This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A British police department has completed a one-month pilot program that had female officers dressing in running gear and hitting the trail as a means to arrest men who inevitably harass, assault or whistle at the women.
According to a report in the U.K.'s Economic Times, Surrey Police have arrested 18 people in the undercover operation aimed to curtail the harassment of women exercising in public. The female officers jogged in identified harassment hotspots during rush hour, allowing specialist units to intervene quickly when abuse occurred.
The paper notes that the scheme focused on catcalling, unwanted gestures and other behavior officers say can escalate to more serious sexual offenses. Offenders were arrested for crimes including harassment, sexual assault and theft.
Some incidents resulted in "educational interventions," while repeat or serious offenders were pursued through the criminal justice system, reports the Economic Times. One undercover officer, Abby Hayward, said the abuse she experienced during the operation reflected "a daily reality" for women.
The Guardian quoted her as saying, "This behavior is either a precursor to something more serious, or it's ignorance, and it's fixable. That's where our interventions come in. …"
A University of Manchester study last year found over two-thirds of women runners in northwest England had faced harassment, while a Sport England report suggested almost three-quarters of women adjust their exercise routines during winter to avoid risk.
Some responses to the pilot program on X claimed that men who are part of the immigrant community are more apt to harass women exercising in public. Posted the popular users "amuse": "Instead of tackling the Pakistani rape gang crisis, British police are entrapping British men by having female officers dress in sexy tights and arrest the men brave enough to hit on the officers charging them with sexual harassment."
Another commenter noted: "Back in the '70s and '80s, many of us would have thought that these skin-tight running clothes (and everyday wear) were scandalous or eliciting of lasciviousness. What is happening to British elite that they feel a need to entrap or attack men (who are sinful or not)?"
According to the Independent, civil liberties group Free Speech Union accused the police force of "bizarre social-psychology experiments" and said law enforcement should focus on "enforcing the law."
A Surrey Police spokesperson told the paper: "Our priority is not only to tackle and solve crime but also to prevent it from happening in the first place."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A man who shouted obscenities and threw a Subway sandwich at a federal officer in Washington, D.C., when President Donald Trump decided to address crime in the district by activating the National Guard, was charged with a felony for assaulting an officer, and now has been fired from his job.
"If you touch any law enforcement officer, we will come after you. I just learned that this defendant worked at the Department of Justice — NO LONGER. Not only is he FIRED, he has been charged with a felony. This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus the DOJ. You will NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
A report at the Blaze described the fired suspect, Sean Charles Dunn, 37, a D.C. resident, as a "deranged DC leftist."
Dunn was identified in a police complaint as the suspect who screamed obscenities at federal officers and then threw a sandwich at them.
That prompted a felony assault count.
The Daily Caller News Foundation had reported earlier, "A man in a pink shirt can be seen in a video jumping and shouting at an officer before hurling his sandwich at him and fleeing. Pirro said in her own X video that her office had charged the man with assault on a police officer.
Pirro said, "So President [Donald] Trump has vowed to make D.C. safe and beautiful again. And as part of his effort to fight crime, he's bringing in our federal law enforcement partners … to help the Metropolitan PD fight crime. And the president's message to the criminals was, 'If you spit, we hit.' Well, we didn't quite do that the other night when an individual went up to one of the federal law enforcement officers and started jumping up and down, screaming at him, berating him, yelling at him.
"And then he took a Subway sandwich … and took it and threw it at the officer. He thought it was funny. Well, he doesn't think it's funny today because we charged him with a felony, assault on a police officer. And we're going to back the police to the hilt. So there, stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else."
Trump said the National Guard was needed in the district's crime levels meant there was a "public safety emergency."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The starting quarterback for the New York Jets, Justin Fields, recently explained to the media what has helped renew his outlook on life and his career: his "low-key addiction" to reading the Bible.
The 26-year-old was asked about what has helped him in making a fresh start with the Jets, taking over this year for veteran quarterback Aaron Rodgers.
"Really getting closer to God, like I said, my relationship, me reading the Bible every day, and if I'm being real, there are some great lines and great wisdom that I didn't even know of. So I'm low-key addicted to getting in my Bible every day just because I learn something new and I'm able to apply it in my everyday life," said Fields.
