The U.S. military destroys a drug boat from Venezuela as a federal judge tries to block President Trump from using the National Guard for law enforcement in Los Angeles. A massive populist backlash against mass migration is fueling a historic political shift to the Right across Europe. The FDA restricts access to COVID vaccines for healthy Americans as President Trump demands Big Pharma release its data and questions his own Operation Warp Speed. It’s Wednesday, September 3, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here: If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below: U.S. Military Sinks Drug Boat, Judge Blocks Trump in L.A. Topline: The U.S. military destroyed a boat allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela on Tuesday, the most dramatic move yet in the Trump administration’s war on cartels, as a federal judge in California ruled against the president’s use of the National Guard for domestic law enforcement. As part of an “enhanced counter narcotics operation,” the U.S. military has deployed at least eight warships to the Caribbean. “We just, over the last few minutes, shot out a drug-carrying boat,” President Trump announced Tuesday. “These came out of Venezuela.” The action follows the president’s designation of several large drug cartels as terror organizations, allowing for a more aggressive military approach. Meanwhile, a district judge in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles to protect federal property and aid immigration enforcement was illegal. The judge, Charles Breyer, barred guardsmen from engaging in law enforcement activities. The Trump administration will appeal the ruling, which has been put on hold for ten days. A federal appeals court previously reversed a similar ruling from Breyer in June. In other administration news, the Pentagon will send up to 600 of its lawyers to the Justice Department to serve as temporary immigration judges, a move intended to clear a 3-million-person backlog and speed up deportations. President Trump also announced that the U.S. Space Command Headquarters will be relocated to Huntsville, Alabama, a move the White House says will save nearly half a billion dollars.   Europe Sees Historic Shift to the Right Amid Migrant Backlash Topline: For the first time in modern history, right-wing populist parties are leading the polls in Europe’s three largest economies — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — driven by a massive public backlash against mass migration. “Immigration is the number one factor driving all of these movements,” Alvino-Mario Fantini, editor-in-chief of the European Conservative, told Morning Wire. Since 2015, an estimated 25 to 30 million immigrants, primarily from Muslim countries, have entered Europe, leading to a culture clash and widespread anger over the high costs of housing and welfare for migrants. As a result, nationalist parties like Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, France’s National Rally, and Germany’s Alternative for Germany are now topping the polls in their respective countries. The establishment parties have responded with what many conservative analysts call “lawfare,” similar to tactics used against the MAGA movement in the U.S. In France, National Rally leader Marine Le Pen was convicted of misusing E.U. funds and banned from running for office for five years. In Germany, the country’s intelligence agency has classified the Alternative for Germany party as an “extremist” group, which could be used to ban its members from public office.   FDA Restricts COVID Vax as Trump Questions Warp Speed Topline: The FDA has removed the emergency use authorization for COVID vaccines, restricting their availability for healthy Americans, as President Trump is now publicly questioning his own Operation Warp Speed and demanding that pharmaceutical companies release their data on the shots. The FDA has removed the “emergency use authorization” that allowed widespread access to COVID vaccines during the pandemic. While high-risk individuals can still get the vaccine, healthy people will now need a recommendation from a physician. FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said the agency doesn’t “have data [on] healthy Americans, so we’re not recommending it for healthy Americans,” adding that the change makes future vaccine mandates “legally impossible.” The move comes as President Trump has taken a more critical tone on the vaccines. In a post on Truth Social, he demanded that companies like Pfizer “justify” the success of the drugs and release their data to the public. In a notable shift, he also questioned his own signature program, writing, “I hope OPERATION WARP SPEED was as ‘BRILLIANT’ as many say it was. If not, we all want to know about it, and why???” The policy changes follow a major shakeup at the CDC, where HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently fired the director, prompting several other top officials to resign and nine former directors to write an op-ed condemning Kennedy. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya responded by noting that the former directors criticizing Kennedy were the same ones who “embraced politicized school closures and covid vaccine mandates.”

Everyone knows that dogs do not live nearly long enough. On average, the lifespan of a dog can be anywhere between eight and 15 years. That is exactly why Annalisa Wallace and her significant other are determined to give their sweet pup the very best life possible. There are lots of ways they do this, but there’s one piece of advice they have that has caused these dog owners to go viral! You see, this adventurous couple loves to live life to the fullest. So, while it would be easier to go on their adventures alone, they try and bring their dog along as often as they can. The reason why is simple. One day, they’ll be on these adventures alone, wishing their dog could be there with them. See what they mean in the sweet video below. @annalisagorringe they only see as much of the world as you show them ♬ Late July – Zach Bryan “A lifetime of ‘I’m so glad we brought him’ and not, ‘He would’ve loved this,'” Annalisa shares in the video. In the caption of the post she adds, “They only see as much of the world as you show them.” Thoughtful Dog Owners Inspire Others to Make the Most Out of the Time They Have with Their Own Pets @annalisagorringe every! single! time! ♬ Sweet Love – Myles Smith In our day to day lives, it’s easy to forget how little time we have with out pets. Heck, it’s something we want to forget! But this thoughtful couple is on to something. Because, in the end, we most often regret the things we didn’t do rather than the ones we did. “It’s their first time living too! Bring them everywhere and show them everything!!!” someone points out in reply to Annalisa’s video. Another commentor adds, “We drove 29 hours back to our hometowns last Christmas instead of flying solely because we wanted to bring our dogs.” You can find the source of this story’s featured image here! The post Dog Owner’s Philosophy: “I’m So Glad We Brought Him” Not “He Would Have Loved This” appeared first on InspireMore.

