This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The response of an American company to a campaign of censorship by the United Kingdom has left officials there "humiliated," according to a report at the Gateway Pundit.
It's because the campaign, by the U.K. government under its "Online Safety Act," purports to be able to censor an American company that operates online, and that company's lawyers have delivered a stinging rebuke to attempts to demand it provide information, and behave as the U.K. government demands.
The genesis of the dispute is that the British have targeted 4Chan, a discussion board where users anonymously post unfiltered comments "that sends elites into fits," the report said.
A branch of the U.K. government, Ofcom, for Office of Communications, started investigating it because it didn't like some of the comments, and then demanded the company hand over information.
The American company said no, using more words than just that, including reminding the British of the Battle of Yorktown, the decisive victory in 1781 where the British lost the war, leading to the Treaty of Paris in 1783, "in which the British acknowledged the independence and sovereignty of the Thirteen Colonies and subsequently to the establishment of the United States."
"U.K. law applies on U.K. soil to U.K. people … My objective is to remind the U.K. that the Battle of Yorktown had political consequences, as they seem to have forgotten," said lawyer Preston Byrne, representing the company.
He further posted online an explanation that Ofcom apparently is pursuing – and prosecuting – 4Chan, a "United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United KIngdom."
"American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail," the lawyers warned.
"The prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with U.K. censorship codes," the lawyers wrote.
Ofcom, in fact, is threatening fines of more than $27,000 plus daily penalties for refusing to cooperate with its censorship, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
CNN's numbers guy Harry Enten says there's been a "complete flip" among Ukrainians in how they want the war with Russia to end, with a vast majority now wanting the war to end as soon as possible, rather than fighting to win.
In July, polling by Gallup indicated 69% of Ukrainians wanted "a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible," while only 24% supported their country "continuing to fight until victory."
"There have been some absolutely major shifts. The idea that Ukraine is going to achieve complete victory – that idea has collapsed within Ukrainian society," Enten explained Monday.
"What are we talking about here? Ukrainians on the war versus Russia? You go back to 2022, the start of the war: fight until Ukraine wins. Look at this – the vast majority, about three quarters, 73%, agreed with that position. Negotiate to end the war as soon as possible? Only 22%."
"Look at where we are now. It's a complete flip. It's the inverse," Enten added.
"Now, 69% want to negotiate to end the war as soon as possible, compared to just 24% who want to fight until Ukraine wins. That's a 49-point drop in this position."
When asked by anchor John Berman what he suspected sparked the remarkable change, Enten replied: "Well, I think one of the big reasons why opinions have changed is this idea that this war is going to end anytime soon? Uh-uh, Ukrainians don't think it will."
"Take a look here – Ukrainians on the war ending within a year. Just 25% say that it is likely. Look at this: 68%, 68% say it is unlikely that the war will in fact end in a year."
"And you'll notice, John, this 68% looks a heck of a lot like this 69% who say that they want to negotiate to end the war as soon as possible," he concluded.
On Monday, ahead of his White House meeting with European leaders, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster, and yet I have to read & listen to the Wall Street Journal, and many other who truly don't have a clue, tell me everything that I am doing wrong on the Russia/Ukraine MESS, that is Sleepy Joe Biden's war, not mine. I'm only here to stop it, not to prosecute it any further. It would have NEVER happened if I was President.
"I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all of these conflicts for years, and were never able to do a thing to stop them.
"They are 'STUPID' people, with no common sense, intelligence, or understanding, and they only make the current R/U disaster more difficult to FIX. Despite all of my lightweight and very jealous critics, I'll get it done – I always do!!!"
Earlier in the day, Trump said: "I am totally convinced that if Russia raised their hands and said, 'We give up, we concede, we surrender, we will GIVE Ukraine and the great United States of America, the most revered, respected, and powerful of all countries, EVER, Moscow and St. Petersburg, and everything surrounding them for a thousand miles, the Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners would say that this was a bad and humiliating day for Donald J. Trump, one of the worst days in the history of our Country.'
