This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hollywood celebrities are continuing their vocal display of deadly Trump Derangement Syndrome, with actor Woody Harrelson now saying he would "slip him some cyanide" had he fulfilled his one-time dream of becoming a U.S. Secret Service agent assigned to protect the president.
In an interview posted Tuesday on X, Harrelson said: "I used to dream about being a Secret Service agent, but then that passed when I realized the character that I liked on television was actually an actor playing a Secret Service agent.
"But luckily, I didn't become a Secret Service Agent. I'd be having to protect Donald Trump right now and that just wouldn't sit well. I'd be one to slip him some cyanide instead of jumping in front of a bullet."
"I shouldn't be saying these things," he admitted. "Well, there it's out there."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A panicked anti-ICE agitator begged for mercy from federal officers, pointing out her motherhood, after being caught on video allegedly interfering with a crackdown on gangs in Portland, Oregon, last week.
"I'm just a mom! I'm just a mom!" the hyperventilating woman tells an officer, as seen on footage courtesy of Katie Daviscourt of the Post Millennial. "Can you just give me a warning? I have kids."
"You are surrounded by federal agents," the officer tells her.
"I understand, I'm just worried about my community," she responds.
The Post Millennial reports: "The agitator, who had been recklessly driving through the neighborhood to impede ICE operations, was stopped by ICE officials on Thursday afternoon after blowing a red light and nearly colliding with a school bus while trailing federal vehicles, which she attempted to box in multiple times with her Mustang. The Post Millennial captured the incident during an exclusive ride-along with the ICE Seattle Field Office's Portland branch."
Julio Hernandez, the ICE deputy field officer director, said the woman has been referred to Homeland Security Investigations for criminal prosecution.
"She placed our officers in danger. She blocked in our vehicles several times," Hernandez told the news site. "We gave her multiple warnings to leave the area. This time, enough was enough."
He explained agitators were posted in various spots in the gang-ridden neighborhood to act as "spotters," letting illegal immigrants to ICE operations by using whistles, horns and vehicles.
"Like [DHS Secretary Kristi Noem] said, enough is enough, we're drawing the line, and that's what we did now," Hernandez told TPM during the ride-along. "We have her information. We're going to refer the case over to Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Attorney's Office."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Since Jan. 25, the day after the Senate confirmed him as President Donald Trump's pick to lead America's military, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has emphasized warfighting and the restoration of a "warrior culture," prioritizing a "maximum lethality" approach to military readiness.
Despite this, some service members are expressing certain doubts regarding America's potential to achieve victory in a major war with a "near-peer adversary" like China or Russia.
Early in 2024, during the Biden administration when then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was leading America's military, this writer carried out a small, independent, unscientific survey of more than 200 people currently serving in the U.S. military, just to ascertain their views with regard to the prospect of engaging in a significant conflict with a major adversary.
As WND reported at the time, when asked if the U.S. could win a conflict against a near-peer adversary like China, Iran, North Korea or Russia, 188 of the 229 respondents – 82% – replied "No."
Recently, a second such small, independent survey was conducted, now with Hegseth at the helm.
A few complicating factors, which themselves raise significant questions: Some of the participants in the earlier survey have since resigned, retired or been discharged from the military due to the highly unpopular COVID-19 vaccine mandate and their unwillingness to subject themselves to the controversial shot, often on religious grounds. Likewise, it is undeniable that the Biden era's tyrannical enforcement of the COVID shot negatively impacted the morale of many service members, including some of those taking the survey. And finally, considering the thousands who are no longer actively serving due to the shot mandate, the question of whether overall readiness of the force could be affected by their loss also arises.
And of course, as with any informal survey, it's impossible to determine how accurately the relatively small population of those surveyed reflects the feelings and views of the larger force.
Here are the new survey results: Among the 66 currently serving members of America's armed forces participating in the current survey, 49 (74%) responded "No." That is, nearly three-quarters of today's respondents lack confidence in the U.S. military's current ability to secure victory in a conflict against a near-peer adversary.
For some insight, WND interviewed two survey participants who agreed to share their responses anonymously. As is customary, each emphasized that their views don't reflect those of the Department of War or their respective branch of the military.
