When looking over the newly released, 216-page independent British Gang Rape Inquiry Report, it is nearly impossible to determine which institutional failure or horrific detail scales to the top of the list.

Anyone reading this report will not only find it painful to consume but will walk away wondering how British jails are not full of rapists.

To understand the sheer scope of this national betrayal, one must sift through a series of deeply horrifying realities that would cause even fiction writers to hesitate.

· Nightmarish Scale: Estimates suggest over a quarter-of-a-million young girls have been targeted nationwide, with data indicating that between 87% and 95% of the perpetrators are Muslim men operating in organized networks.

· Extreme Torture: Victims detailed being subjected to ongoing violence, held at gunpoint, beaten, and in the most barbaric instances, physically branded with the letter “M” to signify property.

· Institutional Complicity: State-run care homes designed to protect vulnerable youth functioned instead as trafficking pipelines, while school administrators routinely looked the other way as perpetrators arrived at schoolyard gates to pick up underage targets.

· Islamic Submission: Young Christian girls were systematically targeted, repeatedly violated—sometimes hundreds of times—and forced into Islamic submission.

And this is only a fraction of the sobering web of atrocities, failings, and shortcomings found within the report.

Subscribe now

It reveals a multi-decade assault on young, white, predominantly Christian girls who were completely abandoned by the very institutions sworn to protect them.

It’s not an exaggeration to say these girls were treated as sacrificial pawns by authorities desperate to appease a demographic they both feared and courted for political survival.

Here’s how the authors of the inquiry stated this failure:

“Political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children.” (page 9)

What’s more, the Rape Gangs exercised a strategy for selecting, coercing, threatening, and manipulating vulnerable girls into a culture of submission and rape.

“Girls as young as 11 were initially befriended by a young Muslim man who then treated the young child like an adult and would then start providing them with alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes.

“After a few months the girls would then be collected from school gates, care homes, and streets in taxis.

“They were taken to houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels where they were raped repeatedly by groups of men, tortured, filmed for blackmail, and told they were ‘white trash’ or ‘kuffar’ who merited punishment.”

Muslim rape gangs are not a newly discovered phenomenon in England. It’s been a hotly debated topic in Great Britain for well over a decade. In fact, our 2014 film Europe’s Last Stand: America’s Final Warning devoted considerable attention to these organized rape cells.

But, as we reported then, government officials and law enforcement agencies routinely refuted the claims and actively threatened anyone who dared to expose them. The new inquiry confirms this exact betrayal:

“The authorities at every level, including the police, social services, health services, schools, licensing bodies, and politicians knew the patterns, possessed the intelligence, and still failed to protect the country’s children.”

In one harrowing interview, a young girl named Taylor told investigators she “witnessed shootings, had knives held to her throat, and a gun held to her head.” To prevent her from going to the police, the gangs used the murder of other girls as a deterrent, threatening that anyone who spoke out would be next.

Remarkably, she still managed to make a twenty-page statement to law enforcement—only for the police to completely bury the investigation.

Her claim was given massive weight by the inquiry investigators, who wrote:

“Whistleblowers who tried to expose the rape gangs were systematically silenced, discredited, and punished.”

In a process difficult to imagine occurring in a Western nation, these punishments included facing workplace suspensions, defamation proceedings, dawn raids, asset freezes, fabricated charges, gagging bail conditions, and career-ending isolation.

Ultimately, the report issued this damning claim against state authorities:

“The state did not merely ignore whistleblowers; it punished them to protect the gangs and its own reputation.”

It is dangerously easy for Americans to look across the Atlantic, shake their heads, and view this tragedy as a uniquely British failure. But the horrifying truth is that the machinery behind this cover-up does not require a British accent. It only requires a ruling elite that values political correctness over the lives of children.

The foundational lesson of this devastating 216-page report is that the vulnerability isn’t just logistical—it is ideological.

When we look at our own borders, our own major metropolitan areas, and our own cultural institutions, the exact same psychological pressures are already deeply embedded. We live in an environment where American law enforcement, school boards, and social workers are intensely hypersensitive to accusations of racism, Islamophobia, or bigotry.

If a system is conditioned to fear a media label more than it fears a criminal network, it will inevitably default to the same deliberate blindness that destroyed the lives of a quarter-of-a-million British schoolgirls.

We must understand that the threat is twofold: it is the criminals who target our daughters and granddaughters, and it is the paralyzing political correctness that protects them by silencing anyone who dares to speak out.

In America, we are already seeing the early stages of this institutional decay, where whistleblowers in education and healthcare are systematically canceled, sidelined, or fired for stepping outside ideologically approved boundaries.

The British Inquiry Report is a chilling transmission from a possible future. It proves that when a government prioritizes “community harmony” and voter demographics over blind justice, children become the ultimate collateral damage.

America cannot wait for twenty years of destruction before we demand accountability.

The lesson we must implement right now is one of absolute, uncompromising transparency.

Our federal, state, and local authorities must be explicitly mandated to investigate exploitation and grooming networks wherever the evidence leads, entirely insulated from the terror of political correctness.

Public officials who choose silence to protect their political careers must face immediate prosecution, not administrative cover.

