The imminent early retirement of Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allen will leave one more Biden-era leftover military chief to be purged. That is General Eric Smith, the commandant of the Marine Corps. Actually, it is the opinion of many current and former Marines that Smith should have been the first to go. If forcibly retired, Smith would join Allen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti, and the ex-Commandant of the Coast Guard Linda Fagan as casualties of the rot that permeated the defense establishment during the Biden era. This list does not include the Chief of Staff of the Army, who has so far flown beneath Hegseth’s radar as the Army has made significant innovative inroads on the China front. (RELATED: The Feather Merchants: Senior Leaders Subverted the Marine Corps) Brown was too woke, and Allen was accused of not doing enough to counter China in the aerospace area. Franchetti and Fagan were seen as DEI hires not qualified for the job. The indictment against Smith has several counts; all more serious than the other four. (RELATED: Some Generals Should Be Fired. Start With Eric Smith.) First, he has stubbornly persisted in implementing his predecessor’s poorly conceived and badly executed Force Design strategy which abandoned the Marine Corps’ traditional focus on amphibious warfare and its role as the nation’s world-wide general purpose force in readiness in favor of a China-oriented missile heavy force that duplicates capabilities already exercised by the other services with missiles more capable of accomplishing the mission than what the Corps is buying. (RELATED: Getting the Marine Corps Out of the Chinese Finger Cuffs Despite mounting evidence that Force Design is logistically unsustainable, is ignored by the Chinese, and is not wanted or needed by the theater commander or by the regional allies, Smith has stubbornly doubled down on it. General David Berger obviously chose Smith over several more competent and qualified general officers because he was a loyal acolyte who had helped Berger circumvent the Marine Corps’ time-tested Combat Development Process (CDP) to implement Berger’s “genius breakthrough.” The CDP was not perfect, but it was designed to prevent really bad ideas, such as Force Design, from becoming reality. (RELATED: The Marine Corps Has Gone Off the Rails) A second charge is perhaps more serious than the first. In January of this year, General Smith made a false official statement to a group of reporters when he told them that the Marine Corps had never embraced DEI as official policy. (RELATED: Marine Corps Commandant Tells a Whopper) He did this while his staff was desperately trying to purge its websites of all evidence to the contrary. This either showed poor judgment or abysmal ignorance of the fact that anything that goes out on the Internet stays there forever. Either of which should disqualify him from the office of commandant. Any public statement by a Marine Corps commandant to the press is, by nature, an official statement. A false official statement is an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If I had been caught making a false official statement while a serving Marine Corps officer, I would have been relieved of my position and subject to an Article 32 hearing (the equivalent of a civilian Grand Jury) and likely hauled before a general court-martial. Smith still sits in the commandant’s chair. Some pigs are more equal than others in Smith’s Marine Corps. Third, Smith has contributed to the suppression of professional military expression and discussion in the Marine Corps, begun by General Berger, who made it plain that Force Design was a done deal and that honest discussion and criticism were neither wanted nor would be tolerated. On numerous occasions, members of the faculty at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College invited retired senior Marine Corps officers to debate the merits of Force Design. In each case, the sitting president of the Marine Corps University (MCU) cancelled the invitation. In one instance, a former MCU president was told that he lacked the expertise to discuss the topic. As noted military theorist William Lind has pointed out, a particularly egregious example of the anti-intellectual bent of the Berger/Smith era: Not long ago, a German naval aviator spent some time at the Basic School, the school for all Marine lieutenants.  Because the German officer had a rank above lieutenant, TBS put some lieutenants under him.  He ran his small units German style, according to what maneuver warfare recommends.  The Marine lieutenants loved it.  The German officer was called in by other faculty who said to him, “You are teaching Marines to think.  We don’t want them to think.  We want them just to follow orders.” Prior to Berger/Smith, the old trope about Marines being dumb was an urban legend. The senior Marine Corps leadership actively encouraged informed professional debate among Marines at all levels. No more. The current president of MCU actively encourages spying on officers to uncover thinking that he deems inappropriate. @MarineCorpsU President BGen Matthew Tracy @NavalWarCollege’s Women, Peace & Security conference: “Allyship: 1) recognize the patriarchy, recognize there’s a system of divergence… who’s the [male] jerk at the?party? 