"But that's why they are the FAKE NEWS, and the badly failing Radical Left Democrats. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Newly released police bodycam video shows an assistant attorney general in the state of Rhode Island berating an officer during her arrest last week, repeatedly saying "I'm an A.G." and "you're gonna regret this."
Police responded Thursday night just before 10 p.m. to a trespassing call for customers refusing to leave a business.
Despite numerous warnings, Special Assistant Attorney General Devon Flanagan Hogan refused to leave and was taken into custody, but not before she legally challenged the officer.
"We're not trespassing. You haven't notified us that we're trespassing," Flanagan said.
"What did I just say to you? You're trespassing … I don't want to arrest you guys," the officer responded.
"You're not gonna arrest us," Flanagan said before identifying herself numerous times as an attorney general.
"I'm an A.G. I'm an A.G.," she repeated.
"Good for you. I don't give a sh**," said the officer. "Let's go. We're going."
"What are your probable causes to detain me for?" the lawyer wondered.
"You're being detained because you're not leaving," was the officer's reply.
As she was put into the back of a cruiser, she told police: "You're gonna regret this. You're gonna regret it."
The police report indicates: "It should be noted that while booking Hogan, she was extremely uncooperative, berating officers, repeatedly stating her position as an AG and refusing to follow instructions. Hogan was eventually released with a District Court Summons."
WPRI-TV in Providence reports: "The R.I. Attorney General's Office told 12 News it's reviewing the incident, which is expected to take a few days. Though, the office declined further comment, citing personnel matters."
The story caught the attention of Gen. Mike Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump in his first term.
"This entitled attitude is exactly why my family and I left Rhode Island," Flynn noted. "She will receive no punishment."
Mrs. Flanagan Hogan works for anti-Trump Attorney General Peter Neronha, who Monday "co-led a coalition of 21 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit in Rhode Island against the Trump administration over the imposition of illegal conditions on more than $1 billion in congressionally-authorized funds for Victims of Crime Act grant recipients."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a scenario that could come only from the upside-down world of transgenderism, a school has suspended two boys who complained that a girl was allowed into their locker room.
That's right, a girl goes into a boys locker room, and in fact violates school rules by recording the boys complaining about her presence. So the boys get suspended.
The details are in a report at RedState.
"It's once again an election year, so let's hope voters are paying attention. Here's the deal. As RedState previously reported, Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) was weighing a Title IX investigation against three male students at Stone Bridge High School after they complained about a biological female student using the boys' locker room. Not only did the girl use a locker room that doesn't align with her biological sex, as is required by an executive order signed this year by President Trump, she also used her phone to record a video while in the boys' locker room, which is a violation of LCPS's own student privacy policy," the report explained.
The report continued, "If you're wondering what happened to the third boy, hold onto your hats: Reports indicate the Title IX investigation against him was dropped, possibly because he is Muslim. A dismissal letter sent to the boy said the complaint 'must be dismissed from the Title IX grievance process' because 'the conduct alleged would not constitute sexual harassment,' as defined by Title IX regulations, 'even if proved.'"
And the report there have been no repercussions for the girl "who violated school policy by taking a video in a protected space."
With the scheme, school officials have expressed their intention, too, to fight the president of the United States in his effort to secure student safety in schools – or see them lose federal funding.
Ian Prior, a Loudoun County resident and senior advisor at America First Legal, explained to RedState that the school is "doing its best to guarantee that the Supreme Court decisively ends these insane interpretations of Title IX and the equal protection clause."
In fact, a transgender "rights" case now is pending before the court.
Questions in the case include whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
People who are in the United States on student visas have participated in events that left assault cases on their records.
Or burglaries cases, and DUIs, even records of support for terrorism.
And now 6,000 times, those visas have been pulled.
"Every single student visa revoked under the Trump administration has happened because the individual has either broken the law or expressed support for terrorism while in the United States," a senior State Department official said in a statement to Fox News.
"About 4,000 visas alone have been revoked because these visitors broke the law while visiting our country, including records of assault and DUIs."
