Last night, Prime Video provided a “trigger warning” at the opening of Reacher Season 4 that spoiled one of the show’s main features: It’s supposed to be a mystery series.

The episode began with a warning about suicide.

Moments later, Reacher was riding through Philadelphia on a nearly empty subway car after two in the morning. Near the end of the car sat an older Asian woman, sobbing, with both hands buried inside a blue bag.

Reacher began studying her. Something was wrong. Her clothes, her movements, the bag, and her nervous behavior suggested that she might be carrying a bomb.

Reacher did not know what was inside the bag. Bonnie and I did. The woman was not going to detonate a bomb. She was going to pull out a gun and kill herself.

Prime Video had already supplied the answer. The warning did not spare us the suicide. It merely spared us the suspense.

We have moved from giving parents information about what their children might see to giving adults caution about what they might see or hear. In doing so, trigger warnings can spoil stories, heighten anxiety, and quietly teach us that content can cause psychological danger.

Subscribe now

Content Warnings Began in 1968

The American film-rating system began in 1968 with G, M, R, and X.

It was created principally to help parents decide what their children should see. The X rating originally meant adults only. It was not originally a pornography label, although it acquired that association later.

The warning was a parental guide: “This may not be suitable for your children.” But now warnings are mostly “triggers” labels for adults. “This may not be emotionally suitable for you.”

Modern trigger warnings are intended to help people prepare for or avoid material connected to their individual traumatic experiences. In contrast, traditional film ratings are intended to help parents judge age appropriateness.

The research record on the newer practice is not encouraging.

A 2024 meta-analysis of empirical studies found that warnings had no meaningful effect. They did not reduce distress once the content arrived. What they reliably did was increase the opposite. In short, the warnings often made people more anxious while they waited, but did not make the experience any less distressing.

Stories depend upon uncertainty. A creator controls what the audience knows and when the audience learns it. It’s good storytelling. But a specific warning can seize that control from the storyteller.

For instance: The opening scene of Reacher Season 4 was constructed around a question: What is inside the blue bag? A bomb? A weapon? Something harmless? Is Reacher correct? Is he profiling an innocent woman? Can he calm her down?

The writers carefully constructed a mystery around the woman’s behavior. The platform demolished it with a two-second warning.

I Want a Trigger Warning About Trigger Warnings

Was Amazon protecting us from the scene, or protecting itself from criticism for showing the scene? We can show you anything, provided we warn you first.

A society cannot organize all public communication around every individual’s most painful private experience.

Eventually the categories expand until ordinary human realities become hazards: death, grief, addiction, illness, childbirth, infertility, religion, war, bullying, smoking, weight, food, language, political beliefs, and virtually everything else that reminds someone of something painful.

The question is no longer “Should we be showing this?” It becomes “Did we properly warn people before showing it?”

But consider this problem with trigger warnings:

The same warning that tells one person to turn away may tell another person that this is exactly what he wants to see. “This episode contains suicide.” “This program depicts sexual violence.” “The following material includes domestic abuse.” “Viewer discretion is advised because of graphic violence.”

For the trauma survivor, that may be intended as a caution. For the ordinarily curious viewer, it may create suspense. For the sensation seeker, it may promise something shocking. For someone already drawn toward violent, sexually exploitative, or sadistic material, it may operate as a locator.

A trigger warning does not merely identify what someone may wish to avoid. It also identifies what someone else may wish to find.

Psychologists already recognize this phenomenon as the “forbidden-fruit effect.” Experiments have found that warning labels can increase interest in violent television programs, particularly when the labels sound authoritative or restrictive.

The warning becomes an unintended advertisement.

Scripture Pulls No Triggers

The Bible contains extraordinarily difficult material: murder, war, suicide, rape, betrayal, persecution, child sacrifice, famine, disease, demonic oppression, and execution. Scripture does not sanitize the human condition.

What it doesn’t contain are “trigger warnings.”

Why? Because Scripture does not present emotional discomfort as the greatest danger confronting humanity.

There are Biblical warnings, but they are different.

They warn people about sin, judgment, deception, temptation, suffering, and eternal consequences.

Their purpose is not to help people avoid every troubling feeling. Their purpose is to prepare people to face reality faithfully.

