This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The war brought by Democrats and other leftists against President Donald Trump's agenda to secure the nation's borders and deport illegal alien criminals is taking a serious turn.
It's that local and state officials in some venues have been threatening to arrest and prosecute federal officers doing their jobs.
If that happens, it likely won't turn out well for those local officials.
That's according to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who wrote to California officials who are guilty of making those threats to federal officers.
"Stand down or face prosecution," Blanche told them. "No one threatens our agents. No one will stop us from Making American Safe Again."
He noted "The Department of Justice views any arrests of federal agents and officers in the performance of their official duties as both illegal and futile. … Numerous federal laws prohibit interfering with and impeding immigration or other law-enforcement operations."
His promise is that the U.S. "will investigate and prosecute any state or local official who violates these federal statutes (or directs or conspires with others to violate them)."
Those officials now have been ordered to save any records regarding their own "attempts or efforts to impede or obstruct federal law enforcement" because that could be evidence in cases against them.
The Washington Examiner commented the new instructions are "a bright red line for officials in state and local governments who are threatening to arrest federal immigration officials for enforcing federal law in Democrat-run areas."
Those making such threats including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, and Democrat Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois.
The report said they have claimed to have plans "to pursue legal action over what they say are abuses by federal immigration officers in their states."
Pelosi and Rep. Kevin Mullin, another California Democrats, said in a joint statement federal officers "could be arrested for violating state laws," the report noted.
"It is important to note that California law protects communities and prevents federal agents from taking certain actions here that we have witnessed in other states. While the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not," they threatened. "Our state and local authorities may arrest federal agents if they break California law — and if they are convicted, the President cannot pardon them."
San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has joined in making threats.
"If there is excessive use of force, shootings that aren't legally justified, things of that nature, then I have to step in and do my job with respect to them, like I do with anyone else," Jenkins threatened.
And Pritzker has ordered the creation of a state commission to monitor federal immigration enforcement, "for future prosecutions against agents," the report said.
"Once this all ends, I believe there will be people of good faith who will review what the Commission has recorded and will demand answers and accountability," he said.
Blanche's letter was to California officials.
"We urge you and other California officials to publicly abandon this apparent criminal conspiracy, to stop threatening law enforcement, and to prioritize the safety of your citizens," Blanche said. "In the meantime, federal agents and officers will continue to enforce federal law and will not be deterred by the threat of arrest by California authorities who have abdicated their duty to protect their constituents."
Constitutional analysts have said state officials clearly are out of line if they try to violate federal law, or stop enforcement.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A college staffer who publicly urged the murder of federal ICE agents, specifically saying they should be "shot and wiped out," has now been fired.
A spokesperson for Wilbur Wright College and the City Colleges of Chicago told WorldNetDaily on Monday regarding the case of Moises Bernal Puentes: "The individual is not employed by Wilbur Wright College or any affiliated colleges.
"Our college system does not tolerate violence nor incitement under any circumstances."
It was during the Oct. 18 "No Kings" protest in Chicago that the man who was the adult education manager at Wilbur Wright College was recorded on camera openly calling for the murder of federal law-enforcement officers.
"You gotta grab a gun!" he shouted.
"We gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system. These ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out."
Internet sleuths identified the vocal supporter of lethal force as Bernal Puentes, a staff member at Wilbur Wright College. His name was listed in the school's employee directory last week, but has now vanished.
Last Monday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the case was referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution.
"During the Chicago NO KINGS rally this previous weekend, violent rioters called for the cold-blooded murder of ICE agents. This rioter, and his statements have been referred to the DOJ," DHS said on X.
"There is no place in America for psychotic incitements of unlawful violence against ICE or CBP. To those who threaten violence against us: we will hunt you down, we will find you, and Justice will be served."