2) NEVER check anyone out” This is ??’s war college system pic.twitter.com/Y4THwVtga9 — NOVA Campaigns (@NoVA_Campaigns) January 4, 2025 The fact that this uniformed clown has retained his job says volumes about the current state of what passes for senior Marine Corps leadership. He is so woke that he makes Tim Walz look like Sylvester Stallone. Finally, Smith is not a well man. After a massive heart attack several years ago, he was allowed to remain on active duty while colonels far more qualified to be general officers have been medically retired. Again, some pigs are more equal than others. President Trump deserves a defense team that he can trust. Smith is the last of the woke Biden holdovers. Retiring Smith would clear the decks. Unfortunately, the question of a successor is a problem. The active duty three stars are Berger/Smith acolytes and are hopelessly compromised. Bringing a suitable candidate in from the retired list has precedent in General Dan Caine, the current Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman. There are several superb, currently retired candidates. Until Smith is replaced, the stanza of the Marine Corps Hymn about “keeping our honor clean” remains a hollow slogan. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: It Is Time to Give Putin a ‘B-2 Moment’ Competing With China in the Gray Zone Leadership Is the Key to Fixing Our Air Traffic Control Crisis Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps colonel. He was a special advisor to the deputy secretary of defense.

While the Hyde Amendment restricts federal funding for abortion, 16 states, including Illinois, use their own state taxpayer funds to pay for abortion services for Medicaid recipients or those with financial need. Last week, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker greatly expanded state taxpayer complicity in abortion by signing into law a mandate that requires public colleges and universities to provide medication abortions on campus to any student who requests them. Illinois House Bill 3709, which passed with a House vote of 7 to 4 on March 19, 2025, and was signed into law on August 22, 2025, by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, mandates that if a public college or university’s student health services include a pharmacy, the school must make medication abortion available at a physical location on campus. Not surprisingly, the mandate was promoted and marketed by the campus chapter of Planned Parenthood. Campus abortion activist, Emma Darbro, a University of Illinois recent grad and formerly the president of Planned Parenthood’s Chapter at the University, teamed up with Sydney Turner, the health policy director of the U of I student Planned Parenthood group at the time, to write, market, and administer the student abortion referendum for U of I undergraduates. The survey asked students whether they wanted on-campus access to abortion pills, and through an elaborate marketing campaign, managed to convince a majority of the 6,354 student voters to support the idea. (RELATED: Taking Down Planned Parenthood) Yet, despite Planned Parenthood’s best efforts in the early days of 2024, the on-campus abortion access idea faced strong opposition from the University of Illinois Health Center itself. In April 2024, Awais Vaid, executive health director of the McKinley Student Health Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told a reporter that the campus was not planning to provide on-campus access to abortion medications because “unfortunately, currently, McKinley does not have the expertise in-house to provide abortion services. On our website, we have provided all the resources that are available.” Vaid’s initial reluctance to provide on-campus access to abortion should not be surprising. Vaid, who has a medical degree from the University of Mumbai in India and worked as a resident physician in Mumbai’s Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, understands what happens when women do not receive proper medical monitoring. Arriving in the United States in 2001 to pursue a Master’s Degree in Public Health from Northern Illinois, Vaid has been the director of the U of I Health Center since 2022. Vaid, a physician, understands how dangerous medication abortion can be when the patient is not well-supervised and monitored. Vaid knows that medication abortion is only for those whose pregnancies have not progressed beyond the 10-11 week gestation, and he knows that his campus facilities were not equipped with the kind of safeguards that are needed for a safe administration of the drugs. (RELATED: Abortion Drug Black Market Is Booming. Will Pam Bondi Intervene?) A National Institutes of Health study revealed that “significant morbidity and mortality have occurred following the use of mifepristone as an abortifacient.” The regimen for medication abortion involves two medications, including mifepristone, which blocks the hormone progesterone, necessary to sustain an unborn child, and misoprostol, which causes uterine contractions to expel the unborn child. Although these drugs can be administered at home or in a clinical setting, the important point is that any patient taking these drugs must be monitored and clinically supported, as there have been many documented