We were warned over a decade ago when we produced Europe’s Last Stand: America’s Final Warning. Today, the official evidence has caught up to the warnings. If we do not have the courage to confront this specific, documented threat with colorblind, ruthless justice today, we aren’t just watching Britain’s nightmare—we are actively inviting it to our own shores.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

On Friday, June 12, 2026, during a Pride Night game at Oracle Park, three San Francisco Giants pitchers wore the team’s rainbow Pride Night caps but added a written reference to Scripture. Starting pitcher Landen Roupp and relievers JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker each inscribed “Gen 9:12-16” on their caps in white letters. A fourth Giants pitcher, Sam Hentges, declined to wear the Pride Night cap at all and instead wore the team’s standard black cap.

Subscribe now

The three pitchers referenced Genesis 9:12-16, which records the covenant God made with Noah after the flood. God establishes that the rainbow serves as His token of the covenant between Himself and every living creature upon the earth, that He will not flood the earth with water.

For Pride Night, the players could have chosen other verses. Leviticus 18:22 declares, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22, KJV). Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV).

On June 13, the San Francisco Giants issued a public apology to the LGBTQ+ community. The Giants’ communications department distributed a statement directly to reporters rather than posting it publicly.

The San Francisco Giants are proud to support Pride Night and the LGBTQ+ community. Baseball should be a place where everyone feels welcome, respected, and valued. We also respect that individuals may make personal choices about participating in team activations. We understand that the choices by individual players have caused pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community, and we are sorry for that. Those choices do not change our organization’s commitment to inclusion, belonging, and creating a welcoming environment for all. We remain grateful to our fans, partners, employees, players, and coaches who help make Pride Night a meaningful celebration.

The organization apologized for the presence of the rainbow covenant passage, even though the players had not inscribed the verses that directly prohibit homosexual conduct. When the San Francisco Giants maintain that they a “commitment to inclusion, belonging, and creating a welcoming environment for all” that should read for all but Christians and anyone who does not condone homosexuality.”

Major League Baseball issued verbal warnings to the three players. League officials stated that the writing violated uniform regulations that prohibit any writing, attachment, or display of messages on apparel or equipment. MLB emphasized that the warnings addressed the act of writing itself and bore no relation to the message's content. The Giants organization apologized to the LGBTQ+ community. No player received a fine or suspension.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division referred the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a letter to MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred and in a public statement, Dhillon observed that Major League Baseball had encouraged players to wear “Black Lives Matter” on their uniforms but reportedly threatened Christians who wrote Bible verses on their hats. She stated that the EEOC would investigate whether this amounted to religious discrimination.

This incident reflects a broader pattern. Organizations have required participation in ideological statements or rituals, whether support for Black Lives Matter messaging or Pride activations. Employees, teachers, and athletes who declined on religious grounds have frequently faced professional consequences. The Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Dhillon is examining such cases of compelled speech and anti-Christian bias.

In 2020, MLB itself authorized “Black Lives Matter” patches on jersey sleeves, “United for Change” messaging, and BLM stenciling on pitching mounds. The league relaxed its uniform rules to permit those displays during Opening Day games and related events.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. The statute requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for religious practices and observances unless such accommodations would impose an undue hardship. The EEOC enforces these protections. MLB teams employ players, and the league sets and enforces uniform policies that affect their working conditions.

The MLB applies its rules in a discriminatory manner. The league’s affirmative promotion of one set of messages in 2020 and its swift warning against Scripture references during a league-sponsored Pride Night event contradict the MLB policy of content neutrality.

The practical stakes extend beyond a single game or sport. Employees across many industries encounter institutional pressure to affirm prevailing cultural messages or to suppress expressions of faith. Federal law protects the right to religious exercise in the workplace without retaliation or selective enforcement.

When the high priest and elders commanded the apostles to stop speaking in the name of Jesus, Peter and the other apostles answered, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29, KJV).

Starting pitcher Landen Roupp testified to what the Genesis passage means to him in his postgame presser.

“It’s just about God’s covenant and a promise that he makes to us that, you know, his faithfulness and his mercy,” Roupp told reporters. “That’s just kind of something I believe in, and I stand firm in that, and I’m thankful we live in a country where, you know, we have the freedom to believe what we want ... and express what we want.”

Later confessors, reformers, and the American founders secured protections for religious liberty precisely because they recognized the danger of public or private institutions punishing believers for fidelity to Scripture.

To read more of Dr. Alexis Littlefield's writings, subscribe to his personal Substack page.

Leave a comment

Share

Dr. Alexis “Alex” Littlefield, a former Chief of Staff for Christian Action Network, holds a PhD in International Politics and has coordinated high-profile events with congressional staff and administration officials, including assistant secretaries and agency heads.

It’s all the rage.

Not in the 1970s sense, where something reaches the height of popularity.

This rage is something entirely different.

Across America, data centers have become the new neighborhood battleground.

To some, they’re mammoth energy-sucking, land-grabbing, water-gulping, environmental eyesores being dropped into communities without enough public discussion.

To others, they’re the infrastructure of America’s future, bringing jobs, tax revenue, and the computing power needed to compete in the AI age.

And that’s exactly the problem. Data centers have become both all the rage and all the hype.

Some concerns are well-founded. Others are exaggerated.

