Throughout the 20th century, Marxist revolutionaries recognized that a direct violent uprising was unlikely to succeed in the United States. Instead, they developed a strategy based on infiltrating and subverting key cultural institutions—particularly the education system, the media, and civic organizations. By gradually influencing thought leaders, teachers, journalists, and policymakers, they intended to reshape American society from the inside out, replacing its capitalist foundations with collectivist ideology.

The world in 2025 stands at a dangerous crossroads, with multiple flashpoints threatening to ignite a global conflict. This assessment analyzes the three most volatile regions — Taiwan/China, Ukraine/Russia, and Israel/Iran — and maps their potential escalation into a full-scale World War III. Through detailed escalation pathways, a day-by-day conflict timeline, global heatmaps, and early warning indicators, this report outlines how rapidly localized incidents could trigger global alliances and nuclear confrontation. Immediate vigilance, strategic deterrence, and crisis management are critical to mitigating an unprecedented global catastrophe.

Despite Christianity being the world’s largest religion, millions of Christians have faced relentless persecution, torture, and death over the past two decades. This is not merely discrimination—in many countries, it has escalated to ethnic cleansing and genocide. The mainstream global narrative often underreports these atrocities, yet thousands of believers die every year solely because of their faith in Jesus Christ.

This Easter, while millions gather in worship and celebration across the world, the Christian communities of Nigeria kneel in fear, surrounded by the deafening silence of the international community. The brutal truth is clear: Christians in Nigeria are being systematically hunted—and it’s time the world calls it what it is: genocide.

In recent years, debates over identity verification have become central to both election integrity and national security conversations. But one surprising tension has emerged: many of the same individuals and groups that strongly support Voter ID laws are also the ones most vocally opposing Real ID.

This contradiction raises a compelling question: Is it possible to demand strict identity checks at the polls, while rejecting stricter ID for air travel and federal access — without being hypocritical?

As the world watches Southeast Asia navigate an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) finds itself at a crossroads. Long praised for fostering peace and economic growth in the region, ASEAN now faces mounting criticism for its inability to respond effectively to the Burma (Myanmar) crisis and its growing economic dependency on China. If ASEAN is to reclaim credibility, protect regional stability, and maintain autonomy, it must act boldly—and rethink its outdated policy of non-interference.

As the world grapples with geopolitical uncertainty and expanding authoritarian influence, Burma (Myanmar) stands as a decisive test of America's ability to lead through values-driven, economic diplomacy. The compelling 2018 report, “Weaponization of U.S. Economic Engagement in Burma,” authored by Col. Tim Heinemann (ret.), outlines a robust strategy that mirrors many principles embedded in the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy—and it strikingly aligns with key aspects of former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy doctrine.

In a world saturated with noise, bias, and rapid opinions, effective leadership depends not on echo chambers but on discernment—the ability to assess situations through objective and logical reasoning. True leaders do not merely react; they step back, question narratives, analyze from multiple angles, and challenge the prevailing winds of influence. This intellectual discipline is what separates decision-makers from crowd-followers.

In an era marked by mass displacement, humanitarian emergencies, and global instability, one of the most powerful and underutilized strategies for preventing the refugee crisis is compelling unstable regimes to prioritize safety, opportunity, and civil engagement within their own borders.

Trump has historically employed 90-day pauses as a tactical measure to exert pressure, reassess situations, and negotiate from a position of strength. This approach was evident in his early presidency with Executive Order 13780, which imposed a 90-day suspension on entry to the U.S. by nationals of certain countries, aiming to enhance vetting procedures and protect national security.

In today’s polarized discourse, tariffs are often met with swift judgment and short-sighted criticism. Critics focus on rising prices and short-term disruptions. But what’s missing from that conversation is a deeper understanding: tariffs are not just about economics—they are about national strength, strategic positioning, and the defense of democratic values globally.

The recent visit of Burmese Senior General Min Aung Hlaing to Thailand, marked by his high-level meeting with Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, has sparked international interest and scrutiny. On the surface, it may seem like a diplomatic exchange between neighbors—but beneath the photo ops and polite rhetoric lies a deeper concern: Min Aung Hlaing’s ambitions, reputation, and track record pose a real risk to Thailand’s stability, global standing, and moral leadership in the region.

This article examines the Burma (Myanmar) military's consistent pattern of neglecting civilian needs during national emergencies, focusing on two significant events: the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2025 earthquake. In both instances, the military junta prioritized its interests, undermining public health and safety. The paper highlights key actions taken by the military during these crises and provides recommendations for international engagement.

In the wake of a devastating earthquake that struck Burma (Myanmar), the international community is once again confronted with a critical moral and political decision: whether to provide aid through a brutal military regime with a long history of corruption and abuse—or to stand firmly with the people and ensure support is delivered directly through trusted, independent channels.

In July 2019, Rev. Hkalam Samson, a prominent Kachin Christian leader from Burma (Myanmar), met with then-President Donald J. Trump at the White House during the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. There, he thanked the United States for promoting religious liberty and courageously exposed the Burmese military’s brutal oppression of ethnic minorities, including Christians.

The Karen National Union (KNU), a longstanding political organization that many Karen assert does not represent their interests, and point out they were never elected by the Karen people. Recent scrutiny has cast shadows on some of its affiliated and splinter factions, particularly the Border Guard Force (BGF) and Democratic Karen Benevolent Army (DKBA), with questions arising over alleged involvement in human trafficking, drug trafficking, and online scam operations centered along the Thai-Myanmar border.

Instead of aiding survivors or allowing relief to reach impacted regions, the Burmese military junta is reportedly using this vulnerable moment to escalate violence, unleashing aerial bombings on already displaced and traumatized communities in ethnic minority states such as Kayin (Karen), Kayah (Karenni), and Shan.

For decades, Burma (Myanmar)'s military junta—known as the Tatmadaw—has employed a deliberate strategy of divide and conquer to maintain power and control over the country’s diverse ethnic populations. Central to this strategy is the installation and manipulation of proxy leaders within ethnic communities, fracturing internal unity and weakening collective resistance against centralized military rule.

In political discussions, the terms republic and democracy are often used interchangeably—but they are not the same. While both forms of government empower citizens and value participation, they differ in structure, decision-making, and the protection of individual rights. Understanding these differences is essential to grasp how governments operate and serve their people.

A democracy—especially a direct democracy—is generally easier to manipulate or co-opt through mass influence, while a republic is harder to manipulate outright but can be corrupted over time through institutional decay.