"I wish I would have started earlier. So I encourage you all to go read a little bit. Start in Proverbs and move on from there," Fields added.
Out of Ohio State, Fields signed a two-year, $40 million contract with the Jets after playing on the Pittsburgh Steelers last year.
A seemingly large percentage of NFL quarterbacks are professing Christians. WND columnist Jack Cashill delved into the issue in 2020.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Little Sisters of the Poor still are on the battlefield in America to protect the pro-life beliefs of Americans who object to government-ordered funding for the destruction of unborn children, which Barack Obama tried to force on the public some 14 years ago.
They won the protection of the U.S. Supreme Court, but that wasn't good enough for Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which continue even today to try to force the state governments' secular faith about abortion, abortifacient and contraceptives on parts of the population that are Christian.
It was Wendy Beetlestone, a federal judge who was unable to issue her opinion without spelling or typographical errors embedded, who issued a ruling that sided with the two states in their "years-long effort to force the Little Sisters of the Poor – an order of Catholic nuns who care for the elderly poor – to either provide abortion and contraceptives in their healthcare plan or pay tens of millions of dollars in fines."
"The district court blessed an out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty," explained Mark Rienzi, a lawyer for Becket who is representing the Little Sisters.
"It's bad enough that the district court issued a nationwide ruling invalidating federal religious conscience rules. But even worse is that the district court simply ducked the glaring constitutional issues in this case, after waiting five years and not even holding a hearing. It is absurd to think the Little Sisters might need yet another trip to the Supreme Court to end what has now been more than a dozen years of litigation over the same issue. We will fight as far as we need to fight to protect the Little Sisters' right to care for the elderly in peace."
The judge claimed that the federal agencies establishing the rules for mandated payments, or fines, earlier claimed that contraception was safe and effective, then changed their position to include that its safety and effectiveness is suspect.
That ruling ignored the basic constitutional protections for freedom of religion.
Worse yet, she made it a "nationwide ruling."
The fight has been going on for 14 years, since Obama launched his own barrage against people of faith in America, by including in Obamacare a demand that employers, including Christians who oppose contraception and abortion, must pay for it.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2020 affirmed a federal rule protecting the Little Sisters and other religious groups from the "contraceptive mandate," as the ideology soon was dubbed.
"But Pennsylvania and New Jersey have continued to fight in court to strip the Little Sisters of that protection. Today's ruling keeps that effort alive, and the Little Sisters have vowed to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit," Becket reported.
The origination of the war was with the federal Department of Health and Human Services when it was setting rules for Obamacare.
The "mandate" demands employers provide contraceptives like the week-after pill in their health insurance plans, including some that can cause abortion.
"The original mandate exempted plans covering tens of millions of people for administrative convenience and 'grandfathering,' but did not provide a religious exemption for groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who have served the elderly poor for nearly 200 years," Becket reported.
The Supreme Court ruling then provided that protection for the Little Sisters, and others, and the two states have been on a campaign ever since to take away their rights.
In fact, their cause has been before the Supreme Court multiple times already, and they have won in each case.
"As Little Sisters of the Poor, we dedicate our lives to caring for the elderly poor until God calls them home," said a representative for the group, Mother Loraine Marie Maguire.
"We will continue to fight for the right to carry out our mission without violating our faith, and we pray Pennsylvania and New Jersey will end this needless harassment."
Beetlestone admitted in the ruling her own earlier decisions in the case, while affirmed then by the 3rd Circuit, were reversed by the Supreme Court.
She claimed the procedures were not followed properly in allowing additional groups to be exempted from the "mandate," but admitted, the Supreme Court "held that defendants had done all that was required of them."
She claimed to walk back the case back so that she could further deliver her own agenda.
"This court did not address … whether the agencies exercised their statutory authority properly in accordance with the APA's requirement the agency action not be 'arbitrary [or] capricious.'"
That dispute, she claimed, is the one for which she now is providing "resolution."
In its original ruling, the Supreme Court found that the "mandate" violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
But Beetlestone was especially upset that President Donald Trump, during his first term, addressed a resolution to the dispute by issuing an order regarding "Free Speech and Religious Liberty" and told agencies to consider amending regulations to address "conscience-based objections" to the contraceptive demands.