John 16:33 captures the distinction perfectly. Christ warns His disciples that they will experience tribulation, but He couples the warning with courage and hope because He has overcome the world.

Christianity does not promise us a trigger-free world. Christ promises something greater: that suffering, evil, grief, and death will not have the final word.

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.

Most Americans, I dare say, have never heard of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It’s not exactly dinner-table conversation. But that hasn’t stopped this rogue international body from claiming the power to investigate, indict, and potentially imprison American citizens—and it certainly isn’t slowing the Trump Administration from putting the ICC on the chopping block.

The ICC was established under the Rome Statute, and it’s tied to the United Nations system. What many fellow Americans don’t know is the ICC asserts jurisdiction even over countries that never agreed to its authority. The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute and rejects any claim that foreign judges in The Hague can sit in judgment of American citizens or personnel.

Yet that has not stopped the court from going after our closest allies.

In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over the war in Gaza. Israel, like the United States, is not a party to the Rome Statute and refuses to recognize the court’s jurisdiction.

In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani went further.

He publicly branded Netanyahu a “war criminal,” declared him unwelcome in America’s largest city, and called on the federal government to arrest him and hand him over to The Hague. Mamdani admitted New York City has no legal power to enforce the warrant—but still urged Washington to do the ICC’s dirty work.

That’s not solidarity with justice. That’s an American elected official treating the ICC’s political lawfare as legitimate and inviting foreign jurisdiction onto U.S. soil.

And Americans are next.

The ICC previously opened investigations into U.S. servicemen and intelligence personnel over Afghanistan, declaring that our own military justice system wasn’t good enough for them. In other words, these foreign judges decided they—not the American people or our elected government—should have the final say over how the United States defends itself.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it plainly: No globalist judge has any authority over Americans. Full stop.

A Court So Corrupt It Fired Its Own Prosecutor

This is the same institution that just removed its own chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, after findings of serious sexual misconduct involving a junior staff member—including non-consensual contact and abuse of power. These are the people who claim the moral authority to sit in judgment of American heroes who risk their lives in uniform?

The ICC is not a neutral temple of justice.

It is a politicized, unaccountable body that selectively targets U.S. allies while ignoring far worse actors. For instance, the court issued active arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Yet, the only warrant it ever issued against a Hamas commander—Mohammed Deif—was canceled after his death, leaving no ongoing cases against any living Hamas leaders responsible for the October 7 slaughter.

Democrats Are Enabling the Threat

While the Trump administration works to dismantle this threat, some Democrats are actively trying to legitimize it.

Rep. Ilhan Omar introduced H.Res. 1435 calling for the United States to join the ICC and lift the sanctions and visa bans that protect American sovereignty. Rep. Jim McGovern has long praised the court as a necessary check when countries “can’t or won’t” act—language that implies America itself is deficient and needs foreign supervision. Other voices on the left have floated the idea that Trump administration officials should fear ICC scrutiny.

This is not principled human rights advocacy. It is a willingness to subordinate the United States to an international body that has never been accountable to the American people.

President Trump Is Fighting Back—Hard

Unlike previous administrations that treated the ICC with kid gloves, President Trump has launched a whole-of-government campaign to remove its ability to threaten Americans systematically. Executive Order 14203 imposed sanctions. Judges and prosecutors involved in targeting the U.S. or Israel have faced asset freezes, travel bans, and visa restrictions. Diplomatic pressure is being applied to urge other nations to withdraw.

The message is clear: cooperate with the ICC’s lawfare against Americans or our allies, and there will be consequences.

Legislation such as S. 3273 and H.R. 5411 would further protect sovereignty by restricting federal grants and barring state and local cooperation with ICC warrants against certain foreign officials. These are practical tools to ensure that no American jurisdiction becomes an extension of The Hague’s reach.

What’s Really at Stake

This fight is broader than one court. It is about whether the United States remains a sovereign nation under its own Constitution or becomes subject to an international bureaucracy known for shifting winds. American self-rule, our laws, our military, and our freedoms cannot be outsourced to foreign judges who answer to no American voter.

President Trump understands the danger.