Those whose records now includes assault – about 800 – either faced arrest or charges stemming from an assault.
Between 200 and 300 cases involved "support for terrorism," and they engaged "in behavior such as raising funds for the militant group Hamas, which the U.S. State Department has designated as a terrorist organization," the official told Fox.
Some of the cases that have developed so far in 2025 also are for overstays.
"The Trump administration has launched multiple initiatives aimed at cracking down on immigration and revoking visas of those attending academic institutions in the U.S.," the Fox report explained. "Those who've publicly protested supporting Palestine have faced heightened scrutiny, as one example, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in May that the administration was reviewing the visa status of students."
The Department of State said overall, about 40,000 visas have been canceled in 2025, up from 16,000 during the same time period under Joe Biden's Washington regime.
The State Department official said the revocation of visas isn't new.
But Secretary of State Marco Rubio has explained, "We're going to continue to revoke the visas of people who are here as guests and are disrupting our higher education facilities."
According to the report, Democrats complained the Trump administration, by enforcing the law, is violating due process.
The Trump administration already has taken several steps to other accountable those who violate U.S. law, including "unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A constitutional expert has cited the results of research by Northwestern University to warn that American academia, the colleges, universities, their teachers and administration, have become so corrupted that they are hurting even "liberal" students.
The trend for those elite communities to become more and more leftist long has been documented, but the new findings by researchers Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman released the stunning confirmation that "an astounding 88%" of undergraduates at surveyed schools confirmed they "pretended to hold more progressive views than [they] truly endorse to succeed socially or academically."
Jonathan Turley, the prominent George Washington University law professor and regular commentator on all things constitutional who has not only testified before Congress as a constitutional expert but as represented members in court, delivered the warning.
He explained that the fact that leftists are an overwhelming majority in academia "has been a long-standing problem in higher education."
Now, he said, "The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed the sense of free thought and expression on our campuses. Faced with consistent polling showing that students feel compelled to mimic liberal ideology and viewpoints, faculty shrug or even attack students for being weak. In a debate that I had at Harvard Law School, a Harvard professor called such students conservative snowflakes.'
However, they are not conservative. Take Harvard. A recent survey of the graduating class by the Classroom Social Compact Committee found that, despite an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal Harvard students found a chilling environment for free expression at the school. And it is getting worse."
The survey authors concluded that the students were not cynical, but "adaptive," meaning they were reciting back to professors what professors clearly demanded they be told.
"Faced with the intolerance and rigidity of liberal faculty, they pretend to be liberal to avoid being penalized for their real views or values," Turley noted.
The study itself said, "In a campus environment where grades, leadership, and peer belonging often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly learn to rehearse what is safe. The result is not conviction but compliance. And beneath that compliance, something vital is lost."
Turley pointed out Harvard is "dead last among 251 universities and colleges on the annual ranking from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
"What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative," Turley said. "Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so."
Harvard faculty, he explained, "does not tolerate opposing voices except for a handful of conservative academics. The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school's departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as 'liberal' or 'very liberal.'"
He said, "The virtual purging of conservative faculty members across the country sends a message to students that such ideas are not favored or acceptable. The result is that the vast majority of students — liberal and conservative — self-censor in an environment of intolerance."
That's documented by the new study, which found, "Seventy-eight percent of students told us they self-censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity; 72 percent on politics; 68 percent on family values. More than 80 percent said they had submitted classwork that misrepresented their views in order to align with professors. For many, this has become second nature — an instinct for academic and professional self-preservation."
The evidence, Turley said, explains some things, as "on some issues, such as the nature of gender and gender identity, students' actual beliefs are quite different from what appears to be the prevailing orthodoxy on campus."
He said, "It also reflects why the last election shocked so many in the media and establishment, as young people voted Republican" while they simply "mouth liberal orthodoxy in class … ."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal appeals court has ordered revived a series of lessons for Minnesota state prison inmates on "manhood" that are derived from the morals established by the Bible and accepted by society over millennia.