On Monday, the DOJ charged another man over a TikTok post that offered $45,000 to anyone who killed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Tyler Maxon Avalos allegedly posted an image of Bondi with a sniper-scope red dot on her forehead and a message stating: "WANTED: Pam Bondi' /'REWARD: 45,000'/'DEAD OR ALIVE' /'(PREFERABLY DEAD).'"
As WorldNetDaily reported earlier this month, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem revealed bounties of up to $10,000 have been put on the heads of federal agents, encouraging Americans to murder officers enforcing U.S. immigration laws.
"We have specific officers and agents that have bounties that have been put out on their heads. It's been $2,000 to kidnap them, $10,000 to kill them," Noem said.
"They've released their pictures. They've sent them between their networks and it's an extremely dangerous situation and unprecedented."
It seems as though every week there's a new bombshell revelation regarding deceased, convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and this week was no exception, even involving a member of the Royal Family.
According to the Daily Mail, an email obtained by the outlet showed that Epstein "asked Prince Andrew to arrange a dinner with the attractive daughter of the former Australian prime minister."
"Would you ask Katherine Keating if she would like to come for dinner with Woody Allen next week in New York?" Epstein asked Prince Andrew in the email.
The email was reportedly from February 16, 2011, and is part of the trove of Epstein documents currently being reviewed by members of Congress.
Just before Prince Andrew's 51st birthday, Epstein emailed the prince about his birthday plans, noting that he was sorry he couldn't be there.
"What will you do tomorrow? Sorry I cannot be there as you get older," Epstein wrote.
Prince Andrew responded, "Having a very quiet day. But a dinner party in the evening. On the Keating case."
The Daily Mail noted:
Socialite Ms Keating, who was 29 at the time, is the daughter of Paul Keating, the Australian PM from 1991 to 1996 who was dubbed 'The Lizard of Oz' in 1992 when he placed his arm around Queen Elizabeth.
Ms Keating confirmed Andrew 'fixed' her 2011 dinner with Epstein.
The outlet added:
Addressing her links to Epstein for the first time she told the MoS: 'I did attend a February dinner at Andrew's invitation – a large social event.'
The brunette was famously photographed waving goodbye to Andrew two months earlier when he stayed at Epstein's New York mansion and the financier hosted another dinner.
Keating responded, saying, "It was a large social event. A sizable chunk of NY society was there, including [American broadcasters] Barbara Walters, Charlie Rose and Katie Couric."
She added, "At the time, I had only lived in NY about ten weeks, and was happy to accept the odd social invitation."
It wasn't suggested that Keating was aware of any the illicit activities going on in Epstein's world.
The emails surfaced as questions remain regarding Prince Andrew's involvement in that world, and how much he knew.
Only time will tell what else is discovered regarding his connection to Epstein.
Virginia Giuffre's posthumous memoir has dropped more bombshell allegations about the late billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein and his child trafficking operation.
Giuffre, who passed away earlier this year, has been leading the charge in exposing Epstein's sordid empire and has been responsible for the outing of Britain's Prince Andrew as a pedophile.
Giuffre made shockwaves when she accused Prince Andrew of raping her when she was only 17. She had been trafficked by Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, to powerful figures, many of whom have remained unnamed.
Her book, titled "Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice," chronicles her meetings with many powerful figures, including former President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump.
She did not accuse either of wrongdoing, but nonetheless, the meeting reinforces already known connections between Clinton and Epstein, who were close. Epstein and Trump were also connected but became estranged in 2004.
Giuffre's collision course with Epstein began when her father got her a job at Mar-a-Lago, where he worked as a maintenance worker. This brought her into contact with high society, as Trump often used the location as a meeting place for the business world's powerful leaders, which included Epstein.
Trump plays a minimal role in Giuffre's story, but things took a turn when she met Ghislaine Maxwell in 2000, and that began a tragic tale that ultimately culminated in Giuffre's death in April of this year at just 41 years old.
