This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The United States now is in a "new and chilling stage" of what constitutional expert Jonathan Turley has described as the "age of rage."
In fact, his book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," specifically addresses the issues that were involved in the assassination this week of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed while holding a rally for students at a Utah university.
The killer remains at large at this point.
Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but also has represented members in court in constitutional fights, is a popular commentator and analyst on all things legal and constitutional, as well as the forces shaping America now.
He warned that the leftist agenda across the nation that now includes the assassination of Kirk, a popular speaker and speech rights advocate who founded Turning Point USA, could "succeed in forcing the thousands of conservative and libertarian students back into the shadows of our campuses and classrooms."
He said, "We cannot allow that to happen. Charlie Kirk challenged not just the left to debate but the right to be heard in higher education."
He explained the possible benefit for the nation.
"Yes, this is an age of rage. However, amidst the rage and the violence, there are a special few who have defied the threats and the attacks. The writer George Bernard Shaw once said that unreasonable people expect the world to conform to them. He then added that that was why all history is made by unreasonable people. Kirk was one of those wonderfully unreasonable people who refused to yield; refused to be silenced. Despite unrelenting attacks by the media and the establishment, he remained undeterred and unbowed. Students need to remember not how Kirk died, but why he died. His loss is Charlie's final challenge to all those today wringing their hands and muttering the usual expressions of shocked regret. Kirk would likely say, 'prove it.' Speak. Defy those who spend their time silencing others rather than speaking themselves. If you want to honor Charlie Kirk, speak out, speak boldly on both the right and the left. Prove them wrong."
Turley cited the two assassination attempts against President Donald Trump as among the "growing attacks on free speech around the world."
He explained, "Kirk came up with the brilliant idea of challenging liberals to simply debate issues from abortion to immigration. His group would go to campuses and invite debate with signs reading 'prove me wrong' and encourage liberals to engage in dialogue rather than violence."
That provided a reason, he said, for "the left" to hate Kirk.
"Campuses have long been the bastions of the left, reinforced by faculties which now have few, if any, conservatives or Republicans. Higher education has long been an incubator for intolerance; shaping a generation of speech phobics who shout down or attack those with opposing views," he said.
And Kirk hit the very heart of "that power base" by showing students "they could be open and bold about their views. He told them that they did not have to yield to orthodoxy and the groupthink."
The assassination, however bad, was not surprising.
"The response to TPUSA was all too often rage and violence. Liberals and anti-free speech groups like Antifa would trash their tables and threaten the students. Recently, at UC Davis, police simply watched as a TPUSA tent was torn apart and the tent carried off," he cited.
"Violent speech has long been acceptable on campuses so long as it targets conservatives. Teachers have called for others to 'take out' Trump supporters and for the Secret Service to assassinate him. University of Wisconsin Professor José Felipe Alvergue, head of the English Department, turned over the table of College Republicans supporting a conservative for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He reportedly declared, 'The time for this is over!' At universities, professors have called for 'detonating white people,' denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters, and supporting the attempted assassination of President Trump. One professor who declared that there is 'nothing wrong' with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted," he wrote.
Some specifics:
_"At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez trashed a pro-life display of students, telling the students that 'This is bulls–t. This is violent. You're triggering my students.' When the students tried to engage the professor and apologized for upsetting her, Rodríguez yelled, 'No you're not — because you can't even have a f–king baby. So you don't even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.' In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table."
This wasn't enough for the school to dismiss her. That only happened after she "chased reporters with a machete."
_"At the University of California Santa Barbara, they did not even bother to fire a professor who pleaded guilty to assaulting pro-life students on campus. Professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young. She was later honored as a model for women advocates at the University of Oregon."
He explained why such violence is pursued by "anarchists, socialists, and other groups."
"What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths. Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. The difference between rage and reason is often one's own views. If one agrees with the underlying grievance, rage is viewed as passion or justified fury at injustice. If one disagrees with those views, it takes on a more threatening and unhinged quality. We seem to spend much of our time today raging at each other. Despite the amplification of views on both sides, there is also an increasing intolerance for opposing views. Those views are treated as simply harmful and offensive—and, therefore, intolerable. Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob."