Those rules were adopted, and Pennsylvania sued to stop them, later being joined by New Jersey.
Beetlestone claimed the rules adopted are "invalid," even though the Supreme Court said the "Final Rules were not procedurally invalid."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As President Donald Trump prepares to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to help broker peace in Ukraine, the commander in chief is launching into "sick and dishonest" American news media for their coverage he says is powered by "corruption."
In a scathing post on Truth Social Wednesday, Trump said: "Very unfair media is at work on my meeting with Putin."
"Constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton, who just said that, even though the meeting is on American soil, 'Putin has already won.' What's that all about?"
"We are winning on EVERYTHING. The Fake News is working overtime (No tax on overtime!). If I got Moscow and Leningrad free, as part of the deal with Russia, the Fake News would say that I made a bad deal! But now they've been caught.
"Look at all of the real news that's coming out about their CORRUPTION. They are sick and dishonest people, who probably hate our Country. But it doesn't matter because we are winning on everything!!! MAGA."
John Bolton, who served as Trump's own national security adviser in his first administration, has gone on national television to throw shade on the president's upcoming summit.
"Looks like Putin's got his old magic back with Trump. His disappointment and outrage with Putin are gone," Bolton said on X.
"A Putin-Trump summit in former Russia-America, Alaska, is not quite as bad as Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David, but certainly reminds one of that."
In a CNN interview, Bolton indicated, "The only better place for Putin than Alaska would be if the summit were being held in Moscow. So the initial setup is a great victory for Putin. He's a rogue leader of a pariah state and he's gonna be welcomed into the United States."
"Second, I have a feeling this is sliding very quickly in Russia's direction," Bolton continued.
"What's happening is that Russia and the United States are discussing what terms they're gonna present to [Ukraine President Volodymyr] Zelensky. And it may well be that Zelensky has no choice here.
"Surrendering is always one way to get a peace deal. And it seems to me, listen to Trump talking about how things are progressing, that even without the meeting, Putin's got his old magic back with Trump."
Axios reports: "Trump is expected to hold a virtual meeting Wednesday with Zelensky and a group of European leaders, two sources with knowledge of the plans tell Axios."
"Zelensky has been downplaying Russia's recent gains and working the phones to leaders in Europe and beyond to hedge against an unfavorable outcome in Alaska."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Virginia governor has ordered the state police Bureau of Criminal Investigation to review allegations that officials at a high school arranged for, and paid for, abortions on minor girls.
Without even letting the parents know, which would be violation of state law as well as school policy.
Reports on Wednesday confirmed Gov. Glenn Youngkin has ordered Virginia State Police investigators to open a full criminal investigation into allegations "that Fairfax County Public Schools staff arranged for minors to receive abortions without parental consent.'
The allegations charge that school officials possibly "facilitated and paid for abortions for multiple minors," and used public funds.
"I am deeply concerned with the allegations that Fairfax County Public Schools officials arranged for minors to get abortions without parental consent and may have misused public funds to pay for them," Youngkin said. "I am directing the Virginia State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation to open a full criminal investigation into the matter immediately."
Significantly, the investigation is to determine whether criminal charges are warranted in the situation.
The situation allegedly involves a school social worker and a principal who are accused of orchestrating "pressured abortions for two high school girls … One girl was five months pregnant and fled the abortion facility to save her baby's life."
School officials claimed they learned of the charges just recently, but reports confirm an audio recording from a whistleblower – a teacher – suggests there's been a years-long coverup.
Caitlin Connors, of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said, "This horrific scandal is breaking as Democrats and the abortion lobby are trying to end parental rights in Virginia. If Democrats win the general assembly in November, they will pass an abortion amendment ending parental consent. Their amendment will allow abusers, traffickers and irresponsible school officials to coerce girls into abortions without parents ever knowing. We must vote the Democrats out.
"We commend the brave whistleblower who documented raising concerns seven times, and we thank Gov. Youngkin for launching a criminal investigation, as FCPS clearly shouldn't be allowed to investigate themselves. These allegations are a parent's worst nightmare. It's horrifying that people who have been entrusted with educating children would push girls – one of whom was five months pregnant – to end the lives of their unborn children. These are girls who need support and protection – not silencing and cover-ups."