The Denver Botanic Gardens recently hosted a worldwide competition to see who could stack the most weight on a water lily pad before it sank, and the results were simply extraordinary. Known as the Water Lily Weigh Off, more than 30 zoos and gardens in 9 countries around the world took part. The sight of […] The post Botanic Gardens Film Giant Lily Pads Holding Over 180 lbs. in Annual ‘Water Lily Weigh Off’ appeared first on Good News Network.

Before Robin Westman murdered two children and wounded many more at Minneapolis’ Annunciation Catholic School, Robin was Robert, a troubled teenager whose mother worked for the parish. Robert’s mother approved the name change, but after Robert became Robin in 2020, the teen’s psychological problems obviously didn’t go away—they led, five years later, to carnage. A serious discussion of transgenderism, mental illness, and violence is long overdue. Earlier this year, the “Zizians,” a cult notable for the transgenderism of its leader and many members, made headlines for their alleged involvement in a series of homicides, including the January slaying of U.S. Border Patrol agent David Christopher Maland. Violent symbolism has lately claimed a prominent place in “transgender” political discourse: The June 19 issue of Oregon’s Eugene Weekly featured a transgender cover star cradling an AR-15-style rifle, with blurbs proclaiming, “Some queer folks are armed and ready to bash back,” and asking, “Are you triggered?” In the state where Westman would later open fire on schoolchildren, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, a Democrat, two years ago made a public appearance in a shirt emblazoned with a knife and the legend “Protect trans children.” No one can say Westman didn’t receive enough protection—the trans killer’s victims are another matter. One thing even liberals who broadly support transgender protections should consider is that blatant warning signs might get downplayed or ignored in cases like Westman’s for fear that noticing them would be politically incorrect. The liberal urge to defend anyone who claims to be transgender can turn into making excuses for disturbing behavior of all kinds that may or may not have anything to do with gender dysphoria. All children are deserving of protection—which includes protecting them from adults who have a reckless drive to affirm any doubts a minor has about his or her identity. The dangerous situation children face today has come about because too much abnormality and political radicalism has been accepted for the sake of being polite. Shortly before Westman’s rampage, I encountered an illustration of this. A libertarian scholar at a college in a red state griped on Facebook about a Florida school district that terminated the contract of a teacher who used a student’s “preferred” name—that is, a name signaling a change in sex. This was a scholar I thought of as middle-of-the-road or slightly conservative, so I was shocked by the argument, which came down to the contention that calling a child by any name he or she wanted to be known by should never be controversial—that it’s just like using a nickname. As if calling William “Billy” is the same as calling him “Barbara.” Florida’s law is actually quite liberal—it allows “transgender-affirming” names as long as parents provide explicit permission for the change. The Brevard County teacher in question flouted the law and seized a role only parents are supposed to have. Minors are minors precisely because they cannot make the most important decisions for themselves: They have to be under an adult’s tutelage, mainly their parents’. Yet even a red-state libertarian scholar, who should have been against a public school teacher’s usurping of parental rights under any scenario, believed this class of government employee should have more power over a child’s identity than parents—and need not be accountable to the law. This is wrong on every level. For a teacher to encourage a child in adopting a new sex is at least as heavy an intrusion into that child’s development as a teacher urging him or her to change religion. If liberals and libertarians want to keep the state out of a child’s religious formation, how can they say it’s OK for state employees to get involved in deciding a child’s sex? And it’s an invitation to grooming if a teacher can lead a minor down this path just by claiming the minor took the step. The radicalism of the idea didn’t surprise me: I expect the far Left to advocate such things. But this Facebook thread taught me I had seriously underestimated the extent to which far-left ideas had seeped into everyday liberal assumptions. What was even more striking was the way this scholar tried to smuggle through the acceptance of an extreme idea—letting teachers “regender” minors on their own authority—under the cover of something as banal as calling anyone by the name they prefer. Every state in the union should have laws like Florida’s. Parents can certainly be too liberal, but safeguarding their rights is the first step to safeguarding children. And parents themselves should be watchful—not only for signs a teenager’s troubles run deeper than pronouns—but for signs adults are contributing to a psychological crisis. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Keep Children Safe From Transgender Politics appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A black-coated female and a spotted male were filmed getting it on in the Brazilian Amazon.