cases of death associated with medication abortion. (RELATED: Abortion Drug Black Market Is Booming. Will Pam Bondi Intervene?) The FDA, along with other health agencies, monitors adverse outcomes associated with mifepristone, the primary medication used for abortion procedures — including fatalities. Reported causes of death following medication abortion include undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy (which cannot be resolved by this medication and presents a significant risk), severe infections such as sepsis, excessive bleeding or hemorrhage, administration of the medication beyond recommended gestational limits, and other pre-existing medical conditions that may not be identified by campus health centers. (RELATED: Trump Administration Moves to Ban Abortions in VA Healthcare System) A National Institutes of Health study revealed that “significant morbidity and mortality have occurred following the use of mifepristone as an abortifacient.” The authors stated that “a pre-abortion ultrasound should be required to rule out ectopic pregnancy and confirm gestational age.” It was clear that U of I’s health director, Awais Vaid, wanted no part of dispensing medication abortion to students on his campus. But Illinois Governor Pritzker was determined to please his pro-abortion constituents — even though he must have known that he was putting his own state’s students’ lives at risk. But then again, Illinois is not the first state to provide campus-based abortion services. California was the first to provide medication abortion on its campuses. This occurred despite initial resistance by Dr. Guy Nicolette, assistant vice chancellor for University Health Services at the University of California, Berkley, who told a reporter for the New York  Times that “there are valid security concerns … Not every provider feels competent or comfortable doing this.” California campus abortion was followed by Massachusetts and New York. It is likely that other blue state governors will join since student abortion advocates have been well-funded to garner support on their campuses. Even private colleges are not immune from the abortion activism — and their demands — on their campuses. New York’s Barnard College announced in 2022 that “Barnard will expand student options by ensuring that our campus providers are prepared and trained in the provision of medication abortion by Fall 2023.” Barnard’s policy change was in response to the demands by students led by abortion activist, Niharika Rao, a senior at Barnard College who was described in press accounts as having been campaigning on campus for the law “through advocacy groups” including Advocates for Youth. These pro-abortion student advocates are well-funded and highly motivated. Despite their initial reluctance to provide such risky abortion services, college health directors and their presidents are likely to meet student-activist demands, even at the risk of their own students’ health. READ MORE from Anne Hendershott: AI Chatbots Are Not the Answer to Alleviating Loneliness for Young People ’90s Heroin Chic Is Back … For Boys

A few months before last year’s presidential election, I penned a piece inquiring whether Donald Trump was channeling Pat Buchanan. It appears that this same question is again warranted. When Buchanan campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in the 1990s, he made tariffs a central pillar of his platform. He warned that unchecked globalization would hollow out American industry, erode the middle class, and leave the nation vulnerable to economic dependence. His message resonated — he won the New Hampshire primary in 1996 and reshaped the conversation within the GOP. It won’t reverse globalization, but it can tilt the playing field back toward American producers. So, where would the U.S. be today, economically, if it had adopted Buchanan’s ideas sooner — before Trump’s return to the White House? New research dealing with that question gives us a clue. The United States, it concludes, would likely be economically richer, including a more productive manufacturing sector. Economists Hayato Kato, Kensuke Suzuki, and Motoaki Takahashi, in their paper, “Trade Policy and Structural Change,” analyze the effects of a major trade policy shift. What if the U.S. had raised tariffs on imported manufactured goods by 20 percent beginning in 2001 — the year George W. Bush began his presidency? (It is interesting that the authors chose that percentage rate; Bloomberg Economics estimates that if tariffs remain as they have been assessed by Trump, they will average 15.2 percent in 2025.) The model presented finds that such a policy would have boosted the national economy by 0.36 percent and raised the manufacturing share of the economy by about one percent. What does a 0.36 percent gain in the economy mean in real terms? It’s equivalent to a permanent increase in real consumption — enough that, over a lifetime, the average American household would have enjoyed the purchasing power of an extra $7,200. By contrast, economists’ estimates of the gains from the now-defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ranged from just 0.1 to 0.12 percent of GDP — making the modeled benefit from Buchanan and Trump-style tariffs roughly three times greater. The contrast between historical