Social activists in the state prison system had canceled the lessons because they did not comply with the leftists' ideologies of DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion.
The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the lower courts to return to the case and provide a preliminary injunction for Anthony Schmitt to teach the course.
The program, called "The Quest for Authentic Manhood" had been taught for years at a Minnesota prison, but was discontinued during COVID. When such programs were restored after the pandemic, Anthony Schmitt wanted to resume teaching the "Authentic Manhood" series of videos narrated by Robert Lewis.
The program was up-front in its description: "Authentic Manhood is all about setting men up to live lives of truth, passion and purpose. Our resources offer clear and practical Biblical insights on God's design for manhood that are both refreshing and inspiring. We point men to a gospel-centered vision of life that sets them up to enjoy God's grace as they pursue the promises of His Word."
But a prison "supervisor" complained that "discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in Minnesota" as the state human rights law makes it a "protected class."
Eventually, as the request to restart the program was processed, Jolene Rebertus, an assistant commissioner of "health, recovery & programming" became alarmed because in her opinion, the program "directly conflicts with the diversity, equity and inclusivity values of the department by defining manhood, or the study of masculinity, through a biblical lens of what a 'real man looks like.'"
She was unhappy that the sessions portray men as heterosexual, seeking ideal relationships and marriage with women, even though those biblical standards have been acknowledged and accepted by society for millennia.
Her conclusion was that such beliefs "can be hurtful and downright dangerous … ."
Schmitt eventually sued over the discriminatory beliefs on which the program was then canceled, and a district court denied his motion for a preliminary injunction to reopen the program while the court case proceeds. Schmitt charged that the decision violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise and established a denominational preference in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The appeals court panel agreed, reversing the lower court and ordering the Quest program reinstated pending "A full adjudication."
The ruling found the state discriminated against the program because of its biblical connections.
"Rebertus's letter plainly states that the MDOC did not oppose Schmitt teaching generally about 'manhood, or the study of masculinity'; instead, it objected to Schmitt discussing the topic 'through a biblical lens of what a 'real man looks like' or through what the MDOC perceived as 'through a lens of discrimination, exclusivity, gender biases and stereotypes,'" the opinion said.
The ruling said, "In short, the MDOC objected to Schmitt's religious viewpoint on masculinity. This is viewpoint discrimination."
It quoted from various Supreme Court rulings, including that, "[T]he government, if it is to respect the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."
Further, "The '[g]overnment fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.'"
The ruling found even, "subtle departures from neutrality on matters of religion" are prohibited by the Free Exercise Clause.
The panel ruled Schmitt likely was to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump on Monday said he'll sign an executive order doing away with mail-in ballots while fighting to eliminate "seriously controversial voting machines" that he says "are a complete and total disaster."
In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump said: "I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we're at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election.
"We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED.
"WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections.
"Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.
"With their HORRIBLE Radical Left policies, like Open Borders, Men Playing in Women's Sports, Transgender and 'WOKE' for everyone, and so much more, Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM.
"ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS.
"I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS. THE MAIL-IN BALLOT HOAX, USING VOTING MACHINES THAT ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER, MUST END, NOW!!!
"REMEMBER, WITHOUT FAIR AND HONEST ELECTIONS, AND STRONG AND POWERFUL BORDERS, YOU DON'T HAVE EVEN A SEMBLANCE OF A COUNTRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!!! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."
Trump has long maintained the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, and many Americans have had doubts about the security of certain voting machines.
Dominion Voting Systems was awarded a $787 million settlement from Fox News after it claimed the network defamed the voting company.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just two days after winning an incredible Powerball jackpot of $167 million, a Kentucky man is facing serious charges for allegedly kicking a Florida sheriff's deputy in the face.
James Farthing was celebrating his financial windfall with his girlfriend at the TradeWinds Resort in St. Pete Beach, Florida in April.
Reports say Farthing got into a heated argument with an Iowa man, and things escalated into a full-blown brawl.