Giuffre wrote, "It couldn’t have been more than a few days before my dad said he wanted to introduce me to Mr. Trump himself. They weren’t friends, exactly. But Dad worked hard, and Trump liked that—I’d seen photos of them posing together, shaking hands. Trump couldn’t have been friendlier, telling me it was fantastic that I was there. 'Do you like kids?' he asked. 'Do you babysit at all?' He explained that he owned several houses next to the resort that he lent to friends, many of whom had children that needed tending."
However, it was Maxwell who recruited Giuffre as a masseuse despite her lack of experience, and that led to her traveling with Giuffre and Epstein around the world.
Of course, this led to Giuffre being asked for sexual favors by Maxwell and Epstein for the wealthy and powerful people that they would meet with. Giuffre was young and taken advantage of but her admiration of Epstein and Maxwell quickly deteriorated.
Giuffre wrote, "This was a man who displayed framed photographs of himself with the Dalai Lama, with the pope, and with members of the British royal family. A photo in his Palm Beach house showed Epstein posing behind the podium of the White House briefing room. This was a man who’d had former president Bill Clinton over for dinner (I was at the table that night) and who’d hosted Al and Tipper Gore as well (again, I was there)."
Later in her book, Giuffre detailed being handed over to an unnamed but supposedly famous Prime Minister by Epstein. She claims she was brutally raped by him on Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2002.
When she begged not to be given back to the unnamed Prime Minister, who she says laughed at her and choked her, Epstein told her that it was simply part of the job.
Giuffre is just one of dozens of Epstein's victims, and the fact that Epstein and his associates went unpunished for so long is a crime. Epstein would die by suicide before being convicted in court and Maxwell did eventually get convicted, but all of their associates are still out there free men.
Suspected MS-13 gangbanger and wife-abuser Kilmar Abrego Garcia will reportedly soon be sent to the home he'll occupy for the foreseeable future.
According to the Daily Caller, the Trump administration appears to be set on shipping Garcia off to the African country of Liberia, and hope to have it all said and done by the end of October.
The bombshell news came via court documents that were filed on Friday by Justice Department prosecutors, which is yet another legal twist in the ongoing saga that is Garcia's deportation situation.
Garcia's lawyers have kept the matter in court ever since the Trump administration first shipped him off to El Salvador, only to be returned home and held until another destination could be confirmed.
Garcia and his attorneys had provided the court with a list of 20 countries that he fears would torture or persecute him -- but as the DOJ pointed out, Liberia is not on that list.
“Federal Defendants hereby provide notice that they have identified a new country for removal that has agreed to accept Petitioner: the Republic of Liberia,” attorneys for the Justice Department stated.
They added, "Although Petitioner has identified more than twenty countries that he purports to fear would persecute or torture him if he were removed there, Liberia is not on that list."
The Trump administration says it plans to deport Salvadoran illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia as soon as Oct. 31.
DHS says Liberia is “a thriving democracy” and “committed to the humane treatment of refugees.” pic.twitter.com/Z1nt69xtCY
— Fox News (@FoxNews) October 25, 2025
The Justice Department also stressed that Liberia is an ideal destination as it's committed to taking care of refugees.
“Liberia is a thriving democracy and one of the U.S.’s closest partners on the African continent," the DOJ added.
Users across social media had a variety of thoughts with regard to his deportation status.
"Can you just announce it once he is gone? This is the 4th or 5th time he’s been scheduled for deportation and he’s still here," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Perfect why wait ? The media has made this criminal a superstar and to think about the overall cost to the American taxpayer. Pathetic."
It'll be interesting to see when he's actually deported and what happens from there.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The first lawsuit has been filed, by a Virginia couple, over President Donald Trump's plan to gift the American people a badly needed $300 million ballroom, to be used for state dinners and the like, at the White House complex by replacing the East Wing.
And it's being done essentially without breaking laws because the White House, and the Supreme Court building and Capitol building are exempt from many standard procedures.