Although many researchers are skeptical that so-called "Blue Zones" even exist.

A curious feature of American life is the belief that putting a man on the moon in 1969 was not merely a thing we did, but a thing that defined who we are. The moon landing became the fixed point in a national narrative of progress, the ultimate rebuttal to any subsequent doubt. If we can put a man on the moon, the refrain went, we can do any lesser thing. It was a statement of faith in a particular kind of American power, the fusion of technological genius and free-enterprise grit that could, it seemed, bend the arc of history. The phrase has since acquired a certain nostalgic patina, a relic from an era when the country could still muster that kind of singular, massive effort. Now, the proposition is being tested.The question of whether China will beat the United States back to the lunar surface is, on one level, a technical one, a ledger of rocket tests and budget allocations. Yet to frame it this way is to miss the point. The competition is not about launch windows or payload capacities but about the story America tells itself. A Chinese flag planted in the regolith of the lunar south pole before an American one would do more than mark a geopolitical achievement; it would be a blow to perceptions of American exceptionalism. The old refrain would hang in the air, suddenly hollow. We are witnessing the formation of two distinct camps, exporting earthly rivalries to space.The American effort, named Artemis after Apollo’s twin sister, is a program freighted with legacy and ambition. It relies on the Space Launch System, a behemoth of a rocket that flew a successful uncrewed test in 2022, but also shed foam insulation on its way up, a disquieting echo of the Columbia disaster. For the actual landing, NASA has outsourced the task to SpaceX, whose Starship is a fully reusable silver ship promising fantastically to deliver, not just astronauts, but the entire infrastructure of a settlement. It is a characteristically American bet on the power of the private sector, a leap of faith that has yet to achieve, as of mid-2025, a successful orbital flight. The official timeline for an American return has slipped from 2024 to 2026, and now, in the quiet admissions of internal reviews, to 2027, at the earliest. China, meanwhile, proceeds with the calm of a nation that confidently measures progress in five-year plans. Its program lacks a poetic name but possesses an observable momentum. The hardware has a familiar, almost classical design: a Long March 10 rocket, a crew capsule named Mengzhou (“Dream Vessel”), and a lander called Lanyue (“Embracing the Moon”). The architecture is a direct echo of Apollo: a two-part lander with a command module in orbit. It is a repetition of a proven method, not a reinvention of it. While NASA contends with the uncertainties of Starship, China has been methodically hitting its marks. In August 2025, engineers successfully test-fired the first stage of its new rocket and simulated a lunar landing by hanging a 26-ton prototype from a crane. Its stated goal is to land taikonauts on the moon before 2030. At the current pace, they are likely to succeed. This divergence in approach is telling. The United States is trying to innovate its way back to the moon, to do something bigger and more sustainable than before. China is simply trying to get there. One could argue this reflects a difference in governance models: the chaotic, brilliant, and often inconsistent engine of America versus the focused, centralized will of the Chinese state. While NASA’s budget is subject to the whims of Congress and shifting presidential priorities, a cycle of grand announcements and quiet cancellations that has plagued the agency for decades, China’s space program is integrated with its national and military ambitions, backed by pockets of undisclosed depth. RELATED: China built a solar-powered back door into millions of American homes Photo by Buddhika Weerasinghe / Contributor via Getty ImagesThe geopolitical stakes extend beyond mere prestige. Both nations are aiming for the lunar south pole, where permanently shadowed craters are believed to hold vast quantities of water ice, the key resource for any sustained presence on the moon. The United States has attempted to shape the norms of this new frontier through the Artemis Accords, a set of principles for peaceful lunar exploration signed by over 35 nations. China and Russia are conspicuously absent, instead promoting their own coalition around an International Lunar Research Station. We are witnessing the formation of two distinct camps, exporting earthly rivalries to space. The nation that arrives first will not own the territory (the 1967 Outer Space Treaty forbids it), but it will enjoy the advantage of being there, setting precedents and controlling the most valuable real estate. There are those who see a silver lining in this scenario. A Chinese landing could serve as a “Sputnik moment,” shocking the United States out of its complacency and galvanizing a new era of investment and innovation. It’s also possible that being second, but arriving with the revolutionary capability of Starship, could prove to be the more significant achievement in the long run. History may judge the establishment of a true lunar outpost as more important than the planting of the next flag. Yet, the symbolism of that first footprint remains potent. For over half a century, the moon has belonged, in the popular imagination, to America. It was our “can-do” spirit made manifest. To see another nation achieve what we have struggled to repeat would be to confront a fundamental shift in the global order. It would suggest that the future is no longer a chiefly American enterprise. The race to the moon was never just about the moon. It was, and is, about the terrestrial anxieties and ambitions of the nations doing the racing. As we watch the trajectories of these two great powers, it is difficult to avoid the sense that we are witnessing not just the dawn of a new space age, but the twilight of an old one.