The administration is treating the ICC for what it is: an illegitimate threat that must be confronted and constrained. Patriots should recognize the same reality. The power of combined American resolve can push back against this overreach the same way it has pushed back against other globalist pretensions.

The choice is straightforward.

Either we defend the principle that Americans decide American justice, or we accept that unelected outsiders in Europe get a veto over our sovereignty. The Trump administration has chosen the former. The rest of us should stand with that choice—clearly, unapologetically, and without illusion about what the ICC represents.

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.

Across the United States, public school districts have adopted written protocols commonly called “gender support plans”. “These documents set out how staff will respond when a frequently confused and insecure adolescent is coerced or cajoled by adults and older students into a gender identity different from the student’s biological sex.

The plans routinely address preferred name, pronouns, bathroom and locker-room access, and clothing. In many districts, the same protocols instruct staff to withhold the information from parents unless the student consents. With significant encouragement from adults and peers, a student requests a new name and pronouns. Staff promptly begin using them at school.

At Baird Middle School in Ludlow, Massachusetts, during the 2020–21 school year an 11-year-old girl was socially transitioned at school.

School officials, including a counselor and a librarian who identified as nonbinary, held private meetings with her, provided pro-LGBT materials, and encouraged her to adopt a male name and nonbinary pronouns.

The student’s school Google account started receiving “unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions”. They continued this process even after the parents, who had already arranged private counseling for their daughter’s depression and gender questions, explicitly directed the school not to discuss the matter with her.

Staff used the new name and pronouns with the student while deliberately using her legal name and female pronouns when speaking with the parents.

The record shows active adult encouragement and facilitation by school personnel toward a vulnerable middle-school student, conducted against the parents’ stated wishes and without their knowledge. Official records and communications with parents continue to use the legal name and sex-based pronouns. Students often bring a change of clothes and alter their appearance after arriving at school, then reverse the change before returning home.

The school treats the entire arrangement as confidential.

This practice is not limited to Ludlow, Massachusetts. Districts in Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, California, and other states have operated under such policies.

In Madison, Wisconsin, the district’s guidance applied to children of any age and required staff to use one set of names and pronouns with the student while using another with the parents.

In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and Ann Arbor, Michigan, federal officials in 2026 opened enforcement actions under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) ^[1] after parents reported that schools had facilitated changes in presentation and pronouns without their knowledge.

When a student of one sex appears at school in the clothing of the other sex, the school affirms the presentation as part of the support plan. The same plan then treats that visible change as information that must be kept from the parents.

The result is a dual reality: one identity maintained among staff and peers, another maintained in the home.

Read more

On February 6, I wrote about the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie. In that article, I made a prediction that some readers may have considered overly pessimistic.

I wrote that I feared investigators would never find Nancy Guthrie or those responsible for her disappearance.

It wasn’t because I doubted the dedication of the FBI or local law enforcement.

It was because I believe America is fighting twenty-first-century criminal enterprises with a twentieth-century structure, and what’s needed now more than ever is a Federal Anti-Scam Bureau.

Here we are, more than five months later. Nancy Guthrie has still not been found. No kidnapper has been publicly identified, and the investigation remains open.

I sincerely hope tomorrow proves me wrong. I hope Nancy is found alive and those responsible are brought to justice.

But whether that happens tomorrow or five years from now, the larger problem remains exactly where it was when I first wrote about it.

The Crime Has Changed. Our Response Hasn’t.

In high-profile disappearances like Nancy Guthrie’s, the immediate aftermath is no longer just a physical search; it’s a digital assault.

Within hours, scammers weaponize cheap voice-cloning software to fabricate ransom calls, launch fraudulent go-fund-me campaigns, and flood tip lines with spoofed leads.

Investigators aren’t just searching for a missing person; they are forced to spend critical, early hours hacking through a thick forest of international cyber fraud designed specifically to exploit desperation.

The crime on the ground is instantly tangled in the crime in the cloud.

Today’s criminal organizations don’t just rob banks.

· They steal identities from another continent.

· They spoof telephone numbers.

· They clone voices with artificial intelligence.

· They move money through cryptocurrency.

· They disappear behind encrypted communications, burner devices, shell companies, and international jurisdictions.