fact and what could have been fits remarkably well with both Buchanan’s and Trump’s advocacy: a return to national industry, bolstered by protective tariffs, to restore economic sovereignty. Tariffs and the Shape of the Economy The paper does more than reignite a policy debate. It questions how economists have modeled trade and growth for decades. Unlike standard trade models, which assume consumers always spend in fixed proportions regardless of income, the authors use a more realistic assumption — their premise is that as people get richer, they shift their spending toward services and away from goods. The model also includes the idea that manufacturing and services aren’t easy substitutes for each other, and are inextricably related to production and consumption. These dynamics help explain economic structural change — the long-term transition in advanced economies from goods production to the service sector. By raising the relative price of imported goods, tariffs partially slow this drift and redirect spending — and capital — back into domestic industry. That shift, in turn, raises income. The two effects pull in opposite directions: higher prices favor manufacturing while higher incomes orient spending toward services. In the researchers’ model, the price effect prevails, leading to more manufacturing and a lasting improvement in real income. What About Retaliation The authors also model what happens if other countries respond with identical tariffs of their own. This was a complaint of those skeptical of Trump’s tariff policy. In that scenario, U.S. GDP falls by 0.12 percent — a modest loss that wipes out the gain from unilateral action. Theory vs. Practice When President Trump imposed broad tariffs during his first term, many U.S. trading partners responded not with retaliation but with negotiation. Canada and Mexico agreed to rewrite NAFTA. Japan and South Korea entered new trade talks. China signed the Phase One agreement. More recently, as the Trump administration has introduced a new round of tariffs on everything from cars to computer chips to green technology, foreign governments have mostly refrained from counter-tariffs. Instead of matching duties, many countries have sought exemptions, adjusted their export strategies, or reduced their own barriers. As the authors suggest, the real-world response to U.S. tariffs has resembled strategic accommodation more than correlative escalation. A Modest Gain, but Real Nonetheless A 0.36 percent GDP gain is not transformational. But in economic policy, neither is it trivial. It’s larger than the projected gains from nearly every modern trade agreement, and of critical importance — it is permanent. The authors’ analysis implies a permanently higher level of real consumption, one that grows in value over time. And the shift in sectoral composition is not insignificant: a one-percentage-point increase in the manufacturing share of GDP is remarkable in the context of the U.S. economy, which saw that share fall from 16 percent in 1999 to just under 11 percent today. What gives credence to the authors’ work is that they are careful not to oversell their results. Their model assumes efficient recycling of tariff revenues, frictionless capital markets, and gradual adjustment. But they also show that older models — those assuming fixed preferences and easy substitution between manufacturing and service sectors — tend to overstate the costs of protection and understate its structural impact. A New Question The economic debate over tariffs today is no longer dichotomous. Policymakers no longer start from the assumption that any deviation from free trade must necessarily distort outcomes. Instead, the new question becomes: What is the purpose of one’s trade policy — what national objective does it serve, and what tools are available to shape long-run economic structure? The authors’ paper offers one answer: A well-designed tariff policy — targeted, sustained, and matched with domestic investment can raise real income and preserve manufacturing capacity. It won’t reverse globalization, but it can tilt the playing field back toward American producers. It also affirms something Buchanan understood early and that Trump (and now America) are implementing today: free trade is not neutral, but neither is tariff policy. The shape of an economy is a set of policy choices with serious implications for generations of Americans. Had the country chosen differently in 2001, the model suggests, Americans might be $7,200 richer today — and with more factories still operating. READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: Trump and the Fed: Fiscal Dominance or Just Politics? The Debanking of the American Conservative The Media Must Admit Their Complicity in Russiagate