So, what’s the truth?

If a data center is coming to your community, should you grab your Sharpies and make protest placards, or welcome the bulldozers?

Let’s strip away the slogans and break this down. We’ll separate fact from fiction, alarmism from composure, and hype from caution.

And when you go to your local government council meeting, you’ll be armed with the right questions and ready to get smart answers.

Remember to bookmark this post.

Are Data Centers Really Land Grabs?

Sometimes.

Data centers can occupy massive footprints. But unlike warehouses or subdivisions, they often employ relatively few people per acre once operating.

That leads critics to ask whether communities are giving up valuable land for low local return.

Supporters counter that the return comes through tax revenue, not daily foot traffic.

The question isn’t whether they use a lot of land. The question is whether the community receives enough value in exchange.

Questions to ask:

· How many acres are being developed?

· Is expansion already planned?

· What tax revenue is projected?

· How will this facility affect community connectivity and emergency routes?

· What were the alternative land use options that were considered?

Verdict:

Not all land use is equal. Measure return, not acreage. Consider both the direct and indirect impacts on community connectivity.

Do Data Centers Really Gulp Water?

Sometimes. This concern deserves serious attention.

Cooling systems vary dramatically. Some facilities use relatively modest volumes of water. Others may consume millions of gallons daily under peak conditions.

There’s a massive difference between evaporative cooling (which consumes millions of gallons of water) and closed-loop air cooling (which uses almost no water but consumes slightly more electricity).

Don’t just focus on direct water use and consider the water-energy nexus too. More energy-intensive cooling systems might indirectly affect water resources through power generation needs.

Questions to ask:

· What cooling technology will be used? An evaporative or closed-loop system that recycles it?

· What is peak summer demand?

· Is reclaimed water available?

· What happens during drought?

· How does the chosen cooling system affect local power generation and water needs?

Verdict: One of the most legitimate concerns, depending on location. Look at both direct and indirect water impacts.

Are Data Centers Environmental Polluters?

Usually less than people imagine, but not zero. Data centers are not smokestack factories.

Instead, their primary impact is on the power grid. They require massive infrastructure upgrades—such as new substations and high-voltage transmission lines—that can take years to build and affect local utility rates.

Their environmental footprint is typically indirect, through electricity generation, land development, backup generators, and cooling systems. Most environmental questions are really about energy and infrastructure.

Beyond basic infrastructure concerns, data centers can affect local air quality through backup generator testing and operation, and may create heat islands that affect local microclimates.

Questions to ask:

· Where does the electricity come from?

· Will local utility ratepayers absorb the cost of upgrading the power grid infrastructure, or is the developer footing the bill?

· Are diesel backup systems included?

· What environmental review is required?

· How will backup generator testing and operation impact local air quality?

· What measures are planned to minimize heat island effects?

· What are the long-term decommissioning plans, and who bears those costs?

Verdict: Environmental impact exists, but often looks different from what people expect. Consider both direct and indirect impacts across the facility’s entire lifecycle.

What About the Noise?

For everyday residents, the biggest day-to-day quality-of-life issue isn’t water—it’s noise. The massive industrial chillers and exhaust fans run 24/7/365, creating a low-frequency hum that has caused major friction in residential areas.

But noise isn’t just a constant hum. Consider operational practices that might exacerbate noise issues, such as scheduled maintenance, delivery patterns, and cooling system cycling during temperature changes.

Questions to ask:

· What are the acoustic modeling projections at our property lines, and what ambient noise guarantees are in the zoning agreement?

· What maintenance schedules might create additional noise impacts?

· How will delivery traffic be managed to minimize noise impacts?

· How does the cooling system noise vary with seasonal temperature changes?

Verdict: Yes, there’s a potential for noise. Cooling fans run constantly. Distance (setbacks) and acoustic walls matter immensely. Look beyond baseline operations to consider periodic noise sources as well.

Are Data Centers Bringing Jobs and Prosperity?

This one may surprise people. Construction phases can create hundreds, sometimes thousands of jobs. But…permanent operations often require far fewer workers than residents imagine

That does not mean communities lose. Many local governments care more about tax revenue than payroll.

Beyond permanent vs. temporary jobs, consider the quality and nature of those positions. How many will be filled by local residents versus specialized workers brought in from elsewhere?

Questions to ask:

· Temporary jobs?

· Permanent jobs?

· Average salary?

· Tax incentives?

· How many jobs will be filled by local residents?

· What skills will be required for permanent positions?

· Will temporary construction workers need housing that impacts local resources?

Verdict: Job promises deserve scrutiny. Tax benefits deserve scrutiny, too. Look at both the quantity and the quality of employment opportunities.

Will Data Centers Make Communities Rich?

Sometimes.

There are communities that point to lower tax burdens and increased revenue. There are others where residents feel the benefits never matched expectations.

The deciding factor is usually not the building.

It’s the deal.

Beyond tax benefits, consider the economic opportunity costs. When a data center receives significant tax incentives, what other development options were excluded? A community might trade decades of potential diversified tax revenue from multiple businesses for one stable but undiversified data center.

Questions to ask:

· How long do incentives last?

· What revenue stays local?

· What infrastructure commitments exist?

