, and most recently Bedouin Arab Qaid Farhan al-Qadi, in late August.

Overnight, an Israeli Air Force "Yanshuf" helicopter, which was on a mission to evacuate an injured soldier to a hospital for medical treatment, crashed while landing in the Rafah area in the Gaza Strip.
An initial inquiry conducted indicates that the crash was not caused by…

— Israeli Air Force (@IAFsite) September 11, 2024

One of Israel's worst ever military disasters involved two helicopters. On Feb. 4, 1997, two transport helicopters ferrying Israeli soldiers into the "security zone" in southern Lebanon collided in mid-air, killing all 73 military personnel on board.

In bad weather, including fog, the helicopters were forced to hover over the borderline as the pilots waited for permission to cross over into Lebanon. Three minutes following that confirmation, the helicopters crashed into each other, leaving an indelible mark – and countless families bereaved – which nearly 30 years later is a wound still to fully heal.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Americans' options for digital money, cryptocurrencies, abound these days. But there's not one that has been set up and mandated by the government for them to use yet.

But a key legal organization that has fought for the civil and religious rights of Americans over and over now is warning that could happen.

Even before Joe Biden leaves office in January.

It is Liberty Counsel, which has won multiple fights at the U.S. Supreme Court, that is warning Americans about the possibility their paychecks could be controlled by Washington bureaucrats.

The organization notes that while the Constitution allows Congress to "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin…," the Federal Reserve has created a "Doomsday Book" for extreme circumstances that claims anything "offered" by the Federal Reserve is legal tender.

"Theoretically, the Federal Reserve could use that reasoning to issue a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) without congressional approval," the report warned, citing agreement from Financial Times analyst Izabella Kaminsky, who said, "[N]ew monetary systems risk being swept in without any democratic oversight at all."

Liberty Counsel explained, "The Federal Reserve believes it has 'discretionary powers' to enact policies that neither Congress nor the White House have approved. And that belief could allow Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to force their Marxist Money Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) on Americans before Biden is out of office."

Emre Kuyyet, Nova Southeastern University finance professor, said, "Instead of adhering strictly to clear legislative boundaries to justify its actions during financial crises, the central bank appears to ground many of its decisions in the New York Fed's belief in the Fed's discretionary authority,"

Kuyyet said the Doomsday Book "outlines the powers the America's central bank believes it has."

He said the Federal Reserve's contingency plans include taking steps for which Congress has provided no authority.

"Based on Mr. Kuvvet's findings, Congress shouldn't wait to establish clear and enforceable boundaries," says Nicholas Anthony, a financial policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said in the Liberty Counsel report.

Biden's executive orders so far only have called for the Fed to "investigate" the industry.

But bureaucrats there, "went right ahead and created their own CBDC, testing the new, programmable, digital funny money's power in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" the report said.

The change in Americans' lives could be massive.

"CBDCs have the power to radically change our entire economy, giving broad powers to unelected Federal Reserve central bankers. Whether by design or default, those broad powers are designed to control your money, and therefore your freedom," the report said.

"CBDC smart wallets could be used to promote national policies that help meet sustainability objectives, e.g., by issuing a 'green' wallet. This would act as an incentive for consumers to buy environmentally friendly products and services," charged Raoul Herborg, of G+D, a company that creates electronic currencies.

"Central banks would be able to define policy rules that apply to all wallets — and cannot be changed … including the fact that the central banks can limit the amount that can be held in any single wallet."

Further, companies could program what of their employees' pay must be used "for the purchase of healthy foods."

"In other words, CBDCs could be programmed to force you to only buy Bill Gates' cricket meal protein while preventing you from buying beef, chicken, and eggs," Liberty Counsel warned.

Biden, in ordering the review of options, confirmed he wants to use the currency to campaign for him regarding "human rights; financial inclusion and equity; and climate change and pollution."

The report warned that Congress needs to act now to stop that agenda from advancing further.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new task force assembled by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2021 to consider "threats" against election workers and officials across the nation has reviewed 2,000 cases since it was created in 2021, a new report explains.

And 1,140 of those came from one source, the leftist secretary of state in the leftist administration in Colorado, Jena Griswold.

It is in a report from Colorado Peak Politics that explains further of all of those 1,140 complaints formally submitted by Griswold, only one has resulted in a conviction.

The report explained, "This isn't the Wild Wild West anymore or even the 1980s. It's not okay to spout off and threaten to kick everyone's a** who pisses you off. But just so we're clear, thin-skinned elected officials like Griswold shouldn't burden law enforcement to investigate the thousands of crank calls or nasty online comments about their person.