WorldNetDaily reported when the allegations surfaced that the situation developed at Centreville High School, and dates back to 2021.
The news first was revealed by the W.C. Dispatch Substack.
Accused are Carolina Dias, a social worker, and Principal Chad Lehman, who the girls insisted knew about the scandal.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge in Baltimore decided, effectively, to overrule a jury's verdict of guilty for a man who brutally attacked and permanently injured two senior citizens advocating for life, and gave him a pass to go home as his trial ended.
That's despite the fact that Patrick Brice, a "pro-abortion zealot," was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree assault and two counts of reckless endangerment, and the possible sentence ranged up to 10 years in prison.
After all, he was on video, without provocation, slamming Richard Schaefer, 84 at the time of the attack, into a concrete planter, knocking him to the sidewalk unconscious, suffering cuts, bruises and head trauma, and then attacking Mark Crosby, 73 at the time, who rushed to help Schaefer.
Brice turned on him, punching him in the face, knocking him to the ground and kicking him in the head.
Both men suffered grave injuries, with Crosby sustaining facial fractures, broken fingers, head and neck injuries and permanent vision loss in one eye.
According to the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Schaefer, the assaults were "a calculated act of violence by a younger man against two elderly citizens exercising their constitutional rights."
So charges were brought and the jury convicted.
Then, however, Yvette M. Bryant, the Baltimore judge in the case, stepped in.
In a move that prompted outraged headlines, she gave him a pass to go home, a "slap on the wrist."
She actually ordered him to a year of home detention, three years of probation and anger management lessons.
"No prison time. No real deterrent. Brice left the courthouse and went home the same day," the ACLJ reported.
It's a reminder, the legal team explained, "We must continue the work of defending pro-life advocates."
The report said, "We witnessed a stunning example of how violent attacks on peaceful pro-life advocates are too often minimized or excused."
Explained the ACLJ, "The leniency in Brice's case is even more jarring when compared to how peaceful pro-life advocates have been treated under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Just months ago, 23 pro-life activists – many elderly, some grandparents – were serving lengthy federal prison sentences for non-violent demonstrations before being pardoned by President Trump. Their 'crimes' consisted of peaceful protest and prayer in defense of unborn life. No violence, yet they were sentenced to hard jail time."
But here, "a man brutally beat two elderly pro-lifers and will serve his 'sentence' from the comfort of his own home. The double standard is unmistakable: Peaceful pro-life expression is met with the full weight of federal prosecution, while pro-abortion violence is downplayed and excused."
The reason?
"This is the abortion distortion in action – the bending of rules, the selective application of justice, and the diminished seriousness assigned to crimes committed against those who speak up for life. If the roles were reversed – if two elderly abortion supporters had been beaten unconscious outside a pro-life pregnancy center – would the outcome have been the same? Experience suggests otherwise," the ACLJ said.
A lawyer for Crosby said the judge "was plainly wrong" and "should have known better."
Multiple reports noted that the judge gave the convict nothing more than a "slap on the wrist."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court is being urged to protect the single, statutory "Election Day" in America, and to let stand a lower court's ruling against a state that wanted to count ballots that arrive too late.
"Congress statutorily designated a singular 'day for the election' of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this 'day for the election' is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi's statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court's contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings," explained the decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now, according to Judicial Watch, the Supreme Court should let that stand.
Extended periods for voting have become a common goal among Democrats and in Democrat states across the nation, including such accommodations as early voting, voting by mail, counting mail ballots after election day, even for weeks.
Critics of such plans warn such openings simply create more opportunities for fraudulent ballots that could impact an election result.
Judicial Watch said it has, on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the court to let the 5th Circuit decision stand.
Judicial Watch said, "[T]he Court of Appeals correctly applied existing Court precedent to find that the Receipt Deadline is inconsistent and conflicts with the Election Day statutes, and is preempted by them. Petitioner [MS secretary of state] has not demonstrated any reason why the Court's intervention is needed now. Modification of the Election Day receipt deadline allows states to 'engage in gamesmanship, experiment with deadlines, and renew the very ills Congress sought to eliminate: fraud, uncertainty, and delay.'"
