For Generations, Christian Communities in Burma Have Endured Churches Destroyed, Pastors Killed and Communities Terrorized. Rev. William Is the Latest Name the World Must Not Forget.

Reverend William should be alive today.

For approximately 25 years, he served as senior pastor of Chungcung Baptist Church in Chin State, Burma (Myanmar). He was a Christian leader, a husband and the father of five children.

On May 16, 2026, soldiers from Burma's 77th Light Infantry Division arrested Rev. William and fellow Chin Christian Nam Ceu.

They disappeared into military custody.

According to the Burma Research Institute, credible sources subsequently placed the men with military authorities in Hakha on June 2 and Thantlang on June 3.

Then, on June 4, they were killed.

“Raise Up the Ones Who’ll Stand” is more than a song—it’s the heart of PowerMentor.

We believe leadership is about developing people with the courage to stand for freedom, pursue justice, speak for those without a voice, and serve others even when there is a cost.

We don’t need more followers. We need to raise up leaders who will stand.

For much of the modern era, the United States has been more than another powerful nation. At its best, America has represented an idea: people possess rights that governments do not create, political authority should be limited, nations should have the right to determine their own futures, and individuals should be able to speak, worship, organize, work, and live without totalitarian control.

Universal healthcare is built around an extraordinarily attractive promise: government can guarantee healthcare for everyone, eliminate financial barriers at the point of care, and create a system in which treatment is available based on medical need rather than ability to pay. The promise sounds compassionate, but experience across several countries demonstrates a much more complicated reality. Government can guarantee coverage, but it cannot guarantee healthcare capacity.

America is frequently described simply as a democracy. While the United States unquestionably uses democratic elections and representative institutions, that description is incomplete. America is more precisely a constitutional federal republic with representative democratic institutions. Citizens elect their leaders, but neither those leaders nor political majorities possess unlimited authority. The Constitution establishes boundaries that government is not supposed to cross, even when crossing them might be politically popular.

That distinction is fundamental to understanding the American system. Democracy provides a mechanism for determining who governs, while constitutional government establishes limits on what those who govern may do. The American experiment combines popular government with constitutional restraint because the Founders understood that political power can become dangerous whether it is concentrated in the hands of one ruler, one political faction, or an unchecked majority.

The cyber-scam industry operating across Karen State in Burma (Myanmar) has grown into a multibillion-dollar transnational criminal enterprise involving Chinese criminal networks, human trafficking, armed organizations, land agreements, security arrangements and sophisticated financial infrastructure.

The evidence no longer points toward a single criminal compound or one isolated armed organization. Shwe Kokko, KK Park, Tai Chang and Huanya, along with the KNA/BGF, DKBA, KNU-linked business interests and Chinese organized-crime networks, form pieces of a much larger criminal ecosystem.

Now the industry appears to be evolving again.

Recent reporting indicates scam syndicates facing increasing international pressure are relocating operations away from highly visible locations along the Thai border and deeper into Karen State, where compounds are harder to observe and disrupt.

The important story is no longer whether the scam industry exists. The evidence establishes that it does. The question now is how extensive the network has become and who has enabled its expansion.

When the Numbers Change This Dramatically, We Should Ask Why!

America has a moral obligation to care for the men and women who were injured, became ill, or suffered lasting psychological harm while defending this country. Veterans who legitimately sacrificed their health in military service should receive the benefits they earned—without unnecessary bureaucracy, delay, or suspicion.

But honoring veterans does not require us to stop asking difficult questions.

The extraordinary growth in VA disability compensation—particularly the explosion in veterans receiving 100% disability ratings—has reached a level that deserves serious independent investigation.

Throughout history, nations have searched for the formula that creates prosperity. While geography, natural resources, culture, and conflict all play important roles, one pattern consistently emerges: countries with concentrated political power, weak institutions, and widespread corruption tend to experience higher levels of poverty and lower economic opportunity.

This is not simply a debate over economics. It is a discussion about freedom, accountability, incentives, and human dignity.