According to published reports, "The Trump administration's decision to demolish the East Wing of the White House without consulting preservation agencies and organizations is a reflection in part of the unusual position the building has in historical preservation law."
It explained that Trump's work with a local planning commissioner means that approval is a foregone conclusion.
Sara Bronin headed the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for Joe Biden, and found, "There's a sense that protections on one of the country's most important buildings should have been a lot stronger from the start. And as we look to what is going to happen next, including plans for construction, I do think we need to get a better understanding about every step that the White House didn't take this time and must take next time."
Democrats have erupted in rage, again, this time over the construction of the ballroom, which is being paid for with private dollars, and the plan is that it won't cost taxpayers anything.
The East Wing's demolition was begun this week, and leftists in the party erupted with all sorts of snark, but most entirely ignored the previous destruction and construction that other presidents, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, did to the actual White House, not just a wing.
The White House was built from 1792 to 1800, is owned by American people and overseen by the National Park Service.
The East Wing, which held offices, dates to about the 1940s.
Priya Jain of the Society of Architectural Historians said past White House changes have gone through public review procedures, but a provision in the rules allowed Trump's plan to be on the fast track.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has explained the administration wasn't required to submit plans for demolition, but that a construction plan would be provided.
A 1952 law requires approval from a local planning board, the National Capital Planning Commission, which now is being run by a White House staff secretary, Will Scharf.
Donors have been revealed to include Google LLC, Blackstone Inc., OpenAI, Coinbase Global Inc., Palantir Technologies Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp., among others, with donations being handled through the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit.
Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., has tried to interfere, demanding, "This project represents one of the most substantial alterations to the White House in modern history. The decisions were made in complete secrecy and undertaken without public disclosure or proper consultation."
Democrats are questioning the demolition, the construction plans, the donors and much more.
A lawsuit filed by Charles and Judith Voorhees, in federal court in Washington, submits claims that the administration did not secure "legally required approvals or reviews" for the work.
Hillary Clinton has joined that agenda, claiming, "It's not his house. It's your house. And he's destroying it."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists often complain that President Donald Trump doesn't follow court rulings. Actually he does. The facts are that it was Joe Biden who openly defied a Supreme Court rejection of his plan to transfer to taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in student loan debt, for them to repay, rather than the people who actually borrowed the money.
Now another case has developed in which leftists are actively rejecting, and trying to get around, a decision from the high court.
It's happening in Wisconsin, and the fight has been profiled by the Federalist.
In the original fight, the Supreme Court unanimously said, regarding Catholic Charities, that the state was refusing to provide the charitable organization a tax-exempt status, like other organizations had, in a discriminatory fashion.
In the months since, the Democrat-led government there now has been trying to reimpose that punishment on Catholic Charities, and claims it is not discrimination because it wants to add the same punishment to a long list of additional charities.
"This is an organization that's trying to help people and trying to do it as efficiently as possible. They have limited resources. They want to use them well. You'd think the state would want to partner with that as opposed to targeting it," Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Attorney Colten Stanberry told the Federalist.
The report charged, "Amid leftists' ongoing judicial coup against the Trump administration, America's propaganda media have fomented baseless fears that President Trump is going to 'defy' or 'ignore' a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court if it rules on a case in a way he doesn't like. But if these so-called 'defenders of democracy' are concerned about government officials 'ignoring' court rulings as they claim, where is their outrage about Democrat-led Wisconsin's apparent bid to sidestep SCOTUS in a prominent religious liberty decision issued earlier this year?"
Catholic Charities Bureau is an arm of the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin and works with many groups, some of which are funded through government contracts.
The facts are that neither employees nor recipients are required to hold a particular religion.
The fight is over state demands that Catholic Charities pay for the state's unemployment system, which the faith organization opposed doing. State officials claimed then the religious group was not religious enough.
The Supreme Court's ruling said it was, warning, "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny. Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
Now, the report said, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, has suggested eliminating the exemption entirely, punishing all faith groups that are involved in such activities in the state.