He explained, "In recent months, some of us have warned Democratic politicians about their violent rhetoric. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) has called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture brandishing a baseball bat. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would 'strike fear in the heart' of Trump. Liberal sites sell Antifa items to celebrate the violent group. California Governor Gavin Newsom declared, 'I'm going to punch these sons of b—— in the mouth.' It follows other violent rhetoric from Democratic leaders."
The result across America has been protesters "burning cars, dealerships, and even lawyers and reporters on the left are throwing Molotov cocktails at police. We have also seen a massive increase in attacks on ICE officers, who are now covering their faces to avoid doxxing or retaliation against themselves or their families."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Six candidates for political office in Germany, all members of a relatively conservative party, the AfD, have dropped dead within a two-week time frame, just as elections are about to be held.
It is the New York Post that has reported the candidates all were part of Alternative for Deutschland, which is considered more right-wing than other parties in the country.
The BBC said officials were claiming no foul play was involved in the deaths of four candidates and two reserves: Ralph Lange, 66, Wolfgang Klinger, 71, Stefan Berendes, 59, and Wolfgang Seitz, 59, and the two reserves.
They all were to appear on ballots in North Rhine-Westphalia in a matter of just days, on September 14.
Authorities have not commented on the causes for the deaths, except to say two appeared to be from natural causes.
The BBC noted an economist pointed out the number of candidate deaths in such a timespan was "statistically impossible."
According to a report by the Daily Caller, officials were reporting that candidates from other parties, Social Democrats and Greens, also died during that same time space.
The AfD party had made huge gains during the 2022 elections, surging from 5.4% to 16.8% in the polls, but it still remained less than an election superpower.
The unexpected deaths have required multiple reprints of election ballots and have led to the cancellation of some mail-in ballots, the BBC noted.
It was only three months ago that Germany's spy agency temporarily classified the AfD as an "extremist" group, before backtracking.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge who previously tried to foil President Donald Trump's fight for national border security and integrity and against riots promoting illegal aliens in the country, and was reversed by an appeals court, is trying again.
It is Charles Breyer who is the judge who, when Trump ordered National Guard troops to deter anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement rioting in California, ordered Trump to stop giving orders and let leftist Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom do it.
He was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered that constitutional precedents call for courts to be "highly deferential" to the president on some issues.
Breyer's latest move against Trump, according to a report from Fox News, is to claim that Trump acted unlawfully when he sent thousands of National Guard troops, and a handful of Marines, to address those anti-ICE riots that California authorities and leaders had allowed to develop.
Breyer's claim is that Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which dates to the 1800s and says the military cannot ordinarily be used for domestic law enforcement.
Fox reported, "The judge said his order only applies to California, but he noted the administration's warnings about sending the National Guard to other blue cities across the country amount to 'creating a national police force with the President as its chief.'"
Breyer had made similar comments during a three-day trial last month.
At the time, he insisted, "What limiting factors are there to the use of this force?"
Trump had activated 4,000 National Guard troops in June to address support for federal authorities in California as they pursued arrests of criminal illegal aliens, over the objections of state officials including Newsom.
Most of those operations already have concluded.
Newsom screamed on social media, "LOSES AGAIN. … The courts agree — his militarization of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL."
An appeal is more than probable which could result in the 9th Circuit reviewing – even overturning – Breyer again. The issue could even end up at the Supreme Court.
According to the Washington Examiner, Breyer's claim now is that the Trump administration cannot send National Guard members to protect law-enforcement officers carrying out federal law.
Breyer claimed, "There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence. Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday signed into law the state's new congressional districts.
State lawmakers assembled the new map in order to give Republican candidates a better position in at least another five districts, any one of which could be needed for the party to maintain the majority of the U.S. House in 2026..
The redistricting has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to try to redistrict his state, already sporting Democrat over-representation, to give his party additional power following the next congressional vote.
However, he's having to go to statewide voters, at an expense tallied in the millions, because he wants to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting committee that the state has.