President Trump’s announcement of 50 percent tariffs on Indian imports has exacerbated the friction between the two countries. This increase in tariffs is a continuation of the previous 25 percent tariffs on Indian products on account of India’s exorbitant tariffs, as well as the procurement of Russian oil and weapons. President Trump repeatedly alleged India’s procurement of Russian oil to be assisting the latter in its war against Ukraine — a conflict President Trump is diligently pushing towards conclusion. However, in response to these tariffs, India has not imposed retaliatory tariffs, revealing its economic vulnerabilities and lacking strategic leverage. The U.S., over the last few decades, has viewed India as a counter to China’s growing power in the region. India’s average import tariff on U.S. goods is around 7.7 percent. However, tariffs on agricultural products are significantly higher, with an average of 39 percent, and some products have an enormously high rate of 100 to 150 percent, such as alcohol. Additionally, last December, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar expressed his opinion on buying Russian oil, inferring that India buys Russian oil because that is the best deal on the table for the nation. This situation indicates a widening rift between the U.S. and India, as the Trump administration appears displeased by India’s high tariffs and its uneven inclination toward Russia. India’s economy greatly depends on foreign investment, and the enforcement of tariffs by the Trump administration is already hampering Indian economic growth. The U.S. is the largest trading partner of India, as Indian exports to the U.S. amount to a staggering $79.4 billion. However, in the face of Trump’s new 50 percent tariffs, India lacks the capacity for firm resistance because it does not possess the economic prowess of China, including an expanded export market, a dominant position in the global supply chain, and an unyielding monopoly over semiconductors and rare earth minerals. All of this helped China fight off the massive 145 percent U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. (RELATED: The US Rediscovers a Valuable Trading Partner — Indonesia) India’s heavy reliance on Western, specifically American, investment leaves little room for Indian policymakers to wiggle. With the recent directives of President Trump to the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, to halt production in India, the challenges for the Indian IT industry intensify, envisaging a diminution in India’s IT exports. Similarly, Trump further prompted tech giants, including the likes of Microsoft and Google, to stop hiring from India and instead incentivize American hires. In such a landscape where foreign investment is being tightened and multinational corporations are being deterred from pursuing Indian talent, India possesses a minuscule margin to challenge Trump’s tariffs with retaliatory tariffs. (RELATED: Trump on Tariffs, Trade, and Pragmatic Populism) The geopolitical limitation also constrains India’s policy choices. India’s border confrontations and strategic divergences with China restrict the prospects of amelioration of economic ties with China. India had previously imposed a ban on several Chinese software and mobile apps, citing security reasons. Meanwhile, China has also imposed restrictions on the export of rare earth minerals to India, further creating impediments for the Indian manufacturing sector. This mistrust had prevented India from pursuing Chinese investment and market as an alternative to the U.S. In the wake of U.S. tariffs, India has attempted to reconcile with China — hoping to regain Chinese goodwill. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited India on August 18, which Indian political commentators hailed as a revamping of relations between the two countries. The upcoming visit of Indian PM Narendra Modi is also being predicted to melt the ice between the two countries. Amid these visits, news regarding annulment of the ban on Chinese apps, including TikTok, is surfacing in the Indian media, which hints at the Indian desire to cozy up to China and seek an alternative to U.S. dependency. These attempts, however, cannot instantly mitigate decades of mistrust, strategic divergence, and border disputes. (RELATED: Trump’s Intel Holding: Will It Help US Defeat China, Inc.?) India cannot escape the geostrategic realities that placed it in the U.S. camp, especially after the end of the Cold War. India is part of the QUAD alliance, which was formed by the U.S. to contain China. However, India is also a founding member of the BRICS group, which apparently aims to supersede the hegemony of the American dollar with a common BRICS currency. President Trump has repeatedly expressed his resentment with these attempts and has warned India against being part of such actions. (RELATED: BRICS Summit: Underwhelming and Cautious) India’s recent attempts at rapprochement with China will raise eyebrows in Washington, D.C. The U.S., over the last few decades, has viewed India as a counter to China’s growing power in the region. Its hasty attempts at harmonizing relations with China are solely aggravating Trump’s indignation, as exhibited by the upsurge of tariffs from 25 percent to 50 percent. India, in an attempt to seek alternatives to the U.S., overlooked that it had an upturn in economic growth. Over the years, India relied heavily on U.S. support, instead of building regional strategic partnerships and strengthening its place at the podium. This diminishes India’s strategic leverage against the U.S., as it lacks regional trust and robust alliances. Additionally, India has invited the Trump administration’s displeasure over its policy of continuing the procurement of Russian oil. Analysts report that India saved over $17 billion through the procurement of Russian oil. However, the 50 percent tariff in effect has projected a cut of Indian exports to the U.S. by $37 billion, eroding the dividends of Russian oil procurement. India’s fixation with buying Russian oil is further exposing its minuscule strategic leverage, given its multifaceted integration with the Western economy and overt reliance on U.S. investment as well as the U.S. market. This inextricable interconnectedness with the U.S.