Among those with a positive outlook, a service member in the Army said, "The bottom-line answer is yes, as we have the overwhelming tactical, operational and strategic advantage when it comes to kinetic warfare."
A second participant from the Army provided an even more thought-provoking answer, arguing: "Our competitors, and ourselves, have the capability to destroy life on this planet many times over." For that reason, he explained, "Any conflict we enter with a near peer will be within an agreed level of conflict, but if one gets backed into a corner, would they really surrender before pressing the proverbial red button?"
He added, on a more personal note, that as he grows older he is increasingly convinced there are "spiritual influences behind the global cabal," citing Matthew 24:21-22 (NIV), which reads: "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now – and never to be equaled again. 'If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.'"
The slight reduction of just 8% – down from 82% last year to 74% today – of participants believing the U.S. could not win a war against a near-peer threat should concern the current administration, perhaps even prompt a request for more information from current active-duty service members.
But why exactly do some military members think the U.S. cannot succeed in a war against a near-peer adversary? Is it even possible that the U.S. military is under-prepared, despite Hegseth's public push for lethality and force readiness? In the previous survey, roughly half of the 229 participants said their own units had sufficient training and equipment for combat deployment.
However, in the fall 2025 survey, even fewer – 27 out of 66 respondents, just 41% – believe their units are adequately trained for such a deployment. Moreover, just 26% – 17 out of 66 – believe their units are sufficiently equipped for combat.
The previous survey also revealed that the administration of former President Joe Biden was widely considered to be the greatest threat to America's freedoms. In stark contrast, fewer than 1% of current respondents view President Donald Trump in the same light.
Notably, 52 of the 66 participants – almost 79% – identify Xi Jinping of China as America's foremost threat. Other notable leaders and regimes cited, though to a much lesser extent, included Ali Khamenei of Iran and Vladimir Putin of Russia. But if America were to enter an armed conflict with what is seen as its greatest threat, China, the survey results concerning training and equipment levels of military units today appear to indicate the U.S. military might not yet be adequately prepared.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's a new, and serious, warning on social media for those who envision stepping into a car at a gas station for ill purposes like robbery or theft.
It's the image of an intruder, found in a car by the woman who owns the car.
He's pulled out of the vehicle, and thrown away.
A report at the Blaze explains that the woman pulled the man "out of her car" and threw him to the ground "with ease."
Her husband, watching, said, "She is indeed my hero."
The report described the surveillance video as "astonishing" when it revealed the incident at a Hollywood gas station.
"The woman, Star Carter, was sitting in the driver's seat of her red Alfa Romeo at the gas station Tuesday when a male stranger walked up and tried to open her passenger door, KCBS-TV reported," the Blaze explained.
"It was just like that Kendrick Lamar verse [from 'Peekaboo'] was playing in my head, you know like, 'Bing bop boom bop boom bop bam!'" she said.
Husband Michael Carter was pumping gas at the time.
He first had shooed the invader away, but he returned, sneaking into the back seat on the driver side.
Michael said he was "wrestling" with the guy and "all I know is he just disappeared."
The report said, "His wife got out of the driver's seat, got the back door, ripped the intruder right out of the car, and tossed him to the ground."
"I don't condone violence, but I do condone self-defense," she said later.
The intruder picked himself up, and fled.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump has been handed another victory at the Supreme Court, where the justices on Thursday ruled that he could limit gender ideology statements on American passports.
Lower courts, responding to lawsuits by leftist activists, had claimed that they had the authority to order Trump to issue passports that claimed special sex designations for nonbinary and transgender people.
The Supreme Court halted those orders that would have allowed passport holders to creatively dictate whatever gender ideology they adopted for their passports.
"Displaying passport holders' sex at birth," the majority said, "no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
A report posted at Scotusblog noted that Ketanji Jackson, a far-left member of the court, was joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in claiming the ruling actually "paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent."
The lower court order had come from Julia Kobick, a judge who heard the complaints from transgender plaintiffs and insisted the White House follow her orders.
Trump's executive order simply had said the federal government would only "recognize two sexes, male and female."
That was followed by instructions to the State Department that government documents reflect the holder's sex, not sex ideology.
Joe Biden, while in office, had promoted such alternative sex beliefs in multiple forums.