The World's Poor Are Not Distributed Randomly

According to international poverty estimates, billions of people still live in extreme poverty, many surviving on less than $2 per day.

For years, Russia's support of Burma's (Myanmar's) military government centered primarily on arms sales, aircraft, and military equipment. That has now changed.

Between July 6–17, 2026, Russia and the Burma (Myanmar) military conducted a joint special operations exercise known as Operation Tropical Storm in Naypyidaw. While military exercises between allies are not uncommon, this event stands apart because it reportedly focused on transferring advanced battlefield tactics and operational expertise, not simply demonstrating military cooperation.

This marks a potentially significant evolution in the relationship between Moscow and Burma's military leadership.

We believe every nation and every people should have the right to govern themselves, protect their culture, choose their leaders, and decide their own future. A free nation must be able to control its borders, write its laws, protect its citizens, and preserve its beliefs without being ruled by foreign governments or unelected global organizations.

That freedom is now under growing pressure. Around the world, a system of global control is slowly taking shape. This system is often called globalism. Globalism seeks to place more power in the hands of international groups, foreign regulators, large banks, global companies, and political leaders who are far removed from the people affected by their decisions. Instead of each country making its own choices, nations are being pushed to follow the same global rules.

Five Thai paramilitary rangers were reportedly killed when a coordinated group of armed assailants attacked a security checkpoint in Thailand’s violence-stricken Deep South.

The deadly assault occurred in Ra-ngae District, Narathiwat Province, an area that has long served as an important operating environment for Malay-Patani separatist militants.

Early reports circulated that as many as 15 people were injured. More detailed reporting subsequently stated that five paramilitary rangers were killed and two civilians were injured when six attackers opened fire and threw pipe bombs at the checkpoint. Because information remains fluid, the final casualty count should be treated as provisional until Thai authorities issue a consolidated official report.

PowerMentor extends its deepest prayers and condolences to the families of those killed, their fellow soldiers, the wounded civilians, first responders and the communities shaken by this attack.

A congressional investigation into wealthy Marxist financier Neville Roy Singham has moved into a far more serious phase.

The House Ways and Means Committee has issued subpoenas to three prominent left-wing organizations—The People’s Forum, BreakThrough News, and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research—as lawmakers investigate tens of millions of dollars allegedly connected to Singham and a much larger international political influence network.

The issue is no longer simply whether a wealthy activist donated money to organizations that share his ideology.

The real question is whether a sophisticated system of nonprofit organizations, donor-advised funds, shell companies, media platforms, fiscal sponsors, and international partners was used to conceal the source, control, or intended purpose of political influence operations inside the United States.

That is the central issue now confronting Congress, federal investigators, and the American public.

More Than $40 Million Connected to Three Organizations

As policymakers gather in Washington to discuss Burma's future, one question deserves far more attention than it is receiving:

Who is not at the table?

The congressional briefing appropriately highlights online scam compounds, humanitarian suffering, regional security, and the growing influence of China and Russia. These are serious issues. However, lasting peace in Burma will ultimately depend on whether a future political settlement is viewed as legitimate by the country's diverse ethnic nationalities—not merely by international observers or political elites.

For many ethnic communities, this remains an unresolved question.

America must confront an uncomfortable and increasingly dangerous reality: radical left-wing extremism and Islamist extremism can operate within the same political ecosystem, amplify the same grievances and direct their anger toward many of the same targets.

This tactical convergence is commonly described as the Red–Green Alliance.

Red represents revolutionary Marxist, anarchist, anti-capitalist and violent anti-fascist movements.

Green represents Islamist extremist movements and the ideological networks that support or excuse them.

These movements do not share the same ultimate vision for society. In fact, many of their beliefs fundamentally contradict one another. But alliances are not always built upon shared values. Sometimes they are built upon shared enemies.

The history of the Karen people did not begin with British rule, Christian missionaries or the modern nation of Burma. Karen ancestral traditions reach much further into the past—toward Mongolia, Central Asia, the lands beyond the “River of Running Sand,” and, according to some accounts, the ancient world surrounding Babylon and the Euphrates River.