· What other economic development opportunities were considered and rejected?

· How diversified will the local tax base be with this project?

Verdict: Don’t judge the project. Judge the contract. Consider not just what you’re gaining but what you might be giving up in terms of economic diversity.

Additional Concerns Worth Considering

Even with all the above addressed, there are other concerns worth exploring:

Light Pollution:

24/7 security lighting, illuminated signage, and facility lighting can create significant light pollution affecting nearby residential areas, wildlife patterns, and dark sky preservation efforts. Ask about lighting designs and shielding plans.

Grid Reliability and Power Quality:

Data centers require extremely stable power quality. Their sensitive equipment can be affected by minor fluctuations that might go unnoticed by residential users. Ask what voltage regulation and power-conditioning measures are planned, as these infrastructure upgrades can affect nearby residents’ power quality or reliability.

Supply Chain and Security Zones:

Modern data centers often require restricted security zones and enhanced truck access for equipment. This can affect local traffic patterns and emergency services access, and create restricted areas that were previously open community space. Ask about traffic impact studies and security zone boundaries.

The “Attraction Effect”:

Communities should consider that one successful data center often leads to additional facilities nearby. This cluster approach can multiply impacts on water, power, and infrastructure beyond what a single facility assessment might show. Ask about zoning boundaries and whether multiple facilities could be built adjacent to each other.

Technology Obsolescence:

Technology advances rapidly, but data centers have 20-30 year lifespans. Ask about adaptive reuse plans if current technology becomes obsolete, and who bears responsibility for decommissioning costs when structures contain specialized materials and hazardous waste.

So… Should You Make Protest Signs?

Maybe. Maybe not.

The wrong question is: “Do we want data centers?”

The better question is: “What terms make this project worth it for our community?”

That question forces politicians, developers, and citizens to stop arguing in slogans and start talking in facts.

And that may be the healthiest outcome of all.

Did I miss anything? Help contribute by adding your comments!

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

Vincent Munster got stopped at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on January 25, 2026, with a package straight out of a horror movie.

He and research fellow Claude Kwe had just flown in from Brazzaville in the Republic of Congo, where an mpox outbreak was raging. Customs officers asked about the large black plastic case the pair was hauling. Munster and Kwe claimed it held nothing but “diagnostic and testing equipment.”

Agents opened it anyway.

Inside were 113 vials stuffed into Styrofoam coolers. By June 2, the FBI had tested twenty of them. Seventeen contained deactivated mpox virus. One held the chickenpox virus. Two contained only human DNA.

Court filings later stated that the tested samples did not propagate and were assessed as inactivated, meaning the materials examined were reportedly not capable of causing infection. That distinction matters.

But what is clear is that they intentionally misled authorities about the contents of the black plastic case.

The allegation in this case is not that an outbreak was prevented at the airport, but that biological materials were allegedly transported and described in ways federal authorities say did not comply with required procedures.

The criminal complaint filed that day charged both men with conspiracy to smuggle monkeypox into the United States and with making false statements to law enforcement.

Munster serves as chief of the Virus Ecology Section at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories, a BSL-4 facility operated by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. His program studies how emerging viruses cross species barriers.

The work mixes dangerous field trips into active outbreak zones with high-containment lab experiments. Kwe worked under him.

The two had spent nine days in Congo chasing a circulating mpox strain and had been in touch with local scientists at the national public health lab in Brazzaville. They have co-authored at least a dozen mpox papers since 2023, half of them with Congolese colleagues.

Munster told officers the documentation for his “diagnostics” was on his laptop and that this was routine. Records later showed he had shipped biological materials before through World Courier. The vials were never declared as what they actually were.

Public reporting and congressional oversight inquiries have focused primarily on questions of authorization, disclosure, chain of custody, and biosafety compliance rather than allegations of deliberate biological harm.

But for critics of modern outbreak research, that distinction raises another concern: if transport and reporting rules become flexible in routine scientific work, where are the boundaries when urgency increases?

This is the same Munster whose lab once hosted Jun Li, a Chinese researcher who now works as an Associate Senior Virologist at the Hangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention in China. That fact alone does not prove a foreign plot. But it does raise the kind of questions Congress is now asking.

Was this merely a reckless shortcut by researchers who thought the rules did not apply to them? Or was it something more serious, an attempt to test whether biological materials could be moved into the United States through an open door?

Perhaps that is exactly why the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is demanding answers from NIH about foreign sample acquisition, international transport procedures, disclosure requirements, foreign research trips, and whether these researchers had permission to return with biological materials.

This case does not establish a connection to previous controversies surrounding global pathogen research. But it does raise broader questions that extend beyond a single airport inspection: how biological materials move internationally, how much oversight relies on self-reporting, and whether existing safeguards keep pace with modern outbreak science.

Before COVID-19, similar high-containment coronavirus research in China involved collecting viruses from nature, moving samples across borders, and building international networks. When something escaped or jumped, the world paid the price.

Munster’s operation follows the same script: collect from hot zones, bring materials home, maintain quiet foreign ties, and treat strict border rules as optional.

The 1960s sitcom The Munsters gave us a family of friendly monsters living quietly among normal people. This Munster is transporting deactivated death in coolers, lying to federal agents at the airport, and running a program whose daily business is moving the world’s most dangerous viruses in and out of containment.