Even worse, they often exploit the investigation itself by sending fake ransom demands, fraudulent fundraising appeals, and other schemes designed to confuse investigators and prey upon desperate families.

This isn’t ordinary fraud.

It is organized, technologically sophisticated crime.

No One Is Winning This Fight

Every day Americans receive scam texts, phishing emails, fake invoices, romance scams, investment fraud, government impersonation calls, and package delivery scams.

Millions of them.

The people behind these crimes work full time.

Their only job is fraud.

Meanwhile, responsibility is scattered across local police departments, state agencies, the FBI, the Secret Service, the FTC, the Postal Inspection Service, banks, telecommunications companies, and countless other organizations.

Everyone has part of the mission.

No one owns the mission.

America Needs a Federal Anti-Scam Bureau

Imagine if we fought terrorism this way.

Or narcotics.

Or organized crime.

Instead, America created specialized organizations because those threats required specialized expertise.

Scams have reached that point.

A Federal Anti-Scam Bureau would not replace existing agencies.

Creating a Federal Anti-Scam Bureau isn’t about expanding government bloat. It’s about eliminating it.

Right now, taxpayers are funding overlapping cyber units across a dozen different agencies, each fighting for budget while passing the buck on jurisdiction. Unifying these scattered efforts under one roof replaces redundant bureaucracy with surgical focus, ensuring we spend fewer resources on administrative red tape and more on dismantling the syndicates.

It would become America’s center of excellence for combating organized scam networks.

Its investigators would understand cryptocurrency tracing, AI impersonation, digital identity theft, spoofing technologies, international fraud rings, and online financial crime as thoroughly as today’s scammers do.

Its mission would be simple.

· Find them.

· Identify them.

· Disrupt them.

· Shut them down.

Subscribe now

This Is Bigger Than One Case

Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance isn’t proof that America needs a Federal Anti-Scam Bureau.

But it is a reminder that our current system is struggling against criminal organizations that have become faster, more sophisticated, and more technologically advanced than ever before.

I hope Nancy comes home.

I hope those responsible are arrested.

Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about my February prediction.

But hope is not a strategy.

Until America treats organized scam networks as a national security-level criminal threat worthy of a dedicated federal bureau, countless families will continue to become victims while the criminals simply disappear into the digital shadows.

Leave a comment

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.

In the fall of 2015, the Republican establishment was drunk on confidence.

Jeb Bush was sitting on a massive $100 million war chest. He had the backing of every party elder, the blessing of legacy media, and total control over the Republican National Committee. The establishment looked at their spreadsheets and declared themselves invincible.

A loud, chaotic populist named Donald Trump was just a temporary glitch, and decidedly more humorous than threatening. The firewall would hold.

We all know how that ended. Jeb was out of the race quicker than an unexpected sneeze, and the firewall turned out to be made of paper. The establishment mistook financial clout, narrative dominance, and institutional power for actual cultural relevance.

Today, the exact same delusion is taking root on the other side of the aisle.

The Democratic establishment, now fractured over U.S. aid to Israel, is betting on bank accounts, powerful lobby groups, and the clout of aging guards to seal the cracks. They are ru…

Read more

While most Americans focus on the next election, a quiet but dangerous movement is advancing to fundamentally change how we elect presidents — without a constitutional amendment.

Hillary Clinton is at it again.

In recent comments, the former Secretary of State renewed her familiar attack on the Electoral College, calling it a relic “designed for slave-owning states” that must go because it violates “one person, one vote.”

These criticisms aren’t new. But this time, they come alongside a coordinated, nearly two-decade effort that bypasses the normal constitutional process entirely.

It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) — and most Americans still don’t know it exists.

TAKE OUR POLL AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE

How the NPVIC Would Work

Under our current system, states award their electoral votes to the winner of their own state’s popular vote. This forces candidates to build broad coalitions across different regions and state interests.

The NPVIC flips that.

Participating …

Read more

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 protec…

Read more

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, b…

Read more

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’…

Read more

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 th…

Read more

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. Directi…

Read more

1. Not Just For the Ticket

Read more

1. When Heaven and Earth Pass

Read more

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.

Co…

Read more

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…

Read more

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