A report at the Washington Examiner explained the state's redistricting sparked outrage from Democrats, whose party is falling rapidly from favor of the American voters after they doubled down on their transgender, green and open borders ideologies after their catastrophic loss in the 2024 presidential election.
In Texas, Democrat lawmakers, in fact, fled the state for weeks trying to derail the GOP-majority plan, and failed.
Abbott said, "Today, I signed the One Big Beautiful Map into law. This map ensures fairer representation in Congress."
The Democrats inside the state have responded with lawsuits, hoping they will find favor with some leftist judge, as their party repeatedly has done in battles with President Donald Trump.
"This isn't over — we'll see these clowns in court," claimed Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Wisconsin judge's claim to have absolute immunity again charges she helped an illegal alien criminal escape from ICE agents waiting outside her courtroom to arrest him has failed.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman has adopted a recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph that Hannah Dugan's motion to dismiss the criminal case against her because of "immunity" should be denied, according to a report in the Washington Examiner.
The decision means the prosecution will continue, opening the door for a possible plea bargain, or ultimately a trial and if there's a conviction, a sentencing.
"There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered 'part of a judge's job.' As the magistrate judge noted, the same is true in the bribery prosecutions, concededly valid, where the judges were prosecuted for performing official acts intertwined with bribery," the judge said.
"Even if a more limited version of judicial immunity exists, it does not support dismissal of the instant indictment."
Dugan had claimed that her "judicial immunity" prevented the Department of Justice from even investigating her.
Adelman also set a hearing for Sept. 3 to address scheduling for the case.
Dugan was on video instructing ICE agents to go elsewhere, then she allowed Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien before her court on charges of attacking other people, out a private back door of her courtroom, leading to a nonpublic area of the courthouse.
Dugan, a Milwaukee County circuit judge, now faces obstruction charges.
Joseph had concluded, "A judge's actions, even when done in her official capacity, do not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law."
The charges carry a maximum prison term of six years and a fine of $350,000 if there's a conviction.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley pointed out that Dugan has a "lack of a credible defense."
"Indeed, despite having high-powered lawyers such as Paul Clement, her recent social media posts seem more like a pitch for jury nullification."
He noted the criminal complaint explains "a six-person arrest team (including an ICE officer, a Customs and Border Protection officer, two FBI special agents, and two DEA agents) came to the courthouse to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant facing three misdemeanor battery counts they intended to deport. He is accused of hitting someone 30 times during a fight that erupted over complaints that his music was too loud and assaulting three separate individuals, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported."
Flores-Ruiz had been deported previously and came back illegally again, a felony, so he was issued an order for expedited removal, which means he could be deported with no further court hearings.
Dugan facilitated his escape, then was arrested and charged with obstruction.
"Recently, Dugan went public with an interview that notably lacked any discernible defense, other than stating that she helps defendants use the 'backdoor' when she considers circumstances that 'warrant it,'" the report said.
Turley explained, "The lack of any cognizable claim in Dugan's public pitch suggests that she might be hoping for a juror to simply vote to acquit as a visceral or political statement. This is a liberal jury pool where jury nullification must be a concern for prosecutors even though such an argument cannot be made overtly by the defense to the jurors."
It was reported only a day earlier that Dugan had been given nearly $50,000 from taxpayers in paychecks during the time she's been suspended from her duties.
"Meanwhile, Dugan has established a legal defense fund to pay for a high-powered team of lawyers that includes former Solicitor General Paul Clement and former federal prosecutor Steve Biskupic. In its first three weeks, the fund had raised nearly $140,000, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Dugan doesn't have to report on who gave what until next year, the news outlet reported," according to a report by Federalist.
The charges against Dugan confirm she was "visibly angry" after being informed that ICE agents were waiting to apprehend the suspect.
"After sending the law enforcement officials to the chief judge's office, Dugan escorted Flores-Ruiz and his legal counsel out of the courtroom through the 'jury door,' which leads to a non-public area of the courthouse," the Federalist said, citing the charges.
In an interview later, she admitted she had the suspect leave "out the back door."