The 113 vials in Styrofoam were not alarming because federal testing reportedly found the samples examined to be inactivated. They were alarming because of what the allegations imply.

If experienced researchers working within one of America’s highest-containment systems allegedly believed biological materials could move under inaccurate descriptions or outside required declarations, the public question becomes larger than a single airport inspection.

The concern is not whether these particular samples were dangerous.

It is whether the guardrails are strong enough to catch the next case if the samples are not.

One lab. One case. One lie at customs. Are these programs preventing or propelling the next pandemic?

Dr. Alexis “Alex” Littlefield, a former Chief of Staff for Christian Action Network, holds a PhD in International Politics and has coordinated high-profile events with congressional staff and administration officials, including assistant secretaries and agency heads. Subscribe to his personal Substack page.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

If you are reading this because your life no longer makes sense, I want to begin by telling you something I wish someone had told me years ago:

You are not necessarily lost.

I know that sounds strange, because when life stops making sense, the first thing most of us assume is that we must have done something wrong. We replay old decisions in our minds. We revisit conversations.

We wonder whether we ignored God somewhere back at the last intersection and have been driving in the wrong direction ever since.

That feeling can become exhausting.

You begin praying less because you fear hearing nothing in return. Or worse, you become afraid of making another decision because what if this one is wrong too? You start waiting for certainty before moving forward, and before long, life feels suspended between fear and hesitation.

I know that feeling because I’ve lived through seasons where I wanted answers more than anything else.

I wasn’t looking for comfort or strength alone. I wanted answers. Directions.

I wanted God to explain what decisions I should make.

We’ve all been there, wanting to know where things were going before taking another step. We see doors close and can’t find another one to open.

But over time, I began to realize something uncomfortable. What I wanted more than anything else was to find a way to steer on a darkened road.

I wanted high beams. I wanted to see the whole road.

And maybe that’s where my thinking began to change.

One evening, I was driving, and it struck me how strange it is that we never complain about not being able to see beyond the road in front of us. We accept that only a small piece of the asphalt is illuminated at any given time. We do not pull over and stop because the destination isn’t visible.

Yet with God, we expect to see every turn, every caution sign, and every upcoming roadblock.

We want a map in our heads and, more than that, guarantees.

In fact, we want to know the destination before we agree to begin the trip. And if God just laid out the hazardous roads before starting the engine, that would be even better.

But that is not how faith works.

When I look through Scripture, I don’t see many people receiving complete roadmaps. That’s good, right? Imagine the Israelites seeing that they would need to cross the Red Sea after leaving Egypt.

Abraham had no idea where God was taking him, just “Get thee out of thy country….unto a land I will shew thee.” (Gen. 12:1-3)

The disciples followed Jesus long before they understood where He was going.

Again and again, God seems to only give us enough light and a road to move forward.

And that’s not accidental. Because maybe trust in God grows when we take a step without knowing everything.

Maybe the relationship deepens when we discover God was with us on roads that made no sense at the time.

That doesn’t mean we stop thinking. It doesn’t mean every impression in our minds is divine guidance. It doesn’t mean wisdom and planning no longer matter.

But I have learned something that has become important to me.

Walk faithfully with incomplete information and trust God to govern more than your precision.

That sentence has become an anchor for me.

Because it means I do not have to believe that one imperfect decision ruins my future. It means God is not standing over my shoulder judging every missed turn.

His “reroute” directions are more trustworthy than Google Maps. And we don’t have to worry about being led toward an unfinished bridge.

God is greater than our confusion, wiser than our calculations, and more capable of leading than our understanding.

And if you are in a season where nothing makes sense, maybe the question isn’t, “What is the final destination?”

Maybe the better question is: “What road can I faithfully see right now?”

Take that road. Take the next step. Do the next thing you know to do. Not because you understand everything. But because faith rarely begins with understanding.

More often, understanding comes while moving.

And before I close, I want to leave you with something unexpected.

When we are driving in the dark, we crave data. We want metrics to prove we are on the right track.

I recently worked on a song called Chasing Numbers that explores this exact trap.

At first, it sounds like a song about social media, followers, and measuring life through visible results.

Yet it’s deeper than that. It’s about human desire to crave instant approval for every decision and action we take, whether chasing a Dream, Chasing Numbers, or chasing God’s Approval.

Here’s the bottom line: The only number that matters is John 3:16. Once we have that number, we can trust that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose. (Ro. 8:28)

Chasing Numbers can be found in our Music Vault, where you can freely download this and other songs from our catalog.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

1. Not Just For the Ticket

2. Walk Through the Crowd

3. Cast the Net

4. The Awakening

5. Chasing Numbers

6. The Few

7. Hosanna in the Streets

8. Whatever You Pray, Believe

9. An Hour You Think Not

Leave a comment

Share

1. When Heaven and Earth Pass

2. How Long, O Lord

3. The Vanishing

4. The Museum of Tomorrow

5. Tempered in the Flame

6. These Lying Eyes

7. Ghosts We Made

8. Turning Point

A new congressional report has dropped, and if even a portion of its findings prove accurate, Americans should be asking a very uncomfortable question:

How many warnings should government officials receive before someone is held criminally accountable?