In an emotional dissent, the Supreme Court's liberal wing condemned the use of nitrogen gas to kill condemned criminals as a form of "cruel and unusual punishment."
The fiery dissent came after the court's majority declined to stop the execution of Anthony Boyd, an Alabama man convicted of burning a man to death over a $200 debt, CNN reported.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused her conservative colleagues of prolonging Boyd's suffering by denying his request to die by firing squad.
"The Constitution would grant him that grace,” Sotomayor wrote. “My colleagues do not. This court thus turns its back on Boyd and on the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.”
Sotomayor urged the reader to set a four-minute timer and imagine they can't breathe.
“Now imagine for that entire time, you are suffocating,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “You want to breathe; you have to breathe. But you are strapped to a gurney with a mask on your face pumping your lungs with nitrogen gas.”
“Your mind knows that the gas will kill you,” she continued. “But your body keeps telling you to breathe.”
Boyd is among a handful of people who have been executed with nitrogen since Alabama first used the controversial method in 2024. It was adopted as an alternative to lethal injections, which have become more difficult to perform due to drug shortages.
In her dissent, Sotomayor said the use of nitrogen gas is "not at all what it was promised to be" and that the condemned can experience "up to seven full minutes of conscious, excruciating suffocation."
The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for denying Boyd's petition. A federal judge who rejected Boyd's request noted the Eighth Amendment "does not guarantee Boyd a painless death" and that those condemned to die inevitably experience feelings of terror.
"Walking to the gallows, feeling the electric chair’s straps tighten, having a target affixed to one’s chest, or being secured to a gurney each evokes strong feelings that death is imminent and results in corresponding psychological and emotional pain," U.S. District Judge Emily Marks wrote.
Witnesses of Boyd's execution Thursday told the New York Times that he convulsed for about 15 minutes before he was pronounced dead.
Boyd's victim, Gregory Huguley, was bound to a bench, doused in gasoline, and burned alive by a group of four men including Boyd, who duct-taped the victim's feet. The killers watched Huguley burn for up to 15 minutes until the fire went out.
Moments before the gas was administered, Boyd maintained his innocence of the crime.
“I just wanna say again, I didn’t kill anybody, I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” Boyd said. “I just want everyone to know, there is no justice in this state.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that federal law enforcement officers should be subject to arrest if they break local laws that prevent illegal immigration enforcement, Breitbart reported. The California Democrat seems poised to go toe-to-toe with the Trump administration, but may be in legal trouble after making these statements.
President Donald Trump has begun to crack down on illegal immigration throughout the nation. Part of that includes sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions.
"While the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not. Our state and local authorities may arrest federal agents if they break California law — and if they are convicted, the President cannot pardon them," a joint statement from Pelosi and Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA) said.
This tough talk came after San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins allegedly saw federal agents "roughing people up" in Chicago and Los Angeles. "I had lead time to think about what authority I have and what I can do. This is something I felt very strongly about, and I had my office research it," Jenkins claimed.
Democrats don't care about the regular people who suffer at the hands of criminal illegal immigrants and other deviants who prowl about city streets. Instead, they're worried that these people might be treated a little roughly by law enforcement agents who aim to get them off the streets.
They want to see the agents, not the criminals, arrested, though Jenkins claimed it wouldn't come to having local officers cuffing federal agents. She said that they would use surveillance camera footage to determine if the criminals are treated too unkindly, and she would direct a judge to issue a warrant for the agent's arrest.
To really drive home that their priority is the comfort of suspected illegal immigrants, California Democrats passed a law banning government agents from wearing masks while making arrests, which would make it easier for Jenkins to pursue them. Of course, the agents were forced to do this after several attacks on ICE agents that put them and their families at risk, but Democrats seem unconcerned about that.