The activists claimed Trump's order violated their equal protection rights, their rights to travel and more.
The 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had sided with the progressive ideology, but U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that Kobick was injuring the United States "by compelling it to speak to foreign governments in contravention of both the President's foreign policy and scientific reality.'
Following the science, transgenderism is a fantasy, as being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level.
Now the justices have granted the government's request to pause Kobick's demands.
The ruling pointed out Trump like will "succeed on the merits" of the arguments.
Jackson complained that now the plaintiffs won't be able to get passports "with sex markers that match their gender identity" and that could lead to "psychological issues."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., whom President Trump called a "disgusting degenerate" over alleged insider trading and who went ballistic on a reporter last month when confronted about her role in the Capitol mayhem of Jan. 6, 2021, will reportedly not seek re-election in 2026.
Scott Wong of NBC News reports: "Multiple Democratic elected officials and top aides in CA and Washington tell NBCNews they believe Nancy Pelosi will choose not to seek re-election in 2026, after nearly four decades representing her San Francisco-based district."
"I think she's preparing to exit the stage," said a House Democratic leadership aide.
"I wish she would stay for 10 more years," said one House Democrat from California. "I think she's out. She's going to go out with Prop 50 overwhelmingly passing, and what a crowning achievement for her to do that."
NBC News added: "Fueling speculation that she might retire, Pelosi has made no outward move to counter two Democrats who have entered the district's primary, despite having raised more than $2 million this election cycle so far and sitting on a $1.5 million war chest, according to campaign records."
As WorldNetDaily reported, the former speaker of the House, now 85, was asked last month by Alison Steinberg of Lindell TV: "Congresswoman Pelosi, are you at all concerned that the January 6th Committee will find you liable for that?
"Are at all concerned about the January 6th Committee finding you liable for that day? Why did you refuse the National Guard on January 6th?"
Pelosi, who was obviously disturbed by the questions, snapped at Steinberg.
"SHUT UP!" Pelosi screamed as she pointed her finger at the correspondent.
"I did not refuse the National Guard. The president didn't send it. Why are you coming here with Republican talking points as if you're a serious journalist?"
Reacting to the retirement news, best-selling author Brigitte Gabriel said: "Nancy Pelosi should have been forced to retire a long time ago. We need term limits."
In August, President Donald Trump launched a fresh attack on Pelosi, calling the California Democrat a "disgusting degenerate" as he again called attention to alleged insider stock trading by the congresswoman and her husband.
"Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very 'interesting' husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024," Trump said Saturday night on Truth Social.
"In other words, these two very average 'minds' beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them. It's all INSIDE iNFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this???"
"She is a disgusting degenerate, who Impeached me twice, on NO GROUNDS, and LOST! How are you feeling now, Nancy???"
On July 30, as WorldNetDaily reported, Trump said Pelosi "should be investigated" for insider trading.
"You know, Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information," Trump indicated. "She made a fortune with her husband and I think that's disgraceful."
"What I do think is Nancy Pelosi should be investigated. She has the highest return of anybody, practically, in the history of Wall Street, save a few. How did that happen?
"She knows exactly what's gonna happen, what's gonna be announced. She buys stock and then the stock goes up after the announcement's made. And she ought to be investigated."
Pelosi has called Trump's allegations "ridiculous."
Trump was echoing sentiments expressed by popular podcaster Joe Rogan, who indicated: "Nancy Pelosi's the head witch."
"There's like a system and they all get funded, and they all make sure that there's this kind of crooked system that will allow someone like Nancy Pelosi who – what does she make like $200,000 a year? She's worth $150 million! How the f*** did that happen?" Rogan wondered.
"If insider trading is illegal, how the f*** is it legal for her husband to make all these purchases of stock right before these giant deals came out that she negotiated? And then he gets this windfall and they get insanely wealthy! Over and over and over again!
"And there's no investigation into it, there's no talking about it. It's f***ing wild, man, It's wild sh**. And they think Putin's a mobster. What are YOU?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A sign at a Halloween event in New York City over the weekend is raising eyebrows as it stated "Charlie Kirk neck massages," mocking the civil-rights leader assassinated by a bullet to the neck in Utah in September.