This week, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a “BOMBSHELL” 205-page staff report titled:

The Cost of Doing Nothing: How Tim Walz and Keith Ellison Fueled Minnesota’s Fraud Explosion.

The report alleges that senior Minnesota officials knew for years that taxpayer-funded social programs were vulnerable to widespread fraud, yet failed to stop it.

That’s hardly a shocking secret.

For weeks, critics argued government officials had ignored warnings, whistleblowers, and available tools to stop the fraud.

The committee added something that was missing. It documented the allegations.

The report points to programs tied to the now-infamous Feeding Our Future scandal and raised broader concerns about Medicaid oversight.

Congressional investigators claim hundreds of millions—and potentially billions—in taxpayer funds were placed at risk. That’s ‘B’ as in ‘Billions,’ and ‘B’ as in ‘Busted.’

Committee Chairman James Comer called it one of the most severe oversight failures his committee has examined.

But there is another side to this story, of course. The denials.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison rejected the report, characterizing the investigation as politically motivated.

But we’ve seen this playbook before. Whenever the left faces intense scrutiny, the defense is rarely based on evidence; instead, it’s blamed on politics, bias, racism, or phobias.

Well, Americans can decide for themselves. But in this case, it may be a judge or jury making the final call.

Vice President JD Vance, who leads the White House anti-fraud task force, announced that he has referred the allegations to the Department of Justice for potential criminal investigation.

On X, Vance wrote:

“Minnesota state officials are not above the law, and if they facilitated fraud, lied under oath about what they knew, or harassed and intimidated whistleblowers, they must face justice.”

In a letter to Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald, who oversees DOJ fraud enforcement efforts, Vance called for the matter to be reviewed with “all appropriate urgency” and said federal investigators should determine whether any laws were broken.

One fact should concern everyone regardless of party: Government programs depend on public trust.

If taxpayer dollars intended for hungry children, struggling families, healthcare recipients, or vulnerable communities are stolen, every legitimate recipient suffers.

If whistleblowers are ignored, if officials refuse to intervene, and if no one is held accountable, then the wallets of everyday Americans will be robbed while the truly vulnerable go unfed, unclothed, and unhoused.

This should not be a Republican issue. This should not be a Democrat issue. This should be an American issue.

The public deserves answers to simple questions:

Who knew? When did they know it? What action was taken?

Congress has now placed those questions squarely before the country. And the country needs to put the complicit overseers before a judge.

Read the report for yourself. The smoke is billowing, and now we wait to see if the DOJ finds the fire. Let’s hope they bring a firehose, not a guidebook on mediation.

Source material: U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Staff Report, June 2026.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

Cities once shaped by centuries of Christian heritage now wrestle with questions of identity, immigration, security, and cultural survival. Political leaders promise stability. Critics warn of silence. Ordinary citizens ask a difficult question:

Could America follow the same path?

In Europe’s Last Stand: America’s Final Warning, Christian Action Network travels across Europe to examine what is happening on the ground and why some believe the lessons matter far beyond Europe’s borders.

This documentary explores voices, events, and warnings that many believe have been overlooked, ignored, or dismissed.

Watch the documentary. Consider the evidence. Decide for yourself.

Because history rarely announces itself before it arrives.

For years, we were told the great AI question would be simple:

Will artificial intelligence take our jobs?

That question is no longer theoretical. Nary a day goes by without a scathing headline of a major corporation, or even a small business, announcing layoffs and restructuring around the ‘wonders’ of artificial intelligence.

Move aside, history. There’s a new question in town.

How long before AI begins to monitor, control, and condition people to obey its whims?

That may sound exaggerated until you look at developments emerging around the world now.

Recent reporting from The New York Times has revealed that China-linked technology is allegedly exploring ways not only to move beyond traditional surveillance but also to pursue something more sinister and ambitious: using artificial intelligence to anticipate future dissent before visible opposition emerges.

According to an analysis of leaked materials, the goal was not merely to review a person’s past actions but to pursue something akin to the blockbuster film Minority Report.

The objective?

To forecast future risk by relentlessly analyzing an individual’s travel patterns, relationships, online behavior, and daily habits.

No longer is it enough to simply ask, ‘What did this person do?’ But, ‘What might this person become?’ The ‘naughty and nice’ algorithm is no longer a myth; it is an active prediction engine.

This is reminiscent of Barney Fife of Mayberry fame, who would say, “We need to nip it in the bud.”

That dictum is funny on a TV show with an overzealous deputy sheriff. But in real life, it requires a terrifying pause. History is full of governments trying to gather information, but artificial intelligence drastically lowers the cost of turning that information into a “nip it in the bud” prediction.

AI can observe, model, score, and intervene.

These are not incompetent systems. They can track and hunt with the skill of a bloodhound, see your innermost secrets like an X-ray machine, observe with the eyes of a raven, and remember your movements like the brain of an elephant.

And as algorithm-driven monitoring creeps into Western workplaces and local police forces, we must realize: this is not only a China story.

Across Europe and around the globe, the conversation is shifting.

We are no longer just talking about capability. We are talking about control.