WND has reported a grand jury accused Dugan of knowingly concealing a person for whose arrest a warrant and process had been issued, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. She is charged in Count Two with obstruction of the United States Department of Homeland Security's removal proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
The records show, "Dugan knowingly concealed E.F.R., a person for whose arrest a warrant and process had been issued under the provisions of the law of the United States, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of E.F.R., after notice and knowledge of the fact that a warrant and process had been issued for the apprehension of E.F.R., in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071; Count Two On or about April 18, 2025, Dugan did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law under which a pending proceeding was being had before a department and agency of the United States, namely the administrative arrest of E.F.R. for purposes of removal proceedings conducted by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by committing affirmative acts to assist E.F.R. to evade arrest, including: a) confronting members of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Task Force and falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.; b) upon learning that they had an administrative warrant for E.F.R.'s arrest, directing all identified members of the ICE Task Force to leave…"
WND reported when a video showed Dugan's actions, sending two federal agents waiting to take an illegal into custody packing.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President's Donald Trump's famed border wall, installed and effective at deterring illegal aliens from crossing into the U.S., is getting an enhancement: Black paint.
Which is supposed to help the wall heat up in the southern sun, and thereby make it harder to climb.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made the announcement:
And showed what is happening:
At a news conference in Santa Teresa, N.M., she said, "Now, if you look at the structure that's behind me, it's tall, which makes it very, very difficult to climb, almost impossible. It also goes deep into the ground, which would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to dig under. And today, we are also going to be painting it black. That is specifically at the request of the president, who understands that in the hot temperatures down here, when something is painted black, it gets even warmer, and it will make it even harder for people to climb."
Democrats and other liberals were losing their cool over the plan:
Other critics warned it would not be as hot at night, when the sun isn't shining. And they also asked if there are no gloves in Mexico. And at the other end of the spectrum was the suggestion from many commenters simply to electrify the wall. Or install razor wire.
Actually, the flood of millions of illegal aliens drawn to the United States under Joe Biden's open borders policies has been cut to only a trickle under Trump's combined efforts to secure the border in recent months.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Judges on an appeals court bench in New York, a judicial system already contaminated by a series of lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, have become "lost in navel-gazing," instead of delivering justice, according to new charges from constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.
The fight is over a case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who now is under investigation herself on various criminal counts, alleging fraud in Trump's business operations. At trial, it was documented no one lost money, the lenders involved were happy with their deals with Trump and wanted to do business with him again.
Yet a sole partisan judge, Art Engoron, decided to punish Trump by ordering him to pay about half a billion dollars.
Legal commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano at the time called Engoron's agenda no more or less than "government theft."
He said the case involved no crime or harm.
Engoron openly was antagonistic to Trump during the trial, and he claimed that Trump committed fraud in the way he valued his billions of dollars in property.
Further, he claimed to know more about property values than anyone, insisting that Trump's Mar-a-Lago home was worth not even $20 million. Actual real estate experts said it would be worth 25 times that, or more.
Napolitano said Engoron's decisions violated all the ordinary rules of American jurisprudence.
He found, "The government created a phantom harm by arguing to the court that Mr. Trump's corporation was not fully accurate in its loan applications and thus was charged a lower interest rate on the loans than it should have been charged had it been accurate, and thus, it earned more income on its use of the money it borrowed than would have been the case had it scrupulously reported the value of its pledged assets. And thus — somehow — the government ought to be able to confiscate the excess income plus interest. This, of course, defies the principles of no damages without breach of a duty and no damages without caused harm, which have been the bedrock of American tort law. It also redefines fraud."
Curiously, James now is under investigation herself on federal allegations she lied to government authorities about her own properties, and the relationship with her father – she apparently described him as her "spouse" on one application – all in order to obtain more favorable mortgage interest rates.
Engoron's rulings essentially ignored what should have been a deciding factor in the case, that the banks involved "did their own due diligence on the value of the assets.'
"The government won't say how it was harmed by Mr. Trump's commercial loans because it wasn't harmed by them. The government lawyers made a fanciful argument to the effect that if Mr. Trump had borrowed less because the buildings pledged as security were worth less than he claimed, the banks would have had more reserves available to lend to others. That is nonsense," Napolitano said.