"DISGUSTING!" exclaimed political commentator Gunther Eagleman on X. "If you haven't realized just what we're up against yet, you'll never see it. Truly dark and disturbing stuff."
Others reacted with positive and negative comments, including:
"This isn't 'Halloween fun,' it's a full-blown character assassination dressed up as a joke. They mock, they smear, they normalize attacks on anyone who disagrees with them. This is exactly what we're up against, and the left doesn't play fair."
"The demons are running rampant in our world because they know that the time is coming to end them. It's terrifying to think this is just the beginning. We Christians must stay strong and pray without ceasing. God will win, He always does."
"While it might be disgusting to you and I, it may be humorous for others. If we did not have this technology, most would not know this sh** is happening. We must take the good with the bad to enjoy freedom of expression and free speech. Get rid of smart phones, period!"
"Proof that the rot of normalized violence is seeping into plain sight. This is cultural poison, and if we keep letting it slide as 'just politics,' we're sleepwalking into darker days."
"Dark and disturbing? More like standard halloween protest theater in NYC. It's designed to trigger, not to be taken literally as a threat."
"LMAO not 'dark and disturbing,' it's literally New York being New York, chill out. Conservatives act like sarcasm is witchcraft, bro it's Halloween not a cult."
This is not the first time leftists have used Kirk's bullet to the neck to provoke conservatives.
One high-profile mocker is Lucy Martinez, a teacher at Chicago's Nathan Hale Elementary School, who was caught on video giving a bullet-to-the-neck gesture to a Charlie Kirk fan during a recent No Kings protest.
Radio host Megyn Kelly did not hold back about the teacher, saying: "Her fat a** needs to be fired, period! She's a pig, and I look forward to her termination which I do believe will eventually happen."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court in Wisconsin has canceled a defamation trial for a Moms for Liberty activist who reacted to a school district's paid position of "social justice coordinator" with criticism.
The case on behalf of Scarlett Johnson was handled by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which took the case to the appeals level even before a trial, and obtained an order that it be dismissed.
WILL lawyer Luke Berg said, "Scarlett, like all of us, has the right to question and criticize her government. The defamation lawsuit against her was meritless and should have been promptly dismissed. We are pleased that the court agreed and that Scarlett can put this distraction behind her."
Johnson, in a statement released through her counsel, said, "Free speech belongs to every mom, dad, and citizen who demands answers and accountability from their government."
The state Court of Appeals had ruled that her statements were not defamation.
"We conclude that Johnson's statements do not constitute defamation, thus, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to enter summary judgment in Johnson's favor," the appeals court said.
WILL reported, "The initial lawsuit involved a defamation claim for run-of-the-mill social media posts on X and Facebook. The posts in question criticized a school district for having a 'social justice coordinator,' and described people who hold such positions as 'woke,' 'white savior[s]' with a 'god complex,' 'woke lunatics,' and 'bullies.'"
WILL pointed out such comments are pervasive on social media and in fact were more restrained than a lot of online speech.
The plaintiff who sued previously had held that title.
"WILL stepped in to file an early appeal to avoid a costly and non-sensical defamation trial for First Amendment protected speech. We argued, and the court agreed, that for statements to be actionable for defamation, they must be 'provably false.'"
The court returned the case to the trial court with instructions to dismiss.
The ruling pointed out, "The terms 'god complex,' 'woke,' and 'white savior' are vague and do not have a clear meaning or definition. For example, some Americans define 'wokeness' as 'being informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices;' other Americans use it to mean 'being overly politically correct and policing others' words.' We are not persuaded that the terms are definitive enough to allow a jury to determine whether these terms are true or false.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
With the government shutdown in its 29th day and federal food assistance about to vanish, disturbing videos are emerging with one black woman threatening to hunt down, roast and eat white Americans, and another threatening to kill anyone who tries to stop looting.
In one video, a woman addresses "the white man" in the U.S., saying: "I'm here to let you know that we are going to eat regardless even if we have to hunt you animals down and roast and eat you, the delectable crackers and cheese.
"We will make it happen if we have to, trust and believe me. And if it takes this government shutdown for black people to finally come from under the government and understand that we don't need to be paying our taxes into this government.