For generations, the Karen preserved accounts of creation, humanity’s fall, an eternal Creator, a lost sacred book and a long migration from a distant land in the northwest.

These traditions deserve to be examined seriously.

They should not be dismissed merely because they were preserved orally or because they challenge conventional historical narratives.

A FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE IN ISRAEL

During a recent journey to Israel, I was surprised to discover that people there were already familiar with the Karen.

The Karen people were not unknown to them.

There appeared to be an existing awareness of Karen traditions and claims concerning a possible historical relationship with ancient Israel.

Long before the arrival of Christian missionaries, the Karen people preserved an extraordinary spiritual tradition concerning one supreme Creator, the loss of divine knowledge, and the promised return of a sacred book. This tradition presents the Karen not as a people without knowledge of God, but as a people who remembered that their ancestors had once possessed a clearer revelation and were awaiting its restoration.

At the center of this tradition was belief in a singular Creator known as Y’wa, sometimes rendered as Ywa or Ywah. Y’wa was understood as the source of creation and the giver of divine knowledge to humanity. The Karen tradition held that human beings had once known the Creator and possessed knowledge of His truth, but that this knowledge had later been lost.

The term "infiltrate" can imply covert or illegal penetration. While there are isolated espionage cases involving many countries, there is no public evidence that China or Russia have infiltrated the Thai government or military in the sense of controlling it.

A more accurate description is that both countries are expanding their influence, but they do so in very different ways.

China’s relationship with Burma’s military is more complicated—and potentially more powerful—than Russia’s.

Russia primarily acts as an arms supplier, trainer and military partner. China operates across nearly every level of the conflict:

• Weapons and replacement parts

• Aircraft, drones and naval systems

• Military training and exercises

• Diplomatic protection

• Economic and border pressure

• Control over trade routes

• Influence over several ethnic armed organizations

• Protection of strategic infrastructure

• Political rehabilitation of the military government

China does not appear emotionally or ideologically committed to Min Aung Hlaing. Beijing supports the Burmese military because it currently regards a functioning central government as necessary to protect Chinese borders, trade, pipelines, investments and access to the Indian Ocean.

Its real objective is not necessarily a decisive junta victory. It is a controllable Burma that cannot threaten China’s interests.

Russia is no longer merely selling weapons to the Burmese military. It is helping develop the personnel, doctrine, maintenance systems, operational skills, and institutional relationships needed to employ those weapons.

The relationship has evolved through three broad stages:

1. Long-term officer education in Russia

2. Weapons-linked technical and operational training

3. Direct combined exercises inside Burma and at sea

The most important recent development is the reported “Tropical Storm” exercise in Naypyidaw, running July 6–17, 2026, in which Russian personnel are training Burmese special-operations forces in counter-drone warfare, tropical assault tactics, counterterrorism and the operation of Russian military equipment. This appears to be the clearest public indication yet of Russian ground-force trainers working directly with Burmese combat personnel inside the country.

That said, there is still no publicly verified evidence that large Russian combat formations are deployed alongside Burmese troops in front-line combat operations. The available evidence points instead to instructors, advisers, naval personnel, technicians and military educators.

When Americans think about policing crises, their minds often turn to major metropolitan areas. Headlines frequently focus on large cities struggling with violent crime, officer shortages, or public demonstrations. Yet, quietly unfolding across rural America is a different kind of crisis—one that receives far less national attention but carries profound implications for public safety and local governance.

Over the past several years, a growing number of small-town police departments have experienced complete organizational collapse. In some communities, every officer has resigned. In others, entire departments have been dismissed by elected officials. Some have ceased operations because they could no longer recruit or retain officers, while others have become consumed by political conflict or allegations involving evidence management and departmental oversight.

Although each community has its own unique story, the similarities between these incidents are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. They suggest that many of America's smallest police agencies are operating within a system that has become increasingly fragile.

The recent events in Barrackville, West Virginia, provide one of the clearest examples of this emerging pattern.