Now Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and popular commentator for multiple forums, cited a report from the Wall Street Journal that the appellate judges hearing the case have let it drop into "some judicial black hole."
"This should not be a close case and certainly should not take this long. The case against Trump was raw lawfare, and the entire trial by Justice Arthur Engoron made a mockery of the court system, particularly his ridiculous half-a-billion-dollar judgment," he explained.
"Yet, weeks turned into months and then into years as the appellate court seemed lost in navel-gazing. There was also a concern over passive-aggressive delays; the long appeal is not only preventing Trump from moving this case toward the Supreme Court but keeps him trapped in an appellate amber."
The Journal report claimed, "A five-justice panel has yet to render a decision nearly a year after taking up the case, leaving him and his business in limbo. Behind the scenes, members of the panel have been divided, and three of them have been writing opinions, according to people familiar with the matter. It couldn't be determined how they are split. Justices do occasionally shift their positions, and the number of opinions could change, the people said."
Turley continued, "It is distressing to hear that some of these judges may be striving to preserve this nonsensical opinion where Trump was hit with half a billion dollars in a case where no one lost money and the banks wanted renewed business with his company. Affirming the decision would be the final nail in the coffin for the New York legal system, which was turned into a farce by New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Engoron."
The judges, if they are fractured, he said, "could do us all a favor and allow the case to proceed toward more competent jurists and final resolution."
He warned, "There is certainly no rush by these appellate judges to right any wrong done to Trump, who appears, again, to fall into a special category of persona non grata in the New York legal system. This appellate panel appears content to leave Trump twisting in the wind as it contemplates what to do with a defendant who garners little sympathy from its members.
"Most appeals are measured in months; this seems measured in millennia. Even with the notoriously slow New York legal system, the pendency of this appeal is becoming itself a controversy. It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied. However, delayed and denied justice for Trump appears to be a bedrock principle of the New York justice system."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
DEI practices at U.S. schools and universities, while "diversity, equity and inclusion" may sound altruistic, almost invariably include indoctrinating students with racist and sexist ideologies, for example, blaming all whites for slavery that ended in America centuries ago.
That particular concept has resulted in the extraordinary demands by some DEI activists that whites today, who never were slave owners, pay billions of dollars in "reparations" to blacks today, who never were slaves.
That ideology also has advocated for what essentially are quotas, meaning hiring has been based on race, or sex, or orientation, rather than qualifications or abilities.
But now a federal judge says President Donald Trump's plan to eliminate those racist and sexist lessons from classrooms can't go forward.
The recent ruling from Stephanie Gallagher, a federal judge hearing a case by the activists at National Endowment for Democracy, likely will be appealed, as judges in the entry level courts to the federal judiciary often have ruled against Trump's plans to Make America Great Again, and have ended up being reversed.
Gallagher wrote, about two Department of Education memos telling schools to rid themselves of the discriminatory lessons, "It initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished."
Trump's promises to make the nation better have included removing those how-to teachings in discrimination. His plan for schools was to tell them to clean up their act, or lose federal funding.
Gallagher's claim is that the Department of Education acted unlawfully when it threatened to withhold federal funding from institutions that continued DEI schemes.
Gallagher, curiously, also is a defendant in a separate lawsuit brought by the Trump administration against all federal judges in Maryland over an order automatically blocking the immediate deportation of migrants who are challenging their removals.
Despite her clear conflict of interest, in being sued by one of the parties in a case before her, she didn't recuse herself.
It was the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association who sued over the crackdown on biased DEI teachings.
The focal point in the fight are two department memos telling schools to end all "race-based decision-making" or risk losing federal funding.
The AP said the Trump measures "had been on hold since April" because of various court rulings.
Gallagher's ruling also noted she was making no finding on the policies themselves, whether they are "good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair," but that they ran into trouble because of procedural requirements.
The Department of Education said, "judicial action enjoining or setting aside this guidance has not stopped our ability to enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level."
The guidance had been based on the 2023 Supreme Court decision barring colleges from considering race in admissions decisions.
"Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon 'systemic and structural racism' and advanced discriminatory policies and practices," explained Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of the department's Office for Civil Rights.