Meanwhile, Jenkins worries that Trump may ignore the arrest warrants altogether or challenge the move in court. "For me, this is about San Francisco and what I need to do for San Francisco," Jenkins claimed.
Others, like Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, believe this is not an overreach at all and see it as a stopgap against abuses. "As long as the ICE agents are acting legally, the state can’t prosecute them and hold them liable, even if it dislikes what they’re doing," Chemerinsky said.
Pelosi's tough talk against federal agents is not without consequences. While speaking to Fox News host Jesse Watters on Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi warned Pelosi and others making these threats that they could face consequences. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is among those actively opposing federal agents and their mission to clean up crime on city streets.
She created the ICE Accountability Project, a nonprofit focused on making ICE officers "unmask" while making sure to log "purported criminal actions of ICE and CBP agents." Bondi warned Lightfoot that she "will be getting a letter from us tomorrow to preserve anything she has done as well, to make sure that she’s not violating the law," she told Watters.
"It appears she is. You cannot disclose the identity of a federal agent—where they live, anything that could harm them," Bondi added. She had the same warning for Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Jenkins, and Pelosi. "We told them: ‘Preserve your emails, preserve everything you have on this topic.’ Because if you are telling people to arrest our ICE officers, our federal agents, you cannot do that. You are impeding an investigation, and we will charge them.”
🚨 BREAKING: Attorney General Pam Bondi has just ORDERED NANCY PELOSI to “PRESERVE HER EMAILS” after she ORDERED ICE to be ARRESTED 🚨@PamBondi: “You are impeding an investigation, and we will charge you. If they think I won’t, they have not met me” 🔥 pic.twitter.com/l79LRwQNwP
— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) October 24, 2025
This crusade against agents enforcing federal law has got to stop, but the Democrats believe they have a right to run roughshod over the laws of the land. Pelosi and her ilk are about to see what the Trump administration is willing to do to enforce the laws of the land and the will of the American people.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the national ban on transgender women competing in female powerlifting is discrimination after a biological male, JayCee Cooper, sued USA Powerlifting in 2021 over being excluded.
“USA Powerlifting’s policy at the time of the decision was to categorically exclude transgender women from competing in the women’s division,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson wrote for the court.
“Because USA Powerlifting’s facially discriminatory policy provides direct evidence of discriminatory motive, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cooper’s transgender status actually motivated USA Powerlifting’s decision to prohibit Cooper from competing. We therefore reverse the part of the court of appeals’ decision on this issue,” Hudson continued.
Cooper got a partial win in the suit, but the court also sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether USA Powerlifting had a “legitimate business purpose” for its policy to exclude biological males from its women's events.
USA Powerlifting President Larry Maile said that the organization “created rules that uphold the principles of fair play” and didn't seek to exclude anyone.
The organization created a division specifically for those claiming to be transgender and nonbinary in 2021.
“Since science shows those who were born biologically male have a profound physical advantage over female-born athletes, our responsibility is to define legitimate categories to fairly place athletes within them,” Maile said.
The organization's attorneys said the decision on Wednesday is a partial win for both sides.
Ansis Viksnins said that USA Powerlifting will get to tell a jury “why excluding a transgender woman from competing in the women’s division was for legitimate reasons, for maintaining fairness in athletics.”
If transgender women, who are biologically male, are allowed to compete against biological females, the males would win every trophy and prize because males have greater muscle mass than females, even males who now identify as females and even those who have taken hormones or had transgender surgeries.
It is only common sense to separate these categories and have a separate division for those who are non-binary or transgender.
Then again, if the "T" part of LGBT had any common sense, they would know you can't just change your gender because you want to.
Transgender women will never have many of the struggles biological women have, including monthly menstruation, pregnancy risks, or anything related to the female reproductive system, which they don't have.
Just because you say you're something, doesn't make it true. And if women's sports is forced to lose all common sense, it will be destroyed beyond any repair. That's the bottom line people don't take into account, and they really should.