Listen closely to the changing vocabulary. The headlines are full of terms such as governance, identity, accountability, risk categories, and enforcement.

Notice what is fading away?

Less about what the machine can do, and far more about what humans are permitted to do.

This shift does not automatically mean tyranny. But history and Scripture repeatedly warn us that power without humility becomes dangerous.

Consider the Tower of Babel. It was not condemned because humans built something impressive. It was condemned because human pride elevated it to the status of a god. And only God alone can accurately predict future behavior, not some AI wizard hiding behind a curtain.

Human institutions venture onto dangerous ground when they believe an algorithm can classify motives, forecast a conscience, or pre-assign intent.

This is not a call for panic. Not yet, anyway. But it does demand our attention.

If there’s one thing the Biden administration taught us, it’s that technology can be weaponized to control behavior, monitor what people say and how they act, and act as a dictatorial enforcer.

The biggest tech signal right now is not the arrival of some futuristic Super-AI. It is something much quieter, unfolding right before our eyes. Artificial intelligence is becoming less about helping humans think and much more about helping institutions govern human behavior.

That shift should make all of us pause. We do not need to fear technology. But we must never surrender our God-given rights to it.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

There was a time when America’s brightest minds wanted to build faster cars, cure diseases, or invent a better toaster.

Today, those goals are considered almost primitive. Now, the tech elite have focused their craftsmanship on a singular, terrifying purpose:

Creating a digital God.

And if you dare stand in the way of this progress, look out. Under their theory, this Artificial God will single you out for eternal punishment, torture, or even death.

Who is thinking this way?

It’s not a mystery. You could easily guess: the ultra-wealthy engineers and investors of Silicon Valley. They envision an all-knowing digital superintelligence capable of surpassing humanity itself.

While ordinary Americans struggle to pay mortgages, raise children, and hold families together, some of the wealthiest men on earth are spending fortunes trying to engineer digital immortality.

They call it progress. At least, that’s what we’re told.

But beneath the glossy presentations, billion-dollar AI announcements, and smi…

Read more

The United States has sold arms to Taiwan for decades. China has protested every time.

Beijing routinely condemns the transfers as interference in its internal affairs and demands an immediate halt. Statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry often arrive within hours, followed by sanctions against American defense firms and warnings of serious consequences.

That pattern has remained consistent across multiple administrations. It continues today, but tensions are rising faster than before.

The latest major weapons package reached Congress on December 17, 2025. Valued at more than eleven billion dollars, the sale covered eight separate defense cases and represented one of the largest Taiwan arms notifications in recent years.

The package included eighty-two High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, four hundred twenty Army Tactical Missile Systems, sixty…

Read more

Inter-dimensional entities? What are they? We have answers.

Four types of alien species: Greys. Nordics. Reptilians. Insectoids.

Strange phenomena in the Bible.

Where is God in all this?

Last week, inside a packed congressional hearing room in Washington, something remarkable happened.

Members of Congress weren’t debating taxes, border funding, or foreign wars.

They were debating whether America itself is strong enough to withstand an ideology many lawmakers say is quietly building parallel systems inside our own communities.

The hearing was titled:

“Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & Sharia Law are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, Part II.”

Subscribe now

And from the opening gavel, sparks flew.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) warned that America faces what he called an “existential threat” from political Islam, arguing that Sharia is not simply a faith tradition, but a governing system fundamentally incompatible with constitutional liberty.

Across the aisle, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) fired back, calling the he…

Read more

For a long time, artificial intelligence felt like a distant issue.

It sounded like something for Silicon Valley engineers, science fiction writers, or investors looking for the next big thing. Most Christians understandably viewed it as just another new technology — impressive, perhaps useful, maybe even overhyped, but not particularly spiritual in nature.

That assumption no longer holds.

Over the past several years, we have learned something important. AI is not just changing how people work. It is changing how people perceive truth, how institutions exercise power, how nations monitor populations, and how humanity increasingly imagines salvation without God.

What once looked like innovation is beginning to look like infrastructure.

And Christians need to understand what kind of infrastructure is being built.

This is not about claiming every new app is demonic. It is not about panicking over every chatbot, robot, or headline. It is about recognizing patterns.

It is about paying attention to the direction of the world. And it is about measuring technological developments against biblical warnings, rather than against the marketing language of corporations and politicians.

Technology itself is not the enemy. A hammer can build a church or break a window. Artificial intelligence is no different. In the hands of faithful believers, it can help pastors organize knowledge, preserve biblical teaching, strengthen communication, and serve the body of Christ.

But in the hands of fallen men, or systems divorced from truth, the same technology can become a force for deception, manipulation, and control.

The issue is not whether AI exists. The issue is who shapes it, what spirit guides it, and what authority it ultimately serves.

If the last few years have taught us anything, it is this:

The greatest danger of AI is not merely what it can do. It is the kind of world it is preparing people to accept.

The First Lesson: Deception Is Scaling

For most of history, deception had limits.

A liar could only speak to so many people. A propagandist could only print so many leaflets. A false teacher could only reach whatever room, church, city, or kingdom was within range.

AI changes that.

Now deception can be personalized, automated, multiplied, and distributed at a scale previous generations could not have imagined.