The goal of the guidance had been for schools to dismantle DEI offices and programming, end race-based hiring and admissions, halt racially segregated graduation and scholarships and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Law-enforcement officials in the state of Florida have announced the arrests of 48 suspected child predators, who now have been charged with a laundry list of 153 counts.
"As a father, I am outraged by the heinous crimes we spoke about today. As Attorney General, I'm proud of the brave officers behind this record-breaking operation," explained Attorney General James Uthmeier in his announcement of the arrests.
"They came after children, but Florida and federal law enforcement were waiting for them. Thanks to the Marion County Sheriff's Office for putting this operation together so these men were stopped before they could harm a single child."
Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods was part of the operation, and added, "My office routinely conducts these types of operations. With each operation, we catch more and more. The number of offenders only goes up.
"Parents, we will never arrest every single one of them. You have to know what your child is doing online, and children have to know what dangers are lurking online. As a sheriff and as a father, I understand the anger and disgust a parent has towards these types of individuals. I assure you that we will continue to attack this plague head on."
Among the suspects are six foreign nationals who were flagged with ICE detainers.
The six-day operation targeted online child predators and was coordinated by Woods' office.
"Sheriff Woods and his deputies did an outstanding job catching and removing 40 predators from the Central Florida community," said Bill Gladson, state attorney for the 5th Judicial Circuit.
Uthmeier's office worked with nine law enforcement agencies across the region.
The operation, targeting those who used social media or other communications, apparently to target the children for sex, exposed the use of Snapchat as a platform to target children, the report said.
"Predators used various online chat and gaming platforms, including Snapchat, in an attempt to message and meet with minors, who were actually undercover officers," the AG reported.
His office is suing Snapchat for "knowingly and willingly violating Florida law, including the protections enshrined in last year's HB3 and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act."
It charges that the company is actively deceiving parents about the risks associated with using the platform.
Among the charges: 34 counts of traveling to meet a minor for illegal sexual contact, 48 counts of using a computer to solicit a child for sexual conduct, 40 counts of unlawful use of a two-way communications device to facilitate a felony, and many more.
The Washington Stand called the operation a "powerful blow" against child predators.
Uthmeier said, "To go after young kids, there is no defense, there is no justification, there is no excuse."
The suspected offenders were trying to meet up with children, who were actually law enforcement officers playing an online role.
The report noted Joseph Backholm, Family Research Council's senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement, told the Stand, "It's wonderful that Florida and other law enforcement agencies around the country are dealing with this seriously."
But he said the source still needs to be attacked.
"The problem of human trafficking begins where all sin begins, with pride. Once you decide you are more important than others, it's not hard to decide that other people should serve your needs. Human trafficking and sexual exploitation are the worst examples of this, but far from the only examples."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump is praising an appeals court ruling that now has confirmed that Texas is allowed to enforce a law requiring voter ID.
"THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! Should be Nationwide!!!," he said.
The decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a report at the Gateway Pundit, overturns a lower court's block on the application of the law intended to recognize and address possible security failures in mail-in ballots.
The ruling said, "We have no difficulty concluding that this ID number requirement fully complies with a provision of federal law known by the parties as the materiality provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"The ID number requirement is obviously designed to confirm that each mail-in ballot voter is precisely who he claims he is. And that is plainly 'material' to 'determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote.' The district court reached the opposite conclusion. So we reverse and render judgment for Defendants."
The judges on the panel were James Ho, Don Willett and Patrick Higginbotham.
The state law invalidates mail-in ballots submitted without a voter's state identification number or partial Social Security number.
According to Fox News, the court's "blunt" assessment that, "Mail-in ballots are not secure."
"We have made clear that states have a legitimate interest in combating voter fraud, and thus enjoy 'considerable discretion in deciding what is an adequate level of effectiveness to serve [their] important interests in voter integrity,'" Ho wrote in the opinion.
Recent rulings also have confirmed that ballots must arrive by Election Day to be counted, which can pose a problem for leftist states that have declared Election Weeks or even Election Months, claiming the right to count ballots arriving long after the deadline, despite the Constitution's reference to Election Day.