-led neoliberal order cannot allow Prime Minister Modi and Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s policy to have strategic oars in two boats. India’s economic vulnerabilities and strategic weakness are exposed by Trump’s tariffs, and its status as the fourth-largest economy looms in uncertainty. The increased 50 percent tariffs will further add to India’s economic woes. The procurement of Russian oil and perceptible assistance to Russia in its offense against Ukraine goes directly against the interests of President Trump, who is bent upon ending the Russia–Ukraine war, possibly foreseeing a Nobel Prize. President Trump will capitalize on India’s economic and strategic limitations till his objectives are met. READ MORE: Don’t Let Tariffs Cancel Out Tax Cuts Trump on Tariffs, Trade, and Pragmatic Populism Hamza Zaman holds an M.Phil. degree in International Relations from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. He works as an assistant research associate at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Pakistan. Muhammad Salman Tariq is an alumnus of the National Defense University, Islamabad, where he received a bachelor’s in Peace and Conflict Studies. He is an assistant research associate at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Pakistan.

Ya can’t make it up. Check this headline over at Mediaite: “‘Act of Revenge’: Top Democrats Slam Trump for Yanking Harris Secret Service Protection.” The story reports: Democrats are blasting President Donald Trump’s decision to yank former Vice President Kamala Harris’s extended Secret Service protection as “vindictive” and an “act of revenge.” The former vice president lost her statutory six months of protection in July, but former President Joe Biden had quietly signed an order granting her another year of coverage, according to exclusive reporting from CNN. Cue the outrage. But hold on. The former VP, as noted in the news reporting, had only a “statutory six months of protection” coming her way after leaving office. That time period expired. So there was nothing unusual about her Secret Service protection ending. The real question is: Where is former Vice President Dan Quayle’s protection? I know, I know. Quayle has been out of the vice presidency since January 20, 1993, when the defeated President Bush and Vice President Quayle had to turn over their White House keys to incoming President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. But if the complaint here is that Harris should have her protection time extended, then why not for Quayle in the day? Or, for that matter, ex-VP Al Gore? Or ex-VP Mike Pence? Or ex-VP Dick Cheney? Or have all ex-VPs had their protection extended up until today? The hard fact here is that there appears to be a double standard on this issue with the left. If Harris’s protection time is up, there’s hell to pay. But if it’s Dan Quayle or Dick Cheney? Who cares. The fact of the matter is that often enough America has former vice presidents floating around the country. And they have managed to do so without their once-upon-a-time in-office Secret Service details. Former Vice President Richard Nixon spent eight years as a private citizen without Secret Service protection between losing the 1960 presidential election to John F. Kennedy and winning the presidency in 1968. So too did ex-VP Spiro Agnew, who resigned the vice presidency in October of 1973 after charges of income tax evasion, faced demands that he lose his Secret Service protection. The New York Times reported back in the day that incumbent President Nixon: “Rep. Moss Tells Treasury to End Agnew Guard (Published 1974)” “Asked that the detail be assigned to Mr. Agnew for ‘a reasonable period of time.’ Treasury officials have indicated that the detail may be withdrawn in April, six months after Mr. Agnew’s resignation.” Suffice to say, in the case of former Vice President Harris, it has been 8 full months — not 6 like that for Agnew — since departing the vice presidency. Much is being made of her current book tour. Surely the Harrises can afford their own security as they see fit when their security disappears. (RELATED: Time to Cut Off Security Clearances for Ex-Gov Officials) The hard fact and concerning problem for Americans is that when people of high rank, other than the president, leave office, there is always a move to let them keep everything from Secret Service protection to top secret clearance for security briefings. Surely there comes a time when this should stop. The phrase “Out of Office” means just that. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: No One Elected Trump-fired CDC, Federal Reserve Bureaucrats Three Cheers for US Ambassador Charles Kushner Kirk Cameron’s Story House Triumph

“MN School Shooter,” editorial cartoon by Tom Stiglich for The American Spectator on Sept. 1, 2025.