Machines can generate false images, voices, videos, articles, personas, and narratives in seconds. They can imitate familiarity, authority, emotion, and confidence. They can create the appearance of truth even when none exists.

This matters spiritually.

Scripture repeatedly warns that the final age will be marked by deception. Not only wickedness. Not only violence. But Deception. Counterfeit power. False signs. False confidence. Convincing lies.

That is what makes AI so dangerous.

Its greatest threat may not be that it becomes alive. Its greatest threat may be that it becomes believable.

A machine does not need a soul to deceive. It only needs a convincing imitation of intelligence. It only needs to sound wise. It only needs to appear informed. It only needs to answer quickly, confidently, and persuasively enough that people begin to trust the output more than they trust Scripture, conscience, or the voice of God.

That is not a minor cultural shift. That is a civilizational threat.

The Second Lesson: The World Is Building the Scaffolding for Control

When most people think about end-times control, they imagine some dramatic moment in the future when freedom suddenly disappears.

But systems of control do not arrive all at once. They are built gradually. They are normalized piece by piece. They are sold as convenience, safety, efficiency, and progress.

Over the past several years, we have watched the scaffolding go up all around us.

Digital identity systems.
AI-driven surveillance.
Facial recognition.
Predictive policing.
Behavioral monitoring.
Speech moderation systems.
Algorithmic control over what people see, hear, and believe.
Growing pressure to centralize information, finance, credentials, and access inside digital systems.

Each development is often presented as neutral. Sometimes even compassionate. But taken together, they reveal something much larger than a set of disconnected innovations.

They reveal a world being engineered for visibility, traceability, and compliance.

Christians should pay attention to that.

The Bible describes a future in which power over commerce, allegiance, and public life becomes centralized in unprecedented ways. For years, many people wondered how such a system could ever function on a global scale.

That question is becoming easier to answer.

AI is making it administratively possible.

AI is not the whole system by itself. But it may be the glue that binds the system together.

Subscribe now

Read more

If this were the 1950s, the two men recently arrested in New York would have made national headlines.

Parents would be calling friends, warning neighbors, whispering about a depravity so dark they’d hesitate to even say its name out loud.

And they wouldn’t be far off.

Because what federal authorities are now confirming is not just another criminal case. It is the exposure of something far more organized, far more calculated, and far more dangerous than most Americans are prepared to face.

Two men. Two arrests. That’s the headline.

But today, it barely registers.

No shock. No alarm. Just another passing story in a country that has seen so much darkness, it no longer recognizes it when it’s staring straight back at us.

Satan is never mentioned.

Even though his fingerprints are all over these crimes.

Aaron Corey, known online as “Baggeth,” and Ryan Catello, who allegedly operated under names like “Stabzone” and “Mors,” now face federal charges tied to the exploitation of minors.

On the surface, it…

Read more

For years, the men of Silicon Valley told us artificial intelligence would transform the world.

They promised smarter medicine. Safer transportation. More efficient economies. Personalized tutors. Breakthroughs in science. Machines that could help cure disease, write software, and perhaps one day solve problems that have frustrated mankind for centuries.

And maybe they still will.

But what happens when the same men building the machines of tomorrow begin quietly investing in technologies designed to redesign the humans of tomorrow, because AI may one day outthink humanity and possibly destroy humanity?

That is no longer science fiction.

According to a stunning new investigation by Mother Jones, some of the most powerful names in technology, including Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Brian Armstrong, and Marc Andreessen, are backing startups involved in embryo screening, genetic analysis, and in some cases discussions about the future of embryo editing itself.

Subscribe now

Most Americans may not recognize all th…

Read more

Subscribe now

For decades, we’ve held our computers in our hands or tucked them into our pockets. But a new frontier is opening where the “device” disappears entirely. Companies like Science Corporation are no longer just building tools; they are building a bridge into the human mind.

This is the era of the NeuroMate, a world where the line between your own thoughts and artificial intelligence begins to blur.

And it all starts with an implant in your brain connected to an AI device. It doesn’t have a name yet. But it will. I call it a NeuroMate.

At first, this won’t be invisible. The system will likely rely on a dedicated external device, such as a small wearable pack, headset, or medical unit, that handles the heavy computing.

The brain implant acts as the bridge, while the processing power remains just outside the body. Over time, that external piece will shrink, integrate, and become less noticeable, but it will still be there, quietly powering the connection.

The Two-Way Conversation

Most of us are u…

Read more

For years, Christian Action Network has appeared on the infamous “hate” list published by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

And let’s be honest about what that means.

That label is not just criticism or bad-reputation branding. It carries consequences. Real ones.

We’ve seen financial institutions kick us to the curb. We’ve seen vital services, such as company insurance providers, push us out the door.

Online stores, such as Zazzle, have suspended our account even for buying coffee cups. Discover Card won’t allow our supporters to donate to Christian Action Network. Major merchant account providers such as WePay and QuickBooks have banned us from using their services.

Media outlets have canceled scheduled appearances.

And every time that list is updated, our name is pushed back into the spotlight, forcing us to defend ourselves all over again.

That is the reality of being labeled as a hate group.

So when the Department of Justice announces a federal grand jury indictment against the SPLC, we ar…

Read more