When Pinellas County deputies stepped in to quell the violence, Farthing allegedly kicked one of the officers in the face near his right eye.
"He f***ing kicked me in the face, he's f***ing going!" the deputy said, as blood stains painted the floor.
Jacqueline Fightmaster, Farthing's girlfriend, told deputies "nothing" had happened, and she was arrested for disorderly intoxication, eventually pleading no contest and getting fined.
While the Iowa man involved in the initial scuffle was not charged, Farthing faces serious felony counts including battery on a law enforcement officer, simple battery, and resisting an officer without violence.
He has since pleaded not guilty.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An increasing number of members of the U.S. military services are choosing to take a religious objection to the mandated flu shot. Many also question the likelihood of a flu pandemic at this point in history, while others claim evidence shows the flu shot is not effective.
Recent news stories of a Marine Corps officer, an Air Force major and an Army sergeant continue to document the concerns of countless service members who have taken a moral and religious objection to the mandated flu shot.
WorldNetDaily spoke to Technical Sergeant William "Tony" Oslin, whose religious convictions may cost his service in the military. Having both a father and stepfather who served in the military for 20 years each, Oslin's desire to join the military was present at an early age.
He served as an active-duty noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force between 1991 and 1995. Then in 2013, he returned, joining the Air National Guard, and a few years later, began serving full-time, working in the Active Guard Reserve program as a technician.
In August 2021, his dedication to the Air Force became jeopardized over the then-mandated COVID-19 shot. Interestingly, his Religious Accommodation Request was never adjudicated, allowing him to continue to serve without being separated from the military.
During this time, Oslin's knowledge of the so-called vaccine increased. He admitted questioning the efficacy and effectiveness of the COVID-19 shot – and other vaccines, including the flu shot. But more than that, he maintained a religious objection to the shots, considering his body "a temple of the Lord." Even with this sincerely held belief, his request for a religious accommodation with regard to the flu shot was denied.
With that, Oslin said the Air Force began to "build a case that [he] was nondeployable." Although he still serves in the Air National Guard, his enlistment expires Sept. 3.
"Due to not taking the influenza immunization," he said, "they have twisted it into my not following direct orders and Air Force regulations." All the while, he noted, "I have claimed the entire time that the orders [to take the flu shot] are unlawful and discriminatory, therefore I will not … cannot follow unlawful orders."
Oslin told WND he could not recall the last time he contracted the flu. And the blatant disregard for his requested religious accommodation has left a bad taste in his mouth. Today, he is the grandfather of three, and hopes they will choose a different career path than the military.
"If I have anything to do with it," he told WND, "they will not be in the military." Why? "Because our country became the greatest country in this world because of the many who stood up for the freedoms we all enjoy, and I'm just not fully convinced the military can sustain itself following the religious purge [of those who objected to the COVID-19 mandate] and now the flu shot."
According to Oslin, "President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth are giving the illusion that they are trying to make it right," explaining that "it seems like an illusion because they're allowing others to ignore the policies they should be protecting." By disregarding service members' religious convictions, he said, the administration is ignoring their constitutionally protected religious rights.
What's more, he noted, "This is not about military readiness. Whether people get the flu, with or without a flu shot, they still get the same treatment," which boils down to rest, symptom management and possible antiviral medication. "It's not like people who took the shot don't get the flu. Even the package inserts say the flu shot might prevent the flu; it doesn't say it will prevent the flu."
"If the flu shot may or may not protect you from the flu, why is it required, especially when someone takes a legitimate religious objection to it?" Oslin asked. "It's about generals and the higher ups, to include congressmen, who have invested in the pharmaceutical industry. That's why they're pushing shots."
For those in positions of power, Oslin shares the King James Version of 2 Samuel 23:3, hoping they'll take the text to heart: "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."
Oslin recently joined Air Force Col. (Ret.) Rob Maness, a former bomber squadron commander, on "The Rob Maness Show" to share his story:
Technical Sergeant Oslin emphasized his views do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense or Department of the Air Force.