"What we really need to be doing is taking care of one another, buying land and growing our own food and building our own nation. If this government shutdown and starvation is what it's going to take, then let the party begin. It's black power, baby, and we rise."
She added: "Black Americans do not care about your government shutdown. And black Americans do not care about you taking away our EBT and our government assistance because black Americans never depended on the American government to take care of us and feed us because we never could.
"We were never able to depend on the government in spite of what you may say and what you may try to force us to believe. So you can sit back and you can mock, you can laugh and you can think that you're about to starve us to death."
In another video, a woman urges security guards to let people steal food while threatening to kill any person who tries to intervene to stop the looting.
"I would hate for you to not be able to make it back to your family and for you to not be able to make it back home because you tryin' to save the billionaire companies," she says.
"When all this sh** is over, you either will be here, or you won't. I'm just gonna say that. Either you gonna make it out, or you won't because people are not gonna let you come in between they kids' next meal."
'You're about to see the beast come out of a lot of people – people that didn't even know that they had that in them."
Yet another woman wondered aloud what you would do if she broke into your house to steal your food.
As WorldNetDaily reported Tuesday, another woman claiming she's out of food stamps is bragging online about stealing from a grocery store while urging others to steal at will and "infiltrate" churches to get cash.
"Everything out here is yours," she said. "Whether or not you take it, they call that sh** free will. I call that sh** eminent domain. You know what I'm saying? One thing I learned from the white men: Take it!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Four weeks into the federal government shutdown, a woman claiming she's out of food stamps is bragging online about stealing from a grocery store while urging others to steal at will and "infiltrate" churches to get cash.
The woman who goes by "consiracycutiee" and has a username of @jaalagotanattitude posted her illegal shoplifting exploits on social media, using extremely graphic language.
"Everything out here is yours," she said. "Whether or not you take it, they call that sh** free will. I call that sh** eminent domain. You know what I'm saying? One thing I learned from the white men: Take it!"
"I don't give a f*** who's already sitting there. I don't give a f*** if your land was already established. B*tch, it's mine now, and I want it. That is what we should be preaching in the land to the f***ing masses.
"Act more like a white man. Take it for yourself, b*tch, and you won't be worried about who don't got it. You see what I'm saying? Get out there and ravish!"
"Last but not least, go into that church and infiltrate. Don't be stupid. Get in there. Ask them for some rent money. Ask them for some help. You've been tithing. Say your lights is off. You need a stipend. You need some food. Go to the church."
She concluded: "If the pastor don't help you out, blast him on social media. Quickest way to f*** up the church's money is ask for some."
Another foul-mouthed woman asked anyone who plans to steal to let her know so she could join the thievery.
"Let's band together and take these mother****ing markets down, b*tch," she exclaimed.
"I'm just as frustrated, I'm just as hungry and honestly, I'm just as f***ing broke. So if y'all are gonna f*** sh** up once they take y'all's stamps, put me in the f***ing game, coach."
One man urged people to steal irrespective of their financial aid being cut off.
"In light of the government cutting SNAP benefits Nov. 1, I want to remind everybody that stealing is never wrong. Sealing from multi-billion-dollar businesses is always OK, if not encouraged."
"Five-finger discount. It's the best discount you could ever get," he surmised.
But there are warnings appearing on social media about potentially fatal pushback against any thefts.
"I've also seen a lot of videos talking about how people are gonna grab baskets whenever they come out of the store. That way they're not stealing from a store, they're stealing from an individual," explained one man.
"Well, you grab my shopping cart full of groceries that I bought and paid for with my f***ing money, and you gonna hear two sounds. There are gonna be three sounds maybe.
"The first sound you're gonna hear is me saying, 'Ahem, that's a bad idea there. You better walk the f*** on.' If you don't walk the f*** on [as he apparently audibly cocks a gun], that'll be the next sound you f***ing hear."
"And the third sound is a sound I'll hear, but you won't."
"Now people are gonna come back on this video and say, 'You'd end somebody over a basket full of groceries?' Yeah, I would. You damn right, 'cause that person that decided to steal from me, they've already decided that that's what their life is worth.
"Well, they made that decision. They made that choice. You don't f***ing steal from me. F*** around and find out."