Judicial Watch initially filed the civil rights lawsuit in February 2024 on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, challenging the same Mississippi election law permitting absentee ballots to be received as long as five business days after Election Day. The suit was consolidated with one filed by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and others.
The 5th Circuit "agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day." It then declined to change its decision.
Judicial Watch informs the Supreme Court, "In reversing the district court on the merits, the [Fifth Circuit] panel faithfully followed this Court's precedent … [T]his Court found that the Election Day statutes preempted a Louisiana law that allowed congressional candidates to be elected in October…. In interpreting the meaning of 'day of the election' within the Election Day statutes, this Court found that '[w]hen the federal statutes speak of 'the election' of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder.' … Accordingly, the 'day of the election' 'may not be consummated prior to federal election day.'"
Also in the fight is an Illinois claim to be able to extend "Election Day" for several weeks, a fight in California over its decision to make "Election Day" seven days long, and more.
"Counting ballots received after Election Day is a flagrant violation of federal law and encourages fraud and voter distrust," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Let us hope that the Supreme Court will decline to hear Mississippi's senseless attempt to overturn a historic decision that sensibly concluded that counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Despite some media claiming President Trump ought to be worried about "falling" poll numbers, when compared with two recent U.S. presidents, he's actually doing better.
The RealClearPolitics Poll Average shows Trump with 45.9% approval rating as of Aug. 12.
At the same point in their second terms, Presidents Obama and Bush Jr. were at 43.8% and 43.2%, respectively. RealClearPolitics takes the results of several polls and averages them.
Meanwhile, some media outlets point to falling numbers for the president in some polls and attribute them to "fallout from the so-called 'Epstein Files.'"
On the other hand, Newsweek has a story noting that Trump's approval rating among women has increased in recent days, specifically in a survey released by The Economist and YouGov.
This chart posting on X contrasts the ratings of Trump, Bush 43 and Obama:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A published report describes the situation as "chilling" as it explains a public high school in Virginia has come under investigation for allegedly arranging and paying for abortions for underage students, without even letting their parents know.
The Washington Stand explained the scandal is in Fairfax County Public Schools, which is investigating reports Centreville High School was promoting abortions back in 2021.
"The news, first revealed by the W.C. Dispatch Substack, has sparked outrage among parents, pro-life advocates, and concerned citizens, raising serious questions about parental rights and school overreach," the report said.
It quoted WJLA as confirming one of the two girls involved was only 17 years old. And it continued:
"One girl underwent the procedure at 17; the other, five months pregnant and pleading to keep her baby, bolted from the clinic after social worker Carolina Díaz allegedly told her she 'had no choice.' Principal Chad Lehman, the girls insist, knew — and taxpayers footed the bill. … A handwritten statement from the first student, translated for clarity, lays out how Díaz scheduled the appointment, paid the clinic's fees, and swore her to secrecy."
The report continued, "That alone would be enough to raise the hair on the back of a patriotic taxpayer's neck, but there is more. A second Centreville minor, five months pregnant and wavering, was allegedly told by the same social worker that she 'had no other choice.' The girl, terrified, ultimately bolted from the clinic rather than go through with the procedure. She later confided in her teacher, Mrs. Zenaida Perez, who allowed her name to be used on the record and provided The W.C. Dispatch a recording of the family confirming that no one at the school had ever informed them of the intent to terminate their daughter's pregnancy."
The district said it had no prior knowledge of the scheming, and is investigating.
Supt. Michelle Reid stated, "I want to stress that at no time, would the situation as described in these allegations be acceptable in Fairfax County Public Schools."
State law, in fact, demands parental consent and notification for minors seeking abortions. The school's policy also has requirements to encourage students to discuss their situation with their parents.
40 Days for Life said, "A Fairfax high school secretly arranged and paid for student abortions — without telling parents. This isn't 'healthcare.' It's state-funded child exploitation. Every official involved must be held accountable."
And Concerned Women for America said it is "an absolutely outrageous affront to parental rights."
Mary Szoch, of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, called the charges a tragedy for students, a violation of parental rights and a "grave overstep" by the school.
"Schools not informing parents, and worse, paying for the killing of a teenager's unborn child is horrific," she said.