This has been a crazy year for earthquakes.  At one point this summer, we witnessed a total of 494 earthquakes of at least magnitude 5.0 within a 30 day period.  That was about four times as many magnitude 5.0 earthquakes as we normally see during a 30 day period.  Unfortunately, our planet continues to shake in wild and unpredictable ways.  In fact, Afghanistan was just hit by a magnitude 6.0 earthquake that killed scores of people… One of Afghanistan’s worst earthquakes killed more than 800 people and injured at least 2,800, authorities said on Sept. 1, as helicopters ferried the wounded to hospital after they were plucked from the rubble of homes being combed for survivors. The disaster is set to further stretch the resources of the war-torn nation’s Taliban administration, already grappling with humanitarian crises, from a sharp drop in aid to the pushback of hundreds of thousands of Afghans by neighboring countries. This was a relatively shallow earthquake, and it did a tremendous amount of damage. Countless buildings have been reduced to rubble, and rescuers are scrambling to save who they can… Photos from the aftermath showed rows of brick houses swept under muddy debris, as residents clambered over huge piles of fallen concrete. Relief teams struggled to access quake-stricken areas buried by landslides and destroyed roads, state news media reported. Eyewitness recalled fumbling for loved ones stuck under collapsed homes, as they waited hours for emergency workers to reach the worst-affected regions, according to the Associated Press. “I was half-buried and unable to get out,” Sadiqullah, a resident of Nurgal, in the Kunar province, told AP. His wife and two sons had been killed, he added. What we just witnessed in Afghanistan was a horrible tragedy. But it wasn’t even the most alarming seismic activity that we have seen in the past 24 hours. To me, the earthquake swarm that just occurred at the Campi Flegrei supervolcano was even more alarming… Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) reports an ongoing earthquake swarm in the Campi Flegrei caldera that started at 14:09 UTC on August 31. At the time of its latest communiqué, INGV preliminarily counted 94 earthquakes with magnitudes up to 4.0±0.3. The strongest event was an M4.0 earthquake at 02:55 UTC (04:55 LT local time) on September 1, at an estimated depth of 2 km (1.2 miles), with an epicenter near Pozzuoli. The sequence included two M3.3 earthquakes on August 31 at depths of 0.7 km (0.4 miles) and 1.8 km (1.1 miles), followed by several events of M2.0–M2.8 later that day. Among them were two M2.8 quakes at depths of 0.4 km (0.2 miles) and 0.8 km (0.5 miles) hours before the M4.0. A swarm of 94 earthquakes at one of the largest supervolcanoes on the entire planet is very important news. But the mainstream media here in the United States has almost completely ignored it. There have been frequent earthquake swarms at the Campi Flegrei supervolcano this year, and experts are concerned that all of this activity could be leading up to something really big. As I discussed in a previous article, a full-blown eruption could cause a worldwide volcanic winter. In such a scenario, crops would be unable to grow in many areas of the planet and we could be facing “mass extinctions’… If Campi Flegrei were to reenact its largest previous eruption, it would punch molten rock and volcanic gases high into the stratosphere, unleash 100-feet-high (33.5 meters) tsunamis and spread a plume of sulfur and toxic ash that could plunge Earth into global winter for years — killing crops and causing mass extinctions. Here in the United States, an alarming swarm of earthquakes continues to shake the state of Nevada… A swarm of earthquakes continued to rattle a remote area between Elko and Winnemucca into early Sunday morning. The United States Geological Survey reported over a dozen earthquakes since 10:54 p.m. MDT on Friday around Hot Lake and Willow Creek, approximately 38 miles north of Battle Mountain. The most significant earthquake, which occurred around 12:59 p.m. MDT on Saturday, measured a magnitude of 4.8 and a depth of 5 miles, according to the USGS. The earthquake registered as Level VI on the ShakeMap, which indicates strong shaking and light damage. We are being told that the ground “is at risk of splitting apart” in that particular area of the state. That doesn’t sound good at all. Overall, there have been 779 earthquakes in California and Nevada during the past 7 days. Sadly, I am convinced that what we are seeing in that area of the country right now is just the start of what is coming. There are two more things that I wanted to mention in this article. First of all, we just learned that a high school in Ohio was evacuated after dozens of students suddenly got very sick… First responders were called to Mapleton High School in Ashland County on Friday after dozens of students became ill, leading to the evacuation of two buildings. “Several Mapleton Middle School students experienced symptoms including headache, nausea, and dizziness. Out of an abundance of caution, both Mapleton Middle School and Mapleton High School were evacuated to ensure the safety of all students and staff,” Mapleton School Superintendent Scott Smith wrote in a letter to district families. Originally there was concern that it may have been a gas leak, but that has been ruled out… Columbia Gas of Ohio told 3News that crews responded to a report of a suspected gas leak. “Upon arrival, our crews performed a safety check and confirmed the situation was not natural gas related. Our thoughts are with the students and families impacted by this situation,” the company stated. Schneider told reporters in a press conference that investigators are “not ruling anything out.” Hopefully this will turn out to be nothing. But I am going to be extra sensitive to stories about strange illnesses during the months ahead. Lastly, I think that we should all be alarmed that the collapse of our honeybee colonies is getting even worse… Beekeepers in Texas and across the United States reported unprecedented losses of managed honeybee colonies during the 2024–2025 season, with more than 60% of colonies in Texas lost between April 2024 and April 2025, according to Texas A&M AgriLife and national survey data. Nationwide, the annual loss rate reached 55.6%, the highest recorded since formal tracking began in 2010. Preliminary data comes from a joint survey by the Apiary Inspectors of America, Auburn University, and other collaborators. Of course it isn’t just bees that are dying in staggering numbers. All sorts of other insects are steadily dying off as well. And if you can believe it, the bird population of North America has declined by nearly 3 billion since 1970. We are already living in a time of mass extinctions, and most people simply don’t care because it isn’t happening to humanity yet. But the truth is that the clock is ticking for humanity too. Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com. About the Author: Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com. He has also written nine other books that are available on Amazon.com including “Chaos”, “End Times”, “7 Year Apocalypse”, “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America”, “The Beginning Of The End”, and “Living A Life That Really Matters”.  When you purchase any of Michael’s books you help to support the work that he is doing.  You can also get his articles by email as soon as he publishes them by subscribing to his Substack newsletter.  Michael has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and he always freely and happily allows others to republish those articles on their own websites.  These are such troubled times, and people need hope.  John 3:16 tells us about the hope that God has given us through Jesus Christ: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  If you have not already done so, we strongly urge you to invite Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior today. The post Very Alarming Earthquakes Strike As We Enter The Month Of September appeared first on End Of The American Dream.

by Amy Furr, Breitbart: President Donald Trump said Saturday he will take decisive action when it comes to voter I.D. and elections across America. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, “Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. NO EXCEPTIONS! I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!! Also, No Mail-In Voting, […]

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan: India and Canada have both reported outbreaks of the bird flu in animals. India says that two storks died at a zoo after contracting the virus, while Canada approved a cull of 400 ostriches to prevent the spread of the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). India has also sent